text:
Weird Lich and Laboratory Maniac situation, who wins?
In a Commander game I cast Lich + Sudden Substitution and swapped Lich for one of my opponents' creatures, giving him 0 life. My opponent plays Laboratory Maniac and proceeds to make us both draw our entire libraries.
So the question is, who wins?
I obviously lose from drawing out, and he wins from Lab maniac trigger, but even though the Lab Maniac trigger is a replacement effect, he'd have 0 life and lose the game when my Lich leaves the battlefield when I lose as well.
Since I'm assuming this all resolves at the same time, what would the final result be? Draw? Is it the person who loses the least that wins? Does he win because one trigger states he wins or does the 0 hp take priority?
Thanks.

Wouldn't you have already lost the game when you used Sudden Substitution to give away your Lich?

@Allure Sudden substitution exchanges control of a noncreature spell and a creature (permenant).

All of this happens as part of the same resolution, yes, but it doesn't all happen at the same time. Or, well, it kind of depends on how you define "time"; my point is that there is a definite sequence to the events that occur, and it's that order that determines who wins and loses.
The first thing that happens during resolution of a spell or ability is that players follow the instructions that the spell or ability lists as its effect. In other words, you do what the card says (or what the hypothetical card would say, if there isn't a real card). The details depend on exactly which spell or ability it is, but we're assuming that at some point during this process your opponent draws a card from an empty library. Because of Laboratory Maniac's replacement effect, that event is literally replaced with your opponent winning the game. The winning doesn't queue up and come later; it happens right at that very moment. Everything stops. The game is now over. It doesn't matter if anyone has zero life or if any other player drew from an empty library or who controls what permanents.
However, if your opponent didn't immediately win the game at that point, then the players would finish following the spell or ability's instructions; then the spell card (if there is one) would be put into the graveyard; then it's time to check what the game calls "state-based actions", which are things like:

A player who has drawn a card from an empty library since the last time state-based actions were checked loses the game
A player who is at zero life or less loses the game

So at this point, you would lose the game because of the card-drawing state-based action. If your opponent is the only player remaining in the game at that point, because it's a two-player game or because everyone else was already eliminated, your opponent wins due to being the only player left (and again, that happens immediately).
On the other hand, if there are additional players still in the game, it continues on to process all the effects of you losing and leaving the game. One of those is that all cards you own also leave the game, so in particular, your opponent no longer has your Lich. Then, because a state-based action was taken (you losing the game), the game checks again for any state-based actions that might now be applicable; it sees that your opponent has 0 life, and thus your opponent loses the game, not having a Lich in play to prevent it. Then the game checks again, and let's say no more state-based actions are taken, so it's done checking and play proceeds.
Note that at no point in all this does anyone have the chance to play spells or activate abilities or take any other voluntary game actions. Playing spells and abilities and so on can happen before all the stuff I described, or after all the stuff I described, but not in the middle of it. (Well, players can still concede at any time. And some cards let you play things at weird times. Don't worry about it. :)

FYI: There was a suggested edit submitted for this post that I rejected on account of it doesn't actually seem like it's necessarily a useful add. However, you may want to check its content and see if there's anything you want to add from it.

@doppelgreener I suggested that edit because without it the answer as currently written is factually incorrect about a point that is relevant to the question.

The answer does assume that there are more than two players in the game, but it is factually correct within that domain. It would be reasonable to expand on that section to address the case where the game only has two players, but that whole section is already a bit of a tangent from the part directly answering the question, so I think it would be ok to not be exhaustive there.

@murgatroid99 I don't see any indication of such an assumption, in either this answer or the question. In fact, the repeated singular references to "[my/your] opponent" strongly imply to me that there is only one opponent, and the question's closing point of asking about "the person who loses the least" makes sense only in the context of a game with no other players.

The first sentence of the question refers to the other player as "one of my opponents", which means that there is more than one.

@murgatroid99 My reading of that is that the "one of" is referring to the creatures.

To be more specific, in the phrase "one of my opponents' creatures", "opponents'" is a plural possessive, which means that there are multiple opponents. If there was only one opponent, it would say "one of my opponent's creatures".

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Your opponent wins because Laboratory Maniac's effect doesn't occur for the case where a player loses or would lose, but specifically when they draw with an empty library, and replaces the normal effects due to its magic "instead" clause (if, for example, they had a variety of similar effects, they would all attempt replacement and they would choose one)
Note that this is a replacement effect, not a triggered ability, so there is no opportunity to act to prevent them from winning once they would draw enough cards to win
What Happens

some effect goes on the stack with a winning (losing) quantity of draws
opportunity to cast spells
original effect resolves
player attempts to draw with (or draws through) an empty deck
this draw is replaced by Laboratory Maniac effect (this prevents them from losing the game)
player "wins the game" action (no opportunity to cast spells)
effects related to a player winning are checked (nothing applies; while, for example, if you had cast Angel's Grace before the draw effect resolved, you would be safe all through the current turn because it explicitly states "[..] and your opponents can't win the game")

Your (owned) Lich leaves with you, but they have already won and would win if you left any other way (such as Door to Nothingness without other players in the game; though they would also lose, but after you, if there were any other players in the game in that case because only you would leave the game, while Laboratory Maniac still defeats them all before its controller can lose!)
Note that in a multiplayer game, you could prevent their winning by exiting the game before the card draw effect begins resolving, taking your Lich with you (you still lose first), and leaving them with 0 life, where they now lose too, despite being about to resolve a winning play


text:
Would a Dragon Creature Token activate Sarkhan's Unsealing?
For example, you have a token created by Skyline Despot or Lathliss, Dragon Queen, or Utvara Hellkite. Does it activate Sarkhan's Unsealing? I guess the real question is do dragon creature tokens count as dragons?

No, token-creation effects like the ones you named do not trigger Sarkhan's Unsealing. (You said "activate", but the technical term is "trigger")
Sarkhan's Unsealing triggers when you cast a creature spell. In almost all cases, casting a spell starts by taking a real physical card (most likely one in your hand but potentially in exile or in your graveyard if the card allows itself to be cast that way), moving it to the stack, and taking some other specific actions that together form the process of casting.

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a–d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f–h). To cast a spell, a player follows the steps listed below, in order.
...

When a token is created, those are not the steps you follow. For starters, there's no card. And tokens don't exist outside of the battlefield; you can't have a token in your hand, in exile, or in the graveyard. So you can't follow even the first step required to cast a spell, i.e. moving a card from one of those zones to the stack.

Incidentally, the tokens created by these effects do count as dragons, just the same as a dragon creature card on the battlefield would. But that's irrelevant to how Sarkhan's Unsealing works. As I explained above, Sarkhan's Unsealing deals with spells, i.e. things that are on the stack, not with things on the battlefield (like tokens). Plus, Sarkhan's Unsealing doesn't care whether a creature spell is a dragon or not; it only cares about its power.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Responding to "Repeat this process"
I am looking into building a Grist, the Hunger Tide deck, and had a question about the "Repeat this process" ruling. If I had a creature like Viscera Seer out, could I activate Grist's +1, create an insect, mill an insect, and then before the process repeats sacrifice the 1/1 to scry? Or would I not be able to sacrifice until the process has ended? If I could, I could dig much deeper with Grist giving me a lot more value.

related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/54803/repeat-this-process-infinite-loop-rulings/54804#54804

No, you can't respond to an ability which loops itself like this. Repeating the process is still part of that same ability resolving, and no one gets priority until after a spell or ability has finished resolving. There's several Comprehensive Rules references that cover different aspects (emphasis mine):

117.1 Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, and take special actions.

117.2e Resolving spells and abilities may instruct players to make choices or take actions, or may allow players to activate mana abilities. Even if a player is doing so, no player has priority while a spell or ability is resolving. See rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities.”

117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

608.2g If an effect gives a player the option to pay mana, they may activate mana abilities before taking that action. If an effect specifically instructs or allows a player to cast a spell during resolution, they do so by following the steps in rules 601.2a–i, except no player receives priority after it’s cast. That spell becomes the topmost object on the stack, and the currently resolving spell or ability continues to resolve, which may include casting other spells this way. No other spells can normally be cast and no other abilities can normally be activated during resolution.

If Grist had said to copy the ability instead of repeating the process, that would be different, since the copy of the ability would be separate on the stack, but repeating the process can't be responded to until the ability has fully resolved, like any other ability.

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


text:
Order of triggered abilities - will the abilities on the stack resolve after the player who owns the ability loses?
Let's say in a three-player game, Alice and Bob are playing Poison-Tip Archer. It's a 2/3 creature with:

Whenever another creature dies, each opponent loses 1 life.

Carol has 10 1/1 Saproling tokens in play.
All of them are 10 life, and someone plays Tremor:

Tremor deals 1 damage to each creature without flying.

So all 10 Saprolings would die, triggering both Poison-Tip Archer's abilities 10 times - enough for everyone on the table to die (20 lives lost for Carol, 10 for each Alice and Bob).
Will this be a tie? Is there an order in which the triggers are resolved that may make someone win? Does the result depend somehow on who is the active player?
Edit: Will it make a difference if the Poison-Tip Archer's would also die by the same effect (ie, play Wildfire - doing 4 damage to each creature instead of Tremor's 1)?

Related for those looking for more info about losing in multiplayer games: In MTG, what happens when a player loses in multiplayer?

The Comprehensive Rules say:

405.3. If an effect puts two or more objects on the stack at the same time, those controlled by the active player are put on lowest, followed by each other player’s objects in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). If a player controls more than one of these objects, that player chooses their relative order on the stack.
101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required, followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the “Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.
800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.

Without loss of generality, suppose the turn order is Alice->Bob->Carol->...

If it's Alice's turn, her triggers are put on the stack first, then Bob's. Bob's triggers will resolve first, making Alice and Carol lose the game simultaneously. By rule 800.4a, Alice's triggers will leave the stack, leaving Bob alive and kicking at 10 life (this is important if there's someone else still in the game).
If it's Bob's turn, the reverse happens: Alice's triggers will resolve first, killing Bob and Carol and leaving Alice alive.
If it's Carol's (or somebody else's turn), Alice is before Bob in turn order and situation 1. applies.

Thanks for the clarification. Just to be sure - it doesn't make any change if both Poison-Tip Archers would die because of the same effect, right? (just edited the question to add this one, sorry).

@mgarciaisaia No, that wouldn't matter. The triggers still happen: the archers see all other creatures who die at the same time as them, and triggers and triggered abilities, once they have happened, live independently of their source.

Yeah. I was thinking about that, but wanted to be sure

@Arthur beat me to it

Your quote of rule 101.4 has the sentence "Then the actions happen simultaneously". Why does this not change how the stack is resolved?

@Winterbone It isn't relevant. 101.4 is just quoted to help explain "APNAP order". The rule 405.3 itself says "those controlled by the active player are put on lowest, followed by each other player’s objects in APNAP order".


text:
Can I borrow money from a player in Monopoly Deal game?
My bank has no money and I asked another player to give me from their bank with the condition that I will give repay it later on. Is that allowed?

This is probably not allowed, but even if it was it would be unnecessary. From the Rules Card:

If you have no cards in front of you to pay with, you don't pay at all!

So even if it were possible to borrow, why would you want to take on a debt when you could avoid paying by simply having no money in front of you?

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


text:
What happens when a non-token creature loses all abilities, is exiled, then returns?
So I was playing with some friends and we ran into a problem. My opponent had a creature with both hexproof and indestructible.
I drew and played Polymorphist's Jest. I then attacked with my creature, which had Voidwalk encoded on it. It wasn't blocked, so I cast Voidwalk with his currently blue frog creature as the target and exiled it. Now, I know exiled tokens immediately die or cease to exist, but what would happen to his creature? Would it return or simply be gone?

How is your Voidwalk encoded on your opponent's creature? The cipher ability only allows you to encode the spell on a creature you control. (Plus the triggered ability from cipher is on the creature and would be removed by Polymorphist's Jest.)

@HaoYe There are two creatures - the OP has one with Voidwalk encoded already, and their opponent has the one that's been turned into a frog.

@Jefromi Ah, got it. Parsing error on my part.

The rewrites to the question, to gloss over the confusion of the OP around tokens and Polymorphist's Jest render the otherwise very good answer of esoterik rather confusing.

@John The question does still mention tokens, just not the title. It's pretty confusing to future readers if the title talks about exiling tokens when the question isn't ultimately about that at all.

Remember the logic of MTG is Boolean. If a card creates token it will say so. A card only does what its card text / oracle wording tells you. Nothing more, nothing less

Polymorphist's Jest does not create tokens, it only changes the stats and characteristics of the creature's controlled by the targeted player. It is still the same game object as far as Magic is concerned.
Under the circumstances presented in your question, your opponent's creature would be 'flickered' (magic slang for exiled and then returned to the battlefield) and when it returned it wouldn't be a 1/1 frog anymore, it would be whatever the face up of whatever card was returned.

Note that Voidwalk only returns the creature to the battlefield in the end step, not immediately, so it's not quite traditional flickering. (Of course this doesn't affect the main point of the answer.)

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


text:
Scoring a confusing cribbage hand
My father and his friend were playing cribbage today and ran into a dilemma trying to score their hand properly.  Could you let me know what you think so I can straighten this out for them.  The hand was 3 Aces and 2 Sevens.  How is this hand scored?
I do not play cribbage and therefore could offer no help to their situation.

You have three A's, let's call them AC, AS, AH (no diamond), and two 7's, let's say 7C and 7S.

First, you have 6 points in 15s: 7C/7S/AC, 7C/7S/AS and 7C/7S/AH.
You have no runs or double runs.
Next, you have 6 points in Ace pairs: AC/AS, AC/AH, and AC/AH (also known as a Pair Royal).
Next, you have 2 points in Seven pairs: 7C/7S.
You have no flushes.
You have no Jacks for his nobs.

This is a total of 6+2+6=14.

thxs so much for your help. That's exactly what my father thought but his friend was sure it was 16!  Appreciate your help!

Here is a web page that you can use to score any cribbage hand:
http://www.bucktheodds.com/cribbage/score
And, here is your specific hand
http://www.bucktheodds.com/cribbage/score?cardsText=1D,1H,1S,7D,7S
The page is really cool because it shows a list of all scoring combinations:
Scoring Details
15 Count    1H,7S,7D    6
            1S,7S,7D
            1D,7S,7D
Pairs       1H,1S,1D    8
            7S,7D
Straights               0
Jack                    0
Flush                   0
Total                   14

Why the negative votes? These links will help people with difficult scoring questions.


text:
How do Layers work?
Trying to expand my knowledge of Magic, and hopefully become a better player, I've come across several references to "layers." From what I've been able to find, they are as follows:

Copy
Control
Text
Type
Color
Add/Remove
Power

Could someone elucidate the significance of the order and exactly what this layering thing means?

Welcome to Board and Card Games Stack Exchange!

To be honest, even as a rules pedant/stickler, I never bother to perfectly memorize the ordering of layers. The MTGJudge app on my phone has a "cheat sheet" (in addition to comp rules, which are also invaluable to carry around).

@AlexP I had a couple friends (L2 judges) start bugging me to become a judge for our local shop. It's pretty large with 60+ person FNMs and 40 or so people for random Sunday Standard tournaments. I figured getting a basic idea would be good, and having a canonical answer on the site wouldn't hurt either.

Well, sure. I'm just saying, in practice (especially for a judge, who is allowed to pull up rules aids during a tournament), it's not as important to remember layers as it is to understand them. :)

For what it's worth, most of the times this actually comes up are power/toughness changes (the sublayers of 7), so it's pretty reasonable to memorize that and be willing to look up the rest.

I completely agree with Hackworth that an in-depth answer would probably require an article, but I don't recommend the Comprehensive Rules (very dry)... so try this article instead.
It's got loads of good examples that really demonstrate when this stuff becomes useful.  e.g. You have a Giant Growthed Grizzly Bears (2/2 +3/+3 = 5/5) and someone casts Ovinize on it (loses all abilities and becomes a 0/1).  Without reference to the layers system, how do you explain to someone that the Bears are now 3/4 creatures, not 0/1?

Indeed. So there's an obvious order. Which one happens first? Bottom to top, or top to bottom?

@Hyppy - Top to bottom.  You start from 1 and go down to 7, applying any effects that happen in each successive layer in turn.  Hopefully there aren't more than 2 or 3 layers to worry about in any given situation - if there are, you're probably trapped in some kind of nightmarish rules quiz.

perfect, that was what I was looking for :-)

The basic answer is that the layer system determines how to apply continuous effects to every object in the game so that they get their actual state beyond what's printed on the actual card.
A more detailed answer would mostly consist of quoting the Comprehensive Rules Book verbatim, so I suggest if you want to dive in there, go straight to the source.

Thanks! I think the part about referring to modification of printed state was what was tripping me up. What is the significance of the order?

While Murgatroid and Alex P are right that a complete understanding of Layers would require a full quotation of the recommended references, there is a space here for a broad overview.
Fundamental Concepts of Layers
Magic has a lot of effects that modify permanents in play.  Often times these effects can be confusing or mutually exclusive when stacked, so the rules for how to deal with modification effects are very detailed.
The basic concept is called the Layer System.  At any point in the game when you have to understand what kind of object a permanent is you start with the base object and then apply all existing effects that are modifying (or could modify it) one at a time until they have all been applied.
The order in which these effects are applied is largely determined by the type of modification being done.  For example, Type changing effects (like turning a land into a creature) are applied before rules changing effects (like giving a creature vigilance) which are applied before power/toughness adjusting effects (like giving a creature +3/+3).  The categories of modification are referred to as "layers", and there are 7 layers with several subcategories.
Inside a layer or sublayer, order is determined first by dependencies (an effect that makes all lands creatures will be applied before an effect that makes all creatures goblins), and then finally by "timestamp", the time when the effect came into existence, with older effects being applied first.  Newer effects can and will overwrite older effects if there is a conflict.
There are no distinctions between effects that are being granted temporarily ("until end of turn") by oneshot effects and effects that are being granted statically by a permanent on the battlefield.  All that matters is the type of effect and the time the effect began applying.
The result of all this is a system that about 99% of the time works in the most intuitive fashion possible, and mostly only fails to be intuitive when there is no single intuitive answer (I'm looking at you, power/toughness swapping).  That's honestly pretty impressive considering how many bizarre interactions it has to handle (Opalescencex2/Humility being the most famous).


text:
Alpha, Beta, and Arabian Nights in Tournaments?
With the exception of basic lands, are all Alpha, Beta, and Arabian Nights cards banned in sanctioned tournaments? Does that also include Deserts?

There is a special limitation on Alpha cards to account for their differently-cut edges. From the official Magic The Gathering Floor Rules:

102. Authorized Cards
Alpha cards (cards from the first print run of the basic set) may be used in decks  containing non-Alpha cards only
if all cards are placed in completely opaque sleeves  and only if the
sleeves could not be considered marked. If sleeves are not used, Alpha
cards may be used only in decks that consist exclusively of Alpha
cards.

There are no such restrictions on Beta or Arabian Nights cards however, which are (hopefully) less easily distinguishable by their shape from modern cards.
As rahzark's answer rightly suggests, individual cards may be restricted or banned in different tournament formats, but there's no prohibition against cards from older sets as a whole.

While it's not explicitly in the floor rules, it should also be pointed out that playing old cards either without sleeves or with transparent sleeves can cause you to be playing marked cards because of the difference in tones between old and new sets (from changes in print process). I see this a lot, unfortunately, drafting at smaller shops where the 'land box' still has Ice Age or Mirage basics in it that are visibly different from the cards being drafted.

Often, you'll find that people will actively seek out the older cards to play with, even in standard tournaments. Beta lands are especially popular around here.

First of all, sanctioned tournaments have different formats, which allow for different cards. You can read more about all sanctioned formats here.
Generally, if you want to play older cards you should get into Legacy or Vintage. You can play cards of any white or black bordered set except for cards that are banned in each respective format.
Most cards from those expansions (like Desert) aren't banned so you can play with them in Legacy or Vintage!

Desert was reprinted in Time Shifted, From the Vaults, and was made into a promo, so therefor you could turn to the newer printings of the card if you are having complications with a judge on the matter.

While relevant for one card, this does not answer the question regarding Alpha, Beta and Arabian Nights cards in general.


text:
When can an 'untap' ability not untap?
Let say I play Leaden Fists on Leech Bonder, can I pay my 1 blue mana and untap, or does Leaden Fist overide this?

You can untap Leech Bonder this way because the untapping is not occurring as part of the untap phase, which is what Leaden Fists is preventing.
That is, Leaden Fists is preventing the "normal" untap, not an activated ability untap.


text:
Do you have to reveal your hand when using Treasure Map and not trashing a TM from your hand?
Since the golden rule of Dominion is to do as much as you can, when you can, shouldn't you have to reveal your hand to prove you cannot trash a Treasure Map from your hand? Treasure Map doesn't say may or Choose 1, so I doubt that you are supposed to have a choice in whether you trash a Treasure Map from your hand, if you have one.

Treasure Map - Trash this and another copy of Treasure Map from your hand. If you do trash two Treasure Maps, gain 4 Gold cards, putting them on top of your deck.

The rules actually cover an interesting case. Imagine that this is your hand:
Throne Room, 3xTreasure Map, Copper
The rules explain what you do in this situation, and it doesn't mention that you have any choice in the outcome. It would be possible for a cheater to Throne Room the first TM, Trash one from their hand, then when the 2nd copy of TM from Throne Room resolves claim that they don't have one in their hand (if they don't have to reveal their hand), then at the end of their turn hide the TM under the Copper when discarding.

if you Throne Room a Treasure Map, with two more Treasure Maps in hand, then the first time Treasure Map resolves you trash it and another one and gain 4 Golds, and the second time it resolves you trash your other Treasure Map but gain nothing (since you didn't actually trash the played Treasure Map that time).

Is the proper way of resolving Treasure Map when you don't Trash a Treasure Map from your hand to reveal your hand. Is this how they handle this in tournaments or in online implementations?

I think the golden rule of Dominion needs a clarification here -- if you must do as much as you can, then why would you not always reveal your hand?

@user1873: Your distinction is neither accurate nor supported by the text of the card or the rules. There is nothing in the Treasure Map card or the FAQ that says anything about revealing your hand. Please don't pass on incorrect information.

@Joe: the reason you would not reveal your hand is because nothing in the card directions says to reveal your hand. Sometimes cards specify that you have to reveal your hand if you can't take a particular action, but other times they do not. Compare Bureaucrat and Moneylender from the base set, or Cutpurse and Treasure Map from Seaside. The first card in each pair contains a reveal the hand clause, whereas the latter card does not.

If all he has for actions is a Throne Room and 3xTreasure Map, why would he play the Throne Room at all?

Am i missing something here? If the rules play out as described, why would anyone ever play a throne room with a TM as described here. In order to cheat the player would have to know that trashing the second treasure map would not be beneficial so why would he play it that way in the first place?

@Zags, no, only the top card of a players discard is public information. I fact, cards like Counting House that put coppers in a players hand from their graveyard require that a player plays the card before examining how many Coppers are in his graveyard

A very similar question was posed on DominionStrategy.com (although now of course I can't find the link to the specific discussion). The thread was about paradoxes in which you aren't required by the rules to reveal your hand, but then your opponent couldn't verify that you in fact followed the directions on the card. The Treasure Map scenario was one of the examples mentioned in that thread; another example was Moneylender (which requires you to trash a Copper from your hand but has not clause about revealing a hand with no Copper).
Having said that, let me first walk through what must happen in the scenario you outline, and what Donald X. (the game creator) has said about the potential for cheating in that scenario.
Your scenario is having a hand of Throne Room, three Treasure Maps, and a Copper. If you play the Throne Room, you are required to choose an Action card from your hand. The only choice is a Treasure Map, so you play that card twice. Both times, the card directions tell you to trash another Treasure Map from your hand, so you must do so both times because you have Treasure Maps in hand. The if clause is only satisfied the first time, though, so the second play of the original Treasure Map (from the Throne Room) does not cause you to gain the Golds a second time.
As to the potential of cheating, Donald X.'s response (in paraphrase) is that it would be ridiculous to specify absolutely everything about the game, such as what constitutes valid shuffling (yes, this has been an intense discussion on DS.com), what the penalty is for breaking the rules, etc. In short: if you cheat, you're already breaking the rules; what would be the benefit of having a rule for what to do if someone breaks the rules?
The way the Isotropic server implements these situations is that the server requires you to take the actions that a card demands, and so it provides an objective enforcement of the rules. Because Treasure Map doesn't say to reveal your hand if you don't have a second Treasure Map, Isotropic doesn't show your opponent your hand. What your opponent would see is something like:
X plays a Throne Room
…and plays a Treasure Map
……trashing the Treasure Map and a Treasure Map from his hand
……gaining 4 Golds on the top of the deck
…and plays the Treasure Map again
…trashing a Treasure Map from his hand
If you're playing in an environment in which player's honor is not enough of a guarantee to avoid cheating, then that environment could specify additional procedures (such as having an ombudsperson to verify that the hand was played legally or using Isotropic, which would enforce the rules). You could specify a house rule of "reveal the hand if you can't follow part of the directions," although that could potentially give the opponent additional information that they wouldn't have otherwise. But, that's all up to you. What the rules require is that, if you play the Throne Room, all three Treasure Maps will be trashed and if you don't do that then you're cheating.
Do note that, unlike what some posters below have said, the Treasure Map card should not have been written with a "may." Donald X. deliberately made the effect non-voluntary. He is very careful about getting card directions right, and that's one area where there's no ambiguity. Claims about the "templates" for other cards in the set miss the point; when Donald wants an effect to be voluntary, he uses, "You may." Because he has a clear template he uses for other cards, you can rest assured that, since he didn't put that into Treasure Map, he didn't want that direction to be optional.

Does the may really matter?  What is the probability that you play a tmap, with another tmap in hand, and you don't actually want the golds?

I am sorry I (unintentionally) dissed Donald X. Vaccarino's precision-tooled game design skills.  I remain unconvinced it's a massive issue whether trashing the second Treasure Map is compulsory or optional though, and aesthetically the latter would have been more pleasing to me, and seemingly the OP too...

@RobRenaud: Probably low, but I can imagine corner cases involving Menagerie (you're about to draw some cards and don't want to draw Golds), Fairgrounds (you need a Treasure Map for the diversity but you want to get rid of one of your remaining two to cycle more effectively), Scrying Pool (topdecking Golds might disrupt your drawing), etc.

@thesunneversets: I don't mean to imply that the card is perfect, or that it wouldn't have been better with the may clause. When I said that it should not have been written with a "may," I meant in response to the answer below that says essentially "Donald X. really meant to write may but didn't, so we should read it as if it had a may." Sorry if I came off too strongly.

@philosophyguy: No worries.  You're absolutely correct that it's a functionally different card with a "may".  I'm just not sure that's a good enough reason for strenuously denying that it could still work with that wording.  This has turned into a really interesting discussion, all things considered...

While a strict reading of the rules suggests that the player must trash the 3rd treasure map if they play Throne Room + Treasure Map, there's no particular reason to enforce it, as if the player does not want to trash the third treasure map, they need only refrain from playing the Throne Room in the first place.  In that case, they would simply play the Treasure map (trashing a second), and discard the Throne Room and 3rd Treasure map unplayed.
So it really doesn't matter -- what happens is entirely up to the player, as they get to decide which cards to play in the first place.  The only point of playing the Throne Room in this case is to allow the player to trash the 3rd Treasure Map.

The example given was only used because it was listed within the Seaside rules. You might possibly imagine another situation where you would like to play multiple action cards and not want to trash your Treasure Maps. The example is highly convoluted, but it exposes an issue with the game design when being played in a tournament setting where cheaters might exist. In those situations, the only way to handle the card would be to call a judge or other 3rd party to verify that you don't have a TM to trash from your hand.

@user1873 That's just being pedantic.  You call it cheating, but there's nothing in the Treasure Map card that says they have to reveal their hand, so unless it's the top card in their discard pile or you're sorting through their discard pile (which iirc is against the rules), there's no way for you to know if they did have one.

My intuition is that this card is just badly worded - Dominion hasn't had the many years that Magic the Gathering has had, to nail every single potential rules loophole down.  I think the card would probably be better off reading:

Trash this, then you may also trash another copy of Treasure Map from
  your hand.  If you do...

As things stand, I agree with you that the rule that Joe cites proves nothing: it only clarifies how to resolve Treasure Map when you don't have another copy in your hand, not when you do.
I think allowing players to trash Treasure Maps for the cost of an action is probably a lesser evil than forcing players to reveal their hands for good behaviour.   Dominion is a game based on honour amongst gentlemen (and ladies as well of course), and a gentleman's private hand is his castle... not to be invaded lightly!

@user1873: You are absolutely wrong about not including the may. That it not unfortunate; it is deliberate. Your rewording of Treasure Map is a different card.

@philosophyguy: Yes, it is a different card. But is it a dramatically worse one? I'm reading your answer and finding it difficult to get worked up about the corner case. As opposed to the ugliness of providing players with an easy way to "cheat".  While it obviously proves nothing about how we should play Dominion, MtG is always VERY rigorous about limiting players' ability to conceal or misrepresent this kind of thing, and it's a better game for it, IMO.

In short, I stand by this answer 100%.  I'm not claiming it was unintentionally badly worded.  Just that the wording is aesthetically displeasing, and the card reengineered to include a "may" would indeed work differently, but not differently enough for it to wreck the game of Dominion.

Taking the card at face value, your reading of it seems to be correct.  But digging a little deeper, it turns out the Seaside rules say otherwise (on page 4).  Let me quote them for you:

Treasure Map - You can play this without another Treasure Map
  in your hand; if you do, you trash this and gain nothing. You
  have to actually trash two copies of Treasure Map to gain the
  Golds...

I don't think that rules statement is definitive. It only clarifies that you can play TM as your action card, even if you do not have another in hand. I suppose you could argue that if the rules explicitly tell you everything you do, but I don't think that is the intent. I suppose I will  have to find an example where they do not spell every step out.


text:
Where can I find a printer friendly version of the settlers of catan rulebook?
My copy of Settlers of Catan has been missing the rule book for a while. The Catan official site has the rule book available for download, but since it contains a lot of block backgrounds, it's not really printer friendly.
Is there anywhere I can download a printer friendly version of the base game full rules?

This appears to be a version of the original rules. The only rules differences (from 4th Edition) would be:

That now you can move the Robber to the desert.
Trading and Building are not distinct phases.
Harbors are now part of the island border.

That's excellent! I actually have this version of the game, so these were the rules that we'd lost!


text:
How does Hypnotic Specter work in Two-Headed Giant?
If I attack with Hypnotic Specter and the defending team does not declare a blocker, should I "target" who is going to discard a card randomly? Or do they decide?

This has changed as of the Dominaria rules update. Essentially, you attack one of the players, not the team as a whole, and the player you attack is the one who discards a card. Full answer to come shortly.

This is covered by the following two-headed giant specific rule:

810.7f As the combat damage step begins, the active team announces how each attacking creature will assign its combat damage. If an attacking creature would assign combat damage to the defending team, the active team chooses only one of the defending players for that creature to assign its combat damage to. Then the defending team announces how each blocking creature will assign its combat damage. See rule 510.1.

Thus, when an attacking creature is not blocked, you choose which player the combat damage is dealt to (and cause the Specter's triggered ability to affect).

Similarly, rule 810.7b describes what happens when an ability like annihilator interacts with the “defending player”.


text:
Can a creature with protection from all colors be targetted with a damage spell when it is still on the stack?
A friend of mine casts a card that has protection from all colors.
I know that I can counter it, but can I simply kill it by dealing damage to it while it is on the stack?

NO, you cannot.
From the comprehensive rules:

302. Creatures
302.1. A player who has priority may cast a creature card from his or her hand during a main phase of his or her turn when the stack is empty. Casting a creature as a spell uses the stack. (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.")
302.2. When a creature spell resolves, its controller puts it onto the battlefield under his or her control.

Only when the spell resolves is the creature actually on the battlefield. You can counter it, because while on the stack that creature isn't actually a "creature" but a "creature spell".

114.2. Only permanents are legal targets for spells and abilities, unless a spell or ability (a) specifies that it can target an object in another zone or a player, (b) targets an object that can't exist on the battlefield, such as a spell or ability, or (c) targets a zone.

You can only damage a creature when it is already on the battlefield. Because that creature has protection from all colors, you cannot target it or deal damage to it with colored spells.

Guess the op is stuck using [mtg:livewire lash] on some artifact creatures :)

No, you cannot damage or destroy creatures on the stack, because creatures do not exist on the stack, "Creature Spells" do. When a spell or ability is referring to a creature, and it doesn't use "card," "spell," or "source," it is referring to a creature permanent. Permanents only exist on the battlefield. Damage can only be dealt to creature/planeswalker permanents (or Players, who are not Objects).

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.
110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it’s moved to another zone by an effect or rule.
111.1. A spell is a card on the stack.
119.1a Damage can’t be dealt to an object that’s neither a creature nor a planeswalker.

You also cannot destroy a creature through some other means than damage for precisely the same reasons.

701.6a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.


text:
What does a Breakthrough gun do?
I'm a little confused as to the rules for a Breakthrough gun in Flames of War.  Unlike the bunker buster it doesn't have a dedicated section in the rule book that I can find.  It is mentioned as not allowing infantry saves like a bunker buster, but the rule book doesn't state if it follows the other rules for a bunker buster.

Can I get a reason for the down-vote so I can improve the question?

The Breakthrough Gun rules are not covered in the Flames of War 2nd Editon or earlier rule books. This is supported by the comments in the FoW 3rd Edition Q&A:

When will you be updating Arsenals to reflect the new rules like Breakthrough Gun and mortars being able to shoot as well as bombard?
A new publication, Know Your Enemy, will be released soon. It includes a complete Late-war arsenal to update all Late-war books. We will be updating Mid-war and Early-war books to match over time. Meanwhile, you can use the Late-war updates to guide you on which weapons are rated as Breakthrough guns and the direct-fire capabilities of mortars.

There is a small blurb on the Battlefront Minature's Flames of War website.

Breakthrough Gun
Some weapons are just so powerful that there is no chance of surviving a hit from them. These heavy guns are often mounted in tanks and self-propelled guns designed to break through enemy defensive lines.
Infantry teams, Gun teams, and Unarmoured vehicles automatically fail their Saves when hit by a Breakthrough Gun or a Bunker Buster. This does not apply to Artillery Bombardments.

An example of a unit with the ability is listed just above this on the same page:

The 12.8cm K81 Gun in Flames Of War

    Weapon              Mobility Range     ROF Anti-tank Firepower Notes
    12.8cm K81 gun      Immobile 48"/120cm   1        17        2+ Breakthrough gun.
    Firing bombardments          104"/260cm  -         4        3+

The Hammer and Sickle supplement also mentions the Breakthrough Gun rule. It also fails to mention any additional information about the rule, which leads me to believe that there isn't much more to the rule (although it isn't definitive proof without access to a 3rd Edition rule book, or the Know Your Enemy publication.

The Heavy Breakthrough Gun rule also returns and applies to the IS-2 and ISU-122. Infantry, Gun tams and Unarmoured vehicles are vulnerable to these massive rounds and automatically fail their save if hit by one.


text:
When does a token have the same name as another token?
I'm playing a Selesnya tokens deck, and my opponent casts Detention Sphere, which exiles all creatures with the "same name", on one of my tokens. Does he get to exile

All of my tokens?
All of the tokens of the same creature type/power/toughness? (E.g. all 1/1 Birds.)
Just that one token?

None of the above. It will exile all permanents with the same name as targeted permanent. This may or may not be all your tokens. This may or may not be all your only token. Type, power and toughness are irrelevant.

Some abilities explicitly give names to the tokens they create. For example, Tolsimir Wolfblood creates a token of creature type "Wolf" named "Voja".
If you use Detention Sphere to exile a permanent named "Voja", it will exile all permanents named "Voja", and only those. (It doesn't matter if they are tokens or not. It will not exile permanents named "Wolf". It will not exile permanents of creature type "Wolf" unless their name is "Voja". It will not exile tokens unless their name is "Voja".)
Some don't. If the ability did not explicitly give a name to the token, its name is the same as its type. For example, Eyes in the Skies creates a token of creature type "Bird" named "Bird".
If you use Detention Sphere to exile a permanent named "Bird", it will exile all permanents named "Bird", and only those. (It doesn't matter if they are tokens or not. It will not exile permanents named "Saproling". It will not exile permanents of creature type "Bird" unless their name is "Bird". It will not exile tokens unless their name is "Bird".)

Relevant rules:

110.5c A spell or ability that creates a creature token sets both its name and its creature type. If the spell or ability doesn’t specify the name of the creature token, its name is the same as its creature type(s). A “Goblin Scout creature token,” for example, is named “Goblin Scout” and has the creature subtypes Goblin and Scout. Once a token is on the battlefield, changing its name doesn’t change its creature type, and vice versa.

Also note that some creatures created named tokens with the same name as an actual card. Consider [mtg:Skirk Ridge Exhumer] who puts into play a [mtg:Festering Goblin] token. This would kill creatures that are either the festering goblin tokens, or the festering goblin cards. In the same manner, if you had 1/1 birds and 3/3 birds, it would exile them all. Unlike my other examples, which don't have festering goblin or 3/3 birds, there are 1/1 red humans and 1/1 white humans in current standard. This would take them all out.

@corsiKa, Something more basic like [mtg:Rite of Replication] will do that too. [mtg:Detention Sphere] will exile both the tokens and the cards with the name of the target permanent.

If the ability did not explicitly give a name to the token, its name is the same as its type. -- This is the key piece of information that I was missing. I was worried that all tokens had the same name, similar to how they all have a CMC of 0, which means that a single Detention Sphere could wipe out my entire board.


text:
If my creature with deathtouch and 0 power blocks one of my opponent's creatures, does my opponent's creature die?
Deathtouch means that "any creature dealt damage by another creature with deathtouch is destroyed", but what if that creature with deathtouch is 0/1? I suppose a better title would be 'does a creature with 0 power deal damage in combat?', but it seems like deathtouch is the most prominent case where this would come into play.

No. Deathtouch still requires that damage be dealt:

702.2b Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch
is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature’s toughness.

Here's the more general rule as well:

119.8. If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. That means abilities that trigger
on damage being dealt won’t trigger. It also means that replacement effects that would increase the
damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or
player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect.

A corollary to all this is that a creature with deathtouch can only kill as many creature as it has points of damage to assign -- for instance, casting Lure on your 2/2 Acidic Slime doesn't let you wipe out your opponent's whole team, just two blockers.

Yup, but Lure on Cockatrice will kill everything that blocks it because it's not Death Touch.


text:
Is the Go! action card ever worth playing?
In Monopoly Deal, there is a Go! Card which uses one of your three plays for the turn in order to draw two additional cards. It seems the key to winning in this game revolve around emptying your hand to draw 5. Let's start from that scenario:
turn x  : draw 5, play 3, leaves 2 in hand
turn x+1: draw 2, play 3, leaves 1 in hand
turn x+2: draw 2, play 3, leaves 0 in hand

So with this we have 3 turns, 9 cards, or an average of 3 cards per turn.
Now let's say we play a go:
turn x  : draw 5, play 2 and a go, leaves 5 in hand
turn x+1: draw 2, play 3, leaves 4 in hand
turn x+2: draw 2, play 3, leaves 3 in hand
turn x+3: draw 2, play 3, leaves 2 in hand
turn x+4: draw 2, play 3, leaves 1 in hand
turn x+5: draw 2, play 3, leaves 0 in hand

So now, in six turns, we've instead managed to draw 17 cards over 6 turns, or 2.8 cards per turn. So we see FEWER cards per turn if we play a go, plus one less action.
Should I be using my goes for money instead to maximize the number of cards I see?

In addition to cards, it is very important to consider tempo when deciding what moves to make in a variable-hand-size card game... if your hand is strong enough on its own merit without having to draw additional cards, that's great, but you're going to run into situations where playing the 'Go' as a money card and playing another card already in hand is not going to be as good as playing the 'Go' card as an action card and then playing one of the cards that were drawn by the 'Go' action.
I would say that the only time that you should play the 'Go' card as money EVERY TIME is when it is the last card in your hand, and the last action you can take (but even then you're only betting that the 5 cards you'll draw at the beginning of your next turn are better than the four cards that you'd draw if you played the go card and drew two your next turn.)

This is a bad idea to play an action card for money (except if you run out of money of course). It may serve at one moment of the game. So do not play your goes card for money. It may gives you a second wind to your hand with two brand new cards which enables you to build a new strategy. Imagine that in the two new cards there are cards like "Deal Breaker" or other cards which could be combined with another of your hands to get lots of money or properties. Is it better to get only 1M in your bank ? Not so sure...


text:
In Forbidden Island, can a Navigator move an Explorer diagonally?
My wife and I played a game of Forbidden Island last night.  She got the Navigator adventurer, and I was the Explorer.
The Navigator's special ability is that it can move any other player up to 2 adjacent tiles.  "Adjacent" usually means up/down/left/right, however the Explorer's special ability is that it can move diagonally too, so: Can the navigator move the explorer to adjacent diagonal tiles, or just the standard up/down/left/right?
(I hope the answer is 'yes', as we just managed to win assuming 'yes' to the above with just 2 tiles left when we got off Fools Landing!)

Good question!  And fortunately for you, the answer is "yes", as per these clarifications
by Matt Leacock, the designer of the game:

The Navigator can move the Diver up to 2 adjacent tiles. The first
  tile may be missing. The second tile may not be missing because the
  Diver must end her turn on a tile.
When the Navigator moves the Explorer to adjacent spaces, he may move
  him diagonally.
The Navigator moves the Pilot to adjacent spaces like any other
  adventurer. (The Pilot can't take advantage of his special ability
  when the Navigator moves him.)


text:
Can I Birthing Pod a token to get a creature with a CMC of 1?
From my understanding, the CMC (converted mana cost) of a token is 0.  When you sacrifice a creature with Birthing Pod it adds 1 to the CMC.  So, if I sacrifice a token (any token) to Birthing Pod, can I get a creature with a CMC of 1 from my deck?

You are correct in the general sense. The CMC of almost any tokens is 0. The only exception is tokens copying other cards (e.g. Cackling Counterpart).
The simplest reference is the Oracle rulings:

6/1/2011  A token has a converted mana cost of 0, unless it is copying
something else.

6/1/2011  If a creature is copying something else, its converted mana
cost is the converted mana cost of whatever it's copying.

So, why do most tokens have CMC 0?

110.5b ... A token doesn't have any characteristics not defined by the spell or ability that created it.
Example: Jade Mage has the ability "{2}{G}: Put a 1/1 green Saproling
creature token onto the battlefield." The resultning token has no mana
cost, supertype, expansion symbol, rules text, or abilities.

Normally, in Magic, the absence of a value isn't the same as "zero", but the definition of converted mana cost explicitly covers this situation:

202.3a The converted mana cost of an object with no mana cost is 0.

Silly me, I should have looked at the card.

Little nitpick: the absence of a value usually does usually imply that it's zero, if it's needed in a calculation: 107.2. If anything needs to use a number that can’t be determined, either as a result or in a calculation, it uses 0 instead. When in doubt, the comp rules tend to repeat themselves just to err on the safe side, so it's no wonder that they explicitly spell out 202.3a when 107.2 would technically suffice.

Note, a flipped card (Delver, Huntsmaster, etc) also has a casting cost of 0.

Does this mean the resulting token has no artist, too, until it is targeted by Brushstroke Paintermage of course? :-)

Indeed it does.


text:
Can you claim a Double Sacrifice Bonus?
Two very closely related questions:
If a card has two different "Sacrifice this creature for X" abilities on it, does sacrificing it give both benefits?
Likewise, if a card requires a creature to be sacrificed, but that creature has a "Sacrifice this creature for X" ability, do you get the sacrifice benefit when you sacrifice it for the other requirement?

No to both - each ability has an individual cost, which you'll need to fulfill before it is put on the stack.
Anytime you see Sacrifice [X]: Do [Y], that is expressing a cost that must be paid in order to activate the ability.  A single paid cost may not activate multiple abilities; see the following (from the comp. rules):

117.10. Each payment of a cost applies to only one spell, ability, or effect. For example, a player can't sacrifice just one creature to activate the activated abilities of two permanents that each require sacrificing a creature as a cost. Also, the resolution of a spell or ability doesn't pay another spell or ability's cost, even if part of its effect is doing the same thing the other cost asks for.

To offer a slightly different way to think about it: an ability that says "Sacrifice [X]: Do [Y]" does not mean that "[Y]" automatically happens whenever you sacrifice [X]. And in general, it's not the case that the effect of an ability occurs whenever you happen to take the action specified in the cost. You have to specifically choose to use a particular ability in order to get its effect, as Ian said.

And to make it really intuitively obvious: when you pay mana as a cost, you don't get to reuse it either.

@Jefromi When Ian pointed out it was a cost then I immediately thought of not being able to reuse mana.

No, for the reasons given by Ian, however, if the card had read "Whenever a creature is sacrificed do X.  Sacrifice a creature: Do Y" you would get both effects as the first is triggering to the action of sacrificing, and is not stating a cost.

Thanks for the clarification. What about sacrificing a creature to Eldrazi Monument?

You would be able to claim a bonus for "whenever a creature is sacrificed" worded abilities, but cannot use it for sac x: do y because the Eldrazi is stating the sacrifice is an upkeep cost.


text:
Can the choice to move a commander to the command-zone be delayed?

903.12. If a commander would be put into the exile zone from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead.

If the owner chooses to let a commander go into the graveyard with the expectation of returning it, but the return fails, can the owner then move the commander to the command zone so it can be cast from the command zone? Or does the choice to move the commander to the command zone need to be made immediately?

Sorry I quoted the wrong rule. I was going to ask about exile first, but changed my mind and forgot to update the quote. Looks like it is the same either way though. Thanks!

No. The rule you quote (and its equivalent for graveyards) is the appropriate one and mentions nothing about delays. The choice must be made immediately, but can be remade whenever the commander changes zones. For example, if you allow your commander to go to the graveyard, and then a card is played to exile your graveyard, you can once again choose to send your commander to the command zone instead. Once your commander has arrived somewhere (exile, graveyard), it stays there until a card tells it to move.
For completeness, the graveyard rule:

903.11. If a commander would be put into its owner’s graveyard from anywhere, that player may put it into the command zone instead.

You quoted the wrong rule, but the answer two both situations is the same.

903.11. If a commander would be put into its owner’s graveyard from anywhere, that player may put it into the command zone instead.

Whenever you see the word "instead", you should understand that this is a replacement effect. If the owner chooses to let the commander go to the graveyard, he is giving up his option to move it to the Command Zone.

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.


text:
How does poison work in Commander?
In Commander / EDH players have 40 life. In normal magic 10 poison counters results in a player being eliminated. Is it still 10 poison counters in Commander / EDH?
In Commander / EDH a player is eliminated if they receive 21 commander damage. If the commander does poison damage does this count double toward the poison threshold, or somehow different than normal poison counters?

When I first got into Magic, my local group had a house rule of 15 poison counters for Commander. Although no-one I know uses this anymore (and no-one I know is evil enough to make an Infect Commander deck), it's still a good idea to agree on a house rule for commander poison. It is a causal format after all.

The Comprehensive Rules cover Commander rules (903) in about a page. It only lists one additional rule for winning/losing the game.
Yes, 10 poison counters kills you in Commander.
No, poison damage doesn't count double, Commanders that deal poison damage, deal damage as any other poison creature would deal damage.

903.13. The Commander variant includes the following specification for winning and losing the game. All other rules for winning and losing the game also apply. (See rule 104.)
903.13a A player that’s been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same commander over the
course of the game loses the game. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Note that a commander's poison damage also counts as commander damage (this is seldom relevant unless you have a commander gaining and losing Infect).

Or if your opponent can't gain poison counters. The damage is still dealt, but no poison counters are gained.


text:
Who gets to use a reanimated Gamekeeper's ability?
I was playing a clunky Gamekeeper build of mine against a Legacy Reanimator deck when the following situation occurred:
I had a Leyline of the Void in play (don't know if it's relevant). I had a Gamekeeper in my own graveyard which my opponent reanimated with Animate Dead. I destroyed the Gamekeeper with a Slaughter Pact.
Who gets to use Gamekeeper's ability?

Your opponent. Leyline of the Void has no bearing in this situation, because the Gatekeeper is going to your (its owner's graveyard).

400.3. If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its owner’s corresponding zone.

When an object refers to you, it means its controller.

Card Text: When Gamekeeper dies, you may exile it. If you do, reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card. Put that card onto the battlefield and put all other cards revealed this way into your graveyard.

109.5. The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.


text:
Is it valid to bid on a cargo with zero coins?
In Cargo Noir, when one sends ships to the ports to bid on the cargo there, is it valid to bid zero coins?  The wording of the rules in various places seems to expect that at least one coin is always there, but we couldn't find anything that flat-out says so.

Welcome to the site! I've added the [tag:cargo-noir] tag for you.

Thanks!  I tried to do that, but my numbers are still too small.  ;)

No, a zero coin bid is not valid. This was asked on BGG, and the clarification "no you cannot" is from Eric Hautemont, one of the game designers at Days of Wonder (who produced the game).

Just as I suspected, but good to have confirmation.


text:
Is the game in McDelivery Canada ad real or fake?
On Facebook's Board Game Revolution Community page, someone wants to know if the board game pictured in a television ad is a real game or a jumble of game parts.

Video ad #1: https://youtu.be/P4C8do6cj8U
Video ad #2: https://youtu.be/hVr4ZShwnpA

The lack of a border on the board definitely looks questionable.

they let the fries to touch the board -> fake

@Cohensius That does only mean the people (actors) shown are not gamers. It might still be a really existing game (even though I don't recognize it).

@VolkerLandgraf of course, i was just joking

Related thread on BGG: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2402569/mcdelivery-mcdonalds-tv-ad

Ask yourself this: if you're making a McDonalds commercial and wanted to show kids playing a game while eating your product, are you going to go secure the rights to use a game from a game company? Or are you going to have your props guy make up a fake board and a few fake plastic pieces?

@ruffdive There are many copyright-free games out there. Why go to all that trouble?

@ruffdove Unless they identify it I doubt they would need to pay royalties. I don’t believe the mere sight of the game on screen triggers royalties. In the movie E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, the kids are clearly playing Dungeons & Dragons at the beginning of the movie, but the game was never actually named, and no royalties were paid to the game’s owner, TSR

@StephenR: Even if everything you do is fair use, that doesn't prevent the rights-holder from sending C&D letters and filing lawsuits, which would interfere with the ad campaign. Remember that the legal system has lots of goofy edges in it where you can get cut, even if you did nothing wrong.

This is a fake game.
I reached out to Cosette / OPC who was the agency for this ad campaign, and it is NOT a real game. They had their art department make a quick board and collected random pieces from either existing board games or 3D printed some of their own.
They made a comment that they were aware that the board game community would quickly identify which game they were using, and this was a small burst of ads where securing an actual license would be too much hassle.
Component-wise, one could assume that this is a version of the first edition of A Game of Thrones, with a lot of other random components added to it, but the board is created from scratch, with some elements from Shutterstock thrown in.
Quote: "The important thing was to resemble a modern strategic board game, where unit placement was a key thing since that would make it easy to express that they were cheating (moving pieces, passing cards, etc.)"
One can assume the ad-makers in postproduction will have ensured that nothing about that game is identifiable as an actual product, even if a component used ended up in the final cut.


text:
Do I have to physically cut into my Necron Overlord's Staff of Light to upgrade it to Warscythe?
I'm just double checking so that I don't ruin a $20 model.
Clarification:
I don't plan on playing in tournaments, however, I would like to stick to the rules as far as my army is concerned just to make casual games smoother. I'm new to 40K and I figure if I skimp too much on the rules that I won't actually learn the game.
My Necron Overlord finecast box did not come with a Warscythe, which the codex says I can upgrade him to in place of a Staff of Light. The model box does come with a Staff of Light, and the codex depicts a Warscythe as roughly a Staff of Light with one of the blades removed. If possible, I would like to keep the whole Staff of Light just in case I later decide to not use the Warscythe upgrade in my roster.

Well, it depends.
40K by the rules is WYSIWYG(What you see is what you get).  This means that if you give a guy an ax, he needs to be modeled with something vaguely ax shaped.  If you give him a bolt pistol he needs to be holding something bolt pistol like(a holster at his hip works too)  This holds true for the war scythe as well.
There's some wiggle room on this because the game doesn't always specifically say what advanced alien melee weapons are supposed to look like.  So if you can squint your eyes and the thing the Overload is holding is two handed and sorta scythe shaped, your're probably good.
In most friendly games, telling your opponent what the character is armed with before the start of the game is generally sufficient.  Often people like to try out different combinations of wargear, and a certain amount of proxying is tolerated.
This is all dependent on the group of guys you play with.  Some groups may be stricter about the application of WYSIWYG than others.  Check with your gaming group to be sure.
If you plan on playing in tournaments--especially larger ones, you will probably have to go with a more explicit conversion.  Tournaments are more likely to enforce strict WYSIWYG for the sake of side-stepping potential rules arguments.

I think you imply this, but just to be explicit: Are you saying there is no actual piece of wargear, or a Necron Lord model variant that you can buy which provides the Warscythe "out of the box"? They all come with Staves of Light?

@ire_and_curses  There are several models with a war scythe. A few characters, the Overlord that comes with the command barge, one older Lord sculpt, and Lychguard.  The design of each of these scythes is not always 100% consistent.

The consensus across a couple of forums appears to be that I can keep the Staff of Light and simply inform opponents that it should be considered a Warscythe instead. WYSIWYG is flexible; not all options/upgrades have physical bits for display (e.g. Mindshackle scarabs).

You are able to get a war scythe from a package of lychguard/praetorian (same box) and use it for the overlord, if magnets are used right you should be able to switch back and forth at will. (New player as well but in the process of magnetizing my army per suggestions for wysiwyg)


text:
Why would one player ever need more Army units in a battle than their opponent?
I am learning the rules of Risk, but am failing to understand why, during a battle, one player would ever need more Army units than their opponent?
According to the rules of risk, during a battle each player compares their highest dice rolls. The player with the lowest roll of the two removes one unit from the battle. The players then compare their next highest rolls (if they have rolled more than die).
My misunderstanding can be explained in the following two scenarios I have created.
In both battles, the attacker rolls 2 die and the defender rolls 1.
Battle 1

In battle 1, the attacker has the highest roll and so the defender removes one of his units. Now the defender has no more dice and so there is no defending die to compare the attacker's 2nd die with. The attacker wins this battle.
Battle 2

In battle 2, the defender has the highest 1st roll and so the attacker removes one unit. As by the rules, the players should now compare their next highest dice. The defender does not have a next highest dice, only the one which they have already used in the battle. So what happens here? Am I right in thinking that once this stage is reached, the defender can reuse their die that have already won during this battle? And so 'Battle 2' would now look like:

Now, the defender wins again and so the attacker has lost all his units in the battle. The defender wins this battle.
Battle 3
Here is a 3rd scenario following the logic I have proposed:
Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Is this the correct process in which battles should be played?

Battle 3, part 1 is not possible in standard Risk. The defender can never roll more than 2 dice.

I have since confirmed the rules. My scenarios for 'Battle 2' and 'Battle 3' are incorrect. Once a die has been used in a battle, it cannot be used in that battle again. The only reason for a player having more dice than their opponent is to increase their chance of rolling a higher number.

The rolls don't stay the same.  Having more dice means you get more chances to outroll them, which is a necessity considering that defenders have an advantage.

The use for having more than one unit in a confrontation isn't for increased chances in the battle itself (as you stated in an answer), but for a more stable expansion after the battle. As I am sure you know, after a  territory has been claimed, a chunk of the units in that battle move into the newly acquired territory up to leaving only one unit in the territory that you fought the enemy with. The problem with leaving token units behind and not fortifying them later is an unforeseen expansion into the heart of your territories. Let's say that you have a choke-point claimed that has a surplus of units defending from three separate forces. Because the forces are small enough to not be a major threat, you ignore that part of the board for a few turns and expand outwards elsewhere. Suddenly on the fourth turn, one force draws enough reinforcements to expel the other two from the entire chunk of territories leading up to your border and thus have control of all three territories that threaten the choke-point (providing 3 chances a turn to destroy that border with uncontested reinforcements from its surrounding territories). Since the fastest any unit can move is one territory a turn, if the bulk of your forces are on the other side of the board and your territories behind the wall are too soft, your opponent can take a huge chunk of your territories before you can bolster them.
TL:DR, It's so you aren't squishy later in the game


text:
Can I spend Stimhack credits after accessing cards?
Stimhack gives me 9 credits that I have to spend during a run.
Cards like Clone Chip allow me to install programs during a run. I can obviously use my Stimhack credits to pay for these programs.
My question is, let's say I'd like to save my money for trashing cards in a server: Once I've accessed and trashed cards, is it too late to then spend what I have left using Clone Chip or similar?
My understanding is that Clone Chip (etc.) requires a paid ability window to install a program. There doesn't appear to be such a window between accessing cards and ending the run.
Am I forced to spend "spare" credits prior to accessing and guess how much I need to keep to pay for trashing, losing any that still remains?
An example to explain:
I Stimhack into a remote server. I break the only piece of ICE, leaving me with 6 Stimhack credits left. I suspect the only card in the server is a SanSan City Grid which I'd like to trash (and which would cost 5 to do so). I access the card and see that it's actually a Red Herrings and I trash it for one credit.

Option A: I still have 5 credits left so I spend them to install Crypsis from my heap using Clone Chip (rather than lose the 5 credits). Then the run ends.
Option B: My 5 credits are lost.

According to the run sequence on the back page manual, a run includes "Access Cards", so obviously, one can use the credits from stimhack to trash any accessed cards.
Now, for the Clone Chip part of the question: this is a Paid Ability, so you need a paid abilities window (the green arrow on the path charts) to use the chip.  If you look at the Revised Run structure in the FAQ (last page, here), you will notice that the last Paid Abilities window is 4.3,  which is after passing the last piece of ICE but before any cards are accessed.  So, in your situation, you would not be able to install Crypsis and the 5 credits would be lost.


text:
Do any successful draft formats exist for Android: Netrunner?
It's still early enough in Android: Netrunner's lifecycle that using the full cardlist to build decks isn't too overwhelming, but as time goes on, it could well be, and archetypes will become increasingly prevalent.
So, I like the idea of a draft-based game, in which I show up without a deck and build one on the spot. I think it would be really fun and probably improve my deck-building technique.
Being asymmetrical, there would be complications (you'd have to do two drafts) and there are other obstacles like influence and identities.
With that in mind, are there any Android: Netrunner draft formats that people have tried and have found successful?
(Bonus marks for formats that can work with as few as two players)

FFG has now released an official draft format.
To participate in draft play, each player needs two components:

A draft starter pack, which is a fixed set of cards (Armitage Codebusting, Crypsis, PAD Campaign, Priority Requisition, special draft identities). These cards are "private" to each player, and can be reused for multiple drafts.
A draft pack, which contains a random selection of 40 cards of either runner or corp. In order to draft for both sides, a draft pack for each side is needed. These are the cards used for the draft. Draft packs are not indended to be reused, but the cards are legal for normal play unless otherwise noted.

The draft is done in 4 rounds of 10 cards each. Each round, each player starts with the top 10 cards of their draft pack. If drafting both sides, draft Corp decks first. After drafting, each player adds their draft starter pack to their pool of cards available for deckbuilding.
There are a few rules differences between draft play and normal play:

All players use the special draft identities, which are both neutral with a 30 card deck limit and unlimited influence. The Corp identity can use agendas from all factions.
Decks may include any number of copies of each card, instead of the normal maximum of 3 copies per card.
Games are played to 6 Agenda Points instead of the normal 7.

An informal introduction video can be seen here.

I had this idea a few weeks ago and went looking for an answer. I found one that a friend and I tried that could be used with as few as two players, but also has the ability to scale to more. I lay this version out below. I also found one on StimHack but haven't tried yet; this ones also looks good, so it's probably worth experimenting. The only downside of the StimHack format is that it is written specifically for 4 players.
For as Few as Two Players
I found this out in a thread on Board Game Geek. A friend and I tried it with just the two of us and it worked reasonably well. I'll outline the basics of setting this up, but read the OP and comments for a fuller understanding.

Start with one core set per two players
Take out all Identity, Private Security Force and Priority Registration cards and set them aside
Shuffle the Runner and Corporation cards separately, then take out 1 random Runner card and 14 random Corp cards (this should leave you with 110 each of Runner and Corp cards per two players)
Divide the remaining cards into packs of 11 cards each, continuing to keep the Runner and Corporation separate. With two players, this should give you ten packs for each side (note that the OP says these packs could be different sizes as long as they're evenly sized and there are the same number for Runner and Corp)
Split the packs evenly, with each player taking half the Runner packs and half the Corp packs
Start drafting! Make sure that you are drafting different sides. If Alice starts by drafting Runner, Bob should start drafting Corp so each player is drafting both each round. If you have four players, make sure it goes Runner/Corp/Runner/Corp. Scale appropriately
The OP notes that they started by drafting one card for the first pick out of a pack, then started drafting two cards for each pick after that. My friend and I only took one at a time. I don't see a huge functional difference in this. There may just be more of a time commitment when only taking one at a time
After the draft, each player should have 55 each of Runner cards and Corp cards
You don't get an identity; ignore influence values. Each deck must be at least 45 cards
This next part is important, so here's a block quote:

For the Corp deck, you must obey the Agenda point requirement, so you're allowed to add unlimited copies of Priority Requisition and/or Private Security Force to your deck if you didn't draft enough Agendas during the draft phase. HOWEVER, if you need to add more than three copies of either Priority Requisition or Private Security Force, then you MUST also have at minimum one less copy of the other card in your deck. So, for example, if you want to play with four copies of Private Security Force then you MUST have at least three copies of Priority Requisition in your deck. But you're allowed to play with three Priority Requisition and zero Private Security Force if you drafted enough other Agendas to meet the minimum Agenda Point requirement.

The final step: play with normal rules. Like I said, a friend and I tried this and it worked pretty well. You do lose a lot of the flavor (as some of the comments point out), but the format itself is functional. A comment by Jeff Engel at the bottom of the page offers a decent solution to using identities, we just didn't try it:

Why not just count up the faction points of what you drafted, whatever you have the most of is your faction.


text:
What's the etymology of the term "rez" in the Netrunner games?
In the Netrunner games, "rezzing" a card is the act of revealing and paying for it when you're playing as the Corporation (in the new LCG anyway; I'm not familiar with the original CCG, but I believe it's the same).
The games take a great deal of inspiration from real computing terms for all of their "keywords" but this isn't one I'm familiar with. It must be short for something: "resurrect" is the best I can come up with, but doesn't really make literal sense since you're playing something for the first time. What's the origin of the term?

I just played for the first time yesterday and wondered the same thing!

It is short for "resolve", and derez is short for "deresolve". I have seen the terms several times in cyberpunk fiction; the earliest use I can find is Tron (1982).
Here are some quotes from IMDB. Note that the MCP uses the term "deresolution" when being formal, and the anthropomorphic programs use "de-rezzed" to mean the same thing.

It comes from the movie Tron (1982). "Rez" is a shorthand slang for the opposite of "deresolution."

Sark: Everything you do or learn will be imprinted on this disc. If you lose your disc, or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate deresolution. That will be all.

Rez - To call into being.

Kevin Flynn: I'm gonna jump! It's the only way to help Tron.
Yori: Don't. You'll be de-rezzed.


text:
In Pathfinder ACG, what happens if I must encounter the Villain because of another effect?
In a recent game, I encountered and defeated a henchman at the Swallowtail Festival location. The location card reads:

When Closing
  Defeat or acquire the next card in the deck. If there isn't one, you may close this location automatically.

When I revealed the next card, it was the villain. What should I do in this scenario?

Treat it as a villain. All other players may temporarily close locations, then I encounter the villain. If successful, the villain flees to another open location or I win, as appropriate. The location is (double!) closed.
Treat it as just another monster. I encounter the villain. If I succeed, the location is closed because I completed its requirement, but the villain does not flee. Because the location contains the villain, the location actually remains open and all non-villain cards are banished.

I ruled it as the second option in play, but in hindsight, the first one seems increasingly plausible, though I'm still not convinced which is right.

I wasn't able to find an official answer, but here's an answer on behalf of the BGG community answers here:
It seems that my latter intuition was probably correct. When you reveal the next card, all the effects trigger, including if it was a villain.
Therefore, in this case, option 1 is correct. I should attempt to temporarily close locations and then attempt to defeat the villain, just as if the villain were encountered in normal play.

Why can other players temporarily close locations?

If I remember correctly the Henchmen and the Villain are never in the same location deck. The rules book says during setup to take the Villain card and as many henchmen cards as you need to match the number of locations, and then deal one to each location deck. Either a Henchman or the Villain will be in a location, but not both.

That's only true at the start of the game. If you defeat the villain and he flees, he's then almost guaranteed to be in a location with another henchman.


text:
What's a good source of generic pieces/components?
I'm interested in building up a decent collection of generic components that I can grab when I want to throw together a quick prototype of a game. I'm not aware of any "component collections" that you can actually buy (I guess there may not be much of a market for them) but if I'm wrong, feel free to link me to one.
I expect then, that what I'm looking for is a game that has good value-for-money for the components since that's all I'm interested in. For that reason, the actual gameplay or rules are irrelevant to me.
As for the components themselves, I expect I'd be looking at a Euro for plentiful generic pieces (more Ameritrash games tend to have components that aren't particularly generic; I'd rather they not be moulded spaceships, or treasure chests or animals or whatever). For instance, I'm looking for lots of cubes in various colours, maybe a few meeples in different colours too. Cards aren't so important to me since they can be easily prototyped from index cards etc. Agricola came to mind when I first thought about it, but that's quite pricey. (But who knows? Maybe the price-per-component value is actually quite good).
I'm aware that prices etc differ in different places, so I'm not looking for a game guaranteed to be available cheaply near me, but I'd be interested to hear how people have solved this problem in the past.
Update: Thanks for the tips guys! The online resources look really good, but are all based in the US and I'm based in the UK! If anyone knows of any online solutions that can cheaply ship to the UK that would be great. The cost of shipping from the US kind of counteracts the cheapness in the first place!

If you're looking at components for the price, your best bet is to keep an eye out for clearance sales. If you don't have a local board game store to check, a lot of the online game stores have them a few times a year, as does Barnes & Noble (I've gotten several games at 75% off MSRP from the latter).

@Johno, Amazon has a uk site. http://www.amazon.co.uk/EDX-Education-Active-Colour-Tiles/dp/B003Y6N0VI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1339162395&sr=8-2

You have several options if you want to collect a large set of generic components so that you can throw your own prototype together.
Thrift Store games you buy just for the components
If you frequent thrift stores regularly, you can pick up cheap games ($2-$4 usually) specifially just to harvest the components from them. Some good examples from the list above are (with linked pictures of the components):

Scrabble : 100 Wooden Tiles. The backs are blank, or you could have the letters have some meaning within your game, or cover up the letters with stickers.
Risk : Colored Wooden Cubes/Plastic Stars. Old and Classic Editions come with wooden cubes.
Yahtzee Jr. : 1" indented Cubes. Useful if you want to make custom dice.
Advance to Boardwalk : 4 Colors of 20 stackable squares. Upwwords comes with stackable letters.
Trumpet : Cards numbered 1-11 in 6 different suits, when you want to design 5-6 player games and a standard deck won't do.
Bottletops : Hundreds of Wooden disks, most white, some red.
Bingo/Sequence : The $1 Store version of these usually come with red plastic "tiddlywinks", or numbered cardboard chits (useful for wargaming).
Pente : Colored glass beads in two colors.
Monopoly/Global Pursuit - Paper money.
Dicecapades : More dice than you will know what do do with.
Sorry/Pachisi : 4 Colored pawns in 4 colors.

Buy a Piecepack or similar game system
Piecepack is a game system that comes with some predefined generic playing pieces. It is an open board game development platform. Anyone can design and release their own games using Piecepack components, and there will already be an installed player base with the components to play it. The components are offered by different vendors, this one is $30, the components in a standard Piecepack are listed here.
There are other game systems like IceHouse (I am not certain of the openness of this game system. Looney Labs owns a patent on it, but it may have expired), and Orion. For more information, see this page.
Buy generic components from websites.
Print-N-Play productions offers a wide selection of colored wooden bits, meeples, dice, and other game accessories.
Educational Supply stores offer colored wooden/plastic cubes, colored tiles, and other tools that could be used to prototype a board game. I have purchased a tub of 1000 plastic 1 cm. cubes from a local educational supply store for about $22, although prices will vary by the size of the supplier.

Thanks for the suggestions (the BGG list was useful)! The online resources didn't help so much (I'm based in the UK, so shipping would cost too much), but I found a good online resource for board game pieces for UK gamers: http://boardgameextras.co.uk

Thought I should mention MeepleSource.com from Florida. Also sells lots of different and cool game bits.

You're in luck.  Fantasy Flight Games sells sets like this in a variety of colors.
Another possible source is your local craft store.  Not sure if they have these in your area, but Michael's and Hobby Lobby(slightly better selection) are worth checking out.  There's usually an aisle devoted to wood crafts.  You can usually find lots of nice inexpensive fiddly bits.  They usually come unpainted, so you'll need to buy a few cans of spray paint.
Thirdly, 3D printing on demand is getting to be reasonably priced.

Another UK source, especially for any quantity, that I've used in the past is Plastics For Games Ltd.  (Not used them for years so I've no idea if their service is as good as it was, but their site is still active). Note they do have a minimum order of £100.

Spielmaterial.de has lots and lots of generic components. The web shop is outdated and clunky, so you´ll spend some time finding what you need, but there is a lot to be found. They're based in Germany but ship to the Netherlands, so probably to the UK as well.

I realize this is an older post but I found it to be a good resource and had a resource I thought was useful so I thought I'd add a little to it.  Similar to the Thrift store answer, in the states we have Dollar Tree stores, where everything is one dollar.  I've seen chess/checkers/dominoes/etc. all of which have a number of pawns or tokens for use.  I realize Chess has some specific pieces but the pawns may be generic enough for your purposes.
Alternatively, I've made my own.  If you have access to a miter/chop saw one dowel rod (circular or square) can become 50 disks/cubes.  Add a little paint, or stickers and you've got a bunch of new options to play with.  Your local art/craft store will have many more options as well.

If you're looking for very specific pieces and components, the answers on this question provide some good advice.

Anyone willing to spend more money to get large numbers of pieces such as cubes may want to read my blog post:
 Generic plastic/wood game pieces you can buy for prototypes
(or for full production?)
http://pulsiphergamedesign.blogspot.com/2014/03/generic-plasticwood-game-pieces-you-can.html

Answers here are expected to directly answer the question. Please check our [about].


text:
In chess, when is it appropriate to resign?
I know I should not resign after losing the exchange, or a piece, and probably not even if I lose a Rook.  But how about if I lose a Queen for a Knight?  Would it be expected of a player to keep fighting in such a scenario, or is he expected to give up then and there?
It would be helpful to know the unspoken rules regarding resignation, if they exist.

When the last bus home leaves in less than ten minutes ;)

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1467 Everything said there also applies here..

It really depends on the circumstances.  Are you in a tournament?  Who is your opponent?  How much time do you have?  What will you learn from it?
I would usually keep fighting if I lost a minor piece just to learn something from fighting a losing position, unless I was in an intense tournament and needed some rest.  If I was down a Queen, I probably wouldn't fight on in such a hopeless situation, but at the lower levels many mistakes can be made on both sides, so it might pay off.  I've seen some crazy games where it did.

I once, in a serious tournament, in the very last round won a game when I was down a whole queen (at one point in the game - by the time I won I had recovered the queen and much more).
I had also before I eventually turned the position around to be clearly winning offered my opponent a draw, a draw which would have advanced him to a statewide individual tournament, but assuming he had a won game (which technically he did but over the board he failed to see how to win - in part because he ran into time trouble) he declined my draw offer.
My point is that even in a serious tournament situation I had not considered resigning in this specific position because the game was still highly dynamic and because since we had not yet met the time control conditions I still had a very real possibility of winning on time even if I was down in materials.
So what more general advice can I offer?
1 - do not resign if the position is still highly dynamic - i.e. even if you are down in pieces you still have more than enough pieces to both technically win the game and have the ability to create counterthreats your opponent will need to deal with before they can win the game
2 - DO resign if you see a clear path to defeat - i.e. if you see a forced mate or a clear consolidation of the game such that your opponent has an overwhelming advantage. This is especially true if you have a lot of respect for your opponent's game - but even in a casual play you should probably resign when it is clear that you have lost. (i.e. when you could only get back into the game seriously if your opponent made major blunders).
In the game I cited above I won because due to persistant threats by my Knight and other pieces my opponent moved his king into a position where I was able to then fork his king and queen - and then proceed to capture many more pieces and come back from a seemingly insurmountable piece deficit to a clear and decisive victory. But I was able to do this because the position was highly fluid with lots of tactical options open to me even with the loss of my queen. It was a complex position, with both kings fairly advanced and I still had plenty of my own pieces and pawns to threaten my opponent with. Furthermore he was in significant time pressure due to a looming time control which we had not yet met - while I had more time on my clock (but still played quickly to keep the pressure on him)
My general rule - resign when you can no longer learn from the game in casual play and in tournament play resign when you no longer have a realistic ability to make serious threats or eek out a draw (and don't forget to look at the clock's impact on play in tournaments)

I usually resign when every move starts to feel hopeless.
However, if you are late enough in the game you can sometimes carry on to attempt a stalemate.

It probably depends on the opponent. A master that is down as little two pawns without compensation would probably resign against another master. He might continue fighting if there were "extenuating" circumstances such as bishops of opposite color or a "blocked" position that makes it hard to win.
In amateur play, it gets trickier. Here, the presumption is that one side will occasionally lose a piece and still have a chance to come back to win or draw. Then the issue is, how have you done against this opponent in the past? If you've never won a game against him, and losing a piece is "worse than usual," then resign. If you've had a chance against this person with a rook down, but not a queen, then resign if you lose a whole queen.
In general, the rule for resigning is to do so when past experience indicates that your cause is "hopeless."