text:
Auction of mortgaged properties in Monopoly
I have few of my properties mortgaged and I actually want to get rid of them. Can I auction some of those mortgaged properties to generate more cash??
I know specifically that the bank has the right to auction my properties if I go bankrupt to the bank.
But can I of my own free will auction my mortgaged properties in the middle of the game?

There is a house rule - no form of trade or deal is allowed between players

You can offer any trades to any players; and there’s no specific rules about the format that these offers take. So you can make offers in such a way that it’s basically an auction. If someone says they are willing to pay $100 for your property, then you can always ask if anyone else is willing to pay more.
So yes, you could auction your properties in this way; but really it’s just a series of offering different trades and trying to get the best deal for them. And it’s possible no one will be willing to trade with you; in which case you are stuck with the properties.
From the rules:

SELLING PROPERTY... Unimproved properties, railroads and
utilities (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private transaction for any amount the owner can get; however, no property
can be sold to another player if buildings are standing on any
properties of that color-group.

Note that the player who received a mortgaged property in a trade/sale must immediately either pay the mortgage price + 10% to unmortgage it, or pay just the 10% and leave it mortgaged, which means they’ll have to pay the extra 10% again if they want to unmortgage it later.

The player who mortgages property retains possession of it and no other player may secure it by lifting the mortgage from the Bank.
However, the owner may sell this mortgaged property to another player at any agreed price. If you are the new owner, you may lift the mortgage at once if you wish by paying off the mortgage plus 10% interest to the Bank. If the mortgage is not lifted at once, you must pay the Bank 10% interest when you buy the property and if you lift the mortgage later you must pay the Bank an additional 10% interest as well as the amount of the mortgage.

Actually the thing is we created a house rule that -no form of deal or trade is allowed between players in the game and if anyone wants to sell their property they have to put their property card face up and hold an auction and the property will go to the highest bidder.
So can a player officially hold an auction for a mortgaged property? Because I believe bank reserves the right to auction off a mortgaged property

The reason why I believe officially I cannot hold an auction for my mortgaged property and only bank can do that is - because bank doesn’t allow you to collect rent on your mortgaged property as well - it is not profitable for the bank to allow the owner to hold an auction just as it is not profitable for the bank to allow rent collection on a mortgaged property - because if the bank is lucky enough and the if the owner goes bankrupt to the bank - the bank will be able to hold an auction on its own and get more cash.

@RishabhBaid I don't quite understand your comments. If you are playing with house rules, then only your group can decide if something is allowed or not. If you don't allow any trades or sales between players, then this would of course also mean that you don't allow auctions, as an auction is just one form of a trade negotiation. But under the real rules of the game, trades, and therefore auctions, are allowed.

@Gendolkari so if I am playing under normal rules I am allowed to put my mortgaged property card at the centre of the board and hold an auction? (I don’t want to negotiate with 5-6 people I just want to hold an auction and get done with this mortgaged property)

@RishabhBaid Yes; that is one of many legal ways to negotiate a trade/sale. An auction is nothing other than a form of negotiation.


text:
Jadzi, Oracle of Arcavios and Spells with X mana cost
Let's say that I have Jadzi, Oracle of Arcavios on the battlefield.
What happens if I cast some instant or sorcery spell, reveal the top card of my library and it happens to be Ingenious Mastery?
According to Jadzi, I can cast a nonland card by paying 1C rather than paying its mana cost. But what does it mean to Ingenious Mastery? Will my opponents create two Treasure tokens, and do Scry 2, and how many cards will I draw, and why?

related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/44314/if-i-cast-a-spell-with-x-in-its-mana-cost-without-paying-its-mana-cost-what-is
Not quite a duplicate because of Ingenuious Mastery's alternate cost wording.

Ingenious Mastery has a Gatherer ruling that says

If you choose to pay one alternative cost, you can’t pay any other alternative costs. For example, if an effect lets you cast a “Mastery” spell “without paying its mana cost,” you can’t also choose to pay its given alternative cost.

The ability of Jadzi to pay 1 to cast a spell is an alternative cost just like "without paying its mana cost" is. If you cast the Mastery that way, you won't cast the Mastery by paying the 2U alternate cost, so you do not get to draw three cards, and your opponent does not get to scry or create tokens.
And X is necessarily set to zero, as per Jazdi's Gatherer ruling:

If you cast a spell with X in its mana cost using Jadzi’s magecraft ability, you must choose 0 as the value of X.

So ultimately, the Ingenious Mastery doesn't do anything as it resolves.

For anyone who's looking for rule references, rule 118.9 shows that the costs in Jadzi's magecraft ability and Ingenious Mastery's first ability are alternative costs, 601.2b establishes that you can only pick one alternative cost, and 107.3b says that X has to be 0 if you're paying an alternative cost that doesn't have an X in it.

"So ultimately, the Ingenious Mastery doesn't do anything as it resolves." Although it trigger Jadzi's ability again when it's cast.

@Accumulation I specifically added "as it resolves" because someone pointed that out earlier. I would also argue that it is not the Mastery that does the triggering, although this is not the place to discuss philosophy.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Nadir Kraken and Solemnity
Say Solemnity and a Nadir Kraken are play. Obviously you won't get the counter. But will get the token.
Basic FOL would suggest:
P = "put a +1/+1 counter on Nadir"
Q = create a 1/1 blue creature token"

Given that (basic rules of conjunction):
P & Q = 1 iif P = 1 && Q = 1

P = 0, than the conjunction P & Q == 0, so neither will be created.
Ovethinking? What would Garfield say?

I don't quite follow the logic here. We would, without the Solemnity, get both a counter and a token, i.e. token and counter. Solemnity says we don't get the counter, i.e. not counter. Thus we do have have not (token and counter). However, in no way does that imply not token.

This EXACTLY implies (not (token) OR not (counter)). Check DeMorgan rules on rewriting logical expressions. So you actually now make it possible to choose ;)

Sure, not counter implies (not token) or (not counter), by definition of or. It doesn't in any way imply not token.

Asking a sincere question and getting downvoted twice, nice!

Note that I'm not saying it implies token either. "Doesn't imply not token" and "Implies token" are completely different statements. I am making the former, it seems you think I'm making the latter.

Ok, the card reads T => (P & Q), so that seemed worthy of a question. Now explain the downvotes?

You want me to read minds? I can't do that.

Of course not, that's in the rules. But downvoters would be nice to leave a comment explaining them.

I did not downvote, but I can guess what may have prompted people to do so. First, you asked this question using terminology and shorthand that is generally not used in the context of MTG, making the question a little hard to follow. Second, the basis of the question appears to be that in formal logic, (P and Q) and (not P) => (not Q), which is not true, so that makes the premise a little confusing. And third, instructions on Magic cards are imperative statements, which do not in general obey the rules of formal logic, making the question seem like a bit of a non-sequitur.

Nothing says P & Q must be 1. In fact, you are arguing that it should be 0 (since you're saying both P and Q should be 0), thus defeating your own argument

Downvoted because, while you've asked a question with a legitimate core, you've asked it in a bad way. It was entirely possible to ask your question in an open-ended way and trust our expertise on the MTG game rules, and yes, those rules even include a few lines about the English language as it relates to card text. Yet you decided to come in with a preconceived notion from an entirely unrelated field ("basic FOL would suggest") and tried to create a gotcha where there is none. In short, you did not come across a learner, as your handle would suggest, but at best a wanna-be teacher.

That wasn't my intention at all! I really felt this didn't add up in my mind and was genuinely confused! However I did want to be brief and present an argument that I did in fact not know to be true hence the question! In future I try to avoid brevety, but a sentence with 'would suggest', is not trying to be a wise guy, but more of a description of a thought process or perhaps question in itself; At least that was the intent.

You get the token.

609.3 If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

You're allowed to create the token.  You're not allowed to add the counter.  So you do what you're allowed.

a big Jeej for ambiguity in language. Garfield was a mathematician.

@Learner My experience from reading the original MTG cards, as well as other games Garfield has designed, leads me to believe he has some difficulty writing unambiguously. But this isn't one such case, as 1) It's not ambiguous, and 2) Garfield hasn't written this.

The conjunction and the use of natural language in general makes it ambiguous per definition ;)

It really is, very ambiguous. P => (Q & S) is what the card says, but not what the rules say.

As is: 609.3 If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible

@Learner By pure logic and only your cards in isolation, one could possibly argue for the ambiguity you're claiming is there. But then you forget the rules. And the rules say that when something changes, anything else that can stay the same stays the same. So when you change the truth value of the statement "I get a counter", the truth value of the statement "I get a token" remains unchanged, because it is possible for it to remain unchanged. That's what "As much as possible" means: it can still give you a token even though the counter is prevented, so it does still give you a token.

Yeah, I get the gist, thanks for that. More surprised by the downvotes. Seemed like a valid question.

@Learner, "Can you go to the store for fruit. And when you're there, grab some garbage bags too." If they're out of garbage bags, you still going to grab the fruit. The understanding applies here. The value of "bought fruit and bought towels" is meaningless, and so is the value of "created a token and added a counter". And no, it's not ambiguous. The rules clearly say how to follow the instructions on a card: You do as much as possible. The concept that you can't do any part if there's a part you can't do is entirely of your own making. This false preposition is why your logic is invalid.

You do as much as possible, which means you get the token.

First of all, you say you invoke first-order logic, but you actually use propositional logic.
Secondly, your propositions are wrong because one can't evaluate if they're true or not. They should be the following:
P = "A +1/+1 counter was placed on on Nadir"
Q = "A 1/1 blue creature token was created"
Finally, given ¬P and Q, we do get ¬(P ∧ Q) as you say. But that doesn't mean anything. Nothing says it P ∧ Q must be true. In fact, you're not even arguing that it should be true.
Say you are instructed to go to the supermarket to garbage bags and fruit.
Q = "I bought garbage bags"
P = "I bought fruits"
If they're out of garbage bags (¬P), then we can deduce ¬(P ∧ Q) just as we did above. Does that mean I didn't buy fruits? no. Does that means I can't buy fruits? no.

So we have a resolving ability. How is that handled?

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. [...]

But we can't do that. So now what?

609.3 If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

And that's your answer.

You can't apply symbolic logic so bluntly to this question first there is an implied "unless this is otherwise not legal" as rule 609.3 indicates (just because one part is impossible does not prevent other parts of an effect). Part of the purpose of having base rules is to create more concise cards, to not need to print every possibility on the cards themselves.

609.3 If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

Lets define terms again:
P = "put a +1/+1 counter on Nadir"
Q = create a 1/1 blue creature token"

X = 1 mana is paid
Y = Counters cannot be placed
Z = Tokens cannot be created

Given these terms, 609.3 dictates that the following must be true:
X ⇒ (~Y ⊕ P) · (~Z ⊕ Q)

Y and Z are false by default, but Solemnity makes Y true.
Without rule 609.3 the card would have to be written as:

Whenever you draw a card, you may pay 1. If you do, put a +1/+1 counter on Nadir  Kraken, unless some other effect prevents placing these counters, and create a 1/1 blue Tentacle creature token, unless some other effect prevents creating these tokens.

That wasn't was was wrong, but you fixed it. I would change "With these your actual statements are:" to "609.3 dictates that the following must be true:", but much better

According to gatherer:

If Nadir Kraken leaves the battlefield after its ability has
triggered, you can still pay 1 and get a Tentacle, even though you
won’t put a +1/+1 counter on Nadir Kraken.

While this doesn't apply to your specific example, it does demonstrate that it's possible to create only the token without the +1/+1 counter.

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


text:
Sequence, dead cards with no cards to pick up
In Sequence, if you have a Dead Card and there are no other cards to pick up, can you play the dead card on your turn, saving your other cards?

If you have gone through the entire deck then your are supposed to shuffle the discard piles and start drawing from that deck.
From the Table Talk section of the Sequence rules:

When the draw deck becomes depleted during play, all discard piles are shuffled together to create a new draw deck.

There are instances where there will not be cards to play in the discard pile if the board is nearly filled.  This does not answer the question that was asked

There should never be no cards to draw in theory since you shuffle the discard if the pile is empty.

If all of the Jacks are in hand and all the available places to play upon are in hand then all cards in the discard pile are dead.

I don't think the case he is talking about is covered in the rules so there might not be an answer to his question but technically you should never have an empty draw pile.

I agree.  There should never be an empty draw pile.

From the Sequence rules at JAX Games - https://www.jaxgames.com/sequence-game-rules/
"each player selects a card of their choice from their hand and places it face up on a discard pile ... and then places one of their marker chips on the matching card on the game board."
So one cannot play a dead card since they need to place a marker chip on the board.

You missed this part of the linked page: Dead Card
If you hold a card in your hand which does not have an open space on the game board because both spaces representing that card are covered by a marker chip, you are holding a DEAD CARD and you may turn it in for a new card. When it is your turn, place the dead card on your discard pile, announce that you are turning in a Dead Card and take a replacement card (one card per turn). You then proceed to play your normal turn.

@TheChaz2.0 That part is not relevant.  The question says that there are no suitable cards to replace the dead card with.  The question wants to play a dead card instead.  This answers that question accurately.  This strategy would play around Jack removal and force an opponent to play a potential card that would create a more beneficial play.

The question does not say "there are no suitable cards to replace the dead card with." But on further inspection, it seems like she is asking if you can use your turn by "playing" (which doesn't make sense) a dead card. So your answer is correct. Whether or not you have used your once-per-turn option to discard and redraw a dead card, you can never "play" a dead card.


text:
How detailed should a Black Stories mystery be solved?
I was playing a Black Stories deck by Holger Bosch the other day when it occurred to me that the rules don't actually clarify what counts as a solved mystery. Of course, when it is not in the rules, one could argue that it doesn't matter, and the game should be played until the person holding the card and answering the questions is satisfied.
Yet, the level of detail of the solution on the back of the card makes me wonder whether the people guessing should go all the way to spell out the story or whether the details of the story are just there for the entertainment of the players who managed to crack cause of death mentioned in the story.
To give an anonymized example (none of the details are recognizable from the riddle on the front side of the card), I had a situation where:

A group of friends was on holiday to [destination mentioned in the story]
they got drunk
Decided to
a) jump from a high place [specific high place mentioned]
b) into a water body [defined in the story]
One member of the group did not survive [reason detailed in the story].

In this case, 4 and 3B were determined by the players, the rest was not. Does it count as solved in this way?
I know that this question is susceptible to opinion, therefore I would be interested in knowing if there has been any comment by the author of the game or by the publishers about this matter. Should it just be a decision of the cardholder to count a story as solved or is there some rule (of thumb) to it?

As you say, it's up to the judgement of the one holding the card, but the author's description is:

Durch Raten soll genau die Geschichte dahinter herausgefunden werden.

Which translates to
The aim is to guess the exact story behind it.
So it seems the author intends for the detectives to work out all the parts of the story.
Now, perhaps, the you could allow that the players worked it out based on their comments amongst themselves even if they leave out this or that detail in the "official" pronouncement. So long as you can tell they know those details.


text:
If a player forgets to create a token creature during upkeep, do they get to do it during their opponent's turn?
For instance, Player 1 has Dragonmaster Outcast on their battlefield, which has the ability: At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control six or more lands, create a 5/5 red Dragon creature token with flying. If Player 1 fails to create the token creature during their turn, can they create it during the Player 2's turn (and block an attacker with it), or create two token creatures on their next turn?
I love playing this game, but the fights my 11-year-old son and I get into sometimes are nuts!

We could use some more information about this situation. In this case is it your son that is forgetting to create the token? Are you doing anything to help him remember and improve his game play? As was mentioned in an answer as this is a family game you can do a lot of things to fix the problem.

Yes, it is my son. He has spent a LOT of money on powerful cards and has a dragon deck that I've been trying to beat with cards that I had or that cost less than $3. So, no; he's KILLING me 80% of the time in very short games--I don't think he needs my help. We wondered what the rules were, but ultimately I would like to teach him to give opponents a chance to play instead of wiping them off the board in as few turns as possible !  XD  (Squinty-eye open-mouth laughing face)

Well if he is forgetting to do required steps at times it sure sounds like he does. Sure it won't matter in a casual game but repeated mistakes like that in a tournament game could end up giving him a loss. Also not sure why you think he needs to give opponents a "chance" when you are playing with a deck that lacks power.

In a competitive situation, this is a "missed trigger"; as soon as you realise it has happened, you should call for a judge who will resolve the situation - what they will do well depend on the level of play: the resolution in low-level play (e.g. FNM at your local store) will likely be different from that at a Pro Tour, where both players could be subject to penalties.
In a casual game among your own family, do whatever gives you the most fun.

Or, depending on the son's age, whatever gives the son the most fun. In this case, having spent "a lot of money" on a dragon deck, he might be old enough for some harshness, but you never know.

@Arthur "you" is meant to be interpreted as plural in that sentence!

See, this is one of those times where it would be better if English hadn't gone all out on using the plural "you" as a polite substitute for the singular "thou" (which technically, according to some dictionaries, still is the official singular pronoun). That way one would've actually been able to tell which one is meant in any given sentence.

In competitive REL games both players are expected to keep accurate game states. Letting your opponent miss a trigger for an advantage will get you a pretty serious sanction and also make you loose all the respect anyone may have for you.

Also the implications of a may trigger is I think also relevant here.

@NeilMeyer 1) we're not really talking about competitive REL here, we're talking about a kitchen table game 2) there is no "may" trigger here, the Dragonmaster Outcast trigger is mandatory.


text:
How can we prevent wins by pure luck in Decrypto?
I've played Decrypto over the weekend and wasn't impressed with it due to how big of a role luck plays in the game. For example in the very first round one can win by simply guessing all three numbers correctly, with a probability of 1 in 24. If you're certain about one word, the odds become 1 in 6, which still results in absurd situations where the opposing team guesses your code sequence while your own team doesn't.
Is there a way to completely remove luck from the equation? One idea was to force the other team to guess the exact word for each of the 4 slots, but this would potentially make the game too difficult.

How do you define luck? Which specific mechanics of Decrypto do you consider to rely on luck?

@ryanyuyu in round 1 of Decrypto, you have a 1 in 24 chance of guessing the opposite teams code without actually guessing any of the words. If you know one word for certain, your odds are 1 in 6.

You didn't actually define luck. You just named some probabilities. Do you consider anything with a probability that isn't either 0 or 1 to be "luck"? I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but it's important to know what you consider to be "luck" vs "skill" in order to "completely remove luck from the equation"

@ryanyuyu ideally I'd want a version where winning by luck is impossible

Don't play games with guessing if you don't want to lose by luck, if people are allowed to guess then there is always a chance that you lose at any point.

If I understand the rules correctly, to win just by luck, you need the other team to not get their code on their first guess, then you need to get the code by chance, and you need this to happen twice. That's not very likely. There's no way to completely remove luck without significantly changing the game, but ways to reduce it is are increasing the number of words, allowing a team to pass on guessing the other team's word and giving them a punishment if they do guess and are wrong (e.g. giving them a black mark, or giving them a gray mark, and two gray marks are worth a black one), or requiring more white marks to win.


text:
Searching for a Shedding Card Game of Turkish Origin
I'm looking for any information about a card game that was taught to me by a friend, who claims this game is of Turkish origin.
The game plays fairly similar to shedding card games like Mau-Mau, Uno, or Crazy Eights. It is played with one deck of standard French cards per two persons, including 2 jokers per deck (so 3 and 4 persons play with 2 decks + 4 jokers). The player who sheds their last card wins the round. At the end of the round each player counts the value of their remaining cards and adds it to their tally. If the last card played was a joker every opponent gets another 100 points each added to their score. At the end of the game the player with the least points wins.
Before the start of the game one player shuffles the cars. The player to the left of them then cuts the deck anywhere and openly draws all of the "significant" cards or clubs, until they have either 7 cards or there is a regular card. The dealer then combines the lower pile on top, the upper pile (the one that just got drawn from) on the bottom, so that every player knows the last card. From this pile the dealer deals each player cards up to 7 cards. The remaining cards are then placed face-down in a drawing stack.
The player to the left of the dealer begins the game by playing a club or a jack. Every player also has to play a club or jack. Significant cards that force another player to draw a card can be played, but have no effect. When the turn switches from dealer to 1st player (or vice-versa), these restrictions are lifted.
If a player is unable or unwilling to legally play a card they have to draw one card from the drawing stack. If it enables them to play a legal card they may do so in that same turn, but they can not continue to draw more cards. If the drawing stock is depleted it is NOT replenished, instead you have to skip as many turns as you would have drawn cards.
When you play your second to last card you have to announce Tek, or else you will have to take a penalty card (I think Tek is just Turkish for last card). You can chain significant cards to skip that announcement. For the next game the player that did the initial cut of the deck now becomes the dealer.
Significant cards are as follows:

Ace: Every other player has to draw one card, you are required to continue your turn by playing another legal card.
10: Direction of play changes, you may play another legal card, but you don't have to.
Jack: You can determine the suit to be played by the next player. The next player can also play a jack instead.
7: The next player has to draw 3 cards from the drawing pile. If they themself have a 7 in their hand, they can instead play that 7 and the next player has to draw 6 cards, and so on. The player drawing the cards is allowed to continue their turn as normal. This card can not be combined with the joker.
Joker: Same effect as the 7, but instead the player has to draw 10 cards. It can not be combined with the 7. It
can be played on every suit. After a joker play resumes to whatever card was played before the joker.

The cards are valued as follows:

Numerals: Their number
Queen, King, Ace: 10
Jack: 25
Joker: 100

This game was taught to me over 10 years ago by an acquaintance of Turkish origin. Since then I have played this game with many friends and family. It is our absolute go-to card game, as it is taught easily, it requires some strategy, but is not too involving as to not have a little chat while playing it. With my closest friends we even have coined a little trophy that the winner of each session gets to keep. Usually when we all get the chance to meet up we tally our scores over multiple days, but we don't add them up until the very end to keep the rankings a secret.
The game rewards building up chains and keeping high valued cards until the end. Ending your game while others still have their jokers on their hands, seeing their desperation growing with each card you play is a priceless feeling. :D In the opposite direction, jokers can sometimes feel like they are "burning" in your hand.
This type of game tends to vary the rules a lot, and we had to come up with some ourselves to deal with edge cases. Therefore the rules depicted here may not reflect the exact rules you know - however I am looking for any game from the same region with sort of similar rules. We refer to it as Tek simply because the name stuck, but I'm sure the actual name was different. Any hint is appreciated.


text:
Does this Teshar combo (listed #1 on EDHREC) really work?
In the EDHREC page for Teshar, Ancestor's Apostle, there is a list of combos recommended for him as a commander.
The top combo shown features these four cards:

Blasting Station
Myr Retriever
Ornithopter
Teshar, Ancestor's Apostle

The explanation for the combo is written,
Result: Infinite damage.

Requires: Teshar, Ornithopter, and Blasting Station on the battlefield. Myr Retriever in graveyard.

 Steps:
 Cast Ornithopter, triggering Teshar, target Retriever in the graveyard.
 Untap Blasting Station.
 Let Ornithopter resolve, then sacrifice it.
 Sacrifice Retriever to Blasting Station, target an opponent, triggering Retriever, target
 Ornithopter in the graveyard.

There's a small oversight in that the Ornithopter needs to be in the player's hand at the beginning of the combo in order for the player to cast it, but beyond that, I think this combo--with these specific cards--wouldn't work at all.
The problem is that Blasting Station needs a creature ETB in between every use of its sac ability, and the combo requires that Blasting Station be used twice, with no such trigger in between.
There are plenty of ways to fix this by swapping in a different card for Ornithopter...any X-cost artifact creature that dies immediately on ETB when cast for 0 would do (eg. Walking Ballista or Hangarback Walker), or any 0-cost artifact capable of sacrificing itself (eg. Welding Jar; Urza's Bauble or Mishra's Bauble), but I can't see a way to make the combo work if we're keeping the four cards listed. Casting Ornithopter necessarily puts Ornithopter on the stack before Teshar's ability, meaning that Myr Retriever necessarily arrives on the battlefield before Ornithopter, and if we use Blasting Station to sac Myr Retriever before Ornithopter arrive on the battlefield, then   Ornithopter isn't in the graveyard and can't be returned to the player's hand by the Myr Retriever's LTB trigger.
Is there anything I'm missing?
Can this combo (with these four specific cards) be made to work?

It does work, the steps are just a little vague in the description.  So it works like this:
Setup
Teshar and Blasting Station are on the battlefield (tapped or untapped, doesn't matter).  Myr Retriever is in the graveyard (can be easily put there with Blasting Station).  Ornithopter is in your hand.
Steps

Cast Ornithopter.  It's still on the stack.
This triggers Teshar's ability.  Use it to return Myr Retriever to the battlefield.
When Myr Retriever returns to the battlefield, this triggers Blasting Station's ability that untaps it.  Let that resolve.  Blasting Station is now untapped.
Let Ornithopter resolve.  This triggers Blasting Station again (untap ability).  This goes on the stack.
Now retain priority and activate Blasting Station's ability to deal one damage to something.  Sacrifice Ornithopter as part of activating the ability.
Ornithopter goes to the graveyard.  Let Blasting Station's trigger resolve.  Blasting Station is now untapped.
Activate Blasting Station, sacrificing Myr Retriever.  This goes on the stack.
Myr Retriever's death trigger triggers.  Use it to return Ornithopter to your hand.  Let the Blasting Station ability from #7 resolve.
You are now back where you started. (Ornithopter in hand, Myr in the graveyard, Teshar and Blasting Station on the battlefield).  Return to step 1.

Technically, 7 resolves after 8.

@Becuzz Thank you! This is exactly what I was missing--tapping Blasting Station while it's next untap trigger is still on the stack. Will wait the customary day or so and then will accept.

@JonTheMon  You are right.  I made that more clear.


text:
Trigger order for sacrificing creatures
I have Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest as my Commander.  If I sacrifice a creature using Ghoulcaller Gisa, which effect comes first,

Putting Zombie tokens onto the battlefield

or

putting the +1/+1 counters on each creature I control?

In other words, can I put the +1/+1 counters on the new Zombie tokens?

You will always get the +1/+1 counters first, so your new tokens will not get the counters.
Triggered abilities don't go on the stack until someone is about to get priority, which won't happen until Ghoulcaller Gisa's activated ability is already on the stack. So the Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest's triggered ability will go on the stack on top of the activated ability, and thus resolve first.

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.

So Mazirek's ability triggers the moment that you sacrifice a creature to pay the cost for Gisa's ability, but even though it has triggered it doesn't go on the stack yet. The rest of the process of activating an ability is still carried out, including putting that ability on the stack. Only then is  Mazirek's ability put on the stack.

This is confirmed by one of Mazirek's Oracle rulings: "If you sacrifice a permanent as part of casting a spell or activating an ability, Mazirek’s last ability will resolve before that spell or ability."


text:
Rest in Peace and Ranar, the Ever Watchful interactions
Ranar the Ever-Watchful creates a 1/1 flying token whenever "a spell or ability you control exiles one or more permanents from the battlefield"
and Rest in Peace says "If a card or token would be put into a graveyard from anywhere, exile it instead."
So I'm trying to figure out what "a spell or ability I control" means here for the sake of triggering Ranar's ability. I'm gathering that it doesn't trigger every time something is exiled by Rest in Peace because Rest in Peace's effect is a replacement effect; so it would need to be an effect or ability of a card I control that would cause something to get exiled by Rest in Peace's effect for Ranar to get triggered. But I'm also seeing some people say that cards like Blasting Station who's cost would cause a card to be exiled by Rest in Peace's effect also wouldn't work because it is a cost and not an effect.
I'm curious if anyone might understand if or why that is; and also how killing my own creature with Skullclamp might work with this interaction?

The original ability or event that would have caused the card to go to the graveyard is what matters; Rest in Peace is not seen as the "cause" of anything.
The official rulings on Firesong and Sunspeaker say this:

A spell causes you to gain life if its cost or effect instructs you to gain life or if an instruction in its cost or effect is modified by a replacement effect and the modified event includes you gaining life. If a spell’s cost or effect instructs a source with lifelink you control to deal damage, that spell causes that life gain as well.

So if you control the original ability that caused the effect which Rest in Peace is replacing, then an ability you controlled "caused" a card to go to exile, so Ranar will trigger.
In the case of Blasting Station, this works, because even though it is the payment and not the effect of the ability that caused the creature to die (and thus be exiled because of Rest in Peace), the ruling above states that if paying an ability's cost causes something to happen; the ability is said to have caused that thing to happen.
In the case of Skullclamp, it would not work, because it was simply the state-based action that kills creatures with 0 toughness that caused the creature to die / be exiled. By the time the game is checking state-based actions, it doesn't care how or why the creature is at 0 toughness.
Similarly, using Prodigal Sorcerer to damage a 1/1 creature would not trigger Ranar, but using Royal Assassin would, because in the former case, the state-based actions are what "killed" the creature, while in the latter case, it was Royal Assassin's ability.
This was a difficult question, and it's taken me 3 separate versions of the answer to come to this conclusion! The rules never define the word "cause" even though it is used on a lot of different cards. Some rules such as 614.10 imply that replacement effects do "cause" things to happen. But I believe that the ruling on Firesong and Sunspeaker is pretty definitive; and I can't see any reason that the same ruling wouldn't apply to any card that uses the word "causes".

Similar to Skullclamp, I'd say that damage spells would also not cause Ranar to trigger here.

I've found a tweet from @Dunkatog (Game Rules Manager at Wizards.) That claims this wouldn't work with Blasting Station. I'm still relatively new to magic, but seems like he'd be an authority on this? Any input? https://twitter.com/Dunkatog/status/1415918192250085376?s=20

Isn't the reason simply that a replacement effect is an effect rather than a spell or ability? A replacement effect might come from a spell or ability, but it's not one itself. Just like e.g. damage is an effect. 609.1. An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability.

@Space I'd love to know how Dunkatog would reconcile his statement with the ruling on Firesong and Sunspeaker. I've replied to the tweet to ask.

@Hackworth Yes, the replacement effect is not a spell or ability (though it is generated by a static ability in this case). But that doesn't really answer the question; the rules never state whether an effect can be the "cause" of something; just because Ranar looks for abilities that "cause" something doesn't mean it couldn't have been the replacement effect that caused it.

@Space Just saw that you also tweeted a reply with the same question. Hopefully he'll see/reply to one of them at least!

Cards don't have effects directly, they only have abilities. Rest in Peace has a static ability that creates a continuous effect that is a replacement effect. See rules 207.1 and 604.2.

@Hackworth it's still an ability. A static one.  And all abilities have effects. Either one-shot or continuous. So that argument makes no sense. /// The key is that the effect is to modify another ability, not to exile. It's the effect of the now-modified ability that exiles.

This answer focuses a lot on the word "cause", but Ranar the Ever-Watchful does not use that word!  I think Lullmage Mentor is the most-similarly-worded earlier card.

@m90 You’re right, I actually misread the Oracle text as saying “causes”. But hopefully the reasoning and conclusions are still sound.

At the least, it would be unfortunate for game design purposes if “exiles a card” and “causes a card to be exiled” were interpreted differently from a rules standpoint.

I say that Ranar ability doesn't trigger due to Rest in Peace static ability, hence Blasting Station and Skullclamp doesn't interact at all with Ranar and here is my new argument.
First I want to point out that, given the actual Oracle text of Ranar ability, anything related to the word "cause" such those rulings of Firesong and Sunspeaker don't apply.
Because "for a spell or ability to cause a permanent to be exiled" it's different from "for a spell or ability to exile a permanent". The former should take into account costs of spell, new effects of the spell due to replacement effects, and naturally the original effect of the spell. The latter should take into account only the original effect of the spell.
Now why Rest in Peace static ability doesn't make Ranar ability to trigger?
Because Rest in Peace static ability doesn't exile a permanent but it replaces events. Events are something concrete in the game that are affected by effects, just like permanents. Hence everything I said early holds from my perspective except for static ability that generate replacement effects.

The other answer shows that there are at least some cases in which effects modified by replacement effects, and not the replacement effects themselves, are credited with causing events. Do you have a reason that would be true of Firesong and Sunspeaker, but not of Ranar?

First: at the end of the day i changed my stance on the original question. I'm going to edit my answer.
Second: i answer your question.
Because "for a spell or ability to cause e permanent to be exiled" it's different from "for a spell or ability to exile a permanent". The former takes into account costs of spell, new effects of the spell due to replacement effects, and naturally the original effect of the spell. The latter takes into account only the original effect of the spell.

FYI: Answers should not signal their edits in text. There's an edit history to signal when there's edits, and to let us see how major they are, as well as edit summaries to describe the edits. Questions and answers themselves should always be at their final version—imagine if a Wikipedia article said a bunch of text then "Major edit" then a bunch of different text. Or if you wrote that in a school essay. Replace the content with the latest version, don't amend the latest version.

You say "'for a spell or ability to cause e permanent to be exiled' it's different from 'for a spell or ability to exile a permanent'". Why is it different? Do you have a rules reference, ruling, or wording precedent to demonstrate why that difference in wording would result in different outcomes?

For reference, no existing cards use the wording "causes a permanent to be exiled" or any similar wording. The conclusion I draw from the information available is that "causes you to gain life" is just the simplest way to describe the condition on Firesong and Sunspeaker, and "exiles one or more permanents on the battlefield" is just the simplest way to describe the condition on Ranar, and that there is no deeper significance or behavioral difference to the specific wording. I think there would need to be a specific justification to draw a different conclusion.


text:
YUGIOH Deck building and card cutting
I'm back into the game after 16 long years absence.
Aside from getting into the swing of all these new monsters, I find myself constructing a deck again for the first time in a very long time.
I bought a few starter decks and structure decks, but I can't seem to whittle down the number of cards to a reasonable number because in my head they all have utility.
Is there a good method to use for cutting cards and maximizing utility?

When you say cutting cards you do not mean shuffling but removing them from your deck?

@JoeW with the [tag:deck-building] on the question, the term "cutting cards" is fairly standard in TCGs for removing cards from the planned deck until it is the correct size to play. The question as it stands isn't actually unclear, though the answer is going to be "not really"

@Andrew Maybe for some but not for everyone, when I read this question the first thing that came to mind was shuffling cards which is why I asked the question.

There really is no single answer to this question, because which cards are best in a deck depend on the strategy for that deck, different kind of strategies see the same cards with different levels of utility. Even then the same card in the same deck could vary widely in utility based on the metagame - how useful the card is against the decks your opponents will be playing, and this changes pretty heavily over time as new options are printed and from group to group, where different strategies are more dominant and more common than in other groups.
The best ways to make cuts are either to play the deck oversized, or play it using your best guess at cuts and making adjustments. The first option lets you see what cards are least useful or "dead" most often - that gives you a more objective choices about which ones are best to cut, but takes a lot of games to figure out, since the oversize deck makes you less consistent already. the second option lets you see how well each version of the deck performs then make changes, but it too needs a lot of testing to fine tune.


text:
Name of Solitaire that is similar to Carpet
Looking for name of solitaire game my mom taught me in the 70's.

I think it was 2 decks.

Deal cards in a grid form, maybe 5x5 not sure of size:

First card face up, rest down,
repeat with 2nd card up, rest down,
3rd card face up, rest down, etc until all cards are dealt into these piles in grid,

unsure of a stockpile.

Object is to put cards aces up and kings down 8 spaces at top. You
put the face up cards in grid up top in order then flip over next
card. You win when all cards are put up top and removed from grid.

Carpet game is similar except only 1 card in each pile on grid. I am
sure the each of piles have more than one card except for first card.

Hi. I believe it would help if you could provide a picture. It's hard to imagine the grid accurately from your description.


text:
Can someone choose to not use their “get out of jail free”-card in Monopoly?
We were playing Monopoly.

One of the players drew a ”Get out of jail free”-card.

On the next turn he landed on the ”Go to jail”-square and went straight to jail.

On the turn after that he decided to NOT use his ”Get out of jail free”-card.

We had an argument about whether he was required to use the card or not?
Is he free to not use it and to stay in the jail for the next three rounds as usual?

Not only can you stay in jail voluntarily, in many cases you should.  Starting somewhere around the mid-game in Monopoly (when most of the properties have been bought and people have started building houses), moving on the board becomes a liability (net negative expected value), and staying in jail gives you three turns of not needing to do that.
//
As far as I can tell, there is no coherent flavor justification for this.  That landlords should/do routinely go to jail is in keeping with the game's communist origins, but why they would want to go to jail and stay there makes no flavor sense.

@Zags The game's origins are not communist, they are from a now relatively obscure economic / tax reform movement. This is a bit of a nitpick, but there is an unhelpful tendency (particularly in US politics) to label anything more left-wing or liberal than the status quo as "communist", completely erasing the meaning of that term.

The problem is we started to build houses and hotels and he decided not to get out of jail cuz he don’t want to pay any rent and get bankrupt .. that’s why I asked about this situation

@IMSoP Fair point.  Georgist origins.

Turns out Jail was supposed to be a punishment.  Per this article, the original inventor of the game (Elizabeth Magie) once said "The rallying and chaffing of the others when one player finds himself an inmate of the jail, and the expressions of mock sympathy and condolence when one is obliged to betake himself to the poor house, make a large part of the fun and merriment of the game.”

@HossamShafie Right, staying in jail to avoid landing on houses/hotels is the optimal way to play.

@Zags People in real life sometimes intentionally get themselves sent to jail to have a place to stay the night. And flavor-wise, we already have the question of why someone who owns several hotels would be paying rent to other people.

@Acccumulation: This is getting off topic, but, as a Georgist allegory, Monopoly's "rent" is an abstraction over all kinds of economic rent, not just the "rent" that you pay your landlord. For example, if someone owns an oil well, and exploits it, then some portion of their profits can be attributed purely to the fact that they own a well and most people don't - that's rent, and everyone buying the oil is paying for it. (Incidentally, the fact that it can be profitable to sit in jail says a lot about the behavior of modern corporations...)

@Zags: Prison is not there to signify that landlords have to go to jail - the limited amount of players just leads to inevitably every player needing to be a landlord of some variety. You've fallen prey to the law of small numbers The existence of prison on the board is making a comment on the notion that prison can be looked at as "free housing" when the supposed "free" outside world becomes capitalistically hostile to reside in.

Yes. You do not have to use the "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Although there is not a specific rule stating this, you don't have to do anything in the game unless there is a rule that says you have to do it (I.E., there is a specific rule that says that if you land on the Go to Jail space, you must move to Jail).
The rules about the "Get Out of Jail Free" card simply state:

You get out of Jail by… (1) throwing doubles on any of your next
three turns; if you succeed in doing this you immediately move
forward the number of spaces shown by your doubles throw; even
though you had thrown doubles, you do not take another turn;
(2) using the “Get Out of Jail Free” card if you have it; (3) purchasing
the “Get Out of Jail Free” card from another player and playing it;
(4) paying a fine of $50 before you roll the dice on either of your next
two turns.
If you do not throw doubles by your third turn, you must pay the
$50 fine.

Using the card is simply listed as a way that you can get out of Jail, just like paying the $50 is. Note that paying the $50 is mandatory if you don't get out of Jail for free (with the card or by rolling doubles) within 3 turns.

Does this mean that if you fail to get double 3 times you must pay the $50, even if you have a Get Out of Jail Free card you would prefer to use? Would you have to use the card before the 3rd role?

@Kosaro Yes, that is correct. If you do not throw doubles by your third turn, you must pay the $50 fine. Since you've thrown the dice a third time and failed to get doubles, you are required to pay.

Wow, I was always the kid chastising others for playing by whatever silly house rules instead of the actual rules, and even I missed that you still have to pay after serving your time. Counterintuitive, frankly.

I also always played that you could use the card after the third non-doubles roll. Truly not intuitive.

To be fair the language is ambiguous... 1) " if you succeed" implies you WANT to.  But you might throw 3 and "oh hell I have to".  2) "using the “Get Out of Jail Free” card if you have it" - using implies will, maybe 3) purchasing - obviously not compelled 4) " paying a fine of $50 " [ implied voluntary] 5) "by your third turn, you must pay the $50 fine." compelled I say. The trick is, game suggests you want to get out, but, you (probably) don't - : maybe the solution is , agree house rules before playing?

Also rather counterintuitively, the rules appear to say that (1) you have three turns to roll a double; (2) on the first two turns, you can pay $50 before you roll to pay your release; (3) but on the third turn, you can’t. So if you don’t have a card available and don’t roll a double on your first two turns, you have to use your third attempt at a double and then (assuming you fail) pay $50. I suppose this is to prevent players from deliberately extending their stay in jail to four turns.

@JanusBahsJacquet I interpret the intention differently. In the first two turns, you can't roll and only if the roll fails then decide to just pay the fine. Assuming players want to be released as soon as possible, which is how the rules were written, either pay the fine and be guaranteed to get out early, or roll the literal dice and maybe you can get an early release. In the third turn, however, there is no more early release, so the negative effect of rolling the dice (= chance of not getting released) dissipates and the positive effect of not needing to pay the fine is all that remains.

@JanusBahsJacquet: I do agree that the rules seem to imply that this is a rule to be enforced against the player's will rather than something that the players would want (thus not needing to make it an enforced rule), but the slight difference in how the third turn works actually describes the optimal player strategy, given how the first two turns are mandated to work (all under the assumption that a player wants an early release, which is how the rules were originally written)

@Flater Well, to an extent, yes. If a player wants to be released from jail, there’s very little incentive to pay the $50 before rolling the dice on the third turn – the only thing you’d be doing is throw away a potential chance to get out without paying. It’s still odd that the rules actually forbid you from doing this, though – it’s your money, after all, and if you want to waste it, that’s your choice. The only way that part of the rules makes sense is if you want to prevent the player from obtaining a fourth turn in jail.

@JanusBahsJacquet I think there is a difference… if you pay to get out of jail before rolling, the rolling doubles means you get an extra turn after. If you don’t pay to get out; then getting doubles doesn’t allow you to go twice.

@GendoIkari You can’t pay and then roll in the same turn – paying ends your turn just like rolling does (at least according to these rules). If you pay and then roll a double on your next turn, that will indeed be a regular double – but still on your next turn. That’s what I mean by preventing a fourth turn in jail: if you could pay before rolling on the third turn, you would use your turn on that and wouldn’t be able to roll until your fourth turn.

@JanusBahsJacquet The rules I quote in my answer specifically refer to paying the $50 fine before you roll on your turn.

Yes, right you are. I got myself confused by the different rule sets which actually contradict each other. But the third turn is still ‘special’ in the rules you quoted, in that you cannot pay and then potentially get a double turn by rolling a double the way you can on the first two turns.


text:
Can't remember the name of tactical board game
I've played a board game on a digital platform (Tabletopia) 3 years ago, but can't remember the name. I have searched for it a long time but found nothing.
The game was a tactical board game in which each player had a squad of mechs / war vehicles. The map was divided in squares and each square had it's own terrain type with bonuses or disadvantages (the map was a photo realistic top view of the battlefield). For example forest hid your units and made it harder for them to be hit, high ground gave better accuracy, etc.
There were also some rules about zones which would be hit by meteorites, if I remember correctly. The game had miniatures for the units.
The game wasn't set in a well known universe like Warhammer 40k, Battletech or Mechwarriors. It was most likely made from scratch by the board game creators.

Any nearly indestructible super-tanks?  Thinking it might be a digital recreation/knockoff of Steve Jackson's Ogre mini-game.

Sounds more like a user created tabletop simulator game.

Farsight comes to mind, its around 5 years old, has minatures, hazards, is on Tabletopia, realistic background, uses squares and has mechs.

At first pass, I didn't see Farsight in the list of games on Tabletopia, but it definitely exists.
Thanks to @Zibelas for the heads up.
This game matches several of your criteria.

3 years ago -> Released in 2017.
tactical board game -> The rule book flavor text says "The survivors will not be the strongest warriors - they will be the greatest tacticians."
each player had a squad of mechs / war vehicles and The game had miniatures for the units -> No vehicles, but others are shown here:

The map was divided in squares -> Yes, shown here:

terrain type with bonuses or disadvantages ... forest hid your units and made it harder for them to be hit -> Yes, on page 11 the rules mentions a forest rule "attackers receive a -1 Attack penalty."
high ground gave better accuracy -> Yes, the rules attribute this rule "gains +1 Attack / Defence strength. Artillery on a hill gains +1 range, allowing it to fire 4 spaces" to hills.
hit by meteorites -> Page 18 of the rules details a Meteors rule "Roll a D10 to determine which square in each zone is hit".
wasn't set in a well known universe -> Yes, the rulebook has a bleak universe. "In the future, there will be no countries - only corporations.
Powerful Private Militias fight viciously over the Earth’s last remaining resources."


text:
Swap Top and Bottom card in Exploding Kittens
In a recent game, our discard pile was down to 1 card, an exploding kitten. A Swap Top and Bottom card was played by the next player. In this situation when there is only one card left in the draw pile being an exploding kitten, is it reasonable to create a new draw pile from the discards and swap the cards or would the swap top and bottom card be useless? Some guidance on this would be appreciated.

No, creating a new draw pile from the discards does not make sense in Exploding Kittens.
Although this is a common thing to do in some other games, the instructions of those games specifically say that you should do that. In Exploding Kittens, there's no such rule as re-shuffling the discard pile to form a new draw pile. It's simply not something you ever can do in the game.
The rules do specify "You won't ever run out of cards in the Draw Pile".
In the case of "Swap top and bottom", if taken completely literally, the top card and the bottom card are both the same card. So you swap it with itself, thus changing nothing.
You could ask a similar question about "Look at 3", and then I'd suggest that the most reasonable thing is to simply do as much as you can, which would be look at just 1 (or 2, etc). But you can't just invent a "shuffle the discard pile" rule.


text:
Wild Draw Color Card in UNO Flip: How do we know that other person has drawn until matching color
As per UNO Flip Rules, Wild Draw Color Card – When you play this card, the next player must draw until they get a color of your choosing (no matter how many cards they have to draw to do so) and lose their turn.
But how can we ensure or know that the other player has drawn until they got the color of our choosing? They can lie, right?

Are you concerned about them drawing fewer cards than they have to, more cards than they have to, or both?

Both in general. I felt like the rules are not well thought out.

Under the base rules of the game you can't know and have to trust them as there is no way to see what cards they are drawing. The only way to know with 100% certainty would be to create a house rule requiring them to reveal every card that they draw. However that would put them at a disadvantage as other players would have a good idea about what was in their hand.

You could also have a "challenge" rule llke you do for playing a Wild +4.

Just have them show the final matching card. If they want to draw more cards than required, that's on them...

@ilkkachu That only means the final card they draw is matching but they could have also drawn other matching cards and chosen to continue to draw for various reasons.

@JoeW, yes, and if the aim of the game is to get rid of your cards, that doesn't seem like an obvious advantage.

@ilkkachu True but there are players that would lie to draw more cards for various reasons. Not drawing enough isn’t the only concern when playing a game like uno.

I felt like having a house rule of playing the matching card, can at least stop players from taking fewer cards.

The UNO Flip! Splash rules (from 2020) now clearly handles this situation, in that.
When the correct colored card is drawn:

the player has to show the card to the other players.

Wild Draw Color Card – When you play this card, the next player must draw until they get a color of your choosing (no matter how many cards they have to draw to do so) and lose their turn. Once the player has drawn a card of the chosen color, they must show it to the other players for verification...


text:
Leftover cards in phase 2 with Dinosaur hero
The Claim expansion "Reinforcements: Mercenaries" contains hero cards, including the Dinosaur card which states

In Phase 2, if this card is defeated then you can add it back into your hand.

Does this mean the player has additional hand cards at the end of Phase 2? Are those simply omitted from the scoring, or do they count as extra cards for that player?

What game is this about?

@JoeW it's Claim, there's no tag yet and I can't make one.

I've added links to the publisher's page.

Thanks, I have added a tag for the game.


text:
Why would two Vorinclex, Monstrous Raiders cause sagas to enter with 0 counters?
I played a match on MTG Arena where, to my surprise, effects got resolved in my favor. I had a Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider on the battlefield and my opponent cast Verdant Rejuvenation. They pulled a bunch of sagas and their own Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider. At the moment my expectation was each Vorinclex would cancel out and the sagas would come with 1 counter, but they came up with 0.
My understanding is that their Monstrous Raider and sagas entering the battlefield together shouldn't be an issue. Previously on the same match my own Verdant Rejuvenation pulled a Lotus Cobra and other creatures while I had Ashaya, Soul of the Wild, causing the Cobra's landfall to trigger for all creatures put together into play.
Now checking the rulings for Vorinclex I can see:

If two or more effects attempt to modify how many counters would be put onto a permanent you control, you choose the order to apply those effects, no matter who controls the sources of those effects.

But Arena doesn't prompt for the order to apply replacement effects, as they don't use the stack [Edit: incorrect, there's an option to order these effects]. Could this be a bug/limitation where Arena decided to apply my Vorinclex first, reducing saga counters to 0, followed my opponent's Vorinclex?

Minor note: Vorinclex's abilities create replacement effects. "State-based effects" don't exist in the rules, you probably have them mixed up with state-based actions. The only relation between replacement effects and SBAs is that neither use the stack.

Thanks @Hackworth, I updated the question accordingly

See also https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/58045/why-dont-i-get-the-choice-of-order-of-abilities-of-some-permanents-to-maximise

The opponent's Vorinclex cannot affect their sagas because they are entering the battlefield at the same time.
First, the effect that causes a saga to enter with a lore counter is rule 715.3a:

As a Saga without the read ahead ability enters the battlefield, its controller puts a lore counter on it. (See rule 702.155, “Read Ahead.”)

This is an enters-the-battlefield replacement effect, so it is governed by rule 614.12:

Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities that would apply to it once it’s on the battlefield, and continuous effects that already exist and would apply to the permanent.

Verdant Rejuvenation puts the Sagas and Vorinclex on the battlefield at the same time, so that player's Vorinclex's ability does not already exist at the time that you are applying the Sagas' replacement effects. However, the other player's Vorinclex is already on the battlefield, so its effect does apply.


text:
Can you put an Aura on a creature after Sludge Monster's effect?
If I enchant a creature with an aura after Sludge Monster puts a counter on it, and makes it a 2/2 with no abilities, will the aura work? The rules specifically say the aura wouldn't work if it was on the creature before-hand. I'm trying to see if I can give it an ability, such as flying, after.

Any ability modification after the Sludge Monster enters the battlefield will apply on top of its effect that makes a creature a 2/2 with no abilities. It doesn't matter when the counter is added.
When two effects make the same kind of modification to an object's characteristics (changing its abilities, in this case), they are by default applied in timestamp order. This order is generally what you would intuitively expect: you apply effects that were created earlier, and then effects that were created later. In this particular case, the effect comes from Sludge Monster's second ability, which is a static ability, so its timestamp is determined by rule 613.7a:

A continuous effect generated by a static ability has the same timestamp as the object the static ability is on, or the timestamp of the effect that created the ability, whichever is later. [...]

Any effect that adds abilities that is created after the Sludge Monster enters the battlefield applies after the abilities are removed, so the creature will keep those abilities.


text:
Dune: Imperium faction cards require no specific influence to buy?
I've watches several videos, played two games, and read the rules a couple times. There doesn't seem to be a requirement of any specific amount of influence with a faction to buy a card from the Imperium Deck?
For example, I may spent 2 persuasion to buy this card even if I have never increase my influence with the spacing guild?

This is correct, you do not need any kind of specific Faction influence to buy cards from the Imperium Deck. The only thing you need is persuasion.
For reference, Page 11 of The Official Rulebook on acquiring cards says:

The Persuasion you gain during a round is used during your Reveal turn to acquire new cards for your deck. You may acquire any of the five cards in the Imperium Row, or Arrakis Liaison or The Spice Must Flow from the Reserve.

Some cards and decks benefit from having the same faction. For example, The Fremen Bond (Explained on page 16 in the Icon Guide and Additional Terms page) gives you a bonus if you've played multiple Fremen Faction cards during your turn. Expansions may (or may not) expand on this idea further.


text:
You still pay costs for sending an agent to a space with the Kwisatz Haderach card in Dune: Imperium?
A recent game had the table debating whether or no you still must pay costs of spaces your agent with the Kwisatz Haderach card. I could not find any place that specifically exempts the card's resent agent from having to pay.
The key thing that players suggested you don't is that ANY on the card is in all caps.
If you send your agent to a space requiring 2 spice, you still must pay the spice for that placement?

The card specific rules in the book:

Kwisatz Haderach — You may play this card to take an Agent turn even if you have no Agents left in your supply, as it lets you send an Agent that is already on a board space. You may send an Agent back to the space that it was just on.
If a board space can be used only once per game (High Council, Swordmaster), you can’t use Kwisatz Haderach to send an Agent there more than once. You can’t overcome The Voice and send an Agent to a board space where you can’t send an Agent.
If you move an agent away from a space with a Maker icon, and that space remains empty until Phase 4, bonus spice does accumulate there.

The vital aspect of the rule clarification is in bold below:

Kwisatz Haderach — You may play this card to take an Agent turn even
if you have no Agents left in your supply, it lets you send an
Agent that is already on board space.

This suggests that you still have the pay the costs just as you would during a normal Agent turn, described on Page 9 of The Official Rulebook. Besides being able to move an occupied space (as described on the card), all other Agent turn rules apply.

That's a great find. I missed the "agent turn" bit. That makes all the difference.


text:
Using Cavern of Souls to cast a colorless creature of the chosen type, is it counterable?
With a Cavern of Souls in play and Eldrazi chosen, I cast Thought-Knot Seer expecting it to be uncounterable.
It has been suggested this is not true if colorless mana is required. What rules prevent the creature form being uncounterable due to the mana used?

So this would refer to say a create with CMC 1 and only the Colorless mana symbol? https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/official-rulings/ - should a create like that be printed Cavern would not work?

I added a note in my answer explaining that ruling.

Do you have another source of colorless mana? In this particular case, that's a very important detail.

In a deck with TKS, it wouldn’t be an issue. But I can see circumstances could arise where it’s an issue. Especially early turns and 1-2 CMC creatures that require colorless to cast.

If you cast Thought-Knot Seer using mana created by Cavern of Souls' second ability, that spell cannot be countered.
Thought-Knot Seer has a mana cost that includes both colorless and generic components. Cavern of Souls' first ability creates colorless mana, but does not make spells uncounterable. Its second ability produces only colored mana, and can make spells uncounterable. That colored mana can be spent to pay the generic component of Thought-Knot Seer's mana cost, and doing so will make it uncounterable.
Regarding the linked ruling that says the following:

If a player uses Cavern of Souls to cast a creature of the chosen type, it’s assumed they use the “can’t be countered” ability unless they explicitly state otherwise.
The only exception is if they require the colorless mana to cast the spell.

Many rules and rulings for tournament play do not directly concern the comprehensive rules, but rather describe default shortcuts and assumptions that should be applied when players communicate in a way that would be ambiguous according to a strict reading of the comprehensive rules.
This particular ruling means that if a player taps lands including Cavern of Souls to cast a creature of the chosen type, it is assumed by default that the player is activating Cavern of Souls' second ability. However, if the cost requires colorless mana and the Cavern's first ability is needed to generate enough colorless mana, the player is assumed to be activating the first ability instead.

Regarding the assumption of which ability is used to generate mana, if you're used to announcing which type of mana you're adding (i.e. "I'll tap Cavern of Souls for red mana"), you can relax, because due to both abilities fortunately generating entirely different types of mana, this phrase is unambiguous.

For maximum clarity: The second ability is assumed by default, unless casting the spell is not possible that way.

The spell will be uncounterable.
The mana that Cavern of Souls' second ability produces can be of any color (and thus can not be colorless — it has to be white, blue, black, red, or green). Also you do have to use that colored mana for a creature spell of the chosen type. Theoretically that might be impossible, if a creature only required colorless mana. (In 12/2022 there is no spell like that.)
But since you can use your colored mana to spend it on the Thought-Knot Seer for the generic mana part (and add at least one colorless mana), it will be uncounterable due to Cavern of Souls' ability.

"The mana Cavern of Souls produces can be of any color (and thus can not be colorless - it has to be white, blue, black, red, or green)." That is false. Its second ability doesn't produce colorless mana, but its first does. If the player doesn't have any other source of colorless mana, then Cavern of Souls must be tapped for colorless mana.


text:
Are costs always paid sequentially?
According to Rule 601.2h...
"The player pays the total cost. First, they pay all costs that don’t involve random elements or moving objects from the library to a public zone, in any order. Then they pay all remaining costs in any order."
Does "in any order" imply that all cost payment actions are broken down to their most basic components and applied sequentially, even if they would be applied simultaneously otherwise?  For example, an instruction to sacrifice multiple creatures NOT as a cost would require them to be sacrificed simultaneously (although the decision process would be sequential, see Rankle Master of Pranks rulings on Gatherer).  If multiple creatures are sacrificed as a cost, is it a sequential process?  Can a player first sacrifice Hostage Taker as a cost to cast Plumb the Forbidden or Bankrupt in Blood, and then sacrifice a creature Hostage Taker returns to their control from exile?  In the case of Bankrupt in Blood, does it matter whether the player already controlled a second creature, either to be allowed to cast the spell or to make it past Rule 601.2e...
"The game checks to see if the proposed spell can legally be cast. If the proposed spell is illegal, the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed (see rule 728, “Handling Illegal Actions”)"
...before doing this type of cost payment, or does the game foresee that the cost will be payable due to Hostage Taker's effect and allow the casting process to reach the cost payment stage?

I don't see what you're getting at here. When you sacrifice Hostage Taker, all that happens is that a trigger goes on the stack; no creature is returned until the trigger resolves after you have finished paying all costs so you certainly can't do anything with the creature that might be returned.

@PhilipKendall I don't believe this is correct.  According to Gatherer, "If it's still in exile, the exiled card returns to the battlefield immediately after Hostage Taker leaves the battlefield. Nothing happens between the two events, including state-based actions."

Yeah, Hostage Taker is an "until this leaves the battlefield"-type exile ability, it doesn't use a triggered ability to return the exiled creature.

601.2e definitely seems irrelevant here. In general, you cannot expect to be able to pay a spell's cost at that point, because a mana cost can only be paid by mana in a mana pool, and you are not required to have that much mana in your mana pool until you have the opportunity to add it in step 601.2g, and mana abilities can be non-deterministic, so you may not even know at that point whether it is possible to generate the required mana.

My interpretation of the wording of 601.2f and 601.2h is that e.g. Bankrupt in Blood has two "costs", "1B" and "sacrifice two creatures" and that you may pay those two costs in either order, but that each cost is an atomic action. Throughout rule 601.2, "costs" is used to refer to e.g. a mana cost or an additional cost, but not the specific things you spend to pay them. Each point of mana in a mana cost isn't a separate cost, for instance. But although that interpretation makes sense to me, I can't find anything that specifically proves it.

I was just about to say the same as Cadence. I think “sacrifice two creatures” is one single cost.  But I can’t find a comprehensive rule specifying that.

Sacrificing multiple creatures is a single atomic action that must be taken all at once.
First, consider the following rules in the resolving spells and abilities section:

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. [...]
608.2e Some spells and abilities have multiple steps or actions, denoted by separate sentences or clauses, that involve multiple players. In these cases, the choices for the first action are made in APNAP order, and then the first action is processed simultaneously. Then the choices for the second action are made in APNAP order, and then that action is processed simultaneously, and so on. See rule 101.4.

The first of those rules mirrors the quotation of 601.2h: like a cost, a resolving spell or ability consists of a set of actions that the player takes in a particular order, with the difference that the player can choose the order when paying costs. The second of those rules indicates that there is a specific way to divide a sequence of actions into individual actions that cannot be further subdivided. Since the rules do not further specify this for costs, the most reasonable interpretation is that the same method of division applies to costs as to effects.
The card Barter in Blood is a sorcery with the text "Each player sacrifices two creatures.", and it has the following ruling:

The active player chooses which creatures will be sacrificed first, then each other player in turn order does the same. Then all creatures are sacrificed simultaneously.

This shows that in the context of resolving a spell, "sacrifice two creatures" is a single action that cannot be subdivided. So, we should also treat it as such for costs.
For contrast, consider rule 121.2:

Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.

This rule sets the precedent that if an action can be subdivided into multiple sequential component actions, the rules will explicitly specify that this is the case. No such rule exists for the "sacrifice" action.

Yeah, the Barter in Blood ruling is another example of the Rankle ruling, with one player making both sacrifices but ruled by the same game mechanic.  However, the question presents at least an ambiguous indication in the rules that costs may behave differently, due to the "in any order" clause.  Since the question aims to resolve this ambiguity, it feels a bit unsatisfying to just say there is no such indication at all.

I'll make an edit to try to expand on my reasoning of why this ruling is transferable.

No, when you sacrifice Hostage Taker as a cost, you can't sacrifice its hostage as a cost for the same spell.
Even though the creature exiled by Hostage Taker returns immediately, it's not eligible to be sacrificed for the same spell or ability. That's because all costs for that spell or ability have already been determined in a previous step of the spell casting process. By that time, the hostage was not available, and you can't change the cost afterwards.

Casting Spells

601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. [..] Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” [..]
601.2h The player pays the total cost. First, they pay all costs that don’t involve random elements or moving objects from the library to a public zone, in any order. Then they pay all remaining costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.

The rules instruct you to pay a spell's cost "in any order", possibly implying that sacrificing the Hostage Taker immediately frees up the exiled creature to sacrifice for that spell (assuming it returns under your control). However, the rules do determine that you have to generate all the necessary mana before you start paying it:

601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.

Therefore, I argue that the same applies to non-mana costs, and you can't sacrifice a creature you didn't control when you started paying costs.

601.2f doesn't appear to refer to locking in any specific sacrifices, so much as locking in that the spell might cost "sacrifice two creatures". This is more to do with things like a creature being sacrificed as part of paying the cost that might alter the mana cost we'd calculate—this doesn't happen because the cost is locked in already.

Activating mana abilities is clearly a separate thing from paying costs, so of course it has to happen in a separate step. I don't see how that implies anything about the process of paying costs itself. And 601.2f cannot possibly lock in costs that specifically, because the color and/or source of mana that will be spent may not be completely known at that point, and may be fully determined only in step 601.2g.


text:
Missed State-Triggered Abilities
Player A controls Emperor Crocodile and some other creatures.  The other creatures leave the battlefield, and only Emperor Crocodile remains.  The state-triggered ability is not noticed, and some further actions are taken, say Player A plays another creature and then a draw spell which draws into Tale's End.
After this, it is noticed that Emperor Crocodile's triggered ability was missed.  It is decided post-investigation that the infraction will be Missed Trigger (not Cheating), and Player B decides to put Emperor Crocodile's triggered ability onto the stack.  Player A responds with Tale's End, countering it.
Can Player B then acknowledge another instance of Emperor Crocodile's missed triggered ability, and put it onto the stack?  The reasoning is that the state-triggered ability would have triggered an infinite number of times between the time the last other creature left the battlefield and the time the new creature was played, or at the least, it would have triggered in between every other game action.  If not, could Player B have acknowledged multiple instances of the missed triggered ability during the initial judge call, and put all of them onto the stack?

This situation is so narrow and unusual that it is not addressed by the Infraction Procedure Guide, and the handling would be up to the judge's discretion.
State-triggered abilities are unusual, and detrimental state-triggered abilities are even rarer, and the IPG does not specifically address them at all. In addition, countering a state-triggered ability never makes sense in normal play except for very rare cases where the spell or ability also has another relevant effect.
A judge could reasonably rule that by the letter of the IPG, only one instance of the ability is put on the stack, but a judge could also reasonably rule that the ability would have triggered again, so another instance goes on the stack. Personally, I would expect the latter, because in this situation Player A is clearly taking advantage of the details of a remedy to their own error to gain an advantage in a way that would not be possible in normal play.
Note that no matter what the final outcome is, Player A should be penalized for the initial error here, as specified in this passage from the IPG:

If the triggered ability is usually considered detrimental for the controlling player and they own the card responsible for the existence of the trigger, the penalty is a Warning.


text:
How many lands in total can be put into play with Map the Frontier?
The card Map the Frontier has the text:

Search your library for up to two basic land cards and/or Desert cards, put them onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle.

Does this mean 2 total lands can be put onto the battlefield tapped or that 4 total lands can be put onto the battlefield if 2 of them were basic lands and 2 of them were Desert?

The text says and/or which is saying that you can put 0-2 basic lands, or 1 basic land and 1 desert, or 0-2 deserts into play. The total amount is only 2 lands but it can be split between basic lands and deserts.

It's up to two of the category "basic land cards and/or Desert cards". If it were four cards, it would be be "up to two each of basic land cards and Desert cards" or "up to two basic land cards and/or up to two Desert cards"

I've found some examples with one of your alternate wordings, though they're all "up to one X and/or up to one Y" instead of two: Finale of Promise, Chaotic Transformation, and Volatile Arsonist.

This is the best answer because it explains how the grammar of "Magic-ese" (Oracle text) works. It's designed to be interpreted according to specific rules, and when thus interpreted, it is as unambiguous as computer code.

The text is meant to be interpreted as "Search your library for up to two cards, each of which is a basic land card and/or a Desert card."

I think you can leave the "and" out of this formulation: There is no basic land that is a desert and odds are there won't be any anytime soon.

@JoachimSauer Sure. But this kind of formulation appears in more places than just this card, with just these characteristics. A card like Sylvan Reclamation with its formulation "Exile up to two target artifacts and/or enchantments." would definitely be able to find cards that fit both criteria. There might not be many cards that are printed as Enchantment Artifact, but it isn't very difficult to alter cards on the battlefield to become one.

Maybe Celestial Gatekeeper is an even clearer example, considering the card itself as printed fullfils both criteria simultaneously (and by the rules specification on Gatherer, is allowed to target itself, although it won't be very useful).

Yes, I understand all of that in general. The only reason I suggested removing the "and" was that one side was "Basic", which is a very limited supertype that's only gotten cards added to it 3 times (4 if you count Alpha ;-)).

@JoachimSauer Sure. And I'm also of the conviction that "or" should be inclusive by default, which would mean that "and" is even more superfluous here. But MTG phrasing is standardised and doesn't take into consideration whether a specific combination of characteristics exists when putting words to a card. So I decided not to either. (As I was searchinng for these examples, I for instance came across plenty of cards that searched your library for "basic land card and/or Gate card", and that's also a combination that's not likely to ever appear on a single land. Yet the phrasing is there.)

@JoachimSauer It is possible with the cards that currently exist for a land to be a basic desert. If the person doing the searching has Rootpath Purifier in play that would be the case.


text:
3 Player Hand and Foot Canasta
I was taught to play Hand and Foot Canasta while I was in Rehab at a nursing home by these older women. I have not been able to find a game where this "version" is played anymore. (in fact, those women have adopted a new way now since I left!) I have tried to find people interested in playing but usually only wind up with one, maybe two people! (I'm just not charismatic enough, I guess) Is it possible to play H&F with THREE PEOPLE? Would that work? I guess we would have to have a rule where the partner would not be able to pick up the discard pile if their partner throws something down they could use. But are there any other problems?

Are you asking if you can play with 3 people? If that is the case you should make your title more clear.

lol, I thought by saying "3 player" that was pretty clear. I forgot to add an "s".   3 people playing the game. Yes, three people. Thanks for making me clear it up.

It's not the lack of the any s, there shouldn't even be another s there as written (though player is better than saying handed) the question title should tell people what your question is asking, something like "Can you play Hand and Foot Canasta with 3 Players?" would be best.

Oh, I see. It was my mistake. I saw "Title" and figured they only meant for me to put a subject matter in that box. Not the actual question. And then below I thought I was supposed to ask the question. First time here, I didn't know.

Not a problem, your title is all people see on the home view, and people are more likely to go into a question when they believe they can answer what you're asking from that.

In 3 player Canasta, Hand and Foot or any other variant, there wouldn't be any "partners", so there is no rule issue discarding something your partner could use.
There is no 1 official ruleset for Hand and Foot Canasta, but there are sources that say that the player count does not have to be 4:
https://www.pagat.com/rummy/handfoot.html

Any number of people from two to six can play, using one more deck of cards than the number of players. Four or six can play as partners; with two three or five, everyone must play for themselves.

https://playingcarddecks.com/blogs/how-to-play/hand-and-foot-game-rules

Hand and Foot uses about 5 or 6 decks of standard playing cards and is played with 2-6 players.

Yes, I know if there are only 3 people playing H & F Canasta, that normally they would play individually. What I am asking is, if we three people played as one team against one person, what kind of problems might there be? I have only been playing the game for about 5 years. I've never done that before (two against one) but I just wanted to find out if anyone has ever done it. Thanks

I also did that very thing today, it was okay. We just had to stipulate that the partner was not allowed to pick up the discard pile once their partner discarded. We played two games and both times the single person got clobbered. Thanks anyway.

Your question was not clear on that point at all. Hand and Foot already works normally as a 3-player game without any partnerships, so I'm not sure why would try to play a variant where you use uneven teams. Some games are designed around that concept; but they require all sorts of rules to deal with the fact that the game is 2 vs 1 while still being fair. You can't just take a game designed around equal teams and expect it to be fair when teams are not equal.


text:
Land comes in tapped but untapped?
If I have a Gond Gate and I cast Circuitous Route do the gates still come in tapped or do they come in untapped because of Gond gate?

When your gate enters while you also control Gond Gate, you can choose whether they enter tapped or untapped. It does not matter whether it entered through Circuitous Route or any other way.
Both Gond Gate and regular gates have a replacement effect that act on the same event.

614.1d Continuous effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . .” or “[Objects] enter the battlefield . . .” are replacement effects.

Since you control both Gond Gate and the gate(s) that entered, you can choose which to apply last (for each gate individually) and thus which one wins.
The "enters tapped" clause of Circuitous Route is not a replacement effect and thus will always be replaced by either Gond Gate or the regular gates, whichever you choose to win.


text:
Phase 10 Skip Card usage
Can Skip Card be used if you have not laid down a phase?  Just like you can't lay down on someone without having laid down your phase yet.

Yes, you can play a skip card anytime it's your turn to play. The rules don't make any connection between laying down a phase and playing a skip card.

Draw a card from either the Draw Pile or the Discard Pile, and add it to your hand. And then, discard any card that you want onto the Discard Pile.

Skip Card – This card enables you to force someone to skip or lose a turn for that particular rotation/round. Once you discard or play it down, you can choose anyone to lose their turn. The Skip card may not be picked up from the Discard Pile, only from the Draw Pile.

https://www.unorules.com/phase-10-rules/


text:
land that temporarily became a land creature and the graveyard
I'm casting Wrenn and Realmbreaker. I'm using her +1 to make a land a creature until my next turn. My opponent during his turn casts Invoke Despair and so I have to sacrifice my land creature (as its my only one). I'd like to rescue it though, so in response I'm casting Not Dead After All. As a consequence of the land creature going to the graveyard, does it lose its (temporary) creature type, and therefore does not come back to the battlefield?

The land card is not a creature card in the graveyard, but that doesn't matter for Not Dead After All: the card still returns to the battlefield, but it can't get a Wicked Role because it is not a creature after it comes back.
The spell Not Dead After All affects "target creature", so the permanent needs to be a creature at that time to get the ability, but the ability it grants doesn't actually care. It says "this creature", but that is just another way of saying "this permanent". After that, the ability doesn't check in any way that the card still has the creature type once it moves to the graveyard, so that doesn't make a difference in how the rest of the effect is handled.
The Wicked Role is defined in rule 111.10q:

A Wicked Role token is a colorless Aura Role enchantment token named Wicked with enchant creature, “Enchanted creature gets +1/+1,” and “When this Aura is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, each opponent loses 1 life.”

Since it has "enchant creature", it cannot legally be attached to the land that returns, so that part of the effect just doesn't happen.

Is there a rule that makes it clear that the aura token is not created but then goes to the graveyard because it cannot be attached to something?

I see the ruling on Not Dead After All that says this; but not sure which rule makes it that way.

Rule 303.4i: "If an effect attempts to put an Aura onto the battlefield attached to either an object or player it can’t legally enchant or an object or player that is undefined, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard instead of entering the battlefield. If the Aura is a token, it isn’t created."


text:
Constricting sliver interaction with commander creatures
Anyone able to determine (with citations) if the following interaction occurs with Constricting Sliver's effect:
Sliver creatures you control have "When this creature enters the battlefield, you may exile target creature an opponent controls until this creature leaves the battlefield."

Player 1 casts constricting sliver targeting enemy commander

Player 2 allows this to resolve. Commander is in exile.

Player 2 begins their turn, taps mana and declares casting commander.

Player 1 casts counterspell and resolves.

Player 2 casts board wipe and all creatures are destroyed. Constricting sliver dies

exiled commander returns to the battlefield

Does the commander return to the battlefield despite being moved to the command zone in an attempt to recast in step 3)? ?

Note that your sequence of events is technically incorrect; the only option Player 2 had to move their commander to the command zone was just as it was exiled. If they allowed it to remain in exile until the end of their turn, they cannot move it to the command zone later. See CR 903.9a.

step 3 is illegal, you cannot attempt to cast a commander from exile (unless it's Squee, the Immortal which as a creature specifically can be cast from exile)

For multiple reasons, events cannot happen as described.
Immediately after the Constricting Sliver's ability resolves in step 2, player 2 has a choice: they can leave the commander in exile, or they can move it to the command zone. If they leave it in exile, then it will return to the battlefield if the Constricting Sliver dies, but they cannot try to cast it until then, and they don't get another chance to move it. If they move it, they can cast it as usual, but the Constricting Sliver loses track of it forever, and can never return it to the battlefield. This choice is described in rule 704.6d, and the Constricting Sliver loses track of it because of rules 400.7 and 400.7j:

704.6d In a Commander game, if a commander is in a graveyard or in exile and that object was put into that zone since the last time state-based actions were checked, its owner may put it into the command zone. See rule 903, “Commander.”
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. This rule has the following exceptions.

400.7j If an effect causes an object to move to a public zone, other parts of that effect can find that object. If the cost of a spell or ability causes an object to move to a public zone, that spell or ability’s effects can find that object.

Specifically, Constricting Sliver's effect moves the commander into exile, so it can find that card in exile, but once it leaves the exile zone, it becomes a different object that Constricting Sliver's effect can no longer find.
Step 3 is only possible if player 2 chose to move the commander to the command zone. In that step they cast the commander, moving it from the command zone to the stack.
In step 4, the commander spell is countered, moving it from the stack to the graveyard. After this happens, player 2 again has an opportunity to move it from the graveyard to the command zone.
In step 5, the Constricting Sliver dies. At this point, the card it exiled has moved from exile to the command zone, and then to the stack, and then to the graveyard, and then possibly to the command zone again. Constricting Sliver has entirely lost track of it, and does not bring it back after it dies.

Thanks- do they need to decide to send it to the command zone at the point of it being exiled? As in can they decide to let it be exiled, not sending it to the command zone in hopes that the sliver dies) and at a later turn, remove it from exile and cast it (basically the scenario with no counterspells)

You can never cast your commander from exile. If the sliver dies while the specific card is still exiled, it just returns to the battlefield, no need to cast it at all. It feels you have some misunderstandings about how commanders work - I would suggest clearing those up before worrying about slivers, counterspells and whatever else. Please do ask separate questions (not comments here) for those!

@PhilipKendall one exception, Squee, the Immortal, not that he's a popular choice for commander, but he is big part of food chain combo because of it.

@Sliverfan42069 yes, sending the card to command zone as it moves zones is a triggered/replacement (depending on where it's going) effect and they need to make that choice immediately when the card moves.

It's not a trigger, it's a state-based action.

The answer is, as always, Comprehensive Rule 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. This rule has the following exceptions. [A number of exceptions, none of which apply here]

As soon as the commander was moved from the exile zone to the command zone, it became a different object which was not the same object as exiled with Constricting Sliver, therefore it does not return to the battlefield when Constricting Sliver is destroyed.