text:
What was the largest flop in board game history?
The history of videogames is full of games that failed to turn a profit. There are also a handful of games that are maligned by critics, and are regarded as flops. E.T. and Pacman are arguably some of the first examples of video game flops (not in total sales, but in lower than expected sales that resulted in a financial loss). Battlefield Earth, Diakatana, APB and others for the PC that missed release dates and when finally released did abysmal sales.
What is the largest flop in board game history? I know the stakes in board games are much smaller, with print runs in the low thousands usually, but surely there must be an example of a board game that had much lower than expected sales, and the publisher took a big loss.

The Battleship movie is clearly the right answer!

@PatLudwig, I am sure you are joking, but I was interested in board game flops, not board game movies.

@PatLudwig, additionally since the movie cost $209 to make and received $215 internationally before only getting double digit returns in the US market, you can hardly call it a flop (it made money).

Could you be more clear in your definition of "flop"?  You cite Pacman as an example, despite the article you link saying "the game goes on to become the biggest selling Atari cartridge ever".

@bwarner, I am interested in profit & loss on a game. For example, even though Pacman sold 7 million copies, Atari spent $15 million in advertising, manufactured 12 million, and ensured some development costs to write the game. As I hinted at with Battleship the movie, it is possible that Pac-man shouldn't be considered a flop because it made money (possibly). I am hoping that some financials exist for some of the "failures" in board games. I hear that 4th Edition D&D was a flop in the RPG industry, but am unsure if it actually lost money.

I'm going to use a bit of lateral thinking to answer this question - since our site is Board Games: Stack Exchange but we spend about half our time here talking about card games, hopefully a trading card game is a valid answer.
The biggest ever "board/card game flop" that I can think of is Netrunner.  Given that Magic the Gathering had recently been such a surprise smash hit, getting Richard Garfield back into the studio to produce a sequel based on ultra-cool-at-the-time Cyberpunk trappings must have seemed like a guaranteed moneymaker.  If I remember correctly, the consensus among the gaming cognoscenti was that it was a better game mechanically and production-values-wise than Magic.
And yet Netrunner sold terribly, and was cancelled a couple of years later, before its second expansion could even be released; in 1999 Pyramid magazine named Netrunner as one of "The Millennium's Most Underrated Games".  Of course there's been a happy ending to the story since then, with it having been rereleased in the form on Android: Netrunner to critical acclaim and I hope moderate success, but as gaming flop stories go, I think you'll have a hard time finding a game with bigger expectations behind it than Netrunner doing quite as badly as Netrunner did.

Netrunner actually sold pretty well in the millions of copies. I think they over-produced the initial print run though.

@Nick - according to http://chimericalchain.hubpages.com/hub/The-Game-Graveyard-Remembering-the-Netrunner-CCG "sadly, it's sales did not compare to those of Magic: The Gathering, and Wizards of the Coast discontinued it in 1999 after the release of the small Netrunner Classic expansion." However many units it shifted, it didn't meet expectations, wasn't deemed profitable, and was discontinued before its time: is there any other definition of a flop?

I'm curious how Netrunner's performance compares to one of its contemporaries, Spellfire. Which was TSR's attempt to cash in on Magic without actually trying (as far as I can tell, at least) to make the game any good.

Oh yeah, I vaguely remember Spellfire looking completely appalling.  But then some would say Yu-Gi-Oh  is Magic with all the good stuff removed too, and that seems to have done very well for itself...

@thesunneversets Saying that 'Sales did not compare to those of M:tG' isn't a sign that the game didn't meet expectations; it's just a sign that the game wasn't Magic.  The game had an expansion, stayed in print for a couple of years and maintained enough of a cult following to get a license rescue - that's much, much more than can be said for most CCGs.  Netrunner wasn't even as much of a 'flop' as several Magic sets were.

Calling Netrunner the biggest flop ever is a travesty.   Absolute insanity.


text:
Discarding a card in Phase 10 that allows the next player to go out
We are enjoying the game Phase 10 but are unsure about one rule. According to the rules, is it ok to discard a playable card allowing the next player to go out? This ends the hand and causes each other player to have remaining cards in hand scored against them.
Is this considered fair play, to lose a particular hand on purpose?

Yes, it is permissible ... and there are some occasions where you may find it to be advantageous. For example:

One person may be on the same Phase as you and well ahead of the others, but she may not have made her current Phase yet. If you feel she is close and you are not, it may be worthwhile to "end" the hand so that neither of you can advance.
Similarly, one person may be leading in terms of points, but he may have not laid down any sets or runs yet. It may be to your advantage to discard a card the next person can use to go out so as to (hopefully) stick the leader with a lot of points.

However, as is the case in many games, what is legal according to the rules may not necessarily be acceptable according to your group. Discarding such a card in this case may lead to cries of bias for the person to your left or against the perceived victim of your play. It may be wise to determine which is the primary concern in your group, winning or enjoying the game, before you decide how to play the hand.
Of course, this assumes that you have multiple cards to discard, and that you have not yet made your Phase. If you have made your Phase, then any card in your hand that the next person could play is also playable by you; you should play that one yourself and discard a different card.
It may be the case that no matter what you discard, the next person will pick it up and go out, particularly in the Phases that require you to lay down 8 or 9 cards. For example, you may be on Phase 6, but you only have 8 cards to your run of 9, and the other two cards are playable. You draw a playable card: all three cards are playable, so you have no choice but to discard one. In that case, it may help to explain during scoring that you had no choice.

"Discarding such a card in this case may lead to cries of bias for the person to your left or against the perceived victim of your play" - In which case you tell them to grow a pair. It's Phase 10; the name is synonymous with "screw each other over as much as possible".

The bias against the perceived victim should be totally acceptable for anyone wanting to behead their opponents, in the order of the threat they pose.

In addition to the two very good situations Dave mentioned to throw the player to your left a bone, there's one more:

You've made your Phase, and a target opponent - not the one to your left - has not. If you have laid down your Phase but cannot go out, and the player to your left has laid down their Phase and is looking for that last lucky card to go out, you can throw them a card you'd otherwise use to hit on their Phase (or yours). You take a few points for the cards left in your hand, but stick the other players for big points. Perfectly valid play when you need to gain standing in points or Phases relative to that target player, and don't mind losing a couple points relative to the player on your left.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Which Dominion expansion playes best with two players?
I'm looking at picking up my first expansion for Dominion.  I play primarily with 2 players (total).
Which of the expansions would play best with two players, and why? (For example, a card like Tournament gets worse with more players, while a card like Pirate Ship gets better with more players. Which expansion, if any, seems to work best with two players.)

Hi, and welcome to the site! We've recently decided to put an end to all "recommendation" questions(see the FAQ). All the Dominion expansions are widely played by 2 and more players, I think any site with reviews will reflect this in their ratings. Please do bring us any more objective questions!

@user1873 Even if you took this to the extreme of "Which expansion cards play differently depending on the number of players?" that would just become a list question which wouldn't be a good question either.  I just don't think the question fits.

@bwarner, all answers are lists (of one). This wouldn't be a very long list, as ther are only a handful of expansions.

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


text:
Can Meddling Mage Be Used as a Counter?
If a player activated an Æther Vial with two counters on it to drop in a Meddling Mage and named a spell already on the stack, would the named spell resolve?

A famous match once hinged on using a similar trick. It only worked due to an odd gap in the rules for madness, which has since been removed.

Brent, there seems to be a good answer here. Any chance you can mark it as accepted (click the tick)?

Sorry, still pretty new, I don't see where on my screen to mark this as accepted.

@BrentAllenHydorn: just below the answer's points there is a outline of a V, click there.

The spell on the stack will resolve successfully, even if you name it with Meddling Mage.
The rulings for Meddling Mage say the following:

2/1/2006 If you somehow manage to cast this while other spells are on the stack, those spells won't be countered.
5/1/2009 Spells with the chosen name that somehow happen to already be on the stack when Meddling Mage enters the battlefield are not affected by Meddling Mage's ability.

To clarify the old "played" phrasing (which some people confuse with resolve), the Oracle text actually says:

The named card can't be cast.

Since the named spell has already been cast, the existing spell on the stack will still be on the stack after Meddling Mage has entered, and will still resolve.
If you did have a creature that was able to counter or exile a spell on the stack (as opposed to the "named card can't be cast" effect) like Spellstutter Sprite, you could put that into play with Æther Vial and have it work they way you're intending.


text:
Maritime Trading both ways?
I recently played with a friend who said you can use the maritime harbor to trade 2:1 in both directions. I said this wasn't true, but couldn't disprove him in the rule book. The rules say:

The exchange rate of 2:1 only applies to the resource shown on the harbor location.

Suppose you're on a 2:1 wood trade.
(1) You can trade 2 wood cards for 1 grain/ore/sheep/brick card.
(2) You can trade 2 cards for 1 wood card. (2 grain for 1 wood. 2 brick for 1 wood etc.)
Can you only do (1), (2), or both. Which is correct?

This is covered in the Catan FAQ:

Trade - What is the meaning of the resource symbols on some harbor
  hexes?
Answer The special harbor hexes always show the resource type of which
  you have to discard 2 units in order to receive one different resource
  or one commodity.

In other words, it only works one way - the way you expected.

A maritime trade is one with the bank. The bank will NEVER trade with you at favorable terms, because it doesn't need to. The bank is only in the business of trading to "make money" (favorable terms for the bank, bad terms for you). The special harbor doesn't change this (although it will reduce the terms against you from 4- to -1 or 3- to -1 or 2- to -1, for that commodity).
The only time you can get favorable terms is in domestic trade (with another player). And that happens only when the other player needs the trade more than you, and is hoping that you will give him better terms than 4- to -1 (against him).


text:
In Seafarers of Catan, are there any special rules for ships or harbors in lakes?
We just played our first Seafarer's scenario (New World random setup) that contained a lake - a water hex surrounded by 6 land hexes. Our Seafarer rules booklet (1999) did not discuss any special rules that apply to lakes. Questions I had were:

Can ships be relocated from lakes to oceans and from oceans to
lakes?
Can harbors be placed in lakes during the setup phase?

We assumed yes for the game we played but I'm wondering if that's right. In real life having a boat in a lake (that doesn't connect to an ocean via a river) does not facilitate trade or free movement of ships between oceans and the lake.
Does anyone know if there are any official errata covering this situation? If not, are there any unofficial rules about lakes that have been adopted by a large fraction of Settlers/Seafarers players?

From Combination of “The Fishermen of Catan” with “Seafarers” Scenarios

If you include the lake, it should always be completely surrounded by
  land hexes. You must  not build ships at the lake. (Of course, if you
  use the lake as a coastal hex anyway, you may  also build ships on the
  sides facing the ocean.)

I suggest this ruling would also apply to the scenario that you described above.

I don't think this applies in the same way. The lake in Fishermen is a special case with many special rules attached, not a regular water hex. The regular rules should apply to water hexes surrounded by land unless specifically stated otherwise. And in real life, there are many lakes big enough for boats to facilitate international trade, e.g. the Caspian Sea or Lake Victoria.

I have some agree with your comment.  However, the OP asked about the situation where one individual water hex was entirely surrounded by land and whether any rules or errata existed.  In that example it seems weird to apply the standard seafarers rules such as being able to move the last ship in the long line.  I think in the example (one hex completely surrounded by land) that these rules make sense.  I find the seafarers Catan variant good fun but one of the least consistent of the Catan additions as per this link http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/18878/item/448148#item448148


text:
In Monopoly, Is it OK for a third party to make a trade with a player who is about to lose?
I play with some serious board gamers, but we have neglected Monopoly for a number of years, so our knowledge is mostly based on high school & house rules.
We played last week and enjoyed it, but there was a piece of contention. There are times where we decide that we don't like one of our friends for some reason and don't want them to win (i.e. we landed on their property a bunch, or they refused to make a deal, etc.).
So when player 1 has some property and player 2 lands on it and cannot pay the rent their assets (houses/hotels get liquidated), their property gets transferred to the other player.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong.) In this case, though, player 3 "traded" the amount of money owing for a piece of property (way overpaid). In this case they did it so that player 1 would not get the properties. Player 2 had no chance of winning the game (all properties mortgaged, no cash to speak of and many of the other properties with 3+ houses/hotels on them).
To summarize:
Is it OK for a third player to purchase/trade property or cash to/from a player who is about to lose?

I can't find anything in the official rules (warning: PDF link) that specifies when a player can and cannot sell property. My assumption is that you can't trade before resolving the rent-paying action, though.

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/6563/9999

The reason that you can't trade property at any time is that first you have to sell any buildings that are on the property group.

The official rules don't state if you are able to sell properties at any time (in fact, it is one of the few rules that don't have the timing explictly stated), but I wouldn't put too much faith that this wasn't an oversight.

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

All other types of transactions state that you can do them at any time:

Selling "Get Out of Jail Free" cards
Mortgaging properties to the bank
Selling houses back to the bank
Buying houses from the bank.

The most troubling transaction that can be done "at any time", in the above list is "Buying Houses." They probably didn't mean that you can buy houses at any time, after another player rolls the dice, but before they were forced to pay rent on the property they landed on. If they did, this game would be changed for the worst, with people usually not having to invest on houses, until immediately after someone will land on them. This makes me believe that this is probably an oversight.
The rules do make it fairly clear that you can mortgage properties and sell houses/hotels if you are unable to pay a tax to the Bank (this would be after rolling dice, but before resolving the Tax/Penalty).

Should you owe the Bank, instead of another player, more than you can pay (because of taxes or penalties) even by selling off buildings and mortgaging property, you must turn over all assets to the Bank.

Since the rules aren't very clear about the timing of "Selling Properties", and because they probably don't mean at any time is before resolving a players movement after they roll the dice, you will have to make some house rules. You will need to decide what Hasbro meant when they said "any time".

Mortgaging Unimproved Properties: This may be done at any time, including before having to pay rent/tax to the Bank ([only | or another player]).
Selling Houses: This may be done at any time, including before having to pay rent/tax to the Bank ([only | or another player])
Selling Property: This may only be done at any time other than after a player rolls the dice, but before they have paid ([Rent [and/or] Tax]) to ([another player [and/or] the Bank.])
Selling a "Get Out of Jail Free" card: This may only be done at any time other than after a player rolls the dice, but before they have paid ([Rent [and/or] Tax]) to ([another player [and/or] the Bank.])
Buying Houses/Hotels: This may only be done at any time other than after a player rolls the dice, but before they have paid ([Rent [and/or] Tax]) to ([another player [and/or] the Bank.])

I would personally restrict Selling Unimproved Property cards, Get Out of Jail cards, and Buying Houses to any time other than after dice rolls, and before resolving the rolls (as that is clearly the way that most people have played the game. Mortgaging Property, and selling Houses/Hotels can really occur at any time, even after die rolls but before resolving the die rolls.
Note: The iOS implementation of Monopoly, and the PSOne implementaion of this game do not allow buying houses/hotels, selling/proposing trades (including Get Out of Jail cards) after rolling dice but before resolving rent owed. It does allow selling houses/hotels and mortgaging properties to avoid going bankrupt after rolling dice but before paying rent, even when landing on another players property.

Isn't "buying houses" a separate step from "placing them on properties"?  So, for example, you could choose to buy all remaining houses if another player is completing a color group, but you can't increase the rent of your properties through improvements during another player's turn?

@BenVoigt, according to the linked rules above, no. Buying Houses is immediately followed by erecting them. You must build evenly across a color group as well.

Bankruptcy is special because it takes you out of the game.  If you're not playing any more, you can't take any in game actions...

@ChrisDodd, it is unusual that you are able to sell houses and mortgage property (which are actions that can be done at any time) even if you would still go bankrupt when paying a Tax/Penalty to the bank, but not when paying another player. You clearly do not go bankrupt, until you are unable to pay, and you can clearly take certain actions regardless of whether you could avoid bankruptcy. Why shouldn't selling property be included in actions you can take at any time as well?

@user1873: Implicit in the rules about selling properties is that you can only sell properties you own -- if you've gone bankrupt, you don't own any properties any more, and you go bankrupt as soon as someone (legally) asks you to pay a rent you can't afford.

@ChrisDodd, and yet the rules explicitly state that if you go bankrupt to the Bank, you can still mortgage properties and sell houses, even though according
to you, "you don't own them any more." as I said, very odd.

@user1873: yes, its a very noticeable (and odd) irregularity in the official rules as written.

I think it would probably be fair to say that the maximum amount of rent a player may owe for landing on a particular square should be set at the start of that player's turn.  If a player rolls doubles to land on a Chance or Community Chest card that forces another player to mortgage a property, and then on the next roll (same turn) lands on that property, the property should be considered mortgaged, but if a player rolls two double sixes placing himself about seven squares in front of an opponent's properties, the opponent should not be able to improve the rent on that same turn.

Your argument is based on an inconsistent interpretation of "At any time".  The relevant rule preventing building between rolling and moving is that rolling and moving is an atomic action.  See https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/44525/9999 for the defense.

The usual ruling is that if you are threatened with bankruptcy (you've landed on a property and don't have enough cash), you can only make trades with other players if they will allow you to avoid bankruptcy.  If you can't avoid it, the bankrupting player gets everything you owned (cash and property) at the instant you landed on them, after selling houses/hotels to the bank.
A strict reading of the rules would indicate that if you land on a property and don't have enough cash to pay the rent, you're bankrupt immediately and have no opportunity to sell/trade (or even mortgage) stuff to raise money.  Most people consider that silly, and allow trades to raise enough cash to avoid the bankruptcy.
Another common house rule related to bankruptcy -- a player may accept LESS than the amount they are owed if they wish.  A common use: You land on my hotel on New York and owe me $1000.  I offer to let you off for a $1 if you sell me Boardwalk for $1.  Otherwise you might sell it to the player that owns Park Place for $1000 to pay your rent.  I can't just buy it from you for $1000 as I don't have that much cash on hand.

That last is an example of the kind of house rule which causes the game to drag on forever. As with money-on-free-parking and not bothering with auctions, these changes are usually made by the same people who charge the game with being a slog.

This is the correct ruling. A player is bankrupt the moment they owe more than they can pay, whether to another player or the bank, and can only make deals and trades that resolve the bankruptcy. Otherwise all that players assets are immediately forfeit to whomever the debt is owed to.

@mattdm (and Chris Dodd) The last is not a house rule.  It is part of the game.  You are selling Boardwalk for $1000.

@Kevin Well, you can't just straight-up sell it for $1000 to someone who doesn't have $1000, as Chris notes. You can argue that it makes sense to allow it, and would match the kind of deal someone might make in real life, but, like I said, it's also the kind of thing that makes the game drag on.

@mattdm Yes, the rules of Monopoly are the what makes Monopoly drag on. It's almost as if the game is seriously flawed in terms of game design! :P

@Samthere Given that the game was by some accounts initially developed as a criticism towards capitalism in some form, I would argue it was flawed on purpose.

@mattdm The 2009 World Championship rules explicitly allow taking property in lieu of rent: "9. Am I allowed to accept property instead of rent?  Yes, but this is classed as a trade".  So, that bit is not a house rule but an official interpretation of the rules.

From a link on boardgamegeek
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/26288/monopoly-world-championship-game-rules-pdf

To raise money to pay debts, only houses and hotels can be sold back
  to the bank (at half price) – never properties. If a debt is owed to
  another player, properties may be sold to a third player only if
  sufficient money is raised to cover the debt. If not, the properties
  are turned over as is (and not mortgaged if unmortgaged at the time
  the debt is incurred.)

If player 3 is willing to give player 2 enough money to stay in the game, I think it is poor form for her to refuse, and deliberately lose, so that player 1 can get her stuff.

If a player doesn't have enough cash on hand to meet a  rent, or other obligation, the person can try to liquidate his holdings to raise sufficient cash:
1) Sell houses and hotels back to the bank for half price.
2) Mortgage properties to the bank for half price.
3) Liquidate other assets such as "get out of jail free" cards (if house rules allow it).
If after taking these steps, a player still can't meet his obligation, then he has to turn over his (mortgaged) property to the landowner or bank and leave the game.
It is therefore implied, although not stated, that you can sell unmortgaged property at, say, full value, either to the landlord, or to a third party.
Some landlords will agree to accept property at full (list) value, or at another agreed value toward the payment of rent, so that they get unmortgaged property. It's perfectly ok for a landlord to say, "You owe me $1,000, but if you give me $400 plus Boardwalk (List price, $400), we'll call it quits."
Otherwise, there might be a competition between the landlord and third parties to buy property from the renter at prices to be determined. In essence, a bankrupt player can put his property at auction to try to pay his bills, as one might do in real life. And the "strategic" value of the property might cause it to command more than list price. Even the idea of keeping a weakened player in the game might be a good strategy for some people.
The only caveat is that if the "auction" process doesn't raise enough money to pay the debt, the trades will have to be "undone," and the debtor has to turn over his "mortgaged" property to the landowner. (In a real bankruptcy proceeding, a trustee controls sales.) The "scorched earth" impact of the debtor's mortgaging all property gives the landlord (or third parties) an incentive to work out "deals."
"Selling" in this context is different from buying. You couldn't buy (build) a house on a property that someone has just landed on to jack up the rent in "real life;" the house has to have been built beforehand. Therefore you can't do so in Monopoly. But in "real life," a person that owes you rent could sell his own (existing) house(s) to meet this obligation.
And about the part of the third player overpaying on a property to keep the debtor in the game. That's likely to benefit the landlord. Let's say that the rent was $1,000 and the debtor could pay only $500 after mortgaging all his property. If the third party buys, say (mortgaged) Oriental Ave. (list value $100, mortgaged value $50) for $500, the landlord actually gets the full $1000 instead of just $500, with the difference coming out of the pocket of the third party. Of course, the third party may have a "strategic" reason to pay $500 for Oriental, either to complete or prevent a Monopoly, but that's just part of the game.

The "scorched earth" impact is 10%. This is hardly daunting.

@Joshua: It's just enough for "legal" purposes in real life. For instance, your creditors can't repossess your IRA because of the 10% early withdrawal penalty. The one exception is the IRS, because they can waive the penalty.

Our house rule was that the player owing the money could try to AUCTION off one or more of their properties to remain solvent. Everyone, including the player who is owed the money, could bid. Each property was dealt with, in turn, until the amount of the rent was covered. The player owning the money got to pick the order of the auctions.
The properties were set aside with the purchase cash on them until the various auctions were over. One nice thing about this is that no one, including the player owning the rent, could bid with money that they could not raise.
If there was not enough money to cover the debt, the player who was owed the money had the option to take the new amount of cash, or 'rollback' the auctions and take all the now bankrupt player's stuff instead.
This process seemed to prevent any game-altering favoritism.

Based on short answer from Hasbro posted by Robert Miller https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/53545/45611 https://hasbro-new.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail_uk/a_id/83/kw/monopoly/

If you owe money and can’t pay, try to raise money by selling buildings back to the Bank and/or mortgaging properties.... If you’re still in debt, you are bankrupt and out of the game!

Long answer, from Hasbro's Global Consumer Care Representative
Note. Hasbro own the copyright on Monopoly and are therefore the ultimate authority on rules in the game.

Yes, it is illegal to auction off property when someone owes another
player.
Try to raise money. If you owe money and can't pay, try to raise money by selling buildings back to the Bank and/or mortgaging
properties.
Selling Buildings Sell Hotels to the Bank for half the cost price and exchange them immediately for 4 Houses. Sell Houses to the Bank
for half the cost price. Houses must be sold evenly across the colour
set.
Mortgaging Property To mortgage a property, you must first sell all buildings in its colour set to the Bank at half their cost price.
To mortgage, turn the Title Deed card face down and collect the
mortgage value on the back from the Bank.   To repay a mortgage, pay
the unmortgage cost to the Bank (mortgage value +10%); then, turn the
card face up.
If you're still in debt, you are bankrupt and out of the game!
Do you owe another player? Give them any Get Out of Jail Free cards you have, and all your mortgaged properties.   The new owner
must immediately either:

repay the mortgage (pay the Bank the unmortgage cost), or
keep the mortgage (just pay the Bank 10% of the mortgage value now).

Do you owe the Bank?
Return all your properties to the Bank.
Any mortgages are cancelled.
All your properties must immediately be putup for auction.
Return any Get Out of Jail Free cards to the bottom of the pile.
The remaining players keep playing until there is only one person left in
the game - the winner!
Again, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to reach out to us.
I hope you have a fun day!
Kind regards,
Rochonda Global Consumer Care Representative
Customer By CSS Web (Robert Miller) (08/26/2020 02:24 PM)
Hello,  Is it legal for a player who is facing bankruptcy to another
player, to auction off his properties in order to avoid bankruptcy?
Question Reference #200826-000598 •   Date Created: 08/26/2020 02:24 PM • Date Last Updated:
11/10/2020 06:13 PM • Status: Solved [---001:001949:01623---]

Thought I'd pose another POV.
The question comes down to "Is the knowing the amount of cash a player (player #1) has demand-able by a landlord (player #2)?"
Without going into tournament rules, my understanding is that it is not required that the cash a player has must be public knowledge.  If I erred here, ignore this answer.  Note: This greatly affects bidding strategy.
If we go on the idea that cash-on-hand is private and now set-up the potential bankruptcy scene.

Player #1 total hard assets (cash + 1/2 houses + amount available by mortgaging properties.) is $HardAssets.  (We as ethereal judges know this amount.)
Player #1 owes player #2 (or the bank) $Rent.  (Everyone knows this.)

In responding to the $Rent demand, it is possible that only player #1 knows $HardAssets >= $Rent question's outcome.  Further, even player #1 may not precisely know the answer either at that moment.  If player #1 is obliged to answer this question to #2, before further play, it is akin to #2 demanding: "How much cash do you have?" of #1.
Going on the assumption "cash-on-hand is private", player #1 can proceed to, in order to raise $Rent, sell/mortgage property, Get-Out-Of-Jail, houses to the bank, make sweet-heart deals as player #1 can do on any other situation where bankruptcy is not an issue (because it is not known that this is a bankruptcy issue).
Should #1 fail to raise $Rent, player #2 has prior claim and thus all deals, sales are subject to #2's permission.  This would usually result in all assets going though the rule's BANKRUPTCY instead.

This seems needlessly complicated. The very moment that the player starts making a deal, mortgages something, or sells a house, all players "know" that the player must not have the required cash on hand. (Besides, if the player pays up, and cash on hand is never known, then nobody ever knows if it was a bankruptcy situation or not, if at least one trade happened!)

@Paul Marshall Players make trades, deals, to prevent tearing down houses as that is a 50% mark-down - a big loss, so selling property is not in itself a bankruptcy declaration.  A property sale to player #3 for a key title (key to #3) could well provide the needed cash, yet allow player #1 to retain a nice propertied set. Even selling select housing is not defeat. I agree with you on nobody knows that if a deal occurred and the player pays up, the otherwise bankruptcy is moot. Not sure why knowing that is important. They debt was paid - play resumed.

The trouble is that these trades can extend the game quite a bit; Monopoly has a long history of house rules that ensure the game never ends. If somebody is in a position to be eliminated, then they should be eliminated. If player #1 is going bankrupt to player #2, but player #3 arranges a deal that prevents the bankruptcy, then player #3 can potentially steal that bankruptcy and all of #1's assets on a future turn.

@Paul Marshal Agree with you about the potential effect on the game play.  In your scenario, #2 is paid off though before play resumes.  This answer was not trying to make the game faster/slower, but try to discern from the scant rule set an answer to the OP's question.  Otherwise decisions made for more efficient/better game play are themselves house rules.

if a player owes to a landlord and does not have enough cash to pay the debt, but would be able to pay the debt in full after mortgaging properties they select, the player must do so (mortgage one or more properties) before making any deal with a third party to aquire funds for payment to the landlord that is owed.
Or said another way...
If a player sells a property to a third party before mortgaging to pay their current debts it creates a situation where players can skew markets unreasonably in dealing with a player that faces financial hardship due to rent or taxes/bank fees.
"A player in debt should not be able to sell park place at a discounted rate to a third party player who owns boardwalk so that a current debt can be paid to a landlord, or at least not without offering the same deal or value to the landlord who is owed first"
The indebted player must handle their affairs in order of priority, first being to pay rent due by way of using one current assets, cash or otherwise, and only then can deals can be made on mortgaged property if the player was able to avoid bankruptcy.

Is the quote in the middle of your answer taken from the rulebook? Some attribution would certainly help strengthen your answer. And welcome to B&CG!

It's not a violation of the games rules, but it seems to clearly violate the spirit of the game.  If you're at the point where you're willing to resort to such things to penalize player 1 to that extent, why even bother finishing the game?

You are allowed to do this. But this kind of trade implies an agreement between the buyer and the vendor to make the player who is about to get the properties lose. So your case is a matter of fair play with the player who is about to get the properties.
In your case you decided to do such a thing against player 1 to make him lose. You did not cheat but you was not fair play too.

As the name «Monopoly» implies, the end-goal of the game is to bankrupt every other player and foreclose on everyone's assets - create a Monopoly. It is a ruthless capitalist game. Fair play means following the rules, period; nice guys finish last.

The standard rules are open enough to make a 3rd party trade allowable.
In googling around I find there are tourneyment rules that both explictly allow and others that specificaly restrict this behavior.
I saw a printed copy of offical world tourneyment rules where this was specifically allowed, but these rules seem to no longer be available on-line.
The MonopolyTourney.com site explicitly bars "side deals when a person is going bankrupt.  The person may only be in transaction with the player who is bankrupting them.".The second part of this rule seems silly to me, as the player who is due rent has little stategic insentive to make a deal other than bankrupcy.
MonopolyTourney rules also include the Free Parking rule, which is popular but ruins strategic play, IMHO.
I would highly recommend allowing this behavior in a group that includes more stategic players.  It reduces the chances of a "lucky" bankruptcy from turning the tide in the game.

That link leads to house rules that put money on Free Parking.  So not official Monopoly at all.

Right, MonopolyTourney's position on this rule is discredited by their support of putting money in Free Parking.

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


text:
Do Flash Duel character abilities supplant main actions?
Many of the character cards in Flash Duel contain what might be considered a main action (e.g. Jaina Stormborne's Charged Shot stipulates a push).  Does using this character ability prevent me from exercising a main action?  The rules state you can play exactly one "main action" on your turn.
For example, can Jaina use Charged Shot to push her opponent, who is 3 spaces away, back 2 and then immediately attack with a 5?

Jaina's Charged Shot ability is used at the start of a round, and doesn't supplant the normal attack during your turn. The designer, David Sirlin, answered this question here,

Q: After using DeGrey's ability Spectral Pull or Push or Jaina's charged Shot, do you still take a normal action for this round or is the special ability your action for this round?
A: Those trigger at the start of your turn, so you do them then you do the rest of your turn. Nothing says it replaces or prevents a combat action, so you can still move or dashing strike or whatever. Using Spectral Pull and then attacking during the same turn is legal and a powerful way to use it. It's especially good in the dragon raid mode.
Note that the dragon does have a card that triggers "instead of his main action," so that ability really does prevent him from doing a main action later in the turn.


text:
Pukachu vs. Doppleganger?
My friend was level 4, and tried to play his Doppleganger card against a Puckachu, which grants an extra level for defeating it, "without using help or bonuses".
'Help', apparently, only means other players, and 'bonuses' are weapons, armor, or potions. Bringing in your clone, according to him, means beating it yourself.
Nobody agrees. Is his interpretation correct?

Steve Jackson games has changed their mind quite a few times. If you look at the FAQ, you will find several instances of "this is a change from a previous ruling." This sort of thing is inevitable as the number of card sets increases and the complexity as well, see MtG. Your group can choose to play the game however you like. Perhaps with enough pleyaers playing it "wrong" SJG will decide to change their ruling.

Yeah one of the main guys in our group met up with me and we came up with a couple of house rules that goes into more detail when defining "help". We opened a whole new can of worms when trying to define "asking" for help with the Kneepads of Allure. Basically, asking for help is not the same as getting help.

Update: we have decided to consider the Pukachu's point of view in this situation from now on: if the enemy is cloned, and you, the Pukach, hold out on the terms of the "extra level bonus", you will see two individuals attacking you. It's your call to award the bonus, and by being beaten by two fighters, the Pukachu is not inclined to award the extra level to them...

He is correct.
"Helping" in combat is clearly defined as one and only one other player joining you in combat.
"Bonuses" are granted by Items (as can be seen from the James Bomb card FAQ entry), or the rule books example of Mace of Sharpness or a Race as in the Warrior ability below. For example, the Pretty Ballons grant a +5 bonus to either the Monster side, or the Player side.

From the Munchkin FAQ:

Playing/using a one-shot Item during a combat that aids the munchkins (and not the monsters) does not constitute "helping" in combat, as described in the rules. This means that in any given combat, any number of players can play cards to aid or hinder either side as often as they want, as long as they have the cards. Only one other player can actually join the combat as a helper, however.
Q. Does a Psychic still get his +2 "fighting alone" combat bonus if he has a Sidekick?
  A. Yes. Sidekicks are okay. A Doppleganger is OK. And if another player throws a grenade or something to hurt the monster and assist you, you don't lose your bonus. It's only when another player joins the combat as your helper that you lose your bonus.
Q. James Bomb says to fight him with only my Level and not my items. Can I use non-item bonuses in the combat, such as those given from trainings?
  A. That sentence should read "Level only, no items or other bonuses." So, no, your non-item bonuses would not count. (This is official errata.)
If a Warrior had already discarded a card to get a +1 combat bonus, and then stopped being a Warrior, he would keep the bonus, but wouldn't be able to discard any more cards for the Warrior bonus.

From the Munchkin Rules:

Anyone can carry any item, but some items have use restrictions: for instance, the Mace of Sharpnesscan only be wielded by a Cleric. Its bonus only counts for someone who is, at the moment, a Cleric.
To fight a monster, compare its combat strength to yours. Combat strength is the total of Level plus all modifiers – positive or negative – given by items and other cards.

This actually brings up a point we discussed: the Pretty Ballons are marked as 'No Value', so we were wondering if that were considered a bonus. Then we saw the Dopplegengar, and it was worth 300 gold. Some really good points in your argument.

That is clearly a different question. The answer is in the linked FAQ, if you had cared to read it. Some items are listed as No Value to indicate that they are items. "Q. Assuming I have at least 1,000 Gold Pieces in Items, can I throw in some Items with No Value as part of the sale?
A. Absolutely. "No Value" is exactly the same as "0 Gold Pieces," so you can sell these Items unless the card says otherwise. (But "No Value" must appear on the card! If a card has nothing at all listed for a value, it is not an Item and cannot be sold.)

I was meaning to point out our discussion; does an item of value count as help? From what you've brought up, it means nothing. But then again, we didn't agree with the value-centric premise, either.

@Droogans, "Does an Item of Value count as help?." Then you missed my meaning again. No, "Help" is defined above, and so is "Bonuses." Items cannot count as help, because they are not players that join you in combat. It isn't me that you are disagreeing with, it is the FAQ and Rulebook posted on Steve Jackson Games website.

Im not discrediting your answer. My comments simply reflect what our group was saying at the time.


text:
What happens to the president's quorum card hand when he loses the title?
Do they get handed over to the new president or do they get shuffled back into the quorum card deck?

Good question. I don't think the rules or FAQ explicitly address this. The cards certainly don't get shuffled back into the deck; I don't think there's anything to suggest that would happen. The question is whether they are discarded or if the hand passes to the new President. The base game rule book really only has one statement that addresses this question:

Whichever player has the President title has control over this hand of Quorum Cards.

This implies the hand of Quorum cards doesn't really belong to the President, rather the current President simply has control over the hand. So if the title transfers to another character, nothing happens to the hand, but control of the hand belongs to the new President.
The Pegasus rule book offers some confirmation of this. Regarding execution, it says:

The player whose character was executed discards his hand of Skill Cards. (Quorum Cards in his
  hand are unaffected.) He also discards any Quorum Cards played on his character (for example the “Assign Mission Specialist” Quorum card).

And this about revealing:

The player discards down to three Skill Cards (or to zero if he has been revealed as a result of execution). He also discards any Quorum Cards played on his character. (If the player was President, the hand of Quorum Cards is not discarded. It is given to the new President instead.)

Since the Quorum hand is not discard as a result of the President being executed or revealed, then it is not discarded as a result of the President title being transferred to another character (since transfer also happens with execution or reveal of the President).

Yeah the first rule you quoted pretty much answers this exactly - there is a hand of Quorum cards, and the current President controls that hand.


text:
Are unused Start Worlds shuffled into the card supply?
When you begin play and randomly hand out the start worlds, do you shuffle the remaining start worlds into the deck?

Yes: per the Setup section of the rulebook:

Find and shuffle the five start worlds. Deal one world face up to each
  player. These form  each player’s initial card tableau.
Shuffle the unused start worlds together with the game cards. Deal six face down cards to each  player. Each player then examines these
  cards and discards two cards face down to the discard  pile. The
  remaining game cards form the initial card supply.

[Bolded by me for emphasis.]

Note that as you add expansions, fishing the start worlds back out of the deck after you play becomes a bigger pain in the rear, so sometimes my group just skips this part and leaves the extras out for expedience.

My group eventually put card sleeves on the cards, and used different-colored card sleeves for the starting cards.  We really didn't like hunting through the deck for the starting cards.


text:
What regions count towards support of another region?
When attacking from a region into another region, do supporting units from territories connected to the region the attackers are coming from count toward their total strength? Or is it only supporting units from regions connected to the defender's region?

The following is taken from page 12 of the rules (emphasis mine):

If you move one or more of your units into an area containing units from another house, a battle will ensue once you have completed all your movement from that March order.  If you move into such an area, you are considered the attacker, and the opponent currently occupying the area you entered is considered the defender.

Support can only be given to the area in which the battle takes place, and only if you have a Support order adjacent to the embattled area.  Since the March order is played out to completion before the battle starts, the only embattled area would be the area that the attacker moved into (i.e., the defender's area).  The concepts of attacker and defender don't even apply until after you've moved into this area.
This is explicitly clarified in page 18 of the second edition rules:

Reminder: Support can be granted only from an area containing a Support Order that is adjacent to the embattled area.  Do not confuse the embattled area with the area the attacking March Order was assigned to (and from which the attackers marched).


text:
What happens if a blocking creature is killed with Double Strike before all the damage is dealt?
With an attacking creature with Double Strike, if the first strike deals lethal damage to a normal blocking creature, does the normal damage go to the defending player?

No, once a creature is blocked, it remains so even if the defending creature dies. From the Comprehensive rules

Blocked Creature: An attacking creature that another creature blocks or that an effect causes to become blocked. It remains a blocked creature until it's removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step."

510.1c. A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.

A creature with Double Strike and Trample (Stampeding Rhino that has gained DS) could deal damage to the defending player, but this is because Trample modifies the normal assigning of combat damage rules.


text:
Undying vs first strike
What happens when an undying creature dies being dealt damage by a creature with first strike in a combat?
For example:
If Nearheath Stalker blocks an Abattoir Ghoul and dies will he deal combat damage after returning to the battlefield? Will Abattoir Ghoul die after this battle?

For the same reasons, if the Abattoir Ghoul had somehow gained double strike, it wouldn't kill both the pre-destruction and post-destruction Nearheath Stalker creatures.

No, the creature returned to the battlefield by undying is considered a new creature because it changed zones (two times, from battlefield to graveyard and then back from graveyard to battlefield). It's not in combat, and won't deal combat damage to Abattoir Ghoul.

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

This rule has some exceptions, but undying isn't one of them.

Your Stalker won't be dealing any combat damage this turn.  When a creature changes zones, it is removed from combat.  (In addition, any time a creature leaves the battle field and comes back it is considered a new game object in terms of the rules.  It generally has no memory of its previous state, such as "I was blocking that.")

No, dead creatures are removed from combat. They are no longer attacking/blocking creatures when combat damage is assigned or dealt.

506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, [...] A creature that's removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. [...]
510 Combat Damage Step
510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. [...]


text:
Does a creature returned by the Undying effect have summoning sickness?
As far as I understand the undying ability, a creature returned to the battlefield by its undying effect with a +1/+1 counter on it is considered a new object. Due to this it cannot attack if it returned to the battlefield on my turn anytime before the combat phase.
Is that correct?

An Undying create with Haste would be able to attack if it came back to the battlefield in the first main phase.  However, an Undying Haste creature would probably be a pretty terrible card design - after all, how often do creatures die in the first main phase?

@thesunneversets Totally disagree on the card design - it's already a card, and it makes excellent fodder for sac engines (e.g. Birthing Pod).

@IanPugsley Heh, yes, I wondered if there was an Undying Card with Haste (Geist was at the back of my mind somewhere...)  Obviously there's nothing wrong with a card having both Haste and Undying, but I wouldn't say they were two abilities that have special synergy with each other.  Creatures with Haste are good, creatures that come back to fight again are good, that's about it.  Though I guess I can imagine an amusing board state where your opponent has 3 life and you need to kill your own Geist in your first main phase to win...

@thesunneversets In the current R/G aggro deck, this is a thing that happens a lot: you cast a Sword and equip it to Strangleroot Geist; your opponent kills the Geist in response to the equip activation (before it would gain protection from his removal spell); you're out of mana so you can't equip again this turn, but at least you can swing for 3 with the returned Geist.

@AlexP I'd maintain that that's a powerful card, not a well-designed card.  But I shouldn't have called it a terrible design.  Probably cheap green aggro just needed something a little bit above the power curve.

@thesunneversets, in the BR deck I got on my last draft some creatures with undyiung were perfect for Fling :). But unfortunately they could not attack the same turn after being sacrificed. So I had to choose, whether to attack (and fling after it) or not to attack and just fling and make them bigger.

I think haste is an excellent design choice in combination with Undying and similar abilities, because you get to benefit from Haste twice instead of the usual once. As already pointed out, this opens a lot of combo options that just aren't there without Haste.

Yes,
A creature with undying returned to the battlefield would have summoning sickness.  Undying does not provide an exception to the general rule.

302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.

As you noted, the Undying creature returns as a new creature and thus has not been under its controller's control continuously since the the turn began.

"the turn began" means upkeep, right? What if I sacrifice a creature with undying in order to Fling the creature during the upkeep before draw step?

@Installero - also note the "continuously" part.  Once you Fling it, you will no longer be able to meet the requirements of it being under your continuous control.


text:
Does deathtouch kill Phantom creatures?
Does a Phantom creature, one with the ability "If damage would be dealt to Phantom {Creature}, prevent that damage. Remove a +1/+1 counter from Phantom {Creature}.",  that has taken damage from a creature with deathtouch get destroyed, or just lose a +1/+1 counter? (Example: Phantom Centaur)

Assuming you're talking about the Phantom {Creature} series of cards from Judgment and some other sets (e.g. Phantom Flock), a creature with the following ability would not be destroyed (and would only have a counter removed) if damage was assigned to it from a creature with deathtouch:

If damage would be dealt to {creature name}, prevent that damage. Remove a +1/+1 counter from {creature name}.

This is because while damage has been assigned, the ability prevents that damage from actually being dealt.
Relevant comp. rules:

702.2b Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature's toughness. See rules 510.1c - d.
615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. A modified event may occur instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

A note - it is possible for there to be unpreventable damage (with something like Leyline of Punishment). In this case, the following rule applies (as well as a ruling on Phantom {Creatures}:

615.11. Some effects state that damage "can't be prevented." If unpreventable damage would be dealt, any applicable prevention effects are still applied to it. Those effects won't prevent any damage, but any additional effects they have will take place.
10/4/2004   If unpreventable damage is applied to this card, you still remove a counter even though the prevention fails.

What would happen under that circumstance is that the trigger for damage prevention would still fire, removing a counter. However, the deathtouch damage would not be prevented, and would be considered lethal, destroying your Phantom {Creature}.

A phantom creature dealt damage by a deathtouch creature is not destroyed. That's because the "phantom" ability reads:

If damage would be dealt to this creature, prevent that damage. Remove a +1/+1 counter from this creature.

The key words there are prevent that damage. A creature with deathtouch never deals damage to the phantom creature, and therefore the phantom creature is not destroyed, but loses a +1/+1 counter as usual.


text:
Does the flanking provided by Slivers stack?
If I was to play 2 Sidewinder Slivers would the 'All Slivers have flanking' ability stack causing creatures blocking my Slivers to get -2/-2 until the end of the turn or would it gain flanking twice but the second instance has no effect so creatures blocking my Slivers only get -1/-1 until the end of the turn?

Flanking is a triggered ability, so it can trigger separately for every instance of the ability that the creature has.  This is ever so slightly different than just giving -2/-2.  When your creature is blocked two abilities go on the stack, each one to give the blocker -1/-1.  The end result is indeed that the blocker ends up with -2/-2, but there are some various corner cases you could create with certain cards where it matters!
NB: You can tell it's a triggered ability because it starts with the magic words "When, Whenever, or At."

Each instance of Flanking triggers separately. After the stack resolves, creatures blocking will have -2/-2 until end of turn.
The Rules:

702.24. Flanking
702.24a Flanking is a triggered ability that triggers during the declare blockers step. (See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step.")
  "Flanking" means "Whenever this creature becomes blocked by a creature
  without flanking, the blocking creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn."
702.24b If a creature has multiple instances of flanking, each triggers separately.

Yes.
Each sliver will have 2 instances of Flanking. Since those are triggered abilities, each instance will trigger, go to the stack, and resolve separately.


text:
How do you handle drawing more flood cards than there are tiles on the board in Forbidden Island?
Pretty much what it says on the tin--when you're drawing, say, 5 flood cards and there are 4 tiles left in the game, are you supposed to keep shuffling and re-drawing one of those 4, thus automatically sinking one tile per turn?

As you say.  Basically if you end drawing more flood cards than there are tiles, you're more or less doomed.  Which provides a good incentive to shore up as many tiles as you can each turn, even if they aren't key to your plans - simply because you can't afford to run out of tiles too fast.

Yes. From the rule book page 8.

When the Flood Draw Pile Runs Out
If the Flood draw pile ever runs out, immediately shuffle the Flood discard pile and stack the cards face down to form a new Flood draw pile. If this happens in the middle of a turn, continue drawing Flood cards as necessary from the new pile.

Thanks--just wanted to be sure that it accelerated into auto-doom & there wasn't some contingency I was missing.


text:
Crimson Hellkite vs Telekinetic Sliver + Darkheart Sliver
If player A taps his Telekinetic Sliver to tap an opponent's Crimson Hellkite, the opponent can pay 2 red mana (he can pay X, but lets say he pays two) and tap the Crimson Hellkite to put the effect "Crimson Hellkite does two damage to target creature" on the stack.
Now what if a player has a Darkheart Sliver in play and wants to sacrifice his Telekinetic Sliver to gain three life?  Can he do it?  Does this go on the stack too, and resolve first?
Does the opponent's ability on the stack then fail because there's no target anymore?
Is player A then unable to tap the Crimson Hellkite because it is already tapped?
Is this the correct way to resolve this?  If not, what would be the possible scenarios (for simplicity, assume there are only these three creatures in play, no cards left in players's hands and only basic lands on the table)?
I'm a bit confused by this:

"Each player chooses the order in which his or her triggered abilities are put on the stack"*

and I've no idea at all if it applies or not to the above scenario.

If player A taps his Telekinetic sliver to tap opponent's Crimson Hellkite, the opponent can pay 2 red mana (he can pay X, but let say he pays two) and tap the Crimson Hellkite to put on the stack "Crimson Hellkite does two damages to target creature".

Correct.

Now what if player has a Darkheart sliver in play and wants to sacrifice his Telekinetic sliver to gain three life? Can he do it? Does this goes on the stack too and resolve first?

Yes.

And then the opponent's ability on the stack fails because there's no target anymore?

Yes.

And then player A cannot tap the Crimson Hellkite because it is already tapped?

The ability played by Player A will still resolve, it just won't change anything, since as you say, the Hellkite is already tapped.

"Each player chooses the order in which his or her triggered abilities are put on the stack"

There are no triggered abilities in the scenario you outlined. They were all activated abilities. This line does not apply. See 603.1 in the comprehensive rules:

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." They can also be expressed as "[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]."


text:
Can the "Sacrifice (this card):" activated ability be placed back on the stack?
This is a broad question so for simplicity I will use Seal of Fire and Naturalize.
Scenario 1: Common exchange- creating a baseline.

Player A uses Naturalize on Seal of Fire
Player B Sacrifices SoF in response. SoF is highest on the stack and goes off first.
This leaves Naturalize without a valid target.

Scenario 2: Complicated exchange- Is this legal?

Player B Sacrifices SoF.
In response Player A targets it with Naturalize.
SoF is on the stack and it's ability has not resolved. Player B (as above) sacrifices SoF in response to the Naturalize.

Can Seal of Fire be placed back on the stack by re-activating its ability, potentially with a new target?

No, your second example is not possible using the game rules.
Player A cannot target SoF with Naturalize, because it is currently in the graveyard. If they wanted to target the SoF, they need to do so when they had priority. Player A cannot prevent the SoF from being sacrificed for its ability anyway, since the ability exists independently of the source that created it. Seal of Fire says, "Sacrifice Seal of Fire: Seal of Fire deals 2 damage to target creature or player." It is an activate ability whose [Cost] is "Sacrifice Seal of Fire." If Player B paid the cost to activate SoF, it would no longer be on the battlefield by the time the Active Player received priority.

112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” A player may activate such an ability whenever he or she has priority. Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.”
116.1. Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, and take special actions.
112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.

It is not possible to sacrifice a permanent twice. After you sacrifice a permanent, it is placed into its owner's graveyard.

701.14a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.

I was under the impression that because the ability had not resolved, as it was interrupted by the naturalize, it was placed on the stack before the card reached the graveyard.

@Stormchild You pay all costs at the time you activate an ability (i.e. put it on the stack). The actions you take as part of paying costs don't use the stack.

To put Alex's comment another way, the card goes to the graveyard at the same time as the ability is first placed on the stack. There is no opportunity for you or your opponent to do anything between the ability being placed on the stack and the moving of the Seal to the graveyard. The casting of Naturalize happens well after both of those actions.

No.
You seem to think that responding to an activated ability is to do something before it has been activated, but that's wrong.
There are two parts to getting the effect of an activated ability:

First, the ability must be activated (or copied).
Then, the ability resolves.

In between activating the ability and it resolving, players will get priority (possibly more than once). To respond to the ability is to do something after the ability has been activated, but before it resolves.
Costs to activate an ability are payed when activating the ability, so paying the activation cost happens before one has a chance to respond to the ability.
The cost to activate an activated ability is found before the ":" in the ability. That means that sacrificing Seal of Fire is part of the cost of activating the ability, and therefore happens before one has a chance to respond to the ability being activated.

Note that everything I've said here also applies to spells (cast, then resolves) and triggered abilities (added to the stack after being triggered, then resolves).

user1873 is right. Scenario 2 is not legal since the sacrificing is a cost. To try to it clarify further:
If Seal of Fire instead did "T: Destroy ~this~ and deal 2 damage to target player" it would still deal 2 damage to the player if you destroyed it before the ability resolved.

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source
after that time won't affect the ability. Note that some abilities
cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal Sorcerer deals
1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing
anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability
that references information about the source because the effect needs
to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the
stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In
both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected
to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source
can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

A common analogy is that of a soldier throwing a grenade at you. Shooting the soldier after he has thrown the grenade won't prevent the grenade from killing you
The only way you can stop it is either counter the ability (Stifle) or prevent it from fulfill other restrictions like destroying mountains for Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle's land limit.
Credit: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=305059


text:
Can items be added to the stack after it has started resolving?
I've been working on streamlining the rules for the abandoned TvTropes TCG project, but the description of the "Stack" system confused me greatly since  the stack so rarely sees actual use in Magic (disclaimer: I am not a magic player, but I have passing familiarity with it, and have also recently been reading columns on it by the designers to help with this project), in opposition to the Yu-Gi_oh! chain system, which is central to countering in that TCG.
Basically what happens in TvTCG is that once top item on the stack resolves, players get to respond to the action, resulting in a potentially "branching" stack (all players get to potentially counter an action in turn), whereas the YGO chain is strictly linear, once things start resolving they must all resolve before new items can be added.
So my question boils down to: a) is the MtG stack "branched" in any comparable way? and b) is any comparison with the stack useful in regard of its obscurity in actual play?

The stack in Magic is, well, a stack. Spells you cast, abilities you activate, and abilities that trigger based on some game action or change in state, go on the stack. The system used to determine who gets an opportunity to put something on the stack is known as priority in the formal rules. When one player passes priority, the other gets a chance to put things on the stack. When all players pass without adding anything to the stack, the topmost item (and only the topmost item) of the stack resolves, and priority passes around again, meaning players can put additional things on the stack after a part of it resolves.
The most important additional rules are:

Most types of cards (e.g. creatures) can only be played when the stack is empty and it's your main phase.
You pay all costs (in mana and other required game actions, like sacrificing a creature) and make the relevant targeting decisions when you put something on the stack.
Mana abilities (e.g. on land cards) resolve instantaneously without using the stack, to allow you to pay costs for things. This prevents a lot of bullshit minutiae that might otherwise occur anytime you tried to cast a thing.
The stack is a game zone and things on the stack are game objects that can be affected by other spells and abilities (this is what allows counterspells to work).

Historically, Magic used to use what was known as the "batch" system, which was similar to the stack, but all effects on the stack would resolve once players were done putting new things on it.
Is the stack a rarely used in MTG? No. Serious players at any level need to understand priority and the stack.
I'm assuming the statement that gave you that idea is designers saying "We don't like it when the cards talk about the stack." That's not because it's not a central part of game play. Rather:

The goal is for newbies and really-casual players to understand the flow of the game without having to learn all the details.
This is a part of the game where the rules tell you how to use the cards more so than the cards tell you how to use the rules, kinda like creature combat or drawing your opening hand, so the cards seldom need to mention these rules.
The architecture for casting spells and activating abilities is so foundational to the game that a mechanic that mucks with the process is likely to be very risky and convoluted, design-wise.

If you want to understand priority and the stack in full formal detail, you'll need to read the MTG comprehensive rules; these are not designed for learning the game, however. The easiest way to get a feel for how the MTG stack works is to play some rounds in the Duels of the Planeswalkers video game.

The Stack in Magic the Gathering is named as such, because it matches the abstract concept of a Stack. A stack is a collection of objects, the top object can be popped off (to interact with), or a new object can be pushed onto the top of the stack.
A simple real life example of a stack would be a stack of dirty dishes. The top dirty dish can be popped of the stack (like a spell in MtG resolves), or new dirty dishes can be added to the top of the stack (new objects will resolve in Last In First Out order LIFO).
The MtG Stack is not branched, but does allow everyone a chance to added to the top the stack, or if everyone passes the top of the stack resolves. New objects can be added to the stack when it is empty, or after any spell has resolved from the top of the stack. I don't think you can conceptually describe this concept as branching (or TvTCG's implementation either). Stacks either shrink in size/height or grow in size/height, they don't branch.

This clarifies that the stack is quite similar to the YGO chain. Thank you for that. But my question (which I admit is hard to explain) is on a different issue. I guess with regard to your explanation ("Stacks either shrink in size/height or grow"), I could ask: "But can it start growing again once it starts shrinking?"

@Circeus, no the YGO system is more like MtG's old batch system. Yes, it can grow in size after the top object on the stack resolves. Only the top object ever resolves off the Stack.


text:
Prateor's Grasp - Can Opponent Determine Taken Card Before Shuffle
I had a ruling on this by a L2 Judge at a TCG event in San Diego 2 weeks ago. I believe his ruling was wrong.
I played Praetor's Grasp

Mana Cost: 1BB
Types: Sorcery
Card Text: Search target opponent's library for a card and exile it face down. Then that player shuffles his or her library. You may look at and play that card for as long as it remains exiled.

I searched the opponent's library and pulled a Snapcaster Mage. The opponent asked if he could look through his library to determine what card was taken. I told him he could not, card doesn't say so and it violates the spirit of the card. The head judge was called and ruling was issued that a shuffle takes place in a hidden zone and that while cards are in a hidden zone they may be looked at by the owner as long as it doesn't take too much time.
I believe that the RTFC rules don't say anything about the opponent searching his deck.

"The RTFC rules"? Sounds like a Freudian slip. :)

+1 for being incorrectly ruled against by a supposedly clued-up judge at an important tournament.  Believe me, I know exactly how bad that feels :)

By that judge's logic, using a card like "Soldier of Fortune" would let you look at the target deck every time it is activated. Ludicrous.

The ruling was sorely mistaken.

406 Exile
406.3 Exiled cards are, by default, kept face up and may be examined by any player at any time. Cards “exiled face down” can’t be examined by any player except when instructions allow it. [...]

Your "spirit of the card" argument is very much relevant, as it would make the "exile face down" bit meaningless.
As for your opponent looking through his library: Nope, absolutely not. A library is a hidden zone that may also not be looked through unless an effect allows one to. This is very basic stuff.

401 Library
401.2. Each library must be kept in a single face-down pile. Players can’t look at or change the order of cards in a library.

If your judge really said exactly that "a player may look at cards in one of his hidden zones as long as it doesn't take too much time", taken literally, would totally uproot the purpose of hidden zones, as it would allow me to, oh I don't know, look at the top 5 cards of my friggin' library, because, after all, that wouldn't take long, would it?
Ludicrous. People failing such basic concepts should not be judge.

I guess I understand where the judge is coming from. While your opponent shuffles, I guess it's ok for him to have a quick peek at his library, because he doesn't gain any information he is not privileged to. However, in this concrete situation, with an unknown card exiled, it still isn't ok, because it would give him an opportunity to circumvent 406.3 and part of the Praetor's Grasp effect. So you had every right to demand enforcement of 401.2 to the letter.

"Technically not even you may look at it (you must memorize or write down the name/stats of the card)" is a bit deceptive. Praetor's Grasp does explicitly allow you to look at the card; it has to, in order to allow you to cast it in a sensible way.

@AlexP Right, the card says so. Retracting that bit.

Sorry to be a pedant, but here is more pedantry: "While your opponent shuffles, I guess it's ok for him to have a quick peek at his library." When he searches, sure, but not if he's just shuffling independently (like with Emrakul or Elixir of Immortality). Players who look at cards while shuffling -- even just the bottom card -- are generally investigated for cheating.

@AlexP Right again, and the rules clearly say it's not allowed. Though I'd say it depends on the type of event and the REL whether it's really a problem. I don't think I'd press the issue at a Prerelease or FNM. Looking at the bottom card after shuffling is another matter entirely, because one gains "forbidden knowledge".

This was at a Competitive REL. I specifically asked the judge if it's ok for me to shuffle face up (since it's in a hidden zone and by his rules I'm allowed to see) and note the position of the cards.

I'm not a judge; the ruling, however, seems obviously mistaken.
The statement that "while cards are in a hidden zone they may be looked at by the owner as long as it doesn't take too much time" is emphatically not true.
Cards in the library are hidden from all players:

401.2. Each library must be kept in a single face-down pile. Players can’t look at or change the order of cards in a library.

When you search a library, the rules allow you, the person taking the action, to look at its contents:

701.15a To search for a card in a zone, look at all cards in that zone (even if it's a hidden zone) and find a card that matches the given description.

Nowhere in the comp rules does it say that you get a free peak at a hidden zone when someone else gets to look at it.

All the MTR has to say is this:

... players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available only to them, unless specifically prohibited by the rules.

So, technically speaking, you may choose to show your opponent a library as you are looking through it, but are not obligated to do so.

Honestly, when I use Surgical Extraction, I nearly always show my opponent his library (as I am permitted to do -- see the MTR quote). It's just easier, and also part of the "make you wince" factor of the card. Praetor's Grasp is the opposite, though.

The spirit of the card for Surgical Extraction would imply showing the cards, to prove you did only exile cards with the same name. It's actually odd that SE doesn't require a reveal before exile, as other searches with restrictions (in this case, with the same name) do, to prevent this very kind of cheating.

@Andrew Surgical Extraction does not say "exile face down" - so it uses the default, which for exile is face up. Exiled cards can always be looked at by anyone, unless they are specifically exiled face down. That's why SE doesn't need a reveal - your opponent can see the exiled cards freely.


text:
If I am going to start playing Magic The Gathering, what set should I start with?
I know how this site works so I'm going to try my hardest to ask questions that have answers and aren't too open to interpretation.
I'm considering getting (back) into Magic. My son is 12 now and he loves tabletop games.  I remember playing Magic in my college years and while my grades suffered, I had a blast.  I'm not looking to get into competition play.  Just fun with the family and friends.  I basically have 3, hopefully, simple questions:

Does it matter what block you start with when starting from scratch?
If the answer to the above question is yes, then which blocks should I pick up a couple of starter decks for?
Do all blocks work together or do you have to build block based decks?

I think by series you probably mean "block" (in Magic terminology)...

I am reminded of a related question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4399/is-there-a-simple-strategy-for-re-learning-magic-the-gathering

My recommendation is that you buy the intro packs. As they contain a ready to play deck. Not only that it have a theme, it also have some booster packs for the fun part.

Unlesss you're playing in some sort of tournament, It doesn't matter what cards you use.
The most popular tournament format is Standard, and the legal cards for that are all the cards from the past 5 to 7 sets.(4 sets rotate out every October)
Standard legal sets include:  Innistrad, Dark Ascention, Avacyn Restored, M13, Return to Ravnica, and Gatecrash.
Generally your local store will be selling these standard-legal sets.

Other notable tournament formats include
Modern: which is cards printed in a major set since 8th edition.
Legacy: which has no time limit on cards, but there is a list of banned cards
Vintage: which has no time limit, and has a restricted list(you can only use 1 of the card).  the only cards banned in Vintage are cards that deal with Ante and Shaharazad.
You can learn about other sanctioned formats here.

If you're just looking to play around with each-other casually, than it would be fine, to buy whatever starter decks your store happens to be selling and play them against each-other.
If you're looking to play a little more competitively, the Event decks are designed to be fairly powerful, and able to win a few games at low-level tournaments such as FNM(Friday Night Magic) events.  (your local store might have such events.  you should ask)

your store might also have duel decks.  These are 2 decks designed to be played against each-other.  Not all the cards in these decks are Standard Legal

Also, in the specific context of introducing a 12 year old to the game, the "core set" i.e., M13, is intentionally made up of cards with fewer complicated rules and interactions to understand.

I ended up buying a Gatecrash intro pack and a Return to Ravnica intro pack.

Wizards has provided a route for the new/casual player that's an introductory middle ground between buying enough booster packs to make a deck and buying a full-fledged tuned deck.
They're called Booster Battle Packs with a MSRP of $9.99. They come with two 20-card semi-randomized decks, two 15-card booster packs, a learn to play guide and rules insert.
All the latest expansions have Battle Packs to get a taste of MtG play and deck building.

Generally, it doesn't matter what series you start with. The accessibility of cards is probably going to be the biggest driving force. Newer cards are going to be easier to find since you can get them at most big box stores as both individual packs and groups of packs (e.g.: fat packs).
If you were going to get started, finding a couple of packs from one of the core sets, like M13, would provided the easiest entrance since it features simpler mechanics and generally prints out what each mechanic means. In some of the block sets, you get into more complex game play which requires more knowledge of stack rules and such. This is great to know, but it is probably easier to start with a core set. You may even be able to find pre-built decks in each of the colors for a core set, which would give you a decent idea about the strengths and weaknesses of each color. For a little while, local cardshops were handing out free 40-card decks in each color from M13 to try and get new players into the game. It may be worth calling your local cardshop to see if they happen to have any more.
All blocks do work together, but some are more synergistic than others. Red cards will always work with red cards, but you may be looking at different types of play depending on the block. As an older example, you wouldn't want to try and mix too many snow-covered type cards with sets that don't utilize effects of snow-covered. But for the most part, you'll be able to use cards from every set while making decks.
Edit:
I also would focus on trying to find pre-constructed decks before buying packs. Deck building is a rich and satisfying part of playing Magic, but it would be better to learn the flow of the game before trying to create decks that fit that flow. But knowing the basics provided by core sets is probably still more important than throwing extra mechanics in from block sets. My Order of Buying for Starters Priority (OBSP, trademark pending):

Core Preconstructed Decks, like M13 and M12
Core Individual Packs
Block Preconstructed Decks, e.g.: Return to Ravnica or Avacyn Restored
Block Individual Packs

Additional, long after the fact edit:
Every once in a while, WoTC releases Duel Decks. These are another good way to get more decks. For $20, the package includes two fully function 60-card themed decks. Each generally focuses on one mechanic, helping to ease you into more options.

@Gregg Per my most recent edit, the Sorin vs. Tibalt Duel Deck is set to be released on March 15, 2013. You should be able to get this from your local card shop or big box store. These are pretty decent deals for what you get, and the decks are usually fun to play.


text:
When can you cast Flash after casting Collective Voyage?
After you've cast Collective Voyage, do you wait for everyone to pay and then respond with Flash, or do you have to respond immediately?

What are you asking? What do you want to accomplish? Your question does not make that clear at all.

MtG works by a system of timing and priority. The Active Player, player whose turn it is, can cast Sorceries when the stack is empty during their first or second Main Phase. After casting a spell and paying the required costs, including mana costs, the spell waits on the stack for all players to pass priority, then the top object on the stack resolves.
Casting Collective Voyage for one {G} mana places it on the stack, and then priority is returned to you.

116.3c If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.

You may choose to cast Flash before Collective Voyage resolves, in response to it, since Instants may be cast anytime you have priority and you have the required costs including mana cost {1}{U} to cast the spell. In this case, it would resolve first.

116.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time he or she has priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during his or her main phase any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty.

You may also choose to wait until after Collective Voyage resolves, when you will receive priority again to cast spells and activate abilities. In this case, it would resolve afterward.

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

116.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends.

During the resolution of Collective Voyage, players may not cast spells, but may activate mana abilities to search their library for land cards. The order of how much to pay is written on the card, starting with the player who cast Collective Voyage and continuing clockwise. After all players have decided how much to pay, the lands are placed on the battlefield simultaneously and Collective Voyage is placed in its owner's graveyard (having resolved).

116.1d A player may activate a mana ability whenever he or she has priority,whenever he or she is casting a spell or activating an ability that requires a mana payment, or whenever a rule or effect asks for a mana payment (even in the middle of casting or resolving a spell or activating or resolving an ability).

When you play a sorcery, you place the spell on the stack.  Players can then respond with an instant spell or an activated ability.
When nobody responds, or all the responses have resolved, the sorcery will "resolve" in one go.  You cannot respond while a spell is resolving.  That means you can't respond to the first part of the spell, when players pay mana.  The spell will resolve in its entirety.
Only after the entire sorcery is done can you respond again.

You have two options.

You can cast Flash (or a card with Flash) in response to the Collective Voyage
You can cast Flash (or a card with Flash) after Collective Voyage has finished resolving.

To cast a spell in response to a spell or ability is to cast a spell after another has been cast but before it resolves.
If you cast Flash in response to Collective Voyage, Flash will resolve before Collective Journey, so Flash will resolve before anyone has payed any mana.

After Collective Voyage has finished resolving, players have a change to play spells, starting with the active player (which is likely the one who cast Collective Voyage, since it's a sorcery).
You could cast it then if the Active player declines to cast anything then.


text:
Does activating Sensei's Divining Top make me miss my counterbalance trigger?
I have Sensei's Divining Top and Counterbalance on the table, with plenty of mana. My opponent casts a spell (for the sake of argument, lets say they cast Naturalize).
I say "In response, spin the top" i.e. Pay 1 mana to look at the top 3 cards of my library and put them back in any order.
Have I missed my Counterbalance trigger?
Clarification
I am looking for an answer based on the Missed Triggers Policy that relates to tournament play of Competitive Rules Enforcement Level (REL) or higher. I would like to know whether, by activating my Divining Top without acknowledging the trigger, I have implicitly "chosen" not to reveal the top card of my library.

I * think* you have to activate counterbalance to add it's effect to the stack, then use sensei's top add it's ability to the stack. Now you get to resolve the top before the counterbalance effect.

Counterbalance is a triggered ability rather than active, apologies if its just me being pedantic, but you can't ever activate it. my question is essentially along the lines of identifying whether or not the current missed trigger policy would consider the counterbalance trigger "missed" if it has not been announced before the divining top activation. It's whether it behaves the same way as jace, memory adept's trigger, wherein you need not say anything about the trigger until damage is dealt, and still have the trigger as resolved.

Ah I read the "you may..." as you may add the ability to the stack, rather than adding it to the stack automatically and then choosing later.

There have been some changes to the MtG Tournament rules.

Regular Rules Enforcement, there are really only two "rules." You aren't allowed to miss your own triggered abilities, and your opponent isn't required to remind you about them. The second one is a change that was put in at higher RELs a few months ago. Please note that this part applies only to triggered abilities. [...]
The new rules require the controller of a triggered ability to "demonstrate awareness" of a trigger before certain times for different types of triggered abilities. If a player fails to do this, the triggered ability is considered missed. What counts as demonstrating awareness? Let's look at the four cases:

Since you need to make a choice to reveal the top card of your library or not, this trigger is not considered missed at this time. Your opponent would likely need to ask, "Resolve?" with respect to their spell, and you would have to choose to pass, which would cause the trigger to become "missed".

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution.
The controller needs to acknowledge the change or choice before taking an action that he or she couldn't take before the ability would resolve. We want to make sure that the triggered ability is actually missed, so we allow for the possibility that you may cast instants or activate abilities in response. For example, if you attack with Geist of Saint Traft and then cast an instant before putting an Angel token onto the battlefield, the rules will assume that Geist's triggered ability is still on the stack. Only after you do something that necessarily has to be after the ability resolved, like attempting to assign combat damage, is the triggered ability considered missed.

I think the answer is clear... there is no "missed" trigger. The trigger goes on the stack whether or not anyone acknowledges it. It's not until it would resolve that there's the possibility of missing it. There's no rule that says that a player needs to acknowledge or mention each trigger that is going on the stack. A trigger going on the stack cannot be "missed"... only a trigger being resolved can be missed.

*Disclaimer... I am not a tournament player nor a judge... perhaps tournaments have some sort of rule about having to acknowledge each trigger that is going on the stack, but I'm pretty sure the MTG rules themselves don't. Triggers that get triggered always go on the stack, whether anyone acknowledges it or not.

@Gendolkari, The quoted sources however deal entirely with how triggered and activated abilities are put on to the stack and the order in which they are resolved. I feel pertinent lines from the Missed Triggers Policy should also be present to support this answer in that regard. As you say you are not a tournament player I'm guessing you haven't seen/heard of this policy, as it (currently) applies only to  tournament level events.

Right, I see. I wasn't aware that tournaments had special "missed trigger" rules. Carry on! :)

The emphasis on 116.2a is why you can't miss the trigger in this instance. As soon as you receive priority the ability is added to the stack. When it would resolve, if you skip over it, then you have missed it. So in this instance, by activating your top you have not missed the trigger, even if you imply that you are activating the top in response to the spell  your opponent played. If you activate the top and then when you are done let your opponents ability resolve without resolving your counterbalance, then you have missed it. Also you can't forget to activate it purposefully.

You can't choose to miss a trigger. Fixed.

No, you haven't missed the trigger (yet).
The definition of a missed trigger is:

A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

The sentence I bolded is key. For most triggered ability and for Counterbalance's ability specifically, the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion is when it would resolve. As long as it hasn't come time to resolve, it hasn't been missed yet. Putting it on the stack is not considered visible, but choosing targets and dealing damage is.
If you cause the game to move forward beyond the point when it would resolve, then it becomes a missed trigger, and the appropriate penalty and remedy are applied.
This applies to all REL. The difference between REL is only in penalties and remedies.