text:
Dominion: Can travellers (Peasant, Page) be Upgraded or Trade Routed?
The upgrades of Peasant and Page (Soldier, Fugitive, Disciple etc) are not in the supply. But can they still be trashed by Trade Route, or can they be upgraded by Upgrade? For example, a Disciple has a technical value of 5 - can it be upgraded to Gold by Upgrade?

Yes. The cards in the traveler lines have costs so that they can be considered for cards such as Upgrade - in all such cases, you just ignore the "*" in their cost (just as you do for Peddler). So it is perfectly legitimate to trash a Disciple with Upgrade in order to gain a Gold.
The main thing that you can't do with those cards is interact with their piles outside of the exchange mechanism - you can't return them with Ambassador, and you can't gain them with something like Workshop.

And trashing them for example with Trade Route (or any other trasher) is also OK? And then they are trashed outside the game, just like those cards that are in the supply?

Absolutely, although trashed doesn't necessarily mean gone - there are a few cards that let you gain stuff from the trash, and you can legitimately target non-supply cards that have been trashed (so, for example, Graverobber can gain a Disciple from the trash).

And one more clarification about travellers: if I disciple a traveller, do I gain a copy of that one just like with any other card? For example, if I disciple a Fugitive, do I gain a copy of the Fugitive?

@Sakari No; Disciple works the same as Workshop, which the answer explains cannot be used to gain those cards. Basically, "gain" always means "from the supply" unless it specifically says somewhere else.


text:
Are gods treated as creatures before they enter the battlefield?
Gods, such as Purphoros or Mogis, are not creatures if your devotion is not high enough.
Does this count when casting them? If, for example, an opponent tries to counter with Essence Scatter when the player casting a god doesn't have the required devotion, is the god a valid target?
Or, if Purphoros is on the battlefield and the controller tries to cast another god, for which they don't have the required devotion, do opponents suffer the 2 damage?

Yes. It always has the creature type when on the stack (though that makes it a creature spell or a creature card, not simply a creature).
No. ETB abilities check the appearance of the object as it exists on the battlefield.

The first question boils down to "When does As long as your devotion to red is less than five, Purphoros isn't a creature work?"
If it were a characteristic-defining ability, it would function in all zones, including on the stack[CR 604.3]. Mistform Ultimus has such an ability. But Purphoros's isn't a characteristic-defining ability because it sets the type conditionally[CR 604.3a]. As such, it only works when the card is on the battlefield[CR 112.6].
So, Purphoros has the creature type while on the stack regardless of your devotion, and Essence Scatter can target and counter it regardless of your devotion.

The second question boils down to "When does Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control check the object's type?"
First of all, it's not casting a creature spell that triggers Purphoros's ability; it's a creature entering the battlefield.
We know the God is always a creature card on the stack, but it might not be on the battlefield, so the second question boils down to when does the triggered ability inspect the God's types. ETB abilities check the object as it exists immediately after it enters the battlefield to see if the ability triggered[CR 603.6d].
In other words, Purphoros's ability checks if the God entering the battlefield is a creature as it exists on the battlefield, and that depends on the your devotion to the God's color. If it's low, it won't be a creature and your ability won't trigger.

Referenced Rules

604.3. Some static abilities are characteristic-defining abilities. A characteristic-defining ability conveys information about an object’s characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on that object (such as in its mana cost, type line, or power/toughness box). Characteristic-defining abilities function in all zones. They also function outside the game.

604.3a A static ability is a characteristic-defining ability if it meets the following criteria: (1) It defines an object’s colors, subtypes, power, or toughness; (2) it is printed on the card it affects, it was granted to the token it affects by the effect that created the token, or it was acquired by the object it affects as the result of a copy effect or text-changing effect; (3) it does not directly affect the characteristics of any other objects; (4) it is not an ability that an object grants to itself; and (5) it does not set the values of such characteristics only if certain conditions are met.

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:

(The exceptions are all common sense, such that an ability that requires you to discard a card to activate only function in your hand.)

603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. [...]

(The exceptions are leaves-the-battlefield and similar abilities. Again, stuff that's obvious without knowing the rules.)

Shouldn't the first sentence say "creature spell" instead of "creature"? A "creature" is always on the battlefield, right?

@Gendolkari, Fixed. There English were problems other. Those have been fixed too.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does "other" refer to that particular instance or all cards of the same name?
For example Chief of the Edge has the ability:

Other Warrior creatures you control get +1/+0.

So I understand that it would definitely affect Avalanche Tusker. But if I play another Chief of the Edge, do they mutually affect each other, giving each other +1/+0 (and my Tusker +2/+0)?
Other examples where "other" is used in this way include Adaptive Automaton and Armament Master.

"Other creatures you control" means "Creatures you control which are not this object." Chief of the Edge further restricts things by only affecting Warriors.
If the ability did not affect creatures with the same name, it would read something like "Creatures you control not named "Chief of the Edge"..."

And in general, any time a card wants to refer to all cards of a given name, it will specifically use the word "named".

You are right, they give each other +1/+0 as it says on the card. But not the the  Armament Master. because this is of type Soldier, not warrior.

I meant the other two as examples of where "other" is used, not examples of where the +1/+0 might apply, sorry for the confusion. I'll update my question.

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


text:
Is there a card that protects me from a (self-)milling death?
Is there a card with the ability: You do not lose the game being for unable to draw a card?
I've found one so far; Mine, Mine, Mine! but it applies to all players.
A little back story; I have Reliquary Tower that has the ability; You have no maximum hand size. I also have several cards that allow me to get an abundance of card draws: for instance I have Dragon Appeasement, if these two are paired in my devour deck I can get a wealth of cards, enabling me to play out Thromok the Insatiable all the sooner.
This would of course mill me out pretty quickly, so I was hoping for a card that does for me in prevention of loss by having no library what Phyrexian Unlife does for having 0 life.
I'm hoping there's a keyword I didn't think of, and that someone has a card in mind for this.

There are cards which cause you to skip your draw step, such as your Dragon Appeasement. You could also use something like Feldon's cane or Paradigm Shift to reshuffle your graveyard into your library.

Those are both good, thank you @Nick. They're kind of one shots though; I'm assuming that Paradigm Shift would end up being the only card in  my graveyard as it would be on the stack busy resolving whilst the action is being carried out? Not the end of the world if I've got a few of them though :)

And since you're skipping your draw step anyway with Dragon Appeasement, why not use Ivory Gargoyle to gain a free creature to sacrifice each turn?

You could also use Elixir of Immortality which gets shuffled back into your deck each time you use it.

Nice, very nice :D

There are several cards that let you replace a card draw, like 'Abundance', 'Pursuit of Knowledge', 'Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar', 'Sages of the Anima', 'Obstinate Familiar' and 'Parallel Thoughts'.

Win the game
Cards which change "draw from an empty library" into a win condition:

Laboratory Maniac is the most famous card to do this.
Jace, Wielder of Mysteries has a static effect to do the same.
Thassa's Oracle has an enters the battlefield trigger which causes you to win if the number of cards in your library is less than your devotion to blue.

Shuffle your graveyard into your library
Some cards can cause you to shuffle your graveyard into your library, including Emrakul, the Aeons torn (among other mythic eldrazi cards). Elixir of Immortality will do the same, cheaper for a gain of 5 life. Other similar cards exist, including Finale of Revelation.  Gaea's Blessing is notable for shuffling your graveyard into your library specifically if it itself is milled.
Don't draw a card
Blue Sun's Zenith You can read this as "UUU: don't draw a card", and add the card to your library, so you can draw it next turn and repeat.
Don't lose the game
Various cards include a "you can't lose the game" effect, such as Platinum Angel and Angel Grace.
Miscellaneous

There is also the slightly convoluted combo of Consecrated Sphinx, Notion Thief which you then Donate to your opponent before doing anything to cause you to draw a card outside of your draw step. The draw will be redirected to your opponent, which will trigger the sphinx, which will allow you to redirect 2 more draws and repeat the process to mill your opponent out to defeat. Probably not as good as Lab maniac, but worth remembering.
Nexus of Fate has a replacement effect which causes it to go to your library rather than your graveyard, so you never deck yourself if you can cast it every turn (unless something else causes you to draw). As Nexus of Fate gives you an extra turn, this is a win con if you have some way of damaging the opponent on every turn.
Murderous Rider goes to the bottom of your library when it dies so you can play a similar trick with this if you can draw it and kill it every turn.

Oh now those are cool, I've seen Emrakul before and always thought it just plain mean! But Laboratory Maniac is awesome, a completely different twist to what I was trying to achieve. Thanks @Rawgramming

Love that combo, my wife will never forgive me if I use it on her :D

Platinum Angel will also prevent you to lose the game, even if Laboratory Maniac seems way better in your case.

good point, i will add it (and one other) to the list

Platinum Angel is ridiculous, I love it!

Elixer of Immortality is pretty boss as well. And you gain life.

I've tried to make this into a canonical answer; please consider editing this answer rather than writing a new answer.

If we're talking about not drawing cards (and only applying to you) you can't forget Necropotence

@CLockeWork Platinum angel is generally considered to be a bad card actually, being an artifact creature almost every kind of removal will work on it, and generally the idea is the best way to not lose is to just win instead.

To add to your answer, you can use cards which prohibit you from drawing cards. For example Underrealm Lich

Note that you don't lose for having an empty library.  You lose for drawing from an empty library.
Dragon Appeasement already probably does what you want.  It lets you skip your draw step, and its draw ability is optional, so you will only get milled if another player has a spell or ability that forces you draw a card (such as Braingeyser) or you play a card that forces you to draw (don't do this).
For cards that protect you from being milled in general, there are:

Cards with replacement effects for card draws.  The key phrase in the oracle text is "would draw a card".  This comes in several variations:

"if you would draw a card", such as Abundance, Laboratory Maniac, or Obstinate Familiar
"the next time you would draw a card", such as Words of Worship
"if a player would draw a card", such as Uba Mask

Cards that let you shuffle your graveyard back into your library, such as Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or Elixir of Immortality
Cards that say "you can't lose the game", such as Platinum Angel or Gideon of the Trials

The first two bullet points there are really describing two variants of the same thing: replacement effects that replace drawing cards with something else. The key phrase is "would draw a card", and the word "instead" later in the ability or effect.

@murgatroid99 That's a good point.  I've listed them differently only because they have slightly different implication for deck building (the Words cycle require mana to use, as opposed to always on effects like Obstinate Familiar)

You can say that about almost anything here. Abundance and Laboratory Maniac go in very different kinds of decks, and accomplish very different deckbuilding goals.

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


text:
Can I somehow block zone spells?
Can I somehow block a spell that targets a zone and damages all creatures within it, like Firestorm?

Yes, Walls will block ranged spells. From the rules (page 17) regarding Spell Range:

Note: If there are any walls between your spell caster and the target, the walls may block your spell (see “Walls” on page 21).
You cannot cast a spell or make a ranged attack through a wall that blocks LoS. (The icon that indicates this is a picture of an eye with the red diagonal line through it)

An example is also listed on page 21 diagramming Line of Sight for a spell.

When you count range to your target, you must also check if you have clear line of sight (LoS). Draw an imaginary straight line from the center of your creature’s zone to the center of the target’s zone. LoS is blocked if the line crosses through a zone border that has a wall on it with the blocks LoS trait. Walls do not normally block LoS if the line crosses diagonally through the corner of a wall border, as long as at least one side of that corner does not block LoS.

Normally, there is the commonly used spell Block, that allows you to avoid a targeted attack. This doesn't work though, because Firestorm is a Zone Attack and as the Unavoidable attribute.

Block - When this creature is attacked, you must reveal Block during the Avoid Attack Step. Block counts as a Defense, and the attack is avoided. Then, destroy Block. If the Attack is Unavoidable, destroy Block without effect.
Zone Attack or Spell - This attack or spell affects all creatures and conjurations in the target zone, without actually targeting them individually. Does not affect walls on the zone’s border. Zone attacks have the Unavoidable trait and make a separate attack against each object in the zone. See “Zone Attacks” on page 27.

Page 27 of the rule book actually shows the Firestorm spell within its example sidebar, and indicates that:

... Zone Attacks always target a zone, never a creature or object. Therefore, abilities and traits that allow a target to react when it is the target of an attack do not apply against a Zone Attack. Zone attacks always have the Unavoidable trait, so Defenses have no effect against them. ...

Is there an enchantment that can do that?


text:
What game are these cards from?

What game do the cards in the hands of the guy second from the right (Gin Ichimaru) come from, if they do come from from any game?

(The guys themselves, of course, are from Bleach: Ulquiorra, Byakuya, Ichigo, Gin and Grimmjow )

@StevenStadnicki I knew that much I was looking for fan art when I stumbled upon it.

As far as I can tell they are standard Tarot cards. Shown are Judgement and The Tower.
While there are games that can be played with them, they are not from a specific game.

In fact, performing a search on the linked wallpaper image ("Bleach Guys"), various websites hosting it which include an image tagging feature have it tagged with "tarot". It's a bit odd, though, considering AFAIK the only tarot cards to appear in Bleach are used by Ugaki and his doll Gessel (in the anime's Bount filler-arc).


text:
Multiple melds for the same card
Can you put down 2 melds of the same card? For instance, a friend accidentally started 2 piles of 5's. Should they have been combined?

Problem #1 - No clear answer
There are a wide variety of variations on Hand and Foot. The versions I've played with people who "know the game" have always allowed a clean and a dirty of the same rank, and never allowed wild canastas. (The two variations I've learned both use the term Canasta for a completed meld; some versions of the written rules use the term books.)
For clarity - some terms:
Clean Canasta: No wild cards, 7 cards (or more)
Dirty Canasta: some wild cards, 7 cards (or more)
Wild Canasta: 7 Wild Cards.
Extending aka Burying: adding cards to a completed canasta
Clean/Dirty/Wild Meld: a group of cards that will become a canasta of the same type when built upon further
Build: to add cards to a meld in order to make it a canasta.
Book: synonym for canasta, also, to collect the completed canasta into a smaller pile, "closing" it.

Pagat.com, however, says only one meld of a given rank per patnership, and allows wild canastas, and extending.
Gocampingamerica.com makes no restriction either way on melds, and shows no scoring for wild canastas, and disallows extending a canasta, but allows larger than 7 cards melded before booking the canasta. It also notes the lack of standardization in Hand and Foot Rules
rummy-games.com does not allow multiple melds of the same rank, but allows wild canastas, and not extending.
The versions I learned both allow a second meld (see below), extending, and disallow wild canastas. They differ on shuffling protocol, burying of wild cards and wilds per dirty meld. (One allows 3 wilds in a dirty meld, and burying wilds; the other requires a meld to always have more naturals than wilds.)

In the Versions I learned
Yes, you can have a second meld of a given rank, provided:

the first one is dirty
you need a clean canasta in order to go out
you have your partner's explicit verbal permission to make the new meld.

Usually, this happens right after someone goes to their foot.
In versions with no extending and no oversize canastas
You can close a canasta and immediately start a new meld of the same rank (provided you have the 4+ cards of specific ranks to do so).
In your situation
Tactically, unless you needed the clean canasta, or the extant needs a single card to complete, they should have melded those 5's into the extant 5's.


text:
How long does a creature returned by the Whip of Erebos remain on the battlefield?
Whip of Erebos says

Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield. It gains haste. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step. If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

Does that mean that the creature will remain on the battlefield for the rest of the current turn and pretty much all of the next turn, too, save for the end of that turn? eg. could I attack with the resurrected creature twice?
And what happens if I bounce it back to my hand? I assume it doesn't go to the graveyard from my hand?

By the way, you left out part of the text of the ability that was clearly relevant to the question. That's probably not a good idea if you want to get the correct answer.

The creature will remain on the battlefield for the remainder of the turn that it came into play. The last phase of each turn is the ending phase, and the first step of that phase is the end step. When that step starts, the triggered ability "Exile it at the beginning of the next end step" will trigger and you will exile the creature.
The next part of the ability says "If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else." This means that if it would go to your hand from the battlefield (you "bounce" it), it is exiled instead.

Re "The creature will remain on the battlefield for the remainder of the turn that it came into play.", ...unless Sundial of the Infinite is used.

Sundial of the Infinite is a special case, so it's not really worth mentioning every time there's a discussion of an ability that triggers at a specific step or phase.

It's funny you should mention abilities that trigger at a specific step, because it's pretending it didn't have anything to do with steps ("for the remainder of the turn that it came into play") that opened the door to mentioning the Sundial.

Actually, you can't do that. The ability specifically says "Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery." So besides Sundial, the creature will always leave play the turn it entered. "Remainder" is an approximation that very rarely matters in practice.

I was referring to the ability being used in the end step and the whip's activated ability. Without that, sundial is the only special case.

The whipped creature will be exiled at the beginning of the next end step, so it will normally only be able to attack once.
There is a way to keep it permanently in play if you Exile the creature, then return it to the battlefield with something like Cloudshift. This way, the replacement effect on leaving the battlefield will not occur (Whip doesn't send the creature to exile, because it's going to exile anyway). Then after Cloudshift returns it to play it is a new creature and Whip of Erebos won't be able to find it to Exile it at the end of the turn.
You could also phase it out before the end of the turn, since Phasing Out doesn't leave the battlefield.. The creature would then be unable to be exiled at the end of the turn as its phased out. The replacement effect from the Whip would still be in effect, so if the creature later leaves the battlefield it would be exiled instead.

If the Whipped creature phases out, it will not be exiled at the end step (it "doesn't exist"). However, it is still the same object, so after it phases back in, if it leaves the battlefield, the replacement effect will still kick in and exile it.


text:
Will double strike trigger cipher twice?
Say I am playing with a creature that has double strike (e.g. Two-Headed Cerberus), and I cipher Hidden Strings to it. This allows me to tap/untap up to 2 target permanents whenever the creature deals combat damage to a player.
If my creature then attacked a player and wasn't blocked, and he took the double strike damage, would I then be able to tap/untap 2 target permanents twice? In effect tap/untap 4 target permanents?
I am asking this because my friends and I play with a few different ciphers and have had arguments about this a few times.

Cipher triggers whenever the encoded creature deals combat damage to a player. An unblocked creature with double strike will deal combat damage to the player twice; once in the "first strike" combat damage step, and again in the regular combat damage step. As a result, if an encoded creature with double strike is not blocked, you will be able to cast the encoded card twice.

Yucks, double-strike is so overpowered.


text:
Why did deathtouch not work against a double strike or first strike creature?
I am new to mtg, but I come across a lot of technical things that don’t make sense to me. One major thing that has infuriated me is why deathtouch doesn’t work when I block with it. I had Orzhov Enforcer and blocked with it against a Fencing Ace with a +1/+1 counter on it. It didn’t die though. My creature defended and dealt -1 damage which should’ve killed it, but didn’t. Why did this happen more than once with me.
There is another case where I dealt 2 damage with two 1/1’s against Tajic, Legion’s Edge and it did not die. The card says it prevents damage to other creatures you control not the card itself. So, why did it not die that time either?
In both encounters, the opponent did not have any enchantment, artifact, instant, whatever to prevent any damage or keep these two creatures alive. So, what is the deal? What am I missing?

"My creature defended and dealt -1 damage" It dealt negative damage? Is that a typo? Or are you looking at this from a perspective of "health" that is "reduced" by damage?

Fencing Ace has double strike. Tajic can be given first strike. That means they deal combat damage first, before your Orzhov Enforcer can, so the Enforcer's deathtouch did not matter.
Normally, when combat happens there is a single damage step after attackers and blockers have been declared. In a damage step, all combat damage is dealt simultaneously.
However, if one or more creatures have double strike and/or first strike, there is another damage step in which only creatures with first strike and/or double strike deal damage:

506.1. The combat phase has five steps, which proceed in order: beginning of combat, declare attackers, declare blockers, combat damage, and end of combat. The declare blockers and combat damage steps are skipped if no creatures are declared as attackers or put onto the battlefield attacking (see rule 508.8). There are two combat damage steps if any attacking or blocking creature has first strike (see rule 702.7) or double strike (see rule 702.4).

If a creature dies in that step, it won't be around for the next damage step to deal damage:

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

Also note that Tajic only prevents noncombat damage, i.e. only damage that was not dealt during a combat damage step, though it didn't matter either way for your question.

I still don’t understand. If Tajic with 2 defense takes damage from two 1/1’s blocking why doesnt the Tajic die?

Tajic did not take 2 damage, that's my point. If Tajic gets first strike from his ability, and your 1/1's don't have first strike, Tajic will deal 3 combat damage to them first. Your 1/1's will die before they can deal damage. Same with Fencing Ace and your Enforcer. Enforcer does not have first/double strike, so it would deal damage after Fencing Ace, if it was still alive.

Side note about Arena:  The animations for combat always show the attacker moving forward when damage is dealt, even if the defender has first strike and is the only one dealing damage.  This can make it look like the attacker is dealing damage when they aren't supposed to, but it's entirely a visual effect and doesn't affect gameplay in any way.

Wouldn't the Fencing Ace die as well as the Orzhov Enforcer when these two fought?

@Jokus there was a counter on the ace. Presumably from Tajic's mentor trigger if this was one attack

While this answer is complete and accurate, it's possibly too detailed for a new player, and the meat of the answer is lost. I think merely explaining that deathtouch requires the creature with the keyword to hit the other creature to kill it, and that first/double strike may prevent this, and then print the relevant rules as an endnote.

The rulings for deathtouch state (emphasis mine):

702.2b A creature with toughness greater than 0 that’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked is destroyed as a state-based action. See rule 704.

So the ability only has any effect, if a creature was actually damaged by the creature with deathtouch.
Following @Hackworth 's answer, both "Fencing Ace" and "Taijc, Legion's Edge" deal their damage in the "first strike combat damage step" before your "Orzhov Enforcer" has any chance to deal its damage.
After that step, there would be the "regular combat damage step", but since your enforcer is already dead at that point, it won't damage the other creatures. Hence, deathtouch won't apply.

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


text:
How does priority of triggered abilities and state based actions work together?
So, my opponent and I have 5 life each.
My opponent is attacking with two 5/5 random creatures, and I'm blocking one with Spitemare.
What would happen next?
Will the Spitemare's ability trigger? Letting me redirect that damage to my opponent and winning
Or will I die before the ability is triggered? Losing the game beforehand?

The ability triggers, but you lose and the ability is never put on the stack. What happens as the damage is dealt is this:

Five points of combat damage are dealt to each of you and your Spritemare, and three damage to one of the 5/5's, reducing your life total to 0, and giving one creature lethal damage

The spritemare's ability triggers, but is not put on stack yet (cf. comprehensive rulebook, 603.2 "[...] The ability doesn’t do anything at this point." and 603.3 "[...] its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority", emphasis mine)

Your opponent is about to get priority. Rule 116.5 says what happens in which order:

116.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event (see rule 704, "State-Based Actions"), then repeats this process until no state-based actions are performed. Then triggered abilities are put on the stack (see rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities"). These steps repeat in order until no further state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the player who would have received priority does so.

State-based actions are checked first. You lose the game for having $0$ or less life, and simultaneously the spritemare is put into your graveyard for having taken lethal damage. If there are no other players, the game ends immediately (cf. 104.1). If there are more players left, this is what happens.

You take all cards you own and leave the game. Effects that give you control over permanents and players end. If there are still objects under your control, they are exiled. (Here I am a bit uncertain, as according to the examples in the comprehensive rules a creature that got under your control with Bribery is exiled, while a creature you've taken over with Act of Treason is just returned to its owner's control. Memnarch seems to have a middle ground and I can't tell which way that will go.) Every spell and effect you own on the stack ceases to exist (there can't really be any in this specific case, considering that the last thing that happened in the game was that combat damage was dealt, and that can't happen if you had anything on the stack).

State-based actions are checked again (maybe you had an aura that was keeping someone else's creature from dying, for instance) until nothing more happens. Then all triggers controlled by players still in the game are put on the stack. Then state-based actions are checked again, then new triggers are put on stack again, and so on until nothing new happens.

Your opponent gains priority and may play an instant or a card with flash, or an activated ability. In other words, play resumes as normal, with all the triggered abilities going off the stack one by one, and letting players respond between each one. Since we are in the End of Combat step, even if there are no triggers, the active player can't play sorceries, creatures etc. until all players have passed priority and the game continues to the second main phase.

So in this scenario after you have declared blockers we move to the damamge step.
You are dealt 5 damage, putting you at 0 life, as is the Spitemare.
The triggered ability from Spitemare is placed on the stack. Then before either player gets priority State Based Actions say the Spitemare is dead as it has taken lethal damage and that you are dead as you have 0 life. So the Spitemare is placed in the graveyard and you die before the trigger from Spitemare resolves.
The thing to be aware of here is that before any player recieves priority for anything State Based Actions come in and check for things like 0 life, creatures with 0 or less toughness, etc.

This is wrong. The ability never reaches the stack.

SBAs are checked, and resolved before triggers are put on the stack. Then triggers go on the stack, then SBAs are checked for those that the triggers going on stack cause. Spitemare never goes on stack because in the first check of SBA, player who controlled the trigger is removed from the game.


text:
MTG: Balthor the Defiled as a Commander
Balthor the Defiled has an activated ability with the cost "Remove Balthor the Defiled from the game". Excusing that this is now called exile, if Balthor was your commander, could you have Balthor go to your command zone instead of exile and still fulfill the cost for the ability?

Hi and welcome to the site. I found it useful to tag cards with "[MTG:Card Name]" when quoting cards. It gives you a link direct to the gatherer.

No they don't. They have an ability with the cost "{B}{B}{B}, Exile Balthor the Defiled". There hasn't been such thing as "remove from the game" for over 15 years now. Make sure to consult Gatherer for the text of your cards.

@ikegami the "printed" text on gatherer does say remove from the game.

@ThunderToes, What's your point? Did you incorrectly think you contradicted what I said? What I said stands: Contrary to what the OP said, Balthor the Defiled doesn't have an activated ability with the cost "Remove Balthor the Defiled from the game". Its text was changed over 15 years ago.

@ikegami I just thought it wasn't all that important. plus mentioning that it specifically states that on gatherer is not strictly true as when you open the card link the text on the card image is Remove from game. I think most MTG players will know that means exile by now.

@ThunderToes, What are you talking about? I never said it's nowhere in Gatherer. Don't tell me I'm wrong for saying things I didn't even say! /// Re "I just thought it wasn't all that important.", Not so! Telling people that only the Oracle text matters is of the uttermost importance. One should NEVER rely on the printed text.

First off I never said you were wrong. Secondly you have misread my second comment. You said check gatherer for the wordings. checking gatherer shows the card with "Remove from Game". So you cant realy justify saying the OP is wrong when you are telling them to check gatherer while gatherer shows the original printed text. I feel the comment was slightly pedantic. I did not say whether it was correct or not.

@ThunderToes, You are wrong. Gatherer does not say "Remove from Game" in the card's text. Just stop with the misinformation! Or maybe you think the OP is too dumb to realize that "card text" and "card's text" are synonymous even after being quoted the "card text" as being the "card's text"? Either way, not kosher! Your comments are not useful; harmful even.

@ikegami whatever dude you are blowing this out of all proportion. You never mentioned Oracle text in your first comment you just said check gatherer for text. I'm not going to squabble with you over a pedantic matter such as this.

@ThunderToes, Re "You never mentioned Oracle text in your first comment", Duh! There's no mention of "Oracle text" on the Gatherer page either!!! Please just stop!!! Enough with the nonsense!

@ikegami there is an "Oracle" Tab and a "Printed" Tab the Oracle tab card text states Exile and the printed tab card text states Remove from the game. you did not distinguish between these when directing the OP to Gatherer. but you are outright refusing to see this point through pride maybe.

@ThunderToes, Neat. 1) I didn't know that existed, and 2) I didn't link to the "printed" page, and neither do searches of Gatherer. 3) Again, it's not kosher to treat the OP as too dumb to realize I'm taking about the field that says "{B}{B}{B}, Exile Balthor the Defiled" when I say it says "{B}{B}{B}, Exile Balthor the Defiled". Please just stop!

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

You sure can. 903.9 says anytime a commander goes into exile, the graveyard, hand, or library from anywhere; you can instead put them into the command zone. This will, however, increase the cost to play them by (2) every time you do this, which is known as Commander Tax. E.g. First cast of Balthor from the command zone will cost the base of 2BB, 2nd time will be 4BB, 3rd time 6BB, etc.
Also, for older cards, make sure to check the oracle text on your card-viewing site of choice if the wording is confusing. (Gatherer is the official Wizards card-viewer.)


text:
Are movement trays legal in Warhammer 40k Tournaments?
I play Tyranids and would like to make it faster for myself to move units of 30 termagants. I only ask this question for tournament play since in a casual game none of my friends would care. I was wondering if I am missing a ruling on this in the BRB or a FAQ and also generally how 40k tournaments handle this.
I am planning on playing in the next Adepticon so I will check with the tournament staff on the legality once the tournament gets closer but I wanted to know if anything in general would stop me from using them before I even pose the question to tournament staff.

Most tournaments I am aware of ask players to use the original base of the miniature. So, as soon as the bases are on the tray, it should be fine.

From what I've seen on forums and general consensus on the web, there doesn't seem to be any rulings against Movement trays in Warhammer 40K. The only issue it may cause is with certain units with blast radius weaponry. This would possibly deprecate you game if your models are locked in a tray.
However, Termagants should be okay to place in trays as from what I can recall of 40K they don't have blast radius weaponry.
Check this page and this page that I found on the matter. They all seem to suggest its legal but not advisable as it could put you at a disadvantage.

8th edition has a few weapons with an area of effect like a space marine orbital bombardment or vehicle exploding, but no longer has templates so I felt like this edition was the least likely to have problems with movement trays. Also I wasn't planning on using trays that would give me perfect coherency spacing on my models. I actually intend to cram as many as possible into the smallest space possible.

I see, that would make sense and like I said I wouldn't see any issues with Termagants period. As they tend to have very simple weaponry. In terms of cramming them into the smallest possible place, is there not a distance limit for models? Like minimum distance between bases? its been so long since I actually played the game, I haven't kept up with the rules.

I wont be able to stack them on top of each other but friendly models can be within 1" of each other. Enemy models are the only models that I am not allowed to be within 1" of unless I am charging them.

Ultimately you'd have to check the rules for your individual tournaments, however it's unlikely to be an issue and everyone likes speedier play. Additionally in 8th edition there are no more templates so there is no longer a need for a unit to spread out.

Avoiding template fire is no longer a reason for a unit to "spread out". There are still plenty of other reasons for using this tactic. :)

I feel like tactics of spreading out are beyond the breadth of an appropriate answer, however in 8th about the only reason to spread out is to have your unit be near multiple things at once (Characters with Auras, Objectives,etc.) or to block/mix with another unit. There are a lot more instances where clumping is strategically sound (holding objectives, CC, bubble wrapping, area denial, etc)

I only commented because, as written, your comment, "there is no longer a need for a unit to spread out" is not completely true but I wasn't comfortable making that edit.

In older editions you NEEDED to stay spread out in case your opponent had any blasts. You no longer need to. You may choose to for tactical reasons on a turn by turn basis, but it's no longer a constant need.


text:
Variety in competitive standard decks
As you can see, I am a noob in MTG. I have been looking at the top standard decks in order to catch up some guidelines about the deck distribution (quantity of lands, spells and creatures; rares, uncommons and commons; types; colors; repetition of the same card). What I have seen the top of these competitive decks don't have to much card's variety, like having most of the time 3 o 4 cards of the same kind. So the question is: in order to be competitive, is it better not to have a variety of cards or is it easier to build a strategy when you decide to focus only on certain cards?

Related discussion on why competitive MTG decks only have the minimum 60 cards: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/179/why-would-you-want-to-play-with-a-deck-bigger-than-60-cards-in-mtg/193#193

I see, so is mainly for consistency and also because maybe the pro players build their decks based on certain cards and not by colors?

My gut says you can get 300 different answers for this question, none of them more or less correct than the others...

Possible duplicate of Why Deck Building Templates are the same

I'd really like to see this question reopened if we can make it fit the constraints of the site a bit more. My recommendation: scope it to only pro decks and the explanations pros give for their deck design. At that point you could construct a meaningful not-too-broad answer by citing specific articles and interviews.

If you are interested in learning why top tier decks are constructed the way their are, and you have $37 to spare, I highly recommend Next Level Deckbuilding by Patrick Chapin.

There are a lot of factors that need to be considered to make your deck competitive. I will address your concerns mainly in this answer though:

"is it better not to have a variety of cards"

Yes in most cases your deck should have a direct purpose (decking your opponent with discard or mill spells/ burn for direct damage/ Ramp for big creatures and so on). To do this you need to take into consideration the synergy between the cards.  This means cards with the same effect or effects that compliment each other are majorly beneficial when creating a competitive deck. One example would be Pyromancer's Gauntlet in a burn deck then casting Lightning Bolt this is a synergy that gives you more direct damage to fire at your opponent.

"is it easier to build a strategy when you decide to focus only on certain cards?"

It has become a sort of rule of thumb for a lot of players to stick with a "playset" of each card they want in their decks. A Playset is 4 cards of the same name. The purpose behind this is that if you have a combo that you want to build the deck around, or even if you want to be able to have access to a certain card a lot of the time, you would need to have the highest percentage of drawing that card possible. Having four cards of the same name gives you a 1 in 15 chance of drawing that card (with a standard 60 card deck). This also suggests that it is most effective to stick to the smallest deck possible of 60 cards.
Overall it comes with practice and an understanding of the game after playing many games and seeing other decks, you will learn where synergies are possible. it may also be best for you to look on deck builder sites such as Tappedout.net. this will let you browse decks without jumping blindly into a game.

It's worth noting here that while in general you want full sets of cards for consistency, there are cards that you don't want a playset of. Generally the late game cards that are a dead card early on or legendary/planeswalkers that will be dead once you already have one out.

@Andrew I have stated "in most cases" in my answer. Certain win conditions only require one or two of each card. Planeswalkers are a whole different kettle of fish. At the end of the day if your deck isn't doing what you want because you aren't getting a hold of the cards you want, you need more of that card in your deck.

Yes you did, in answer to "better to not have a variety of cards" not while talking about having a playset, you described that as the rule of thumb, but didn't mention any exceptions to that rule, or what and why those exceptions would be.

The exceptions are endless and it's down to personal preference. That's why I said for most players as in my experience most players use playsets of cards.


text:
Is Okk able to attack with a 1/1 goblin and a Goblin Piledriver in the first attack phase?
Okk is a beefy goblin that can't attack if it's the biggest creature attacking.

Okk can't attack unless a creature with greater power also attacks.

As the Active player, during the Declare attackers step (508.1), I choose to attack with Okk, a random 1/1 goblin, and Goblin Piledriver. I think that Goblin Piledriver provides me an out, because it is boosted for each other attacking goblin, in this case making it stronger than Okk.

Whenever Goblin Piledriver attacks, it gets +2/+0 until end of turn for each other attacking Goblin.

If I declare Goblin Piledriver, Okk, and another Goblin attacking, does that satisfy the restriction portion of 508.1c?

I'm guessing you're limiting your query to a single attack phase per turn?

@corsiKa The first attack phase.

Before reading the details, I misread "the first attack phase" in the title, to the first round Okk was in play misassuming the answer was no and he had summoning sickness.  I think it doesn't help the title if searching, but that's my 2 cents.

You cannot do that.
The Declare Attackers step breaks down like this:

Declare your attackers.

Choose what's attacking, and which player or planeswalkers they're attacking.
Make sure you're obeying all restrictions and all requirements. If you are not, the declaration of attackers you've made is illegal. (We rewind and you reconsider what you're declaring.)
Other stuff about paying costs, tapping the creatures, etc.

The active player gets priority, all triggered abilities go on the stack that were triggered during attack declarations, people get the opportunity to cast spells and activated abilities.
(then a whole bunch more stuff)

You can read more about how this step functions on the MTG Wiki page for the declare attackers step.
You might see the issue there:

Goblin Piledriver needs to be at least a 5/2 in step 1 in order for you to be able to declare Okk as an attacker.
Goblin Piledriver doesn't become a 5/2 until step 2 where its triggered ability can go on the stack and resolve. This is way past the point we've already made sure our attack declarations are all legal, and we're not allowed to "look ahead" to take this eventuality into account at the time we're assessing that our attack declarations are legal.
Therefore in step 1, Goblin Piledriver is still just a 1/2, and we don't take into account how big it will be after attack declarations. Declaring Okk as an attacker would be a violated restriction and the declaration of attackers would be illegal.

You won't be able to attack with Okk. Requirements and restrictions are checked when you declare attackers. At this point, piledriver isn't buffed yet. The overall sequence in the Declare Attackers step is:

Declare attacks. Okk's restriction is checked at this point.
Piledriver's ability goes on the stack.
Players have a chance to respond to the trigger.
Piledriver's ability resolves. Only now does Piledriver get buffed, too late to be able to attack with Okk.

This would not be possible as the triggered ability for Goblin Piledriver requires that the creatures attack first before hand. To declare Okk as an attacker, the Piledriver would have to be of higher power before the declare attackers phase.
Okk is not able to attack in that phase and count towards the +2/+0 for Piledriver. This is because at the point of declaring attackers, Okk is not a valid declaration. Thus Piledriver cannot count Okk as an attacker meaning he wont have a higher power.

No, you cannot.
Okk needs a creature to have greater attack then it when attackers are declared. when that happens the gobline piledriver is but a mere 1/2. It only has a triggered ability that triggers after attackers have been declared.


text:
While covering the Queen, if a player pockets the last C/m of his own together with the striker
While covering the Queen, if a player pockets the last C/m of he owns together with the striker then will the game continues with a penalty being place or will this result in a win?

The game will continue, returning the pocketed C/m along with a penalty. If the stroke was proper, your turn continues with you trying to cover the Queen. From the ICF rules:

a) While covering the Queen by a proper stroke, if a player pockets the striker along with his C/m, the C/m so pocketed plus one
  C/m as Due shall be taken out for placing by the opponent. The player shall however, continue his turn. If in that subsequent stroke no C/m of the player is pocketed, the Queen shall not be considered to have been covered and it shall be taken out for placing.
b) While covering the Queen, if a player pockets his Striker along with his C/m by an improper stroke, the C/m so pocketed plus two C/m as due and penalty shall be taken out for placing by the opponent and the player shall lose his turn. The Queen shall be taken out for placing by the Umpire.


text:
Control Effects - Interaction between Molten Primordial and Willbreaker
Okay I stumbled upon a weird situation of control abilities between two creatures.
However, there may be more instances of this...
Say I controlled a Willbreaker and then cast a Molten Primordial, targeting one creature that each of my opponents controlled, Would i take control of them until I lose Willbreaker or would it be until end of turn with primordial?
Willbreaker requires that I target a creature an opponent controls to gain control of it for as long as I control will breaker. This would mean that the spell/ Ability targeting said creature would have to resolve am I correct?
If that is the case, would the primordial take control of them first making them Illegal targets for Willbreaker as it states it has to be a creature an opponent controls. My thinking is that they are already under my control after I targeted them with Primordials ETB ability...
Or can I choose which Trigger happens first in this instance?

Good question, what is the end result you are going for/trying to understand with this? Trying to find out if you lose control of the creatures when Willbreaker leaves, or at end of turn, or both?

@Malco Yeah when do I control the creatures until? Until end of turn with Primordial or until I lose Willbreaker?

To answer your intermediate question, Willbreaker only requires that an opponent's creature "becomes the target of a spell or ability you control". Targets are chosen when the spell is cast or the ability is put on the stack. Whether the spell or ability actually resolves is irrelevant for Willbreaker.

The creature will come under your control by Willbreaker's effect, Molten Primordial's ability will not be applied.
Let's break down the interaction step by step:

Aaron (Active player) controls a Willbreaker. Nick (Non-Active Player) controls a Bear Cub.
Aaron casts Molten Primordial, there are no responses, and it enters the battlefield. Stack is Empty
Molten Primordial's ability goes onto the stack, then you choose targets for it. Aaron chooses to target Nick's Bear cub. Bear cub is a legal target, as it is a creature that Aaron's opponent controls.
The Bear cub has been targeted, so this triggers Willbreaker's ability, which goes onto the stack.

The Stack now looks like this:
(Top) Willbreaker Control ability
Molten Primordial's Control ability
and begins to resolve.

Aaron gains control of Nick's Bear Cub (through Willbreaker).
Bear cub is no longer a legal target for Molten Primordial's ability, as it is not a "creature that player (Nick) controls". As a result it is countered as per the comprehensive rules(emphasis mine):

608.2b: If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.10), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen.

Final Result:
Aaron control's Willbreaker, Molten Primordial, and Bear cub. If at any point Willbreaker leaves the battlefield, Nick will gain control of the bear cub again, even if it is this same turn.

I was just about to ask another question regarding this interaction but I believe the answer is probably the same as this... Does this situation apply to if it were two Willbreakers as Opposed to a Molten Primordial?

@ThunderToes Yes, same would apply, though the triggers go on the stack simultaneously so you get to choose which Willbreaker is controlling the Bear Cub.

nice one. Saved me a lot of time on a duplicate there :P


text:
How Does Chains of Mephistopheles Work?
I need to understand the rulings on this card, as it seems to form an infinite mill and draw combo all on its own!
I will explain:
The rule states:

If a player would draw a card except the first one he or she draws in his or her draw step each turn, that player discards a card instead. If the player discards a card this way, he or she draws a card. If the player doesn't discard a card this way, he or she puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard.

Now my my thinking is that the text in bold and the text in italics sets off an infinite loop if a player draws a card other than their first.
The steps:

Player A draws a second card on their turn
COM triggers, Player A discards a card
COMs second ruling makes Player A  draw a card, again triggering
COMs first ruling and so on to certain death...

Am I missing something with this card or is it actually as ridiculously broken as I am making out?
Card Link: Chains of Mephistopheles
Edit

On closer inspection, it appears it would only make the person discard their hand completely if they draw a second card at all... this is really confusing me.
My thinking on this is that Player A would have to discard a card instead of drawing it... then try and draw again and discard till his hand is gone then mill the top card. Is this how this card works?

Incidentally, the card text in the actual image of the card at the link you've provided is perfectly clear and doesn't even hint at any infinite loop potentials.

@Wildcard I agree with you. The wording of old versions of cards (before sixth edition or so) communicated the intent of the card's effects much more clearly, in my opinion. The new refactored Oracle wording just reads as so much Lawyerese.

The refactored wording is terrible. It presents discarding, drawing, and putting a card from the library in the graveyard as three separate effects. Taken literally, the final sentence says that every time a player doesn't discard a card, they have to put the top card in their library in their graveyard.

@Wildcard Wow... I didn't even think to check the wording on the actual card. It is quite small so i just glanced over it. Like you said, that wording is infinitely easier to understand...

Chains of Mephistopheles doesn't form an infinite draw combo.
The main principle is this: when an event happens, we check all available replacement effects, and then we apply each of them just once. When Chains of Mephistopheles replaces your draw with an instruction to discard & draw, that's not a new draw to which a replacement effect might be applied — it's just a modification to the original draw event, and Chains has already had its turn to change that event.
All of that happens specifically because Chains is a replacement effect, since it uses the language "If (thing would happen), (other thing happens) instead." If it was a triggered ability it would definitely go infinite.
Consider also that if this would lead to infinite draw, Anointed Procession would lead to infinite tokens, Winding Constrictor would lead to infinite counters, etc.
So what does it do? Chains of Mephistopheles is one of those very old cards that's complex enough it needs a flowchart to really understand. Magicjudge produced one here:

@ThunderToes Leave it a day and see if an EVEN BETTER one comes along. :O

Considering the Diagram makes it ten times easier for me to understand I'm accepting this as the answer. The rules text on the other answer is just as helpful but I read flowcharts easier haha.

I think that the answer  should include Boluc Papuccuoglu's comment that the confusion is due to the refactored wording. Much of the confusion is alleviated by simply looking at the original text, so that's a rather crucial element that shouldn't be left just as a comment.

Chains of Mephistopheles' ability is a replacement effect, which means it doesn't go into an infinite loop with itself.
Unlike triggered abilities, which trigger on some sort of event and then make something happen independently, replacement effects modify the way an existing event happens.
Each replacement effect can only modify an event once. With a single COM, a draw event becomes a discard and draw event, and that's it. This is explained within rule 614:

614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace it.

If you had two COMs, it would turn the draw event into a discard and draw event into a discard and discard and draw event. After that, each COM 's replacement effect has been invoked, and nothing more happens.

Ah so does the addition of "Each Turn" make the replacement effect only happen once per turn? I got confused with it being an enchantment that stays on the battlefield. I would've expected to see this as an instant spell

@ThunderToes Nah, it still happens other times in the turn -- parse that sentence as "If a player would draw a card except [the first one he or she draws in his or her draw step each turn]". There's no other way that really makes sense to parse it. It still applies to all draws except that first one.

@ThunderToes The "each turn" is just an allowance to make it clear that you get a "free" card (unaffected by COM) once each turn during the draw step.

@doppelgreener thats what got me thinking it was a loop cus it forces him to draw a card!... I'm so glad Wizards have simplified their card rulings (somewhat) since then, this card was giving me a migraine... haha


text:
Does Psychosis Crawler die in the middle of Days Undoing?
Okay, so I have a commander deck that allows me to draw my entire library and I stumbled upon a strange situation.
This is the chain of events I want to happen:

Tap Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind with Curiosity attached to form an
infinite draw combo.
Cast Psychosis Crawler
Cast Day's Undoing to return my hand and graveyard to my library and draw 7, reactivating the combo with Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind and Curiosity

My question is, during the resolution of Day's Undoing, Psychosis Crawler's power and toughness will be reduced to 0 before I draw my 7 cards (as far as I'm aware?). Does this mean he will die before I activate the draw combo again to win?

Is the Niv-Mizzet part of the question really necessary?

@JonTheMon To me it adds a bit of context to why I am using this combo

But the actual interaction you're looking at is Psychosis Crawler and Days Undoing.  And even that can be boiled down to Crawler and any wheel effect.

I'm confused... wouldn't you have won the game after step 1, before you ever get a chance to cast any of the other things?

Or is the issue simply that the Niv + Curiosity combo can only deal about 85-90 damage before you run out of cards to draw, which wouldn't be enough in a Commander game to kill all opponents?

@GendoIkari Thats the problem. in a multiplayer game i cant kill everyone before I Deck myself and lose. I will be looking for a Laboratory Maniac to further prevent that eventuality. however with Psychosis it deals damage to all opponents giving another possible win con. I may also rely on Fabricate and other tutors to make sure i have Psychosis on the field in the first place.

Psychosis Crawler won't die during the resolution of Day's Undoing.  Toughness check is done as a state-based action.  State-based actions are checked after each spell/trigger is done resolving.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any ...
704.4. Unlike triggered abilities, state-based actions pay no attention to what happens during the resolution of a spell or ability.

Re "State-based actions are checked after spells/triggers are done resolving.", That makes it sound like they are performed after all spells/abilities on the stack are done resolving, but that's wrong. I suggest the following alternate wording: State-based actions aren't checked during the resolution of a spell or ability; they are only checked when a player would get priority.

Note that triggers, on the hand, are constantly checked, if permanent had an ability that triggered "whenever a creature is reduced to zero toughness", it would trigger.

@ikegami Just had a brain wave, does that mean that I wouldnt have to untap Niv mizzet because during Days undoing, the 7 card draw would initiate the combo with Curiosity again right? Essentially meaning I could cut  Dramatic Reversal out of this situation?

@ThunderToes, Correct.

Wonderful. Less manna to enable this then :)


text:
Differences between Dixit versions?
I'm concerned my niece, who's ten and has been raised on the likes of Hannah Montana, has little to no imagination or creativity. I want to find games we can play that will push her thinking out of the Disney drone-mold and I think that Dixit looks perfect for this. However, there's a problem; there are too many versions.
Amazon.co.uk stocks the following versions of Dixit:

Dixit
Dixit 2
Dixit 3
Dixit Odyssey
Dixit Journey

To me Odyssey looks the most random, but may be too far out for someone with little imagination, at least to start with. Common sense suggests starting with Dixit, as it's the first, but that also makes it the oldest; theoretically the newest would be the most stable and well made.
I'm not looking for opinions here, rather I'm after facts about the different games that may help decide which one is right for us.
So my question is: What makes each version of Dixit different, and what can you tell me about each that may help decide which version is best for my situation?

Why did you rollback the title revision? Do you disagree that it's more accurate?

I removed the recommendations tag because this tag is deprecated and should not be used. The tag is an unhelpful meta tag, and in general recommendation questions are not allowed. See http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/656/should-we-ban-game-recommendation-questions-done for more information.

Sorry @ire_and_curses, didn't dissagree, was only trying to revert my formatting, I only dissagreed with the correction of my use of semi colons. And fair enough, like I said; I didn't add it myself, is it possible to get it removed from the lookup?

I personally own all of the above apart from Dixit Journey (which I didn't even know existed).
You should know that, Dixit 2 and 3, aren't technically stand-alone games; they're only sets of additional cards.
Dixit Oddysey is nearly the same as original Dixit when it comes to rules. As far as I remember it has all the rules the original had, plus some additions for bigger number of players. It also has a set of pieces for greater number of players (up to 12, I think). The biggest difference are the actual cards - those are entirely new when compared to original.
My recommendation is to buy the Oddysey, as it contains the game pieces helpful* in playing a game and a manual. Then if your niece likes the game you could buy the others for additional cards.
*) As long as you have access to the game rules, you don't really need anything apart from the cards. All the other pieces in the boxes are used to keep track of players score, and to 'vote' for the cards - if you can manage this some other way (easiest and most crude would be pen&paper solution) you could buy only the cards.

One important change in the rules between 'core' Dixit and Odyssey is that point values for a couple of events (most notably, offering up a card that nobody guesses correctly) have changed to be a bit less penalizing.  Also, while this is sort of noted in passing, the 'mechanisms' for handling guessing - that is, the chits used for voting - also seem a bit better in Odyssey than they were in the base set.

What's the difference between just additional cards, and a stand-alone game for Dixit?

@GendoIkari You may think of the cards as expansion to the game. The cards come in small boxes, containing nothing else besides them - no rules, no board to track points, no chips for voting. All of these are present in the main editions of the game (e.g. Dixit Oddysey). As I mentioned in my answer, as long as you know the rules, and can somehow arrange for keeping score and voting, you don't really need nothing more than cards.

The concept of all the Dixit games are the same, they just have different images. The regular Dixit's images are definitely random. The Odyssey and Journey are more themed around travel and adventure. If you are a fantasy adventure person, I'd recommend Journey because there is Harry potter and Lord of the Rings references galore to be made. As for the regular Dixits (1,2, and 3) they all will be of the same quality of playing so if you have the chance to look at the cards, pick the pack with your favorite artwork. The whole point of the game is to see the creative things people see in each card. You and your niece may not think of the same idea for one card and that is the beauty and re-usability of the game.

Thank you @juleekwin; I've selected ykb's answer due to its specificity, but this has been very helpful

We bought the Journey version for our 8 year old a couple of years ago. We liked the concept of the game, but the images used in this version are dark and a bit disturbing. Almost all of them depict sad or angry characters in depressing or distressed scenes. I do not recommend this version as a family-friendly game.

Thanks Kristin, facts like this make it much easier to choose :)

old thread, but I stumbled upon it when googling, so I'm sure others will to.
There's a good comparison of all the dixit products here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/171700/dixit-product-guide

Try to avoid link-only answers because the linked site might go down at some point. Instead, summarize the information in your answer and post a link to your source.

the journey is a complete set with all of the board, pieces, and rules, but if she is more Disney then abstract the pictures on this may just be a little more freighting then fun.


text:
Negative and Infinite ATK in Yugioh
Two questions:
(-1)
Everyone I've spoke to says that you cannot have negative ATK, why?  It's not in the rule book so it seems that if I could reduce the ATK of an opponent to become negative then in the event I attack them, my ATK would be applied then they would attack themselves (the value equal to the absolute value of their negative ATK value).
(∞)
I've heard from a few sources that after the ATK points reach a certain value (over 9999 maybe? by any means possible) that the value becomes infinite, is this true?  I realize there are some cards which are not legal for play which have infinite ATK values, but is there any rule that states a sufficiently high finite ATK "becomes" infinite.

(1) Negative numbers are allowed, because lack of evidence to say that something isn't allowed is not evidence that negative numbers are lacking (in the game).  The very fact that it was not mentioned in the rule books suggests that it is allowed.  The most natural explanation is that such a monster would directly attack its owner's life points if it were to attack another monster and it would be destroyed as well.  Further, we must allow negative numbers for the following reason:
Suppose for a moment that we do allow them; now suppose that I reduce your ATK points to below zero (by whatever means).  Now, suppose on your next turn you summon a monster or use a spell, so that you add ATK points to every monster (or just one); would it be fair for you to add those points as if you were at zero to start with.... absolutely not!  You should first add enough points to raise the monster to zero ATK then apply the rest.  As an example, suppose I lower your 300 ATK monster by -500, then on your turn you add +1,000 ATK to that monster, you are now at 800 ATK and not 1000 ATK.
As a corollary, monsters with 0 ATK can successfully attack negative ATK monsters and not be destroyed.
(2) As far as infinite numbers, I completely agree that no finite number "becomes" infinite at any point; I was merely told that it was a rule; it clearly is not.

-1: The fact that something isn't mentioned in the rules for a game should not be construed as suggesting it's the intended outcome. Your argument that negative numbers must be allowed also doesn't hold water; see Steven's explanation of how it's handled in Magic (a comment on Southpaw's answer) for another much more sane possibility than inventing the rule that monsters attack their owners. (It's far more believable that the rules neglected to discuss negative numbers than that they omitted the rule that monsters can attack their owners in that way!)

Much more sane.... lol.

If two monsters with 0 ATK fight each other in attack mode, they are NOT destroyed.  This is a special exception, and it IS in the official rules.

Yeah corrected.... regardless, until I can hear a rule stating otherwise I will assume my answer suffices.

@Squirtle Your answer has no more backing it than Southpaw Hare's does, but there are a ton of comments easily discoverable on the internet agreeing with him. None of them link to official rules, but still, your answer is just your personal opinion about what the rules should be; assume what you like, but don't expect it to convince someone you're playing against.

Its not a rule, so it's a preference in the end; one preference gets you -3 votes on stackexchange, another gets you +1.  Personally, I would like to see a lot of downvotes (or upvotes) so that this matter gets more attention.... essentially it's a flaw of the game and lacks an official resolution.

@Squirtle You seem distressingly stubborn.  I admit to being unable to find the official minutiae rules list that I'd like (MtG has one, but Yu-g-oh!'s is elusive), technically making our argument a matter of opinion, but... Your opinion is rather silly, I feel.  At the very least, do not get sour about the votes - they speak the opinion of the masses.  To say that you will use your own rules until proven otherwise, despite being so thoroughly disagreed with, is rather poor sportsmanship.

the rules state what happens when 2 monsters enter combat and one has less points than the other, if one monster has a negative value it means more damage to the owner if they were in attack mode or from an effect, while yes there is no rule saying negative values are disallowed they are entirely pointless unless you are attempting to cheat with special affects which subtracts the ATK/DEF values of a monster from one's life points cause then 2 negatives will equal a positive and thus you gain rather then loose life points, no player/tournament offical would allow that to happen

1)  No, negative numbers are not possible on monsters.  It is true that this is not explicitly stated in any of the official rulebooks.  However, it is most common that such values in games refer to non-negative integers, and therefore it can be assumed that it is the case unless otherwise stated.  It is the responsibility of the rulebook to explicitly state if negatives were allowed, not the other way around.
2)  No.  There is noting even remotely true about the statement, to the point of which the very concept seems rather random.  It's possible that such a glitch might exist in one of the video games, and that your friend might have been referring to that.  Even so, that is an unintentional (and theoretical) computer glitch, and does not reflect on the real game, which is not limited by such issues.

Several games do allow attack values to be negative for purposes of calculating 'boosts' needed to get those values back to positive territory, but then just clamp them to zero for effect purposes.  This is how Magic handles negative power on a creature, for instance: a creature that is, say, a -2/2 will deal zero damage (not '-2 damage') to an opponent or to other creatures , but a Giant Growth (+3/+3) will only make it a 1/5.

@StevenStadnicki This can be seen more as recalculating the total from scratch whenever it changes as opposed to going into negatives.

I'm a mathematician so I know what natural numbers are... but there is no need to use equivocal language when this should be readable to any Yu-gi-oh player.

@Squirtle I am not intending to speak in any way that is harsh or insulting, nor do I think it should be interpreted that way.

No I'm not saying that....   Equivocate="To use confusing language".  I simply don't believe the average player knows what "natural numbers" are and non-negative integers are known to many, many more people.  Do the grandma test, if your grandma knows the word, by all means keep it.

@Squirtle Your change is fine, but I'm going to still keep the link to the Wikipedia page.  "Non-negative Integers" is a bolded title on that page, meaning that it is an alternative name for the same article and still applies.  And as for the confusion of the term, that is what the link is for.

LOL.... fine.  They can click the link and add "natural numbers" to their vocabulary.  Everyone here is a future mathematician.

@StevenStadnicki comment makes sense...   but in the case of Magic, its an official rule.

@Squirtle Have you considered changing your accepted answer to mine yet?  It's currently your own, which no one agrees with, and the difference in votes is pretty clear.

I don't speak from the rules, but here goes.
I agreed that there should NOT be negative numbers. If there were, the rules would state it, and effects that have you damage yourself in the process would most likely include something involving a negative number. That said, this is opinion, and the absense of proof is not proof in and of itself.
Furthermore, the logic that they have to exist because 300-500+1000=800 not 300-500+1000=1000 is simple math. This is commutative. You can change the order of the numbers however you want, but the outcome is the same. (1000+300)-500=800
As far as infinity is concerned... I think this is just a situation where the ATK of a card becomes irrelevant. I'm not gonna bother doing the math if you get a 10,000 ATK beatstick. I only have 8000 Life Points at best, and you probably aren't attacking something over 2,000.

Well this is precisely the point... should the point system of yugioh have a noncommutative geometry? I guess like in mathematics, you can have which ever case you want so long as it's agreed upon with the audience at hand

@Squirtle: Note that while they don't put everything somewhere, Konami and the creators of Yu-Gi-Oh! certainly do have an idea of how their rules work. You can agree upon whatever you like, this still doesn't change the rules of the game. Even if all players decided Monsters should be played in the Field Spell Card Zone, this would still not be correct, even if it doesn't specifically say so in the rules. Of course, if you're playing with your friends, you can agree on whatever house rule you like.

Negative ATK/DEF values may not be addressed in the TCG rulebook, but they are addressed in the far more comprehensive OCG rulebook. Quoting a translation of the 2017 edition, from page 129 (not the most recent edition, but no rules updates have affected this point):

Values equal or lower to 0
•If the ATK or DEF values are reduced by some effect and the final
result would be equal or lower to 0, the value becomes 0. Also, if the
reduced value would be referenced, the actual value that was modified
is referenced.
Example: If a 1000 ATK monster would have its ATK
reduced by 1400 by the effect of “Black-Winged Dragon” that says “that
target loses 700 ATK for each Black Feather Counter you removed, and
if it does, inflict damage to your opponent equal to the ATK lost by
this effect.“, the ATK of that monster becomes 0 as a result, and 1000
damage is inflicted to the opponent as a result.

While the OCG is technically a different game, with occasional subtle rules differences, the TCG and OCG usually agree. In the absence of any evidence of a rules mismatch, it's usually safe to go by OCG sources.
As for the second question, there is no such rule, in either the TCG or OCG. High ATK does not become infinite.

Reason why, there his no negative attack points, and defense point, First lets take a look at level vs rank, what his Rank. Rank is the negative of levels, and levels are the negative of ranks. The highest Level his the strongest monster, the same idea the higher the rank number the stronger the monster his. The highest negative level his a stronger monster which his the highest rank. What if you would play a card that said normal summoned one Xyz Monster from your Extra Deck, ignoring summoning condition, if you would think because Xyz monster does not have level you don't need to tribute for rank 5 or higher you would be wrong, with that card played you would still need to tribute 1 monster to normal summoned a rank 5 or 6, and 2 tribute to normal summoned a rank 7 or higher, this is possible because of the ignoring summoning condition phrase. This his why in the real game you can't make a level become a rank by making its level lower than 0. And you can't make a rank become a level by making its rank lower than 0. True in the anime they where able to do that changing a level into a rank by making the level lower than 0, and Vice-versa. I did not see that happen yet in Yugioh Arc-V. We are comparing with the real world not the anime world. So in the real world if negative attack and defense point become a think in the future, they would be a type of monster that start with that, and based on the logic I imply above it would applied yugioh logic not actual real life logic. So yugioh logic would be for example you attack with -800 attack to your opponents -300 attack points. The -300 attack point would lose, and your opponent would take 500 point of damage. Does type of monster would have this kind of rulling, they cannot attack, or be attack with monster with 0 attack or more, except if they are treated as having 0 attack and positive attack. So you can sort of guess the remaining rulling of the negative attack and defense type of new monster. They could be a thing in the next series after Yugioh arc-V. But they are not a thing now.

This question needs some formatting help to make it more readable.


text:
Victory in Yugioh by Unusual Means
My first question is: Is it true that if your opponents obtains more than 5 back field cards (traps, etc) that they automatically lose?  I realize you cannot lay more than 5 cards in that area, but suppose your opponent already has 5 trap cards, then you use a trap card (for example Creature Swap) to swap one of your monsters with theirs.... except that the monster you give them has 2 traps attached to it already.  Now they have a total of 6 trap cards on their side.  What happens?  I've heard that they instantly loose and there is nothing they can do.  True?  Additionally, any other cool ideas on how to win using such "glitches" in the game.

It has been a long time since I played Yugioh but I believe in the situation you described the traps do not go to your opponents side. They stay on your side, taking up your trap/magic board area (I forget what it is called) they are just attached to his creature. This would not change the number of traps your opponent has on his side.

If they are attached to the creature.... then shouldn't they go with the monster to the other side?

I don't think so. Your opponent gets control of your monster but not your trap/magic card. It stays equipped to your old monster (now your opponents) but firmly under your control and on your side of the field.

I think the point is moot however. The official rules say the only "three" ways to win are by reducing your opponents life points to zero. If your opponent cant draw a card. Or if you have a special card affect that lets you win (such as Exodia).

A special card effect.... would include them getting more cards than they are allowed to have, no?

No. By a special card effect they mean a card that says you win if you meet certain criteria (Such as  Vennominaga the Deity of Poisonous Snakes). So unless a card exists that says "You win if you make your opponent play 6 traps" then you cannot win by this method.

I do not say this to discourage the question. I apologize if I came off that way. I am sure there are many cards out there that do have interesting effects that can let you win the game in interesting ways. I was simply trying to point out that I did not believe the given example would work.

Sure of course...  I'm still very interested in knowing about any other such glitches (perhaps there are none), but of course a comprehensive list of "instawins" would also fit here.

Calling these things 'glitches' seems like a misnomer to me.  This is a card game, and one in which the rules are easily malleable by the designers; any 'non-standard' win conditions are there because they were explicitly put there by the designers, not because they happen to be some bizarre accident of the rules.

Hence put in quotation marks..... Either contribute or don't, but don't make a fuss about semantics

@Squirtle I think Steven may be trying to gently hint that your question isn't very well formulated. Half of your question is a rules question ("does this odd game condition cause you to win, even though it's not in the rules?") and the other half is a vague request for nonstandard win conditions. "What are all the cards which say 'you win the Duel' on them?" is a pretty broad question, not the sort of thing people tend to go for. And "when do you win the game?" is a fair (if basic) rules question, but you didn't ask it either.

I would just like to point out that cards you control can be equipped or otherwise "attached" (not an official term) to monsters your opponent controls; Cursed Armaments is a card that equips itself to your opponent's monsters, for example, and Fiendish Chain is typically used to target your opponent's monsters.  In neither of these cases does your opponent gain control of the S/T card (rather, it remains in your control, so you pay the unmentioned cost of "one occupied S/T zone" to maintain it).

Also, special effects that make you win are effects that explicitly say either that you win, or that your opponent loses.

No, you do not win the game if your opponent somehow controls 6 Trap cards. There are only three ways to win a game of Yu-gi-oh (page 26 or 30 in pdf):

Winning a Duel
Each player starts a Duel with 8000 Life Points. You win a Duel if: you reduce your opponent's Life Points to 0; if your opponent is unable to draw a card; or if a card's special effect says you win. [...]

There are no "glitches", or other ways of winning a game.

Except in tournament play. You can win a game or duel via tournament penalty as applied by a tournament official like a judge.

You can also win in a tournament if the round time is over and end-of-round procedures determine you as the winner. Note that these are NOT official (per the rules) "win conditions", so you are not allowed to aim your play towards these situations. If you intentionally play in a way that makes you win by having your opponent receive a Game or Match Loss or drag the game to overtime on purpose in order to win by the timeout procedures, you risk being disqualified from the tournament for Cheating (which is a form of Unsporting Conduct)!

As user1873 pointed out, this isn't a way your opponent can be defeated. Furthermore, you cannot control more than five non-Field Spell or Trap cards. Spells and Traps on your side of the field are under your control, even if they are equipped to cards your opponent controls.
You should read or re-read the rule book. If you have already read it, it appears you have some significant misunderstandings.


text:
What is the origin of the term "Alpha Strike" in board gaming?
I've head the term Alpha Strike used frequently, usually to refer to a single massive attack or a single round of heavy attacks, and I'm wondering where the term originated in board gaming and its history in gaming.
I'm looking for its origin or history in actual gaming rule books or gaming reference material, not just shared verbiage among players, nor am I looking for information outside of gaming.
The earliest reference that I'm personally aware of is in the old FASA BattleTech rules, but are there earlier references than this?

It seems very likely to have originated in the US Navy, and referred to the practice of committing all of a carrier's air resources to a single mission rather than rotating them as per usual.
See the wikipedia entry here.

To build on Andrew's answer and link, the idea of an "Alpha Strike" is to try to win the game with one blow, as opposed to over several turns or a period of time that may give the opposition a chance to recover.
Imagine if instead of just attacking "Pearl Harbor," Japan tried to attack all U.S. ships in all ports at the same time.


text:
Is there an industry standard definition between "Board", "Card", and "Table Top" game genres?
A friend and I have been developing a game but we've had some difficulty establishing the specific genre we think it should fit in.
Our game design uses printed cards to be distributed CCG-style in randomized, rarefied (common/uncommon/rare/etc.) sealed packs and starter boxes, but these cards are used to represent the unit stats, leaders, equipment, special abilities, and so-on for a tactical table-top based game (think Magic The Gathering meets Mage Knight 2.0).
Are there specific ways to determine how we should identify our game that are identified by the industry as a whole, or do we simply need to pick our 'closest match' and try to clarify how we cross genres in the actual description of the game?
Is there an industry standard set of definitions between game generes? If so, what is it based on (game mechanic, distribution mechanic, production medium, etc)?
For example, in the automotive industry, pretty much all cars get categorized as either "coupe", "sedan", "truck", "van", or "SUV", but then they try to identify themselves as something more specific (e.g. "Crossover Hybrid SUV"). I imagine there are pretty simple and standard concepts of why something is a sedan instead of a coupe, so I'm hoping there are similar ways to identify the root 'type' of a game.

I wouldn't consider Board or Table Top to be genres at all.  But based on your description, I would consider your game a CCG.  The fact that the game play involves tactical positioning of the cards is a gameplay detail, but I don't think it changes the category of the game.  There are plenty of CCGs that have positional elements to card play.

The title asks if there are definitions to three categories, the body asks how to determine which category a certain game falls under.

@Joe: I intended the game I described as merely an example of something I felt might cross multiple categories. My ideal answer would either be to determine that there are common identifiers (similar to the BGG Mechanics List) that can be used to differentiate between the three, or that there are not industry-common identifiers and trying to shoe-horn a cross-category game into a specific niche is counter-productive.

Then that's the question you should ask.  As it is, your question asks "how we should identify our game", etc.

Your game is a CCG.
What you do with the cards - the actual mechanics of the game - is irrelevant here. A game's "type" is metadata. It's defined, roughly speaking, by the central piece of "equipment" needed to play it: a board, a table, minis, role playing, dice, an AV system, or, in your case, cards. Subtype, if any, usually describes the central mechanic. For example, Dominion and Magic the Gathering are both card games, but Dominion has a single showpiece mechanic which can be easily described (deck building), while Magic doesn't.

Is there an industry standard definition between “Board”, “Card”, and “Table Top” game genres?

Not that I've ever heard of. As you can see just from looking at this page (the comments, boardgames.stackexchange.com, etc.) these terms are somewhat nebulous and different people take them to mean different things.

Are there specific ways to determine how we should identify our game that are identified by the industry as a whole

Perhaps surprisingly, yes, there is an industry standard practice for supplying this sort of information about your game. Call it whatever you think succinctly, accurately and interestingly describes your game. For example, Netrunner self identifies as a "living card game"; Dominion, as a "deck building game"; Ra, as an "auction game"; Power Grid, as an "economic game".

do we simply need to pick our 'closest match' and try to clarify how we cross genres in the actual description of the game?

How you identify this aspect of your game is solely a question of marketing, and it's entirely up to you. Don't waste words trying to explain how your game straddles common genres in the industry. From a marketing perspective, it's boring, invites arguments, and most importantly, doesn't advance the idea that the game is worth buying and playing. Talk about the actual game itself and why it's cool and fun instead. The gaming community will naturally figure out which of the "traditional" labels fits best.

So if I read you correctly, you would focus on the distribution mechanism (in this case, collectible card game) as the overall "category" for finding a distribution channel, but then use a clear label such as "Mini-less Tactical Skirmish Game" for collateral or other marketing-related purposes, correct?

You raise a great point: say different things depending on who you're talking to. Just call it a CCG when talking to publishers or distributors. They will immediately understand this and it gives you a knowledge base to work from. Then it's the time when discussing how your game is different from other CCGs and crosses game categories is appropriate, because it's a good hook to get them interested. As a tagline for marketing, printing on packaging, etc., "tactical card game" / "tactical skirmish game" has a nice ring to it. I'd leave off "mini-less" as it's unnecessary and a bit confusing.

Just my opinion, and not meant to be perfect, so take it for what you will...
table top
I think of this as a game playable around a table. The table is typically 'kitchen table' or 'dining room table' sized.
Players are typically, though not always seated during play. Any moving about the table is incidental to the game. For example, there's a table top racing game where you have to move around to better aim your piece. Billiards would also fall under this definition. Musical chairs would not, as the game is all about moving around.
Table top games are not athletic.
board
A subset of table top games played on a board or matte of specific, predefined size. Examples would be xwing, or monopoly. Warhammer, to my knowledge, is designed to use arbitrary sized play space, so it would not seem to fit this definition. Billiards doesn't count, as it's played directly on the table, nor do card games, unless those card games include a board, in which case they'd be in both categories.
card
A game that is played primarily with cards and comparison thereof to the opponents' cards as the primary mechanic. Other devices, like tokens, are incidental to the use of cards. Games like Magic The Gathering, Solitaire and Poker. Ticket To Ride would not be a card game because cards are not the objective of the game, but rather an incidental tool to play the game.

I think your definition of board games is one that a lot of people would agree is technically true, but that relatively few people would use strictly. Most people will simply use "board game" as a sloppy catchall term for tabletop games which might or might not have a board. For example, most people would lump Carcassonne in with board games despite it being of fairly variable size and not being played on a board.

@Jefromi, I'd argue that you are constructing the board as you play  Carcassonne.  Or perhaps that the shape and size ate that of the table. But that would contradict my 'of a specific shape and size' statement. But that's why I mentioned that the answer wasn't meant to be perfect. It would take hours or days to come up with a rigorous definition.

Sure, I'm just saying that I think the answer is imperfect in a way that results in way way fewer things being called board games than happens in practice. But I definitely agree that they're fuzzy terms and the OP's attempt to define them might not be too productive.

Games that have a fixed set of custom cards (e.g. Dominion) or pieces  (e.g.  Carcassonne) can also be considered board games.

@ikegami to an extent, yes. However, that verbiage would include Poker as a board game, since it has a fixed number of pieces.


text:
Do elders help the villain in a non-showdown fight round?
I'm having a Fight Round with the Villain outside of a Showdown (Deadly Encounter Mystery card) and an Evil Elder has joined him already (it's cooperative mode and the elder has been investigated and revealed to be evil).
Since Evil Elders helping the Villain are only mentioned in the Showdown section and this is specifically not a Showdown, my thinking is that the elder should not provide the usual +1 Combat and +1 Wound... but is that really the case in cooperative mode?

The Villain gets +1 Combat skill during the single Fight Round
Actually, the rules do mention Evil Elders outside the Showdown section. Specifically, on page 15.

Evil Elders - When a Town Elder is shown to be evil, they cease to be a Town Elder and instead become an Evil Elder. The card is flipped over, any Secrets they had are discarded, and they are repositioned next to the Villain’s Record Sheet. Evil Elders give the Villain +1 Combat and have one Wound.

This bonus is applied to the Villain's Combat, regardless of whether this is a Showdown fight or not.

Fighting the Villain - Occasionally a hero will have to engage in a single Fight Round with the Villain due to a Mystery Card or Minion Chart result. These Fights are NOT considered a Showdown and consequently, the Villain cannot actually be hurt. In these cases, a single Fight Round should be played out between the Hero and the Villain as described above (the Villain rolls Fight Dice equal to its Combat).

An interesting question to me is, does Deadly Encounter with the Villain allow you to kill any Evil Elders that are with the Villain? The Deadly Encounter rules specifically prevent wounding the Villain, and Targeting Evil Elders is only applicable during a Showdown fight. It appears that you cannot wound an Evil Elder (since you cannot target them), but an FAQ clarifying the issue would be nice.

This actually makes much sense in retrospect. I did miss the Elder bit outside the Showdown section for this topic. Also, interesting secondary question! As you say, though, no wounding should be possible, so I'm going to guess the intent is not to harm anyone on the Villain side during these fights.