text:
Does exiling a morph card face down for the turn bring it back face up?
For example, if I play Akroma, Angel of Fury down for its morph cost, then a Momentary Blink on the face down creature, does it come back into play face up?

The Astral Slide deck from long ago abused just this very interaction.

The interaction still appears every now and then in Modern decks, eg White Weenie. If your deck already uses Flickerwisp or Restoration Angel for Blace Splicer, why not?

If you exile a face-down creature, it will enter the exile zone face up, and if it returns to the battlefield, it will enter the battlefield face up.
The first important thing to consider is that face-down is a status. Rule 110.6d says

Only permanents have status. Cards not on the battlefield do not. Although an exiled card may be face down, this has no correlation to the face-down status of a permanent. Similarly, cards not on the battlefield are neither tapped nor untapped, regardless of their physical state.

In addition, rule 707.9 says

If a face-down permanent moves from the battlefield to any other zone, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. If a face-down spell moves from the stack to any zone other than the battlefield, its owner must reveal it to all players as he or she moves it. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents and spells must be revealed to all players.

And finally, rule 400.7 says

An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

If we put all of these together, they mean that when the face-down Akroma is exiled, it's owner reveals it. It then moves to exile in a state as described by the card that exiles it. Momentary Blink doesn't say to exile it face down, so it's exiled face up. Once it is in exile, it is just an Akroma, Angel of Fury card, with no memory of its existence on the battlefield. Then it enters the battlefield as a creature with no memory of its previous existence on the battlefield or in exile. The effect that puts it on the battlefield doesn't say that it enters face down, so it enters face up.

Can you clarify a bit? I assume that by "exiled face up" you mean that it will be face-up while in the exile zone; but it sounds like you're saying that it is face up when you exile it.

Is this better?

@murgatroid99 So any effect saying when the creature enters the battlefield would go off? But not any effect saying When this card is turned face up.

Correct. It wasn't on the battlefield, then it was, so it entered the battlefield. It was never face-down (it was created face-up), so it wasn't turned face-up.

Whenever you create an object on the battlefield, it enters untapped, unflipped, face-up and phased in (unless otherwise instructed).

110.6b Permanents enter the battlefield untapped, unflipped, face up, and phased in unless a spell or ability says otherwise.

The state of the permanent last represented by the card has no bearing on the state of this newly created object.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule: [...]


text:
Can a creature with megamorph block then morph?
Imagine I have a 2/2 creature that can be megamorphed, can I block with it and pay its megamorph cost before damages are done?

Yes you can. Morph/megamorph can be used any time you have priority. After declaring blockers but before combat damage is assigned and dealt, there will be a priority pass where you can megamorph your creature.

702.36e: Any time you have priority, you may turn a face-down permanent you control with a morph ability face up. This is a special action; it doesn't use the stack...

Might also be worth mentioning that trickery like this was a major part of morph deck tournament deck strategies. :)

Hehe is that so @doppelgreener? I wasn't around when morph originally appeared, but I remember the more recent formats only had a few playable morphs; you could usually tell which ones they were without them flipping up.
In more casual play of course, the shell game that is morph creatures is very fun!

In the Khans of Tarkir standard pro tours, one of the recurring top-ranked decks was Temur Morph: it played 1-ofs and 2-ofs of 20-30 different equally great morph and megamorph cards, so you never had any clue what any single card was. Opponents couldn't guess what to block or what to remove.

If it doesn't use the stack, I suppose there can't be an answer to this action an that it can't be countered, even by Disallow?

Yes, Morph does not use the stack so you cannot respond to it. In fact, you can even Morph in response to a spell with Split Second, one of the few things you CAN do in response to that. However, while Disallow cannot counter the flip, it can still counter any triggered abilities that trigger when the card flips over.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does killing a face-down morph trigger the death triggers printed on the card?
Consider a card like Ashcloud Phoenix (or, for that matter, any card with a death triggers that's turned face down by an Ixidron).

When Ashcloud Phoenix dies, return it to the battlefield face down.

If I play my Phoenix face down as a morph creature, and it gets killed (say, by a Lightning Bolt), what happens next? Do I get to return it to the battlefield face down, or will it just stay dead in my graveyard?

On the one hand, it was face down when it left the battlefield, and thus had no abilities.
On the other hand, it enters my graveyard "face up."

So, does its graveyard trigger apply?

Ashcloud Phoenix's ability does not trigger, and it stays in the graveyard.
Rule 603.6d says

Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities... will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to "look back in time" to determine if these abilities trigger.

Since the phoenix did not have the ability before it was destroyed, the ability does not trigger.

If the ability triggered upon entering the graveyard ("When Emrakul is put into a graveyard from anywhere, ..."), it would be the opposite answer as those use the default "after the event" checks.

@ikegami This is correct. Emrakul's ability is a zone-change trigger, but isn't a leaves-the-battlefield ability, so it doesn't look back in time. (603.10, 603.10a)

@ikegami Yeah, I meant your comment is correct and I was adding the current rules reference that clarifies the difference between the types of abilities. :)

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


text:
Backgammon move notation - Is there an official, rigorous specification?
I have recently become completely obsessed with Backgammon and I would like to learn more about the "Magriel notation" (link) used to formally describe a game of BG.
So is there a definitive, formal specification document for the Magriel notation?
Failing that, is there some online archive of real-world games that have been stored (correctly) in this notation that one could download and examine?

Paul Magriel's notation system originally appeared in his 1976 book Backgammon, and is mostly just a codification of notations systems that existed at the time.
This could be considered the "official" specification for the notation, but really it's usage is just customary.
His followup An Introduction to Backgammon also includes the notation, but has an easier to follow explanation as it is targeted at beginners.

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


text:
Monopoly Cheaters Edition “roadblock”
In the board game Monopoly Cheaters Edition, there’s a chance card that says roadblock. This allows for a player to put that card on a property of their choice and if someone reaches that property, they must stop and pay the rent.
My question is what happens if a player lands directly on that property? Would they pay just once or double the rent?

Why would one consider them paying double rent? If the player landed directly on it, clearly they weren't roadblocked. The real question is, does that player roll, hit the road block trying to leave, and then pay rent the second time? To which I suspect the answer is no.

In this case the road block does nothing as the player in question is not moving past the property so it has no impact. I will walk through two different situations to help explain the rules. They would owe you rent a single time just as if there was no card forcing a plyer to stop there.
Situation 1 what you have here. Player rolls the dice and ends their movement on the property in question and owe rent for landing on it. This is treated as normal if they had landed on it without a roadblock.
Situation 2 when a player rolls but should stop a few squares later. Once they hit the road block card they are forced to stop and pay rent to the owner as if they had landed on that card for normal means. Once they stop their turn is over as normal unless they rolled doubles and can roll again.
what the road block card is doing is ensuring that players stop on that property and pay rent to the owner but it does not earn the owner more rent if they would have stopped at it normally.

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


text:
Sphinx of the Second Sun & Aggravated Assault
Say I control a Sphinx of the Second Sun. At the beginning of my post-combat main phase an additional beginning phase is added after that main phase. Now I activate Aggravated Assault during my post-combat main phase and get an additional combat phase and post-combat phase.
The ruling on the Sphinx states clearly that

If multiple phases are added to the same point in your turn, the most
recently created phase happens first.[...]

Thus, as I understand it, the added combat phase and post-combat main phase would take place before the additional beginning phase (adding a second additional beginning phase). Most importantly, since Aggravated Assault can only be activated at sorcery speed, I can't use the land which is untapped during my additional untap steps to chain combat phases, post-combat phases and beginnings phases into eternity.
Most other people seem to argue that the beginning phase would happen before the combat phase, or at least before the additional post-combat main phase, hence chaining phases forever should work. Which is correct?

"mana which is untapped during my additional upkeeps" mana is usually untapped in the untap step, right before the upkeep. Not during the upkeep itself.

@Arthur are you just nitpicking at my wording, or is there something of genuine concern with my question?

That depends on whether you already knew this and that was typo, or if I actually told you something you didn't already know. But no, it's not directly related to the question you ask.

@Arthur If we're being precise, mana isn't untapped, land is.

@Accumulation This is also true. Along with every other permanent, barring effects to the contrary.

You are correct here. Phases are added into the turn order the way you describe. So when activating Aggravated Assault once in the post-combat main phase your entire turn's phases will look like this:

Beginning (normal)
Pre-Combat Main (normal)
Combat (normal)
Post-Combat Main (normal)
Combat (added by AA)
Post-Combat Main (added by AA)
Beginning (added by sphinx in AA post-combat main)
Beginning (added by sphinx in normal post-combat main)
Ending Phase (normal)

This ordering of extra phases is covered by rule 500.8 in the Comprehensive Rules (emphasis mine):

500.8 Some effects can add phases to a turn. They do this by adding the phases directly after the specified phase. If multiple extra phases are created after the same phase, the most recently created phase will occur first.

As you said, since AA can only be activated at sorcery speed (on your turn, in your main phase, when the stack is empty), it can't be used until the Sphinx trigger has already resolved in your post-combat main phase. It will add the second combat phase before the added beginning phase - it cannot be used to gain infinite phases if you need that untap for the mana. Also note that the multiple beginning phases will happen back-to-back, with the most recently added phase happening first.

If you had 10 mana to spend, you could make it work by activating AA twice:

Post-Combat Main (normal)
Combat (added by 1st AA)
Post-Combat Main (added by 1st AA)
Beginning (added by sphinx in 1st AA post-combat main)
Combat (added by 2nd AA)
Post-Combat Main (added by 2nd AA)

These 6 phases can form a loop if you activate AA twice every cycle. You get the creature untap twice in phase 4, and not at all in phase 6, but you get a full untap step as part of phase 7 (normally this won't matter unless there's effects that modify what untaps in an untap step like Intruder Alarm or Bind the Monster)

But... it would work if I activated AA twice, wouldn't it? At the beginning of my second postcombat mainphase, the second additional upkeep is added, which then takes place before the third combatphase is entered. Hence I enter my third postcombat main with untapped mana, could use AA twice again, etc.

I don't see how it's a loop. A loop is where you end up in the same board state, other than the things you did in the loop. If you play AA, then at the end of the "loop", the board state is different, because you don't have that copy of AA in your hand, unless there's some other part to this loop you aren't mentioning.

In your first paragraph did you mean "...in the postcombat main phase..." (instead of precombat)? Otherwise I don't think the first list of phases makes sense.

BTW @Acccumulation I think the assumption is that AA has been on the battlefield the whole time (presumably having been cast on a previous turn).

@Acccumulation Since everything involved is a permanent, at point 9 you are in the same position (or better than) you were at point 4, at least with regards to the cards involved. You have sources for at least 10 mana (4 of it red) untapped, you have AA and Sphinx on the battlefield, so you can activate AA twice again and repeat this process. The premise of the question assumes you have the cards required for this in play already.

The Gatherer page for the Sphinx covers more or less this exact rules question:

If multiple phases are added to the same point in your turn, the most recently created phase happens first. For example, say you control Sphinx of the Second Sun and its ability triggers during your postcombat main phase. Later during that same main phase, another effect gives you an additional combat phase after this main phase. The additional combat will happen first, followed by the additional beginning phase.

The only difference is Aggravated Assault also adds an additional post-combat main phase.


text:
Name a game that teaches elementary school kids
I am a Media Specialist in an elementary school. I have created a small gaming library for my afterschool kids - but I would like to expand it to classroom use.
I need games that are under 30 minutes and teach the curriculum of Kinder to 6th graders. That is pretty wide open in scale...but that's my job.
I have the Timeline series, and adventures in Addiplication. These are the sorts of games I am looking for. Fun is my number one priority...but curriculum is the teacher's focus.

Cribbage is great for addition and multiplication. It can be played to 61 points instead of 121 points to make a shorter game.

I am choosing not to expand this to be a full answer due to the length of my answer. Damath seems to be useful

This question will get nice, long answers on BGG:  https://boardgamegeek.com/


text:
damage triggering a simultaneous modifier of damage
Earl of Squirrel and Griffin Protector both deal combat damage to player. As Earl of Squirrel creates squirrels will it trigger the effect on a Griffin Protector before the Griffin deals damage to the player? Or will the griffon only receive it's bonus after it has delivered it's damage to the player...

You may be wondering if a scenario like this is possible using only non-silver-bordered cards. Words of Wilding is noteworthy for producing tokens as a replacement ability, so it does not use the stack. You could create an approximation of squirrellink by combining Words of Wilding with Lich and a creature with lifelink. The life gain gets replaced by card draw, which gets replaced by bears.

The Griffin Protector will not get the bonus power and toughness from its ability until after it deals its damage.
All combat damage is dealt simultaneously (ignoring First Strike and Double Strike). So, in this situation, first the Earl of Squirrel and the Griffin Protector both simultaneously deal their combat damage, and the Earl of Squirrel immediately creates 4 squirrel tokens. This triggers Griffin Protector's triggered ability 4 times, and after this process is done, those 4 abilities go on the stack. Finally, assuming nobody responds, each of those abilities resolves and the Griffin Protector gets +1/+1 from each, for a total of +4/+4. As you can see, it gets these buffs significantly after it deals its damage, so the buffs don't apply to the damage it deals.

One simple way to change that is to give the Earl of Squirrel the ability first strike. If a creature has first strike, it deals its combat damage in a separate combat damage step before the regular one. In that case, the whole process I just described happens in the first combat damage step, except that only Earl of Squirrel deals its combat damage. Then, in the second combat damage step, after Griffin Protector gets those buffs, it will deal its combat damage.

An interesting note that unlike just about every other ability that creates creature tokens, Squirrilink doesn't use the stack. At least, I assume so: it's worded the same way as lifelink, and that doesn't create an effect on the stack that gives you life.
However, these tokens still don't enter before damage is calculated. If you have 5 life and 2 Serra Avatars with lifelink, your opponent will only take 10 damage

Of course the Earl is silver border so you have to make some assumptions, but I think you're right that it functions like lifelink and makes tokens directly as the result of the damage. I think it is probably worth adding a note about how it would work with a card like Wayfaring Temple, similar to your Serra Avatar example.


text:
What is a "random" method of picking the start player at which a person could cheat?
I'm writing a kid's book in which the characters use cards or dice to decide who goes first--and eventually start using the method to determine who has to do certain chores such as washing the dishes. It's supposedly random, but it turns out the father is cheating somehow (perhaps through math). The daughter (12 years old) wonders why she is always losing, and figures out how he is tricking her. (This ties in with themes of the book--the child is being lied to in other ways as well!)
Can anyone help me out? I am not much of a game player myself. The book is a mystery, though, so I want a small example of how she is getting smarter at "deduction."
What method could they use, and how could she use logic to figure it out?
If you can help, thank you so much! :o)

There are plenty of "random" methods for choosing things that are not really random depending on the setting.

I don't see how this is opinion based - perhaps there could be differences of opinion on what would seem random, but the closing reason doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not entirely sure this is opinion based. Seems like it would be relatively simple to say "this is a list of commonly used random deciders that you could cheat at." I'm genuinely confused why it would be closed as opinion based.

"she is always losing": does it have to be "always"?  Would "usually" be okay too?

I think this has been closed because of the additional question in the text: "how could she use logic to figure it out?", which asks people to speculate. You might delete that entire line and concentrate on the original Title question, then ask for it to be reopened.  In general on SE sites, it's a good idea to ask one simple and well-defined question at a time.


text:
Can undying retrigger a second time if its +1/+1 is cancelled out by non-lethal infect damage?
A 1/1 Glistener Elf and 1/1 Young Wolf are in combat. The Young Wolf has died before, but thanks to its undying ability came back with a +1/+1 counter on top of it.
Glistener Elf dies, Young Wolf receives a -1/-1 token. This, if I'm not mistaken, cancels out the +1/+1 token and the Young Wolf is now presumed not to have any counters on it. Does this mean that if I attack with another Glistener Elf and Young Wolf blocks, its undying ability will trigger again and cause the Young Wolf creature to come back a second time?
(For future visitors: I found a related question explaining why lethal infect damage wouldn't retrigger the ability a second time. My question is about non-lethal infect damage.)

As an aside, you can't attack creatures directly.  I don't know if that was a typo or not.

My bad, confusing wording on my end. I meant that I let a second Glistener Elf attack and my opponent decides to block with Young Wolf (or I use something like Prey Upon).

Yes, if the Young Wolf loses its +1/+1 counter and later dies, its undying ability will trigger and it will return to the battlefield again.
The Undying ability is defined in rule 107.92a:

Undying is a triggered ability. “Undying” means “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no +1/+1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner’s control with a +1/+1 counter on it.”

It checks whether the creature had +1/+1 counters at the time that it died. It doesn't matter if the creature previously had any +1/+1 counters.
For completeness, the -1/-1 counters added by the Glistener Elf because of its Infect ability do remove the +1/+1 counter on Young Wolf, as mentioned in the question. This is specified in rule 122.3:

If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it as a state-based action, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it. See rule 704.

Note that the counters canceling each other out only happens if the creature has greater than 0 toughness considering all counters. That is, if a base 1/1 with one +1/+1 counter has two -1/-1 counters placed on it, it will die with all three counters still there (and therefore Undying would not trigger).

Yes, that is addressed in the question. The question links to another question that addresses that specific scenario, and this question is specifically about not dying at the same time as losing the counter. Also, strictly speaking, in that scenario the counters do cancel out, but since that happens simultaneously with the creature dying, when the Undying trigger looks back to before the creature died, it sees that it had the counters. Again, though, that is addressed in more detail in the question linked from this one.

In particular, the Undying rule says "if the unit had no counters [at the mentioned moment]...", not "if the unit has [ever] had no counters...". Not that the game would ever use a rule that looks back to all history without marking it with a counter anyway.

@murgatroid99 I would still say it's worth making it clear in your answer that the counters are only cancelled out if the creature lives through the counters being added - your answer as written in a vacuum sounds like they are cancelled out even as it dies.

@Andrew The counters are cancelled out even as the creature dies, as the answer to the linked question explains.


text:
Does Travelin' Farmer deal damage when owner replaces him?
In "Adventure time Card Wars Finn vs Jake" there is a Travelin' Farmer creature with description:

When Travelin' Farmer leaves play, deal 1 Damage to your opponent for each card in his hand.

Can player replace the creature to trigger this ability and deal damage to opponent?

Yes, replacement counts as "leave a play"
This is clarified at boadgamegeek.com forum. The author asks

Does "leaves play" only refer to when the Travelin' Farmer is defeated in battle, or can the owner of this creature replace him and do damage to his opponent at the same time?

And here is the answer from the Matt Hyra (one of the game designers; you can see his name in credits section of the rule book):

Creatures leave play when defeated in combat, when you replace them, or if you use an effect to return it to your hand. Each way makes him work.


text:
MTG Arena: Current shuffler (and matchmaker) functionality and rules
Bit on a rant intro, not necessary to understand the question. There is a heated debate between Arena players if (not) is the card shuffler (and matchmaker) rigged. I myself experienced very strange phenomenon. When I played on my PC, I was getting very poor draws with my Mono Red Deck and my win ratio was around 55%. However, when I swapped to playing on my laptop (first&new installation, this time not through Epic, but directly through WotC) I was getting incredibly lucky draws for roughly 50+ games easily getting 85% win ratio, most of the time being on the play and I would say getting favorable match-ups. I'm pretty sure about the win ratios and the quality of the hands (I used a tracker), the rest can really be my perspective. Anyways, I did not put too much thought into it back then.
Important part: However, today I came across this post about lands in the opening hand. Also this reddit post shows pretty thoroughly that the shuffler is not really random. I went and read some WotC forum posts and found people claiming that match maker altered their opponent picks according to their win ratio, providing (alleged) stats from trackers.
I'm okay with the shuffler and potentially matchmaker being 'rigged', to provide better game experience but only as long as the functionality is clear and public. Does anyone know of verified, up-to-date source which describes the shuffler and matchmaker rules, so one can play around it? So far I found nothing except small pieces of potentially outdated info or unfounded theories.

EDIT: I wonder if it was all my poor explanation or also people skim reading too much and ignoring comments but I intended this question purely as a search for information behind the shuffler/matchmaker. I think this is NOT opinion based and it feels to me that many people when see thread discussing shuffler/matchmaker automatically presume it is just salt mine thread, hence the vote for closing the question for being 'opinion based'. Anyways to sump up what I learned so far from comments and otherwise are:

Every time you shuffle in BO1, shuffle is done twice and the hand with the number of lands more representing the actual ratio of lands in your deck is chosen as your hand. This means it is extremely good to mulligan. This is very helpful to me because I avoided mulligan a lot in a fear of getting hand without lands or flooded by them, playing sub-optimal hands.
Fisher Yates is used for permutations. I also read Mersenne Twister is somehow involved, maybe for picking up the random numbers in Fisher Yates. Even though Mersenne Twister is not really very good at being random, I guess it is sufficient for this but I wonder if choosing a seed which would be unique for each id could somehow lead into what I experience. Anyway this is just a thought.
As for a matchmaker the only thing I noticed myself and also picked up from the threads I skimmed over and I'm confident enough to call without statistics is mirroring. You will face mirrors of your deck more often then it is represented in meta and people like CovertGoBlue who plays MTGA every day for hours claims to see this empirically too.
The following IS ONLY MY OBSERVATION but as this question is being voted to be closed as opinion based I think I will plug this in. I feel that MTGA deliberately 'tests' your deck. BTW I don't consider this to be a bad thing. I feel like it happens more than often that when picking new deck or running streak of wins or losses I run into very obscure cards which are either intended as a counters or a very favorable match-ups for me. I played Gruul yesterday running into mirrors, green, rogues, white aggro, black control, 0 Dimir's control. As soon as I switched to Cycling I get Ashiok's Erasure, which just shuts cycling with its little variability of cards which you actually play and who even plays this card anymore, and Dimir's control against. Like camaaan. :D I'm okay with it, but if this is random then what are the odds. There are many other theories and I don't want to be too much of a tin foil hatter but the only thing I'm trying to say here is: I do think that some meta table similar to this one but much more detailed, maybe even for specific cards, pair of cards or something is actually being built behind the scenes and it is somehow used to balance the gameplay further than just giving you mirrors more often. And again, I don't mind. Making the experience more balanced IS GOOD but I'm only trying to figure out its inner workings to understand if you should play more focused decks or more broad ones and so on.

This is how randomness works. Random does not mean "evenly distributed", until you have thousands or even millions of events. Humans are inherently bad at coping with the mercilessness of random, and believe we see patterns and intents everywhere. It is why we have prayed to weather gods for millennia, and it is most likely why you believe the shuffler to be rigged.

@Arthur, your point is most apt.  However, there are often bugs in software.  There was a bug in the random number generator for Ultima Online that went undetected for YEARS, with many players discussing how to take advantage of it...  It was very tricky to set up, but once you did, you could "farm" incredibly successfully.  eXPRESS doesn't provide enough information to indicate if this is real, but 50 games at 85% winrate and 50 (??) games at 55% win rate is statistically significant.

@Arthur I mention my situation only as an example. It is clear from the posts I provided that the generation is not purely random, at least not in the sense of drawing one hand of 7 cards from the deck. I don't have the problem with it being so, I actually prefer ideas like in the first post when multiple hands are shuffled and the one more representing your deck is selected. In fact I find that idea to be genius. The only problem I have with it is that it is not public knowledge hence I'm trying to find a source to understand the mechanism. Same goes for the matchmaker and endless mirroring.

@John Sorry, I do believe it was roughly 40-60 games, but I reset the stats on my PC so I can't be sure. I also understand that someone 'has to win the lottery' since there are lot of players playing and it might have been me who struck lucky on my laptop while unlucky on my PC.

@Arthur not really, they've actually outright said that their code doesn't intend true randomness, but does actually have code intended to smooth out card distribution between land and non-land. It still randomizes but lets call it random with an intentional bias to certain states.

@Andrew I know that skewing randomness to placate players is a thing in game design. I didn't know Arena had bowed to the pressure.

@Arthur I would not use the term 'bow to the pressure' here as most of the players actually call for the 'true randomness' even though they don't realize, it might be worse still. The only problem I see is that the system is a closed box which makes it unfair to people who expect no bias, because the rules were not clearly stated otherwise.

@Arthur behind the scenes it shuffles and draws twice then discards the less balanced hand of the two (based on the algorithm's idea of balance) they talked about it officially via forum announcement here:  https://forums.mtgarena.com/forums/threads/26319?page=1

It's entirely plausible that Arena's matchmaking and shuffling aren't uniformly random, either by accident or by design. However, it is extremely unlikely that your switch from PC to laptop has anything to do with it, because there is no good reason the accident or the design would take your platform into account.

@BenjaminCosman Yeah, you are right. I only wanted to add the motivation from my own experience and why I started to research this in a first place. I realize I poorly formatted my question and it led to a confusion. What I actually care about is the research behind how the shuffler/matchmaker works because it is not purely random and I want to understand it to leverage it as much as possible. Anyway in my example I don't think it would be because of change of the hardware/platform but rather to simply motivate new players to stay with the game by winning more. I'm not accusing them of it btw.

@Andrew It's worth noting the "smoothing" shuffler applies only to Bo1; Bo3 matches just do one draw and use that.

@PhilipKendall fair, but bo1 matches are, i belive, still the vast majority of games played on MTGa. I dont even build sideboards for most decks unless they use fae of wishes or similar.

You guys get all hung up about anecdotal desktop vs. laptop statistics, but you forget that each game, in its entirety (in particular shuffling), happens on the remote MTGA server, not on anyone's client. What insanity can lead anyone to believe that the server decides to favor players based on the platform they're playing on? I'm well aware MTGA has quite the history with bugs, but a correct shuffling algorithm is really trivial (google Fisher Yates), and would thus require extra effort to get wrong, especially in such a significant and easily detectable way. The whole premise is hogwash.

@Hackworth You are right, I just want to stress once more that my question was NOT about the example I gave even though many decided to make it the center piece of the question even though I specifically tried to state that it is not the case. The thought behind the example, if there was any, wasn't about actual hardware but more about letting new players win more often POSSIBLY. If we consider that the log and all statistics are empty on new machine, which they are, this can be checked by downloading a tracker which uses them.

@eXPRESS "The stats are from Plat to Mythic. The laptop was only Diamond+" It doesn't matter that you're a new player, you're playing a competitive ladder and are in the top half of it - the higher you go on the ladder, the better your opponents who also made that climb will be.

@Andrew Yeah, the reason I mentioned it is the Event factor mentioned by John in the answer below. It would work in exactly reversed logic in my case, having higher win ratio against better opponents. It could have been negated by me understanding the deck more tho. Who knows, but once I will have more time I'm thinking I will maybe post a constructive question about inner workings of matchmaker/shuffler on WotC forums and try to get some upvotes to mb get a reaction from devs. Maybe if asked in civilized manner without crying about it being unfair, I get something and can post it here then.

@eXPRESS quite honestly, since its about black box code for matchmaking and shuffling in the digital game, its not likely we can say more than we already have, we all only know whats been publicised.

@Andrew I know I meant I will post it on WotC as a question for the developers of the game.

On the surface, 85% win rate over 50 games compared to 55% win rate over (??) games is statistically significant.
But, the danger of doing a single variate statistical analysis (which is rampant in modern discourse) is you aren't examining investigating other potential causes.
For Arena, specifically, I have found the following to have significant impact in my win rates.

Time of day.  In my time zone, if I play between 10 am and 3 pm my win rates are significantly higher than if I play between 5 pm and 10 pm.
Event.  You haven't indicated event.  If I am on the "play" queue, I often win at much  higher rates than if I'm on the "standard ranked" queue.  I suspect other events have similarly higher variability.
Rank:  My win rates in gold on the Best of 1 ladder are vastly higher than my win rates in Platinum.
Play Queue:  My son likes brewing decks and playing on the play queue.  His win rate is very low (he is a fan of jank) if he plays a lot, and I start playing on the play queue, I win all the time.
The Selection Effect: (Credit to Phillip Kendall) No one posts if they change computers and see no impact.  In 2019 there were 3 million active players of Arena, the probably that at least one of them changes computers and saw variations of this size is non-trivial
.

I'm sure I've missed others.

The biggest thing you've missed is the selection effect. Nobody posts when they charge machine and their win rate doesn't change, only if it does.

I don't play queue, only ranked, so the variability should be low. The stats are from Plat to Mythic. The laptop was only Diamond+ so that should also mean lower win ratio as people are generally better. I wonder how time of the day could make the difference, I did not see any effect on my win ratio but it is definitely interesting observation. To the Sel. Eff., not only that the person must change the computer but also observe this by playing long in a row and if this applies only to new players to boost their ego it might be unnoticeable. Also they have to care to mention and you notice it.

Follow up, I don't make any accusations about WotC, I just think that noticing such a thing could really be tricky as we can be talking about very small fraction of a percent of players to be able to experience it let alone notice it, report it and the statement to reach the reader without getting lost. Also the posts are provided show it is not random per say, drawing 7 cards from a deck once, I'm okay with that, I really just want to know exactly how the mechanism works so I can better hedge my odds when mulligan, creating very specific deck or countering meta decks.

@eXPRESS, there are two issues here.  1.  Win percentage based on hardware.  2. How does the "land smoothing" algoritohm affect gameplay.  My answer addresses the first issue.  That issue is completely independent of the second, as it affects both game players equally.  If you have a specific question on 2. ask it in a separate question.

@John Sure, but does it though. At least the things you mentioned does not seem to have effect on the stats I acquired. I think that my measurements are most likely just result of pseudo-random luck and my initial intention was not to claim otherwise. The reason why I mentioned it in a first place was only to provide the context why I started to dig into this. My question is actually about point 2 all along, but not only about land smoothing but generally about rules used in the shuffler/matchmaker. I see now that I maybe did not make myself entirely clear, so I'm sorry for that.

@eXPRESS time of day makes a difference because it changes the location most players are from, and potentially the meta they build for locally is different than the meta you built for (This is less of a thing now that people aren't playing with in person local metas as much as online global, but Time of Day still keeps it alive to a degree) The meta here in North America may be different than the meta in Europe which may not match the meta in Japan.

@Andrew You are right but especially in higher ranks most of the people just netdeck and make little tweaks to stay competitive. In my experience, which granted is not big, I did not notice change between playing in the morning opposite to evening and so on. Funnily enough what I noticed though is that once CGB (CovertGoBlue) publishes a deck on yt, next day it is all over the place. :D


text:
Replacing face-up cards when only two regular Train Cars remain
The Ticket to Ride rules include this process:

If at any time, three of the five face-up cards are Locomotives, all five cards are immediately discarded and five new ones are turned face-up to replace them.

The designation "any time" seems to indicate that this replacement process will repeat when the new cards match the conditions for replacement. The designation "three" seems to be a minimum.
With the above interpretation, an infinite loop would occur when the cards players have not drawn include at least four Locomotives and only two regular Train Cars.
If this is the intended interpretation, how should the practical player continue the game when the infinite loop would occur? If this is not the intended interpretation, what is intended?

Why would there be an infinite loop?

@Rainbow If there are only two regular Train Cars available, the five face-up cards must include at least three Locomotives. If there are also at least four Locomotives available, enabling a redraw, the redraw process would repeat forever.

why would you not just reshuffle the discard pile?

@Rainbow You would reshuffle the discard pile. The rule I've quoted instructs to do that. Of all the available cards to place face-up, only two would be regular Train Cars. Shuffling would not change that number. If I've misunderstood the rules, please correct me.

This would be a very rare situation, and the rulebook does not directly address it.
There are basically 2 options for how to handle it.

Simply leave the 5 face-up cards with them having 3 or more locomotives in the set. This is how the mobile and online versions are implemented.

Follow the rule for a similar situation that is mentioned by the rules:

In the unlikely event that there are no cards left in the deck and there are no discards (because players are hoarding many cards in their hands), a player cannot draw Train Car cards. Instead he may only claim a route or draw Destination Ticket cards.

It makes sense to follow this rule in this situation, because while it's not true that "there are no cards left in the deck and there are no discards", it IS true that the cards that are left cannot make a valid set of face-up cards. So the recommendation would be to act as if there are no cards left, and not allow players to draw new train car cards until a route is claimed.
Source: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1812513/there-are-only-locomotives-left-deckdiscard

It's reasonable to adhere to the way the digital versions are implemented for playing by intended rules. According to the linked thread, the digital versions will attempt a replacement three times at most. It seems the game would continue to allow draws after that point. Then, when a player takes a face-up card before more Train Cars have been discarded, would the replacement process trigger again?


text:
Replenishing the deck after both draw and discard piles have been exhausted
The Ticket to Ride rules include this process:

When the deck is exhausted, the discards are reshuffled into a new draw pile deck.

The phrase "when the deck is exhausted" could be interpreted several ways:

"at the time the deck is made empty"
"at the time the deck cannot satisfy a player's draw"
"at the time the deck is made empty or cannot satisfy a player's draw"
"any time the deck is empty"

Option 4 seems the most reasonable. With this interpretation, assuming the deck is empty and there are no discards, when a player claims a route, their discarded cards would be immediately reshuffled into a draw pile deck.
Is this the intended interpretation? If not, when should the draw pile deck be replenished after it and the discard pile have both been exhausted?

How would the discard pile become exhausted? At no point are you instructed to draw cards from the discard pile.

In the question post above, I've quoted a rule in which discards are transfered into the draw pile. After that process, the discard pile would be exhausted.

@monad So the cards are in the deck and the discard pile is empty. What's the issue here?

@Studoku I've added an example situation to the question post, hopefully clarifying.

I think I ask this question in almost every board game I play!  At exactly what point does a discard pile get shuffled into a draw deck.   Turns out I've been playing TTR wrong for years then based on answer here.

Yes, that is what would happen but that is supposed to be a rare situation as it is not intended for the players to hold all the cards in their hands. The rules cover the situation for when there are no cards at all for players to draw and by extension it also covers the situation when a route is claimed and there are now cards to draw
https://ncdn0.daysofwonder.com/tickettoride/en/img/tt_rules_2015_en.pdf

When the deck is exhausted, the discards are reshuffled into a new draw pile deck. The
cards should be shuffled thoroughly, since all the cards have been discarded in sets.

In the unlikely event that there are no cards left in the deck and there are no discards
(because players are hoarding many cards in their hands), a player cannot draw Train
Car cards. Instead he may only claim a route or draw Destination Ticket cards.

Is there a reliable source that clarifies the intended interpretation of the rules?

@monad What do you mean by the intended interpertation?

I mean, the way the game designers meant the game to be played. You've quoted the rules, but the language is vague, hence the initial question.

@monad What is vague about reshuffling the discard pile into the draw pile when it is empty? Or the possibility that both can be empty? As you said I quoted the rules and it says to shuffle the discard into the draw pile when the draw pile is empty but it doesn't say anything about not doing it right after a turn in.

I've edited the question to highlight contrasting interpretations of the rule.

@monad why wouldn't the discard be shuffled into the draw deck so the next player would have the option of drawing from the deck? It seems fairly clear to me that any time the draw deck is empty and there are cards in the discard pile it should be shuffled otherwise they would have put instructions on when to shuffle the discard pile in other than when the deck is empty.


text:
Does First Strike cause a creature to deal damage twice?
Do creatures with first strike deal first and normal strike damage? I attacked with a Goblin Machinist, a 0/5, that had +5/+0, and my friend argued that his 3/1 first strike would kill it, is that true?

No, First Strike does not cause your creature to deal damage twice; it only causes your creature to deal damage before normal damage is dealt.

702.7b If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike or double strike (see rule 702.4) as the combat damage step begins, the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are the remaining attackers and blockers that had neither first strike nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double strike. After that step, the phase proceeds to the end of combat step.

So in the second / regular combat damage step, creatures with first strike will not deal damage, because they already dealt their damage.
If your attacking creature is blocked by a 3/1 with first strike, it would take a total of 3 damage. If it has 3 or less toughness, then it will die in the first strike damage step, before it can deal damage. If it has 4 or more toughness (which Goblin Machinist does), then it will still be alive to deal its damage after it has taken the 3 damage.
Your friend may have been confusing First Strike with Double Strike, which is an ability that causes creatures to deal damage twice.


text:
Is the China Card removed from the Early War deck before the initial shuffle in Twilight Struggle?
I have just been given the 2016 edition of Twilight Struggle. Quoting the rule book ...
3.0 GAME SETUP
3.1 Shuffle the Early War cards and deal each player 8 cards.
Place "The China Card" face-up in front of the USSR player.
... so clarification is needed. Should the first sentence have been, "Remove The China Card from the Early War Deck"? If not, three possible scenarios present themselves

The USSR player is dealt the card.
The USA player is dealt the card.
The card remains in the deck.

If scenario 2, then the USA player is now short of a card. If scenario 3 then the shuffled deck has to be turned face-up in order to extract the said card.
I believe that this is how the rules ought to look:
3.0 GAME SETUP
3.1 Remove "The China Card" from the Early War cards. Shuffle the remainder of the deck and deal each player 8 cards. Place "The China Card" which was previously removed, face-up in front of the USSR player.

The original rules were worded with "In addition" there: 3.1 Shuffle the Early War cards and deal each player 8 cards. In addition, place ‘The China Card’ face up in front of the USSR player.

Yes, the china card is removed from the Early War cards before the shuffle.  You are right, it is harder to make a mistake with your explanation.  However I think that the rules are clear as they are.
As a side note, there is a computer implementation of the game that enforce the rules. Playing that version can help discover rules that you might have missed.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/406290/Twilight_Struggle/

The Example of Play in the rulebook also supports: "Opening Deal: USSR (8 cards): De-Stalinization, Decolonization, De Gaulle Leads France, Captured Nazi Scientist, Socialist Governments, UN Intervention, Truman Doctrine, Red Scare/Purge. USSR also starts with The China Card."


text:
What happens when all players land on licorice in Candy Land?
I am in dire need of assistance. My wife and son were engaged in a heated two player game of Candy Land, when suddenly tragedy struck. My son landed on a licorice space and per the rules of the game he loses his next turn. Then the unthinkable had occurred. My wife had also landed on a licorice space causing her to lose her next turn.
My sons next turn is now skipped but my wife is equally unable to take a turn, unable to draw a card initiating the next turn.
My wife and son now unable to continue the game are beginning to dematerialize from the mortal realm as they are beginning the gradual phase shift into eternal purgatory. After endless searching into the deepest arcana of the occult (the rules on the back of the box), I have yet to find an official transcription that can restore my wife and son back to our plane of existence so that they can end this Jumanji style nightmare and we can pick up the pieces of our lives and what is left.
Please help us resolve this ambiguity in the rules.

If you're not in eternal purgatory, you're not playing Candyland.

This isn't Jumanji, there's no "In the jungle you must wait until the dice read 5 or 8" here - they each skip 1 turn, effectively your wife's skipped turn offset's your son's skipped turn and they continue in normal turn order equivalent to neither skipping any turns.

Your family is trapped in the Hell of Never Ending Board Games between Monopoly With House Rules and Uno.

@Schwern There are multiple levels of Board Game Hell. The final level is just a bunch of people that are constantly telling you about all of their Monopoly house rules and why they make the game better.

But this is how I feel with ALL board games

In games in general, if all players skip a turn, that is the equivalent as doing nothing.  You fast forward through all skipped turns, and the game picks up as if none of those players had skipped a turn.  The reason for this is that the turn still happens in a metaphysical sense, but ends as soon as it begins.
In this case, it goes like this:

Your wife ends her turn.  Turns remaining to be skipped: son 1, wife 1.
It is your son's turn: that turn is skipped.  Turns remaining to be skipped: son 0, wife 1.
It is your wife's turn: that turn is skipped.  Turns remaining to be skipped: son 0, wife 0.
It is your son's turn.

Note that in games where players can miss multiple turns consecutively (this is likely not relevant to Candyland), you can only shortcut through the least number of pending skipped turns by any player.  So if you have two players in a game, and player A would skip 3 turns and player B would skip 2 turns, this is the same as Player A skipping 1 turn.

In practice it's even simpler than that. Each person only needs to remember their personal "turns to skip". Son lands on licorice, has to remember to skip next turn. Wife completes a turn. Son says "my turn? This is the one I skip". Wife completes a turn, Son, after having skipped one, now takes a normal turn.


text:
Can Calamity Janet play a Punch as Missed?
She can play BANG! cards as Missed! cards and vice versa: can she use a Punch (or any other BANG card, e.g. Knife or Buffalo Rifle) as Missed?
Vice versa, can she use an Iron plate as a Bang?
If I take, for example, Jourdonnais, he can use his ability also when he's hit by something different from the card BANG!. I'd tend to think the same is true for Calamity Janet too.

No she can not play a punch as a miss. BANG! are specific cards and those are the only one she can use as a miss. There are other cards that can be used to damage players but they are not considered a BANG!. One of the key parts of a BANG! is you can only play one of them a turn unless you got a card that says otherwise and a punch or other damage card can be played as many times as you want.

You're right. The point is the difference between "BANG!" and "BANG! cards"


text:
Uno swap card questions
A couple questions regarding the swap card:  1.  If it is the last card in my hand, and I place it in the discard pile, do I have to do the actual swap which would keep me from going out?  2.  If it isn’t the only card in my hand, but the only playable card in my hand, do I have play it or can I skip my turn after picking a card?  Ps- when I say swap card, I am referring to the shuffle hands card

Matel got back to me and said that the answer to question 1 is YES.  You do have to swap/shuffle everybody's cards and the answer to question 2 is that you do not have to play the swap/shuffle card if it is the only card in your hand.  You have to pick another card in the deck and then skip your turn if it isn't playable.


text:
Does the Carcassonne Hunters & Gatherers tile with 3 fish, 2 rivers and 2 forests have a menhir?
Does the second tile from the right in the extract from the rule book below contain a menhir?

The rule book lists it under menhir tiles, but so does the one with the 2 lakes which obviously does not contain a menhir.
It seems to be the only tile with an L-shaped forest that does not have the usual picture of a menhir. Other such menhir tiles are the one with a mammoth and an auroch, one with a pit trap and one with mushrooms.

Simple answer: If the tile doesn't have a picture of a menhir, it doesn't contain a menhir.
I suspect the point of confusion here is differentiating between "tiles with a menhir on them" and "menhir tiles". The menhir tiles are a special stack of tiles that you play from after you complete a forest with a menhir in it; these ones all have a special back and should not be shuffled in with the regular tiles:

(note: other editions of the rulebook refer to the menhir tiles as "bonus tiles", which is boring but also less ambiguous.)
Those menhir tiles are the ones listed in the instructions you quoted, to showcase their added value. This does not mean, nor is meant to mean, that the menhir tiles also contain a menhir.


text:
What are the differences between Chinese and Japanese rules in Go?
What are the differences? And do these differences influence strategy?

In france and america, the AGA rule is very nice: it makes every situation to be played to be resolved (where Japanese rules have many special cases treated according to the rule). the AGA/french/? rules also allow one to use both Japanese or Chinese counting, therefore quite nice to use (as both players play the same amount of stones, the counting will be equivalent in "almost every cases")

I like to teach Go by presenting only the Chinese rules (It focus on the main goal: occupy territory! Everything is played out. Prisonners are not important "per se" [and it's nice to show that you can just hand them over to the opponent]. So the learner knows she/he has to focus on occupying territory instead of capturing stones. Do NOT confuse them with 2 set of rules. Later, I do use Japanese COUNTING, as it's fast: put prisonners back into opponent's territory, arrange empty areas in multiple of 10 [5x2, 10xn, 3x4-minus2stones] so that it's both easy to count AND to re-count if unsure.

In most games (as already noted) the two rulesets produce the same strategy and outcome.
Differences between the current Japanese and Chinese rules:

Japanese counts enclosed territory (of groups able to form two eyes) minus prisoners (stones that the opponent was able to capture). Chinese counts all area: every intersection is attributed to whichever side’s stones enclose or occupy it; unfillable dame (i.e. intersections left vacant between opposing groups of stones, after captures are removed from the board) are split 50/50.

Chinese report on how far either player is from a draw (of 19×19÷2 points each), whereas Japanese report on how far apart the two player’s scores are (a margin which should differ by a factor of two).

Groups of stones that live in seki (e.g. that border unfillable dame) sometimes still enclose some space (e.g. one eye). This is not counted as territory by Japanese, but does count in Chinese.

Super-ko (i.e. cycles which exactly recreate a previous board position) nullifies the game for Japanese; in Chinese it is in principle an illegal move but can also be judged a draw, void, restart, etc.

After the game concludes, life or death (i.e. assumed captures) is resolved in Japanese by virtual play, under a modified rule that retaking a ko requires an extra move. (This seems intended as an alternative to super-ko for circumventing unremovable ko threats.)

As compensation for the first move advantage, Japanese gives white 6.5 points (komi) and Chinese transfers 3¾ from black to white (i.e. 7.5 komi).

Japanese rules are understood to have more ambiguity and/or inconsistency, related to the complexity of life and death.

Consequences:
Entirely procedural:

Only Japanese requires keeping track of captured stones (prisoners). In longer games this can use more playing stones.

Semi-procedural:

In Japanese, the game can finish before dame are filled.
In Japanese, captures inside of seki groups are played out (because prisoners are counted despite there being no territory counted).

Affecting beginners:

Unnecessary defensive moves are more costly in Japanese rules (subtracting a point in addition to the wasted turn itself).
Assumed captures are left on the board in Japanese rules, whereas under Chinese rules any "life or death" puzzles can ultimately be played out (simplifying the board) without loss of points.

Affecting high-level play:

If the game runs out of dame and meaningful moves after an odd number of turns, then white gets an extra point in Japanese as compared to Chinese rules. (Some other rulesets negate this difference between territory and area counting, e.g. by insisting both sides make an equal number of moves.)
During the opening, aggressiveness/defensiveness relates to the amount of komi.
The urgency/worth of resolving the status of an unsettled (but potentially seki) group can be slightly different (since some seki have different value between Japanese and Chinese rules).

Note that in close games between players who are strong enough to accurately predict score, a small difference in points may cause a completely different choice of strategy for a particular board position.

With no komi, this 9x9 position is B+1.5 in Chinese rules and W+8 in Japanese rules.
Note that black can connect/fill the false eyes, and thereby threaten to encroach at the bottom left corner, forcing white to play in the top right corner. This exchange leads to a gain for black in Japanese rules (reducing the margin to W+7) but does not alter the score in Chinese rules.

Nice answer :).
Regarding Note that black can connect/fill the false eyes, and thereby threaten to encroach at the bottom left corner, forcing white to play in the top right corner. This exchange leads to a gain for black in Japanese rules (reducing the margin to W+7) but does not alter the score in Chinese rules., wouldn't black have to fill in 5 false eyes while White only has to sacrifice 1 stone? Wouldn't black lose 4 points?
Many thanks

@Anonymous no, black plays 6 stones to gain 1 prisoner and it was not territory because the group is in seki.

From Wikipedia:

Although there are some minor differences between rule sets used in different countries, most notably in Chinese and Japanese scoring rules, these differences do not seriously affect the tactics and strategy of the game.
There are two basic scoring systems used to determine the winner at the end of a game; they almost always give the same result. Territory scoring counts the number of empty points your stones surround, together with the number of stones you captured. While it originated in China, today it is commonly associated with Japan and Korea. Area scoring counts the number of points your stones occupy and surround. It is associated with contemporary Chinese play and was probably established there during the Ming Dynasty in the 15th or 16th century.

Read the full article here.

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


text:
What is the difference between the AU and UK editions of Cards Against Humanity
I just got the UK set and need to know which cards to add.  Would it be easier to tell me what cards are new/different to add?  Or what cards are identical to remove.
I want to know the difference between UK and AU editions.   Not the difference between UK and US editions

Welcome to Board & Card Games, this question is already asked at: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/25622/are-there-differences-between-the-different-countrys-editions-of-cards-against.

That lists the difference between UK and US.  Im looking for the difference between UK and AU

@ToonKrijthe That's not fair to say. Two years ago you voted to delete an answer ON THAT QUESTION you just linked asking about AU version saying they should ask a new question. Which is it?

@corsiKa, that answer was deleted because it was another question.

@AdamDean, the question started as a difference between US & UK. But it is generalized later.

@ToonKrijthe, there are only two answers there, one giving one example where an Aunt's name was changed.  The other an incomplete list of white cards unique to the US edition in relation to the UK edition and an incomplete list of white cards unique to the UK edition in relation to the US edition.  Some of those could be listed after page 11, after page 11 there could be more unique cards too.  There are no black cards mentioned or comparison to the AU edition

@AdamDean If you had a higher reputation you would see the other, deleted answer

@ToonKrijthe Yes, but the point was that person was asked to create a new question. This, years later from a different person, is that question. Why should it be closed now, especially when the question you linked does not answer this question? Unless you're proposing that the linked question become canonical?

@ToonKrijthe I only joined the site today after purchasing the edition today.  How could I possibly know that there is a deleted comment or the fact that I could see it with a higher reputation, whatever that means.

I didn't link anything, you did.  You put the link there telling me that the answer to my question is there, which it's not

All I did was ask the following question: What is the difference between the AU and UK editions of Cards Against Humanity?  You responded with two links to a similar question that didn't answer my question


text:
Parcheesi- is 4-4 an 8 if I move one pawn or two 4s?
If I roll a double 4 (let’s assume I’m not in Doublets bonus land), and there’s a pawn of another player on a safety space four spaces in front of me, but the space 8 spaces in front is open, may I move my pawn the full 8, or must it be treated as a four and a four, and I therefore cannot move that pawn?
Rules say that if you roll a 4 and a 3, you can mover one pawn EITHER 4+3 Or 3+4.  Why would they say that instead of just saying 7?

Seems like you've answered this yourself.

I don’t think theater paragraph answers the question. It’s unclear if “move 4+3” is intended to have the same effect as “move 7” or not… it might be the same but it also could mean “move 4 and then move 3”.

There are multiple published versions of Parcheesi and thus multiple wordings of rules, but this rulebook makes it clear that yes; you could move a single pawn 8 spaces on a roll of 4 and 4, even if the space 4 ahead is not free:

You may move one or two pawns on your turn. For example, if you roll 4 + 3 you can move one pawn 7 spaces; or you can move one pawn 4 spaces and another pawn 3 spaces.

Any feedback on why this was downvoted?


text:
How many Planeswalkers appear in Core Set Displays
I'm a bit confused regarding the MTG sets. Currently I'm looking at several options to buy for a draft:

Core Set 2021 Display (36 Core Set boosters)
Expansion Set Display (36 Expansion Set boosters)
Core Set 2021 Planeswalker Deck (5 premade decks including planeswalkers)

My questions are the following:

How can I get proper cards to build several decks, is it necessary to have cards from the Core Set in order to use cards from an Expansion Set, or do the Expansion Sets work standalone?
Does it even make sense to go for a Core Set display, if there is the Core Set Planeswalker Deck, which includes (I assume) the strongest cards of that set and guarantees Planeswalkers? Getting the display would most likely result in worse cards, maybe not even a single Planeswalker, or am I missing something? Maybe they are more common than I think?
How important are Planeswalkers for a proper deck, is a deck without inherently worse than a deck with or is it just a nice additional, which needs utilization?

Depending on the answers, I don't quite understand how drafting can be fair, in case a display contains only 1 Planeswalker, which which will give one player a huge advantage.
Update: We went for 10 Boosters each and built decks, which is more or less the play mode „Sealed“. After that we did the same again and now have a good pool of cards to build proper „constructed“ decks. One of us pulled a Planeswalker, the other didn‘t, but it was fair nevertheless; as pointed out in the answers a Planeswalker does not mean an unfair advantage whatsoever. I can highly recommend this way of getting into MTG if you already have knowledge of the game but lack the cards.

Drafting is done with draft boosters (and cubes, which are created by players for the purpose of drafting), never with other sealed products. You will never draft from a planeswalker deck, these are meant to be played in a constructed setting (everyone has their own deck already built).
Yes, people will get lucky in drafts (and sealed) and get stronger decks than other people, but the way it is fair is that it relies on that luck, no one is guaranteed if you sit 4th at the table you will open a planeswalker, and the rares in the pack are not always the best cards (or even useful cards, particularly if you spent the first two packs drafting different colors from it) The fairness comes from a draft or sealed being all luck and skill, you can't just go online, find the decklist that is doing the best and just buy your way into wins by buying those cards, you have to build it out of whatever luck gives you.
Lets look at your 3 questions

How can I get proper cards to build several decks, is it necessary to have cards from the Core Set in order to use cards from an Expansion Set, or do the Expansion Sets work standalone?

In 2015 Magic Origins was released as the last core set they ever intended to make. This wasn't popular and in 2018 they released Core Set 2019 again, but for years there were no core sets. Core sets are generally useful cards that can fit into many different places,  while expansion sets are more streamlined, with specific strategies and archetypes being better supported. You can make a deck out of nothing but core set cards, and you can make a deck out of nothing but cards from a single expansion - usually you will make decks using the best of both worlds.
As for how to get the cards, you buy them. You can either buy cards from the secondary market, cards that someone has already opened and is selling, or buy packs. You also get to keep cards you get out of drafts, so that can also be a good way of finding cards you want. Generally buying specific cards is less expensive to get a deck, as there's never a guarantee you will get the card you want out of packs.

Does it even make sense to go for a Core Set display, if there is the Core Set Planeswalker Deck, which includes (I assume) the strongest cards of that set and guarantees Planeswalkers? Getting the display would most likely result in worse cards, maybe not even a single Planeswalker, or am I missing something? Maybe they are more common than I think?

You are talking about what is usually called a booster box. There is no 100% guarantee in these, they will not specifically contain the strongest cards in a set (and it's arguable that most of the time there isn't a strongest card in the set, when there is it tends to get banned like Oko, Thief of Crowns or Omnath, Locus of Creation were). This is just a box with 36 boosters in it, and if you buy boosters individually they are taken out of one of these boxes. The Planeswalker decks don't tend to be particularly strong decks, generally they are supposed to be decently balanced against each other, meant as a way for relatively new players to get into the game without excessively worrying about the small details that can go into competitive deck choices. They definitely are not built with the intent of being the strongest cards in the set.

How important are Planeswalkers for a proper deck, is a deck without inherently worse than a deck with or is it just a nice additional, which needs utilization?

Not at all, most decks have no planeswalkers in them. They tend to be flashy cards that get to do one thing before people kill them off or the effects are too minor to care about. Talking about the planeswalker decks, the planeswalkers in these tend to be underwhelming. They are different from the planeswalkers in the set, usually have a lower power-to-cost ratio, and rarely see play.

How many Planeswalkers appear in Core Set Displays?

If it was released before 2007, the answer is 0, since the card type didn't exist before Llorwyn. If it's a set after that, the answer is anywhere between 0 and over 36, depending on the set. Only War of the Spark guaranteed planeswalkers, 1 to 3 per pack, other sets can have none in a box or two in one pack (foil and regular).

To explain the cost/benefit of the planeswalkers:

These are the two copies of Oko that were in Eldraine. The first is the one that was in the preconstructed planeswaker deck (Note how the card is 309, it doesn't show that it's 309/269, showing that the card is outside the normal set cards), the second was the one you could get in packs. The planeswaker deck oko cost twice as much at 6 mana over the pack oko at 3. The abilities on the planeswalker deck Oko look flashy, but it takes 3 uses of the +1 to be able to get the ultimate ability off, 4 if you want Oko to survive it, and that's if no one kills him or hits him at all over those 4 or 5 turns. The pack Oko on the other hand can be played 2nd or 3rd turn, when people don't have much mana, is only 3 mana so you can play another one if the first one dies, and that +1 ability is all most people ever used, turning your own 1/1 creatures into 3/3s or turning your opponents big threats into plain creatures is a very powerful ability. Even if you wanted to use the pack Oko's ultimate ability, it takes one turn using his +2 to get there and he lives through it. This is pretty consistent over the other planeswalker deck walkers - they cost more and the effects look powerful, but the only really good one takes too long to be useful. Oko, the Trickster is too week and expensive for people to play, Oko, Thief of Crowns was so good he was banned 45 days after the set was released.

I really had a hard time to properly outline my concerns/questions, but somehow you covered all of them with your answer. a) the importance of planeswalkers, b) the viability of the planeswalkers from the premade decks c) the completeness of a Booster Box (I thought it covered all cards from that set according to their rarity distribution). I was confused by the cost/use ratio of Booster Box vs Premade Planeswalker decks, but apparently, I can get way better cards (and better planeswalkers) by getting a Booster Box. I'll get a Core Set Booster Box for my small, "private" Draft with a friend.

@kopaka I'll edit to explain

OK. There seems to be quit a few misunderstanding here, but I think I managed to identify a core one.
Magic the Gatherging can be played in several ways, the 2 most importat ones being draft and constructed.
There are also quite a few different products out there. Some suite one play style. Other suit the other. Some, especially in case of draft play, are absolutely the wrong way to do things.
But lets work on the assumption that you want to play draft. These are usually organized by game stores or by groups or friends. Either way, what you need is 3 draft boosters per player. (Usually 6-8 players in total.) Please note that non-draft booster products also exist, namely the new set boosters. These are not designed for draft play. 2 player draft variants also exist, but I will not get into those right now.
As for what set to get, most products are desiged to be drafted set by set, meaning (at least for all sets in stores right now) all the boosters for all the players would be from the same set. Doesn't matter if it is an "expansion set" or a Core Set. In modern MtG Core Set aren't that different from any other set. They just tend to have a bit more simple design in the cards they offer, to offer a better starting point for newer players.
What about Planeswalker Decks? Those are mostly intended as a starting point for constructed play, where you build a 60 (or 100 for Commander) card deck from any cards from any sets that are considered legal for the format you wish to play. Most beginner friendly constructed format (outside Commander, that's a bit of an exception) is Standard.
Trying to draft these decks would be... odd. Not impossible, but they really aren't meant for this.
Given all this, your 3rd question kind of becomes irrelevant, but let me just state that no deck needs planeswalkers. The are pretty powerful cards and some decks can make great use of them, but others will work just fine without them.

I also get the feeling that "draft play" doesn't quite mean what you think it means, but that is a seperate question to deal with. I'm sure there will be a bit of back and forth as you start to understand things better.

Maybe also worth noting that at least this year, there is no Core Set (replaced by the D&D Forgotten Realms set instead).

@PhilipKendall There was also the 3 year gap after Magic Origins where they were planning to do away with core sets until their players complained enough.

Okay maybe some misunderstanding, I initially asked another question, which was closed. Thanks for the elaborate answer though. I want to have a starting point of drafting a deck with a friend and using this initial draft as a base to move to constructed play. However, this initial draft session should be fair, in a sense that not one of us ends up having an uber deck with planeswalker etc., while the other ends up having trash. This leads me to another question, which might be the answer overall: Does a whole Booster Display cover every card of the Set distributed among all its boosters?

Basically I just want to ensure we pull at least 2 planeswalkers from the Booster Packs we buy, so each of us can build a deck around that planeswalker, that's all.

@kopaka Drafting with just 2 players is challening. And to answer your question about Booster Displays (in a short way, you can post a new question for more detailed answer), no. It's not even possible for the box to cover all the cards in the set.

@DJPirtu That's a really good input, I thought a Display covers all the cards of their set according to their rarity distribution.

@kopaka This site isn't really built for giving recommendations, but I encourage you to post more questions if you have any. The comment section of an answer isn't realy designed for extended discussion (it's mostly designed for claryfing the answer itself), but I'd say you'd benefit from further answers.


text:
Hexproof and Aether Storm
So I'm setting up to build a Zur, Eternal Schemer deck and I came across Aether Storm. Now, I could be reading this wrong, and it's unlikely to actually happen, but Zur gives enchantment creatures hexproof and some other stuff, and can turn Enchantments into Enchantment Creatures. Aether Storm is powerful but can normally be cancelled out by the fact anyone can get rid of it. But since this is treated as an ability (stated in the updated text) and hexproof prevents targeting by abilities and spells, would giving it hexproof cover that clause?

Pithing Needle can do what you want, as well Karn's Sylex and similar cards.

No, Aether Storm's second ability is not affected by hexproof.
Hexproof only prevents abilities from targeting permanents. But, Aether Storm's ability (like most abilities that affect only the card they're printed on) doesn't have a target.

115.10a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn’t make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word “target” in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it’s not a target.

Aether Storm's ability doesn't have the word "target", so it doesn't target anything.

Pay 4 life: Destroy Aether Storm. It can't be regenerated. Any player may activate this ability.


text:
Color Changed on blocker
I attack with Whirling Dervish, which has protection from black, and it is blocked by a white creature. I use Tidal Visionary to make that creature black. Does my Dervish go around the now illegal block?

Welcome to the site! I took the liberty of editing your question to add links to the relevant cards and clean it up slightly. I also removed a reference to the card Circle of Protection (COP) since you seemed to be referring to Whirling Dervish's protection from black instead; feel free to make further edits if that's incorrect.

Some related questions: blocked attacker gains flying, blocked attacker gains menace.

The legality of blocks is checked exactly once, during the declare blockers step. Evasion abilities that take effect after that don't matter, as described in comp rule 509.1:

509.1b The defending player checks each creature they control to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t block, or that it can’t block unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal.
A restriction may be created by an evasion ability (a static ability an attacking creature has that restricts what can block it). If an attacking creature gains or loses an evasion ability after a legal block has been declared, it doesn’t affect that block.

If you also post this answer to Activating an ability that affects blocking after Declare Blockers step, I think we can then start using that one as the canonical question for this. (I think this answer is better than the one already there because it explicitly references 509.1b)

@PhilipKendall Posted. I tried to add some language which makes it clear that it applies to all blocking restrictions and requirements, regardless of how they're phrased, but that's a little trickier since the rules don't call it out the way they do evasion abilities.

This answers the posted question, but it should be noted that in the particular case of protection, the now-[insert attribute here]-creature's combat damage will be prevented by the protection ability.


text:
Can you change a target of a spell to an illegal target with misdirection?
Can you change a target of a spell to an illegal target with misdirection? One ruling for Misdirection says that

This does not check if the current target is legal. It just checks if the spell has a single target.

Would changing target of a spell to an illegal target work as a counterspell?

No, this is forbidden by comp rule 115.7, which covers changing targets. (Emphasis mine.)

115.7a If an effect allows a player to “change the target(s)” of a spell or ability, each target can be changed only to another legal target. If a target can’t be changed to another legal target, the original target is unchanged, even if the original target is itself illegal by then. If all the targets aren’t changed to other legal targets, none of them are changed.

The ruling you quoted is referring to the restriction that the spell Misdirection targets must itself have only one target (legal or otherwise).
Example: You have two creatures. I cast Lightning Bolt on one of them. In response, you give that creature hexproof. Lightning Bolt is now targeting an illegal target, and on resolution it will fizzle. However, it still has exactly one target and I can cast Misdirection on it.
On the other hand, if I cast Arc Lightning and you give one of your creatures hexproof, even though Arc Lightning now has only one legal target, it still has two targets and I can't cast Misdirection on it.


text:
In Mtg, can I play spells exiled with Evelyn, the Covetous if she is not on the battlefield?
If I exile cards with a collection counter on using Evelyn, the Covetous's ability, can I still play those cards if Evelyn is not on the battlefield?
The wording on cards such as Gonti, Lord of Luxury and Thief of Sanity read: "You may look at and cast that card for as long as it remains exiled..."
The wording on Evelyn, the Covetous suggests that she has to be on the battlefield.

You are correct that Evelyn's ability is handled differently than Gonti's.
In both cases, a continuous effect is generated that allows you to cast the exiled card(s). These effects fall under the purview of comp rule 611.
In the case of Gonti and the like, the continuous effect is created by the resolution of a triggered ability, and so falls under rule 611.2:

611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”).

For Gonti, the stated duration is "as long as [the card] remains exiled". Until the card leaves exile, the continuous effect will persist even if its creator is no longer on the battlefield.
Evelyn, in contrast, has a static ability that creates a continuous effect, which is handled by rule 611.3:

611.3. A continuous effect may be generated by the static ability of an object.

611.3b The effect applies at all times that the permanent generating it is on the battlefield or the object generating it is in the appropriate zone.

This static ability requires Evelyn to be on the battlefield to function. As soon as she leaves, the static ability and its related continuous effect go away.

It might be worth point out that if she leaves the battlefield, and then another one then enters the battlefield, you can then cast the spells that were exiled by the first one.


text:
How long are trading cards expected to last?
I am trying to make my Pokémon cards last for as long as possible, so I am storing them in soft sleeves and then again in hard sleeves. These hard sleeves are kept in a shoebox.
I know that old paper always decays with time no matter what we do (just look at the original US Constitution even after spending a fortune trying to preserve it).
Does anyone know how long these cards are expected to last?
Edit: For clarity, the cards will not be played with, just stored.

"are expected to last" as in "how long does Pokémon build them to last for", or, "How long can we realistically think Pokémon cards might last"?

This is probably too broad and/or opinion based. You should specify if you intend to play with the cards or just store them in a vault, at least.

Also, you say that you are storing them in a shoebox, but where is this shoebox? Is it in a cool environment? Does it have a lot of humidity? These facts will also affect how long they will last.

Suggestion: Grade it with BGS/PSA, then store the graded card in something like https://slabmags.com/ or just https://www.google.com/search?q=graded+card+sleeves, then put the slabmags protected cards in pelican box https://www.pelican.com/

Based on the condition of baseball cards dating back over 100 years, it's possible the cards could last that long or longer.  See this list of rare, old cards for example - there are several from over 100 years ago that are still able to get a PSA 7-8 grade, and look like they're in quite good condition.
Beyond that, it's unlikely we'd be able to say how long they'll last; the foils, in particular, cause issues due to the foil bending the cards.  Most cards from the early days are still possible to find in fairly good condition, so hopefully this won't be a problem for perfectly stored, non-played cards, for a fair while; but as holofoils become far more common, it will impact more cards.

This depends very much on the what paper stock was used to print the cards.  There are paper documents far older than the US Constitution (papyrus written with carbon ink dating back to the Egyptian dynastic period?) still in pretty good shape, and paper books and periodicals printed a decade ago that are going to pieces.
Beyond that, the ink (the main point of deterioration in the Constitution and moreso the Declaration of Independence -- which was written with pokeberry juice for ink) can deteriorate as well.
Pokemon cards are/were printed on thoroughly modern paper card stock, but as far as I'm aware no special care was taken to use acid-free paper or archival inks, so while it's a guess, my guess is we might reasonably expect well-stored cards to last anywhere from thirty to a hundred years.  Some of the oldest ones are nearly twenty years old now; if you have a few of those first issues, you might be able to estimate better from their condition than I can from first principles.


text:
Mahjong board formation and drawing rules
In Mahjong basic rule (this one for example), the board is setup in a spiral formation and the tiles are drawn in order from the 4 draw piles. With all the tiles facing down and shuffled, the probability of drawing a specific tile from any pile in any order is the same (unless I am missing something?). If this is correct, the game can technically be played with one draw pile and tiles can be drawn from anywhere in the pile?
There are also additional draw rules such as a “special deck” (near the end of this video), which is completely superficial?
I came up with this question when my date and I decided to play Mahjong in the park on a picnic blanket, setting up the game was rather difficult on this uneven surface.

Yes , it's correct. The rule is there only to help enforce randomness, as tiles are more difficult to shuffle / mix well.

How would the rules help to enforce randomness?

In theory yes, you can play with a single pile. The reason people setup the wall this way (aside from historical reasons) is because the layout suits the nature of the game. You typically play on a square table and tiles are fairly large so stacking them in a single tower would be pretty dangerous. Also, after setting up the wall, players draw their hands from the wall which is done in sets of 4 tiles at a time going around the table. The layout makes it easy to draw the tiles, while also encouraging the social aspect of the game.

Oh, I didn’t mean a 1x1 tower, more like a pyramid

Ah, I guess that makes more sense. Some things still apply like the way tiles are drawn. Also with the pyramid, you'd lose the "draw from the back" rules for kong/flowers

“Draw from the back” is superficial, drawing from anywhere gives you the same result

I used to be a member, and for a time the President, of the MSU Mah Jong club. The custom used there built the wall as a square that overlapped at the ends, not as a spiral as shown in the linked video.
From a game mechanics point of view, building the wall is comparable to shuffling cards and leaving a scuffled deck to draw from.  in terms of randomizing the draw, building a pyramid, or just mixing a pile and drawing at random, as is done is Scrabble, would work as well. But the shape of the wall gives an instant alert if a tile has been dropped or is in some way missing from the table. That is the wall will not come out even if a tile is missing.  The square shape also suits the square shape of a table, as the answer by Matthew Ban Kim suggests. Also, "compensation" tiles for flowers, seasons, and displayed Kongs is taken from the back end of the wall, which could not easily be done without something like the wall. This affects the maximum possible length of the game. Besides, th wall arrangement is traditional, and I see no advantage to using a pyramid shape instead.

I’m not familiar with the compensation tiles that you mention, how would they affect the maximum possible length of the game? Regardless of the setup, the number of tiles are equal and hence, same game length, correct?

For the missing tile problem, if the single pile is rectangular shaped (e.g. 6x6x4), one can also immediately know if a tile is missing

There are variants that use an non-trasparent bag instead of a wall, like Washizu mahjong.

@Fried Rice As I learned to play, a break is made near the end of the wall, leaving the last 16 tiles in a separate group. If the draw gets to the break, the game is over. When a playuer draws and faces a flower or season, an extra tile is drawn from the back end (back pile) to keep the active hand at the same size. Similarly, when a player faces a kong (4 of a kind) an extra time is drawn from the back pile, so the same number of combinations can be formed. Such "compensation" draws bring extra tiles  into play, and slightly lengthen the maximum possible no of turns in play.

So with this rule, having a main pile and a side/back pile would also work?

@Fried Rice Yes it could One would need a rule about exactly which tile in the "main" pile was the next draw. OI don't see any advantage in such a practice, but it shouldn't really change the game much, if at all, IMO.


text:
Help me identify an old family board game (from memory)
I realize chances are slim, but I figure it's worth a shot asking, nonetheless.
It's a game that I've played as a very young child and have moved countries since (but I'm pretty sure I've lost all pieces as well, long time ago).
I'll try to provide as much details as I can dredge up from memory.

The game was played by several players (max of 4, I believe). The end goal / winning conditions, I cannot remember, unfortunately, but I do believe it was each player for his own (and against the rest).
The game board wasn't small, think Monopoly sized and up.
Players moved around with dice rolls.
The setting was in an jungle overrun temple.
It consists of multiple pieces besides the players and a flat board, since there were turning bridges depending on certain conditions. These bridges were actual separate pieces (a cardboard rectangle on a wooden button, but still) which added a hint of 3D to the game.
It's at least 20 years old (played late 1990s - early 2000s).

I've made a quick image rendition from memory, for its general overlay, but take it with a hefty pinch of salt:

This is the general path the game takes, it's a road around a pool of water with platforms inside, reachable by;
The turning bridges. These I remember were 1 square wide and are turning depending on certain conditions in the game (and there may have been crossroad / + shaped 'bridges' as well), and could be turned back, to prevent a player from crossing it, by;
'Pressure' plates around the path that when stepped on control a particular bridge's rotation.
Statues, that I recall as being semblances of Aztec statues, as to their function (if any), unfortunately - nothing there.
A certain platform stood out among the others, and I believe it was the center one, if that's where the game goal was residing, I draw blanks.
Each platform had a certain reason to be visited, but again, what that might have been, has been lost with time.

I wish I could remember more (and if I do, I will most certainly update the question).
I apologize if I'm asking too much, but the memory recently got under my skin, and I'd love to figure out what it was at least, even if unable to buy it anywhere. I hope my hazy drawings and description do not confuse a kind soul that might actually know what the game is.
The game is not:
Fireball Island
Curse of the Idol - But it looks VERY close to it in terms of mechanics, settings, and I believe, gameplay - an excellent reference point. One main difference would be that most additional components were made of cardboard (like the game board walls in this one).

When you say it's at least 20 years old, were you playing this in the 1990s?  1980s?

@LeppyR64 That would be the 1990s. Very early 2000s at worst case.

Fireball Island?

Did a plate actually rotate, or did it slide into an empty space, carrying its pawns with it, thereby leaving an equivalent empty space behind?

@LeppyR64 Not Fireball Island, no.
The 'plates' were part of the game board, I believe. So they are just a special drawn square among the rest. The board itself was flat, it was the 'bridges' that were placed around and they were made of two 'parts'. A checkered piece of cardboard and a wooden circle underneath to 'support' it in the middle.

«A checkered piece of cardboard and a wooden circle underneath to 'support' it in the middle.» Did that wooden circle underneath  allow the piece of cardboard to slide or to rotate?

@RobertMiller Ah, sorry! It allowed it to rotate.

Do you recall how long it took to play?

@robyaw Honestly, not at all. I'd guess given its scale (that I remember) it would at least go into the 30-60 minutes category. But that's a guess more than anything else.

So this has been puzzling me for a few hours, but I think it might be Curse of the Idol? This seems to fit a lot of the criteria you outlined - Aztec themed, released in the 90's, right player count, rotating platforms etc.

Wow! It does fit all the elements indeed! Going through its photos I was thinking that maybe I'm just remembering everything wrong and it is the one! But on further scrutiny I firmly believe it's not. It's too 'technical' in its pieces - there weren't so many (if any) plastic components in what I had, and what there were - were made of cardboard. Also my memory of the bridges that were in the game, is probably what I'm most certain of in the whole post, simply because they were some of the last pieces remaining for a long time in my toy box. But it is very VERY similar.

Going through Board Game Geek again, I've found a few other potential candidates, which share the right player count, have an adventure / exploration theme and were released around the 1990s. I've loosely ordered them from most to least promising:

Caves and Claws: has bridge-like tiles that seem to fit your description. There's some Central American theming as well;
Treasures and Trapdoors: has some of the elements described and has a strong exploration theme, albeit Egyptian;
Tunnel Rats: The Escape From TERROR CAVE: this one most closely match your board diagram, but given it has distinctive rat miniatures, I suspect you would have remembered those!

Apologies for the delay - None of these, sadly. Curse of the Idol is still the closest reference point. SO close, in fact, that the game I speak of could be a literal knock-off, or slightly modified version of it (I don't know if it matters, but I owned it in a post soviet country, so I'm not sure about the worldwide availability of the game - possible, but also might not be). Nevertheless, I will most certainly award you the bounty for the tremendous effort and time you've spent trying to help me out on this, and for the amazing reference point.


text:
What game is this die from
Please help me identify this die.

Thank you.

Welcome to the site! You are more likely to get a good answer if you provide more details - at the very least, what symbols are printed on the other six faces?

It's something Marvel related, that being Thanos' face.

It looks to be from Marvel Battleworld - here's an image of a very similar dice on its BoardGameGeek listing (and certainly one in the same style).

Not the same die, as the numbers and positions don't work out (OP's image shows 1-5 around the thanos symbol. BGG shows a 10 clearly next to the thanos symbol)

@Andrew This image shows that the game has multiple dice, and that they don’t all have the same arrangement of numbers as each other.

@Andrew fair point - edited my answer accordingly.