text:
How do the replacement effects from Xorn and Academy Manufactor interact?
Xorn and Academy Manufactor are both on the battlefield. I cast Thraben Inspector. How many of what tokens do I get?
I see three possible options:

one clue, one food, one treasure.
one clue, one food, two treasures.
two clues, two foods, two treasures.

I guess the question really is, do the replacement effects "see" each other? I assume they do, but can't find a precise answer on the interwebs.

Until Gatherer Updates, the relevant text on Xorn reads "If you would create one or more Treasure tokens, instead create those tokens plus an additional Treasure token"

Also taking suggestions for a more generic title, to make this Q&A more relevant to other similar scenarios

Title edited, basically just to put "replacement effects" in there.

The short answer is #2: A food, a clue and two treasures.
Dealing with multiple replacement effects is covered by rule 616.1:

616.1 If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the
affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or
the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed
below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same
time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).
...
616.1d Any of the applicable replacement and/or prevention effects may be chosen.
616.1e Once the chosen effect has been applied, this process is repeated (taking into account only replacement or prevention effects
that would now be applicable) until there are no more left to apply.
616.1f While following the steps in 616.1a–d, one replacement or prevention effect may apply to an event, and another may apply to an
event contained within the first event. In this case, the second
effect can’t be chosen until after the first effect has been chosen.

Since investigating makes a clue, the only replacement effect you can apply initially is the Manufactor's, giving you a clue, a treasure and a food.  Then you can apply Xorn's effect, giving you a clue, 2 treasures and a food.
It doesn't happen repeatedly because of rule 614.5:

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 that event.

So once you've used Manufactor's replacement effect on the investigate event, you can't use it again on that same investigate event.
Xorn's additional treasure is still part of the same modified event that Manufactor has already modified, so it can't modify it again even if there are more things it could theoretically replace. Rule 614.5 has this example on it "A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads “If a creature you control would deal damage to a permanent or player, it deals double that damage to that permanent or player instead.” A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage—not just 4, and not an infinite amount."

Given that the inspector creates a clue, not a treasure, wouldn't you only be able to end up with scenario 2?

You're right, I can't read.  I'll fix that.

I still don't get it, sorry. Why does Xorn's replacement apply to Manufactor, but Manufactor does not then apply to the extra treasure created by Xorn?

It doesn't happen repeatedly because of rule 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 that event."  So once you've used Manufactor's replacement effect on the investigate event, you can't use it again on that same investigate event.

but we're talking about two different effects. "clue" is modified to "clue, food and treasure", is modified to "clue, food, treasure plus an additional treasure", so why is the extra treasure not modified to "clue, food, treasure"? The manufactor trigger isn't being invoked by itself, it's invoked by the Xorn, surely? To put it another way, Xorns "additional treasure" is modified by Manufactor to "additional treasure, food and clue"

Xorn's additional treasure is still part of the same modified event that Manufactor has already modified, so it can't modify it again even if there are more things it could theoretically replace.  Rule 614.5 has this example on it "A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads “If a creature you control would deal damage to a permanent or player, it deals double that damage to that permanent or player instead.” A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage—not just 4, and not an infinite amount."

This is the same kind of thing, each doubling effect can only apply once to a given damage event, meaning you'd deal 8 damage in that example.  If that wasn't the case, it would go infinite.  So in this case, you have "Create a clue."  Manufactor modifies it to "Create a clue, a food and a treasure."  Xorn modifies that again to become "Create a clue, a food and 2 treasures."  Since you've already used Manufactor's effect, you can't use it again.

I think the rulings on Academy Manufacturer actually make the explanation a little more complicated. If you have two of them and you create a clue, treasure, or token, you end up with 3 of each, because the second Manufacturer's effect applies once to each of the tokens created by the first Manufacturer's effect. But those don't invoke the first Manufacturer's effect again, because the final modified events from the second layer are still part of the events from the first layer. Similarly, the Xorn's event of creating two tokens is still part of the Manufacturer's event of creating 3 tokens.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Makes sense now. If it's all the same to you, I'm going to add that additional paragraph to the answer above, as I think it explains the rationale best.

When the question contains the question "I guess the question really is, do the replacement effects "see" each other?" and the answer starts with "The short answer is no.", I find that confusing. If you really want to abbreviate "number", you can use "#".

For anyone in the future who gets a lot of Xorns or Academy Manufacturers, here are a couple of formulae; If you have X >= 0 Xorns and A >= 2 Manufacturers, assuming you want to maximise yield, an event creating N treasures will create N * (X + 1) * 3 ^ (A - 1) of each (Apply Xorns first), and an event creating N Foods/Clues will create N * (X + 3) * 3 ^ (A - 2) of each. (Apply one AM, then Xorns, then other AMs)


text:
Dryad of the Ilysian Grove and Imprisoned in the moon
Following on from this conversation, what happens if we replace Icthyomorphosis with Imprisoned in the Moon in that scenario?
I think:

All Lands become all basic land types
Dryad of the Ilysian Grove becomes a land and loses all other types.
Dryad gains all basic land types to its own ability, then loses them again from Imprisoned in the Moon, due to timestamp order.
Layer 6 removes all abilities from Dryad, including any mana abilities it may have inherited from becoming all basic land types (although, as it had already resolved as non-basic in layer 4, I'm not sure that's even relevant, as it wouldn't have received those mana abilities until layer 6 anyway), and adds "t: add colourless"

Your description has the correct result. This looks like the interaction with Magus of the Moon.
The steps are different though.
 1. In the layer 4, Dryad becomes a land. Then its ability gives it all basic lands types (and the associated mana abilities). Dryad's ability is applicated second because it depends on Imprisoned's one.
 2. In the layer 6, Dryad loses its printed abilities and its additional mana abilities but gains "{T}: Add colourless".
No timestamp order is involved.
As a bonus, if you care about land types, Dryad still has all of them.

Just a minor piece you forgot which isn't all that important for the context of the question but Dryad also loses it's color at layer 5.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Gaining control of an opponent's hideaway land
Suppose my opponent plays a hideaway land (e.g. Spinerock Knoll) and then I gain control of it with Zealous Conscripts.

Can I look at the card that was exiled face down with the hideaway land?
What happens if I attempt to use Spinerock Knoll's ability to cast the exiled card, and I find that it has mandatory additional casting costs that I am unable to pay?

Hideaway is defined in the rules as:

702.74a Hideaway represents a static ability and a triggered ability. “Hideaway” means “This permanent enters the battlefield tapped” and
  “When this permanent enters the battlefield, look at the top four
  cards of your library. Exile one of them face down and put the rest on
  the bottom of your library in any order. The exiled card gains ‘Any
  player who has controlled the permanent that exiled this card may look
  at this card in the exile zone.’”

(Remember that the reminder text is only a condensed summary of the actual rules.  It rarely has all the nuances of the rules to handle weirder situations.)
Since the rules state "Any player who has controlled the permanent that exiled this card may look at this card in the exile zone", you can look at the exiled card.  There isn't a way you could start casting the card and not know about what is required to cast it.
Also, the last ability of Spinerock Knoll says you may cast the exiled card.  So as that ability resolves, you have the option of casting the card (or not).  If you can't pay all the costs to cast the spell at that time, you can't cast it and the ability from Spinerock Knoll still resolves (it just didn't do anything useful for you).

The wording is interesting. I'm not native English, but "has controlled" seems to imply to me "has controlled in the past", making the current controller not able to watch it. I know it's not the case, but it's just what it sounds like to me.

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


text:
What game? Matching dice with two each of d4, d6, d8, and d10
I bought this game at gen con in 2015. It is not dissimilar to Yahtzee or Farkle. I'd given it to my grandmother as a gift, but she has misplaced it.
You have two four-sided dice, two six-sided dice, two eight-sided dice, and two ten-sided dice.
During your turn, you get 3 rolls. You can set aside dice to match or (re)roll them, with your goal being to get matching pairs or better.
For example, I think that two 8s would be eight points, but three 8s would be sixteen points.
I can't remember the name or the other rules.

Do you still own the game?

@TheChaz2.0 no, I do not.... well, I have the requisite polyhedron, because I play D&D, but not the specific game that was purchased, no. I will make some updates so that this is more clear.

Ah-ha. I searched for the 2015 gen con convention map, looked up the booth number and found the associated store.
Lumps, by Continuum Games There are a couple of printings, with various packaging and dice colorings (I'm a bit partial to the coal-colored ones).
https://continuumgames.com/shop/lumps-non-seasonal-edition/
As mentioned in the question, a matched pair gives the face-value of those dice, with additional matching dice increasing the total by the face-value again (two 2s are two points, three 2s are four points, etc). First player to 100 points wins.
Later printings include additional rules, such as a solitaire mode, which is just a race to 100 points; a hard mode where you have to set aside dice every roll  instead of banking on the last roll to save you, and some other quirky optional rules, such as all even numbers granting a bonus (or odd numbers).


text:
Primary Key for Magic: The Gathering cards
If you were designing a database for Magic: The Gathering cards, what would be the most basic identifying fields for a card to get a primary key. The Gatherer site uses the multiverse id, but say you couldn't use it and had to come up with something else.
I believe it would be the card name and set. Every card name is unique. Even the cards from Unstable like "Knight Of The Kitchen Sink" that have multiple versions of the card with the same name have versions a-f on the Gatherer site, and the set + card name would let you get any other version of the card (different rarities, wordings, etc.).
I think the only other possible unique identifier might be the "version" - stuff like extended art, full art, showcase art, etc., which could be the same per card name and per set, especially with recent sets. Stuff like Cloudpiercer has the same name & set (Ikoria), but comes in standard art and showcase art.
Is there anything I'm overlooking?
BTW, I wasn't sure whether to ask this question here or in the Database Administrators Stackexchange, but I thought more MTG players would know DB stuff than DB Admins would know MTG cards. If I need to ask it there please let me know.
Thanks!

While each name maps to one card in black-border magic, the reverse is not true. A single card can have more than one name, for example flip cards, double-faced cards, and Ikoria Godzilla cards. Consider how your db might handle these.

It's not really that complicated. Flip cards, double-faced cards, and adventurer cards essentially have secondary names, but the primary name still uniquely identifies them. Split cards are a little weird because both names are equally "primary", but each one is still unique so you can just pick one and it works. And the Godzilla variant names are essentially just flavortext. They are not valid card names from the point of view of the rules.

Card name and set as a combined key would not suffice, because some cards have alternate art in the same set, e.g. Hymn to Tourach. Multiverse Id is exactly what you are looking for, and I dont see a reason why you couldnt use that.

I’m voting to close this question because this appears to be about designing a database and not about the game iteslf.

@JoeW As I stated in the question, I wasn't sure which stackexchange to ask this question in. I wasn't sure if this question was too game-specific to ask in the DB admin channel.

Don't forget foil/premium cards where a card is released a second time in the set with a different look.

The gatherer site treats double-faced and split cards with a single multiverse id for 2 cards. For example, if you look up Huntmaster of the Fells/Ravager of the Fells (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=439333), they both fall under multiverse ID 439333, but they are treated as 2 distinct cards. The main distinguishing feature appears to be the card number (11a/11b). This is why I didn't think I could use the multiverse id if one goal is to treat each of those as a separate - but linked - card.

@raphael75 You've got it backwards. Double-faced and split cards are, by the rules definition, a single card. Therefore they get a single multiverse id. Gatherer only displays them as 2 views of the same card, because it's simpler to do it that way.

The answer to this question really depends on what you are trying to store, and what the goal of building the database is.
For example, if the goal of the database is to represent the functionality of black-bordered cards, all you really need is the English name and the Oracle text, and the rules state that the name is a unique identifier in that context. If you want to include silver-bordered cards, then in order to handle cards that have multiple different Oracle texts, you will either need to use a "variant" in addition to the name to have a unique identifier, or represent variants in a separate table so that you can still use the name as a "unique" identifier.
Of course, if you want to completely describe every card ever printed, then you will need to distinguish languages, and sets, and variants, and promos, and alternate arts, etc. And again, you could stick all of those together to uniquely identify a card, or you could have one main table with just the basic card info, and another table with printings.
The answer could be either of these, or something else, depending on what your goal is. The most important questions to ask in any situation like this are "how do I expect to use this database?" and "how does the structure of the database facilitate that use?"


text:
Card "stack" and targeting in Unstable Unicorns- Irrelevance of a defensive Super Neigh
In Unstable Unicorns, there are certain cards called "Neighs." A Neigh can be played at any time, and effectively "counters" a played card (similarly to Magic: The Gathering, or the "Nopes" in Exploding Kittens). There are also "Super Neighs-" Neigh cards that, additionally, cannot be Neighed. It seems to me that Super Neighs don't actually have any effect on gameplay other than normal Neighs when played defensively. It seems to me that the most logical way to resolve Neighs is similar to the "stack" in Magic. This would indicate that if, for example, your opponent plays a Pandamonium, and you choose to Neigh it, if they then play a Super Neigh in an attempt to win the "Neigh War" that may ensue, you could simply choose to play another Neigh, targeting the Pandamonium again, rather than the Super Neigh. Is this correct? Is there any reason that I MUST target the most recently played card with a Neigh, if there are multiple cards still unresolved?
TL;DR: Does Unstable Unicorns utilize a similar "stack" system to Magic, leaving cards unresolved and still Neighable until all more recently played cards have resolved?

http://unstablegameswiki.com/index.php?title=Neigh,_Neigh%27d,_Neighable,_Neighing
In Unstable Unicorns the stack is literally a stack.  The card being played is placed on top of the card it is responding to.  Therefore the only card targetable is the one on top of the stack.
The Super Neigh is the end of the stack and the entire stack will then resolve.


text:
Use of Instants During Combat Phase
I declare Grizzly Bears as an attacker. My opponent moves to declare blockers, and decides to block the bears with an Air Elemental. Looking at the creature’s power and toughness, I notice my bears are going to die, so I cast Titanic Growth in order to make my bears more powerful. But, in response to my last spell, opponent casts Shock in order to kill the bears before the titanic growth resolves. In such a situation, do the Bears deal their 2 damage to Air Elemental, as the fight has been done just the same, or do the bears go directly to the graveyard without dealing their damage to the blocking creature?

The Grizzly Bears don't deal combat damage to the Air Elemental
Assuming no more instants or abilities are added to the stack after Shock, the stack will resolve.
First, Shock will resolve, causing your bears to die.
Then, Titanic Growth will resolve: it can't find the creature you targeted, so it effectively does nothing.
Finally, since the stack is empty and players have passed priority, we move to combat damage. There are no attackers, so no combat damage is dealt.

"Effectively does nothing" is an understatement. According to the rules (608.2b), it "doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the
stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard."

The question was phrased as an either/or rather than yes/no, so I don't think it should be answered with a "no".

As Arthur pointed out; "Giant Growth will resolve" is incorrect.

Suggested rewording: "Then, it comes time for Titanic Growth to resolve. But instead of resolving, it's removed from the stack for having no legal targets. It doesn't do anything."

It sounds good. You are really great in rewording, Ikegami. Please,look after the latest question I have just asked for...


text:
Can a Pit Card Game be Won if two players refuse to trade with another particular player?
My sister and I had an argument after I stated that I did not want to play Pit with them anymore because her husband and her son for some unknown reason refused to trade with me.  Since she is always right, she said I was not telling the truth because the game is set up so that everyone has to trade in order for someone to win.
While I did not remind her that the game in question was not completed because I threw my cards down and quit, I still believe there is a possibility, however remote, that the game could be won if one player was frozen out by 2 or 3 others.  Any mathematical statisticians out there that would like to come up with an answer for me? I really want to know the answer!!

Note that if the shunned player isn't shut out by everyone at the table, every card can still wind up in every hand (in several steps), so the likelihood of someone being able to win is no different than with everyone trading freely. There's a possibility for a no-win situation if everyone refuses to trade with the pariah, but if even one person does, then a win is always possible.

This is actually deceptively simple.  A full set includes every card of that type in the game.  If you possess a card in a specific set, then nobody else can complete that set.  If you possess cards from every set, then no set can be completed without trading with you.
The flip side is that if there is any set that you lack cards from, then that set can necessarily be completed without any trades to you.

(I'm mostly ignoring Bull and Bear rules here, but I think they can be added in with a little fiddling.)
If you just want to know whether it's possible, then it's not a question of probability but of showing that there is at least one arrangement of cards that would allow a player to win without trading. And it's pretty easy to see that this must exist, since it's how the game ends. So if you took player's hands at the end of a game, and then gave them out again in exactly the same order, the game starts with one player having a winning combination.
If you want a situation where the game is winnable if only 2 out of 3 players trade, then that's still possible - imagine stopping the game right before the winning trade is made. Then as long as the players who were going to make that trade aren't the ones being locked out, you know that they have everything they need to bring the game to a win.
What about a game where any one of the three players can be locked out and still guarantee a winnable state? Still pretty straightforward - give each player a hand consisting entirely of one commodity, then take one card from each player's hand and pass it to the player to their left. Now, whichever player is locked out, the other two players just need to make a trade of their single card, and one of them will get a winning hand.
Probabilities are a little trickier to work with, but do-able. If that's what you're really interested in then I can see what I can do.

I think probability that the game cannot he won might be easier. Find the probability that at least one of each commodity is held by the ignored player. But everyone must ignore that player, otherwise the cards can still move to anyone.

The game situation in question has 4 players not just 3: OP, wife, brother-in-law, and nephew.

For the question of whether there's an arrangement that works, the 4-player situation is no harder than the 3-player one, so that's fine. For probabilities it does affect things a little but I agree that Matt's suggestion makes sense.

Suppose you're playing a three player game with wheat, barley, and corn. For one of the trading players to win with wheat, the two trading players must have nine wheat between them, which is the same as the shut out player not getting any wheat.
To get a hand, we choose 9 cards out of 27. There are C(27,9) ways of doing that, where C is the binomial coefficient. Once we add the restriction that the hand must have no wheat, we have 18 non-wheat cards to choose from, so the probability is (#of ways to get a hand with no wheat)/(total # of ways to get a hand) = C(18,9)/C(27,9), which is slightly more than 1%. An equivalent calculation for four players gets slightly more than 5%. We can then multiply the 1% by 3 (since there are three different commodities that the other players can use to win), and 5% by 4. This gets the approximation that with three players, the other players have a 3% chance of winning, and with four players, they have 20%.
This is a simplified version of the math, however. To get the exact number, we'll need something called the principle of inclusion/exclusion. This says that when we count all the ways of getting one commodity, we double count any configuration that has two commodities. For instance, any configuration for wheat and barley will appear on both the list for wheat, and the list for barley. So we need to subtract the number of ways of getting two. But then when we count the number of ways of getting two, we're overcounting the number of ways of getting three. And so on. So the total number is:
# of ways of getting 1 - (# of ways of getting 2 - (# of ways of getting 3 …)
This can be rewritten as
# of ways of getting 1 - # of ways of getting 2 + # of ways of getting 3 …
For three players, there's only one way the shut out player can be missing any two specific commodities: their hand must consist entirely of the third commodity. And there's no way they can miss all three commodities. So for three players, this doesn't change the answer much. As the number of players increases, however, this adjustment becomes more important (eventually, you'll be getting over 100% without the adjustment).
For four players, the adjustment still isn't very large. For one commodity we have 4 choices which commodity, then C(27,9) ways for the shut out player to be missing it. For two commodities, we have 6 choices what two commodities, and C(18,9) ways for the shut out player to be missing them. For 3 commodities, there are 4 choices which commodities, and 1 way for the shut out player to be missing them. So we have (4*C(27,9)-6*C(18,9)+4)/C(36,9), or 19.60%.
I also wrote some Python code to simulate it:
def simulation(commodity_count, iteration_count = 10**5):
    commodities = range(commodity_count)
    loss_count = 0
    for i in range(iteration_count):
        p =  np.random.permutation([c for c in commodities for interation in range(9)])
        loss = all ([c in p[:9] for c in commodities])
        loss_count += int(loss)
    return (loss_count/iteration_count)

This resulted in 0.96985 as the proportion of games lost in the three player case and 0.80308 for four, consistent with the calculated numbers.

Pit is playable up to 8, so how does this look for a higher number of players? I'd expect the odds of being able to win while shutting someone out to rise quickly with the number of players, since it becomes increasingly likely that there's at least one player who is missing at least one commodity, which is all that's needed to be able to shut that person out.


text:
Aethersnatch vs Walking Ballista
What happens when player A casts Walking Ballista (costing xx) for 170 colorless mana(meaning 85 for each x).
Then player B casts Aethersnatch to gain control of target spell?
Does it resolve under their control with counters or does it die when it hits the battlefield because it’s natural power and toughness is 0/0?

In this case Walking Ballista resolves under player B's control with counters.  That's because the mana has been already spent. Aethersnatch just gives the control of the spell to the opponent. On the stack the spell "remembers" how much mana was spent to cast it, and if opponent takes control of it, that doesn't change this fact.
From the comprehensive rules:

107.3a
If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”) While a spell is on the stack, any X in its mana cost or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value


text:
Is Ticket To Ride Asia played with stations?
In Ticket To Ride US Edition there was no stations, but in Europe Edition there were.
When playing Asia Edition, do you play with/without stations or is there no set rule about them?
I couldn't spot it in  the rules so I decided to go without stations, but I just wanted to check if there was a consensus on this.

Stations are specific to Europe and could potentially break (or perhaps make) games on other continents. Since Asia and other expansion maps can be played with both US and Europe base sets, the largest common denominator would be to not use stations in expansions.
I have not tried using stations for Asia or India, perhaps it could be worth a test run, but I can see discussions coming up on combinations with Mandalas for India. Asia is more traditional in style (read: more like US) and tension remains mostly because of possible blockage by other players.

The rules actually say that stations are not used, right at the beginning it says:

This game is an expansion and requires that you use the following game parts from a previous version of Ticket to Ride:

A reserve of 45 trains per team and matching Scoring Markers taken from Ticket to Ride or Ticket to Ride Europe
110 Train Car Cards taken from the same or the USA 1910 expansion

Since this makes no mention of stations, you should exclude them from your game.

I use the stations when I play Ticket to ride Asia. I think it is working good.
According to the rules I don't think you should use them, but I am not sure. I use them and I think it works good.

Wait, you use them but don't think you should?

I don't think the rules say that you should use them, but I want to use them, so I use them.

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


text:
How many vowels and consonants should you keep at the end of the turn in Scrabble?
I'm no professional player at all, but it seems like a balanced rack could be keeping a certain number of vowels/consonants. Considering there are 100 letter tiles, 56 consonants and 42 vowels, with a ratio of 56:42 or 1.33 consonant:vowel ratio, keeping a ratio as close as possible could be good maybe. Here is my idea for ideal consonant:vowel ratios making it as close to 1.33 as I can:

6 tiles left: 3 consonants, 3 vowels; 1 ratio
5 tiles left: 3 consonants, 2 vowels; 1.5 ratio
4 tiles left: 2 consonants, 2 vowels; 1 ratio
3 tiles left: 2 consonants, 1 vowel; 2 ratio
2 tiles left: 1 consonant, 1 vowel; 1 ratio
1 tiles left: 1 consonant; indefinite ratio

I know it heavily depends on the current board as well the tile bag, but for general purposes, what would be a good ratio for each number of tiles remaining at the end of the turn?

Why would you aim for the distribution of the bag, and not the distribution of the words you're trying to create?

@Nij as the bag distribution is based on real world distributions (from a copy of a daily newspaper If I recall correctly) there is a certain logic here. Ultimately the board position, what letters are accessible and what your actual tiles are (3 Es anyone) probably play more important roles.

Yes, the letter distribution as used in written English - but the game isn't played by forming full coherent sentences, hence the question of relevance, versus just the targeted words.


text:
How many Polyraptors?
The combination of having a Forerunner of the Empire and playing a Polyraptor is pretty well known, but I have yet to understand how many you would create.
How many Raptors would a player create before the forerunner (a 1/3 creature) dies to it's own damage?
How many Raptors would a player create if the forerunner had x/5 toughness before dying to it's own damage?
I understand the Forerunner's ability is a 'may' effect but I am looking for maximum value, stopping short of infinite loops.

If Forerunner has 3 toughness, you can get 8 Polyraptors.
If Forerunner has 5 toughness, you can get 31 Polyraptors.
Each time you use Forerunner's ability, your number of Polyraptors doubles, and the Forerunner and all Polyraptors takes 1 damage.  This gives us a notion of Polyraptor "generations".  Note that in each generation, all Polyraptors 5 or more "generations" old die (from also having taken 5 damage).
Polyraptors are created 1 at a time, so when you get Forerunner's trigger, it is always at the top of the stack, meaning you have to use it then or nor at all.  There's no way I know of with just these two cards to accumulate Forerunner triggers on the stack.  Given that, you want to use Forerunner's trigger when there are as many Polyraptors as possible, namely only using the last Forerunner trigger of each generation.  This also gives us the simplest progression, since then there are no Polyraptor creation triggers on the stack when we create a new generation.
Assuming you start with 1 Polyraptor you have the following progression (if Forerunner starts at 0 damage, it will die when the number of generations equals it's damage):

Generation
New Polyraptors
Total Polyraptors

0
1
1

1
1
2

2
2
4

3
4
8

4
8
16

5
16
31 (gen 0 dies)

6
31
61 (gen 1 dies)

7
61
120 (gen 2 dies)

8
120
236 (gen 3 dies)

https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/788431-polyraptor-and-forerunner-of-the-empire

@GendoIkari That post seems to agree with my numbers.  The problem with using more that 1 forerunner trigger per generation is that the tokens are created one at a time (each token is created by a separate trigger), so I don't think you can actually get a plie of them on the stack before forerunner dies

Ok, so I think what I was missing is that it isn't actually possible to get more than 1 Forerunner trigger on the stack at the same time... I had been thinking of the Polyraptors as entering at the same time, but they don't, Forerunner triggers after each one.

@GendoIkari It was a good thing to point out.  This situation isn't straightforward at all and I had not initially thought it through all the way.

The math for Total Polyraptors in gen 6 seems off. It should be (2*31)-1, shouldn't it? Which would be 61 instead of 71.

@seandon47 Yep.  That was a typo (that got propagated)

Incidentally, the number of generations you get is equal to the total toughness of all your Forerunners.

@Zags A convenient chart too! Before I mark this as correct, why is the math (Fibonacci sequence) that GendoIkari linked considered incorrect? I've punched both Zag's and the Fibonacci one into a calculator and at low values they end up roughly the same, but start differing the higher you go.

@L.P. the Fibonacchi sequence is for the growth of Sprouting Phytohydra, because it has only 2 toughness, and so with a new generation, all generations 2 older die, whereas Polyraptors live for 5 generations.


text:
Root's list of Victory points
Is there a quick-short list of each of the Root's factions and something like bullet points concisely explaining how each one scores? While playing I am constantly finding I need to ask for everyone's base sheet, or the rule book to try and guess out my opponent's strategies, or niche things they may attempt to pull. I enjoy the game but the asymmetry is a little hard for me to keep track of.
Reading the rules book is accurate, but long winded, all I really would like is a quick reminder of an aspect. The player board's are written more concisely but their layout is sometimes a little random, or lacking in some minor cases, not to mention that someone else is usually using it and can't afford to pass it around every time one asks.

I removed the scoring and win-condition tags as they are not needed on this question.

Any better tag suggestions? I'm not as familiar with B&C games as I would like to be.

Just need the game tag, the information you are looking for all falls under that and there isn't a need for special tags for it

From the files section at BGG:

The guide is misleading to the point of being wrong.  The cats/birds/lizards each have an item that says "points for building/roost/garden placed", but the cats earn points on placement, the birds earn points each turn based on placement, and the lizards earn points when they take an action (based on placement).  Those are three very different mechanisms.

@ArcanistLupus, I posted 2 pictures from two different files, which one are you refereeing?

The first one which concretely lists where points come from for each faction.

Its a quick-short list, it does not give all the info, just a reference list.


text:
Responding to a dynamic value trigger which could change the same value
If I attack with a Thundering Djinn, and in response to its trigger with something that would draw me additional cards (let’s say +2 cards and have only drawn your Draw step prior.).
Will the damage of the Djinn’s ability increase by the new drawn amount? Or will it only use the value of card prior to the trigger going on the stack?

Note that the Djinn here doesn't actually have an X in its ability text anywhere.

@Arthur True, will change question.

I don't mean to pile on here, but we prefer not to include edit messages in the question. Anyone can view the edit history, and the reasons for making an edit should be written in the edit summary field when making an edit, not in the post text.

In this particular case, the question and answer would work out the same if Thudnering Dijinn said "Whenever Thundering Djinn attacks, it deals X damage to any target, where X is equal to the number of cards you've drawn this turn." Where it's different is when X is a value in the casting cost, which requires you to choose the value for X when you cast it.

It would include any cards drawn before the ability resolves.
There are only a few specific things that are set when an ability is put on the stack: Modes, targets, choices required in order to cast a spell or activate an ability (what value to chose for "X" for example; which doesn't actually apply to triggered abilities). The amount of damage it deals is not determined until the ability resolves.

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

603.3c If a triggered ability is modal, its controller announces the mode choice when putting the ability on the stack. If one of the modes would be illegal (due to an inability to choose legal targets, for example), that mode can’t be chosen. If no mode is chosen, the ability is removed from the stack. (See rule 700.2.)
603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c–d.

601.2c The player announces their choice of an appropriate object or player for each target the spell requires.
601.2d If the spell requires the player to divide or distribute an effect (such as damage or counters) among one or more targets, the player announces the division. Each of these targets must receive at least one of whatever is being divided.

And under Resolving Spells and Abilities:

608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.


text:
Flip-Walkers Forcibly Transforming
If I have a Geier Reach Bandit / Vildin-Pack Alpha whos allows my werewolves to transform upon entering the battlefield. Or just a Moonmist
What happens if I have a Conspiracy / Arcane Adaptation then I cast one of the Flip-Walkers (Jace, Vryn’s Prodigy, Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh, Liliana, Heretical Healer, Nicol Bolas, The Ravager)
My assumption is that without the self-exiling effect card flips to the walker side with no loyal counters and instantly kills itself. Please confirm?

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/25204/why-do-double-faced-planeswalkers-from-origins-get-exiled-before-being-transform

The Planeswalker will have no loyalty counters and will die immediately from a state-based action.
This is stated in a Gatherer ruling on each of those cards. For example, the first five have this ruling:

In some rare cases, a spell or ability may cause one of these five cards to transform while it’s a creature (front face up) on the battlefield. If this happens, the resulting planeswalker won’t have any loyalty counters on it and will subsequently be put into its owner’s graveyard.

Transforming a card doesn't cause it to leave or enter the battlefield. It just turns into whatever is on its other face. So the planeswalker side doesn't "enter" with no loyalty counters, it just becomes the planeswalker side and doesn't have any loyalty counters.

If one of those cards enters the battlefield with its back face up for any reason, it enters the battlefield with a number of loyalty counters equal to its printed loyalty. Each of them has an ability that causes it to go to exile, and then enter the battlefield transformed, to ensure that it gets those loyalty counters.

That said, if the creature somehow had loyalty counters on it when it flipped (which is possible, although challenging), then it would survive and behave normally after that.


text:
Resolving spell terminology
I've seen a lot of cards use the key phrase "When you cast a spell..." but are there any cards or abilities that rely on spells being successfully cast and Resolve?
For instance the creature ability Prowess; triggers whether or not a non-creature is cast successfully or countered.
What would the wording on modern cards look like to reflect that?

Buyback and Rebound depend on the card resolving in order for their effects to occur.
Anoint

Buyback 3 (You may pay an additional 3 as you cast this spell. If you do, put this card into your hand as it resolves.)

Artful Maneuver

Rebound (If you cast this spell from your hand, exile it as it resolves. At the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost.)

Feather, the Redeemed has a trigger that fires when you cast a spell, and then checks to see if the spell resolved.

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell that targets a creature you control, exile that card instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves. If you do, return it to your hand at the beginning of the next end step.

There is also a very similar phrasing to what you're describing used on some cards.  These are ETB triggers that fire only if the permanent entered the battlefield as a result of being cast.  It is, functionally, no different than the spell resolving.

(...)When (X) enters the battlefield, if you cast if from your hand, (Y).

This is a list of cards that have that phrasing on it.  As a specific example, Angel of the Dire Hour.

When Angel of the Dire Hour enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand, exile all attacking creatures.

Nothing here "triggers" on spell resolution. Buyback and Rebound both create replacement effects that modify where the spell goes as it resolves, and Feather's ability triggers on casting a spell, and then creates a similar replacement effect.

@murgatroid99 I've adjusted my phrasing of your issues, is this better?

@DenisS Yes, that's what I was asking for.

@DenisS Buyback and Rebound do fit in the answer I am looking for- My question phrasing could be a little more clear, as I was mostly interested in 'Things that rely on resolution'. Which do include replacement effects. However your example with the recently printed Feather is spot on. +1

Generally, these types of triggered abilities trigger on more specific events. For example, "whenever a creature enters the battlefield" will only trigger if a creature spell successfully resolves. Similarly, "whenever you gain life" will trigger when a life-gain spell successfully resolves. In the case of creatures spells; some triggered abilities are even more specific to prevent it working with creatures entering in other ways. Wild Pair says "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand[...]"
I am not aware of any triggered abilities that trigger upon just any spell resolving, or even any spell you control, or any sorcery, etc. There does not appear to be any reason why an ability couldn't be worded "whenever an instant spell that you control resolves [...]", but there doesn't seem to be a good reason to specifically avoid the situations where this is different than "whenever you cast an instant spell".


text:
Redirecting Enrage Damage
If I have a Shaman en-Kor and creature with Enrage (For this instance lets says it's a 0/2 with Enrage). An opponent casts a spell which would deal 2 damage to all creatures.
I used the Shaman's (0) redirect ability twice to direct the damage to my Enrage-Creature. Would enrage...:

... Enrage trigger just once since all damage is dealt to it at once
... Enrage trigger twice because of damage from two different sources.
... Enrage trigger twice because of damage from the spell, then the triggered ability of the shaman hits it?- And can you respond with an instant in-between the damage?
... Enrage trigger three times total. Once from the spell damage, then twice more since the Shaman's ability redirected two instances?

I've found this question/answer but it skirts around the answer I am looking for:
What's the timing on Warrior en-Kor's damage redirection?

In this scenario are you activating the Shaman's ability once or twice? In other words, are you redirecting one point of damage, or both?

@murgatroid99 Twice, updated the question to reflect that.

The Enrage triggered ability only triggers once.
An instruction like "[This card] deals 2 damage to each creature" deals all of its damage simultaneously in a single damage-dealing event. The Shaman's redirection effects modify that event to deal 4 damage to the creature with enrage and 0 to the Shaman, but the result is still just one event, which only triggers the Enrage ability once.


text:
Removing Copied Mutate Targets
When using mutate, I'm aware that removing a Mutate Target results in the Mutate-Spell to enter as a creature. I've reviewed what happens when you use Cloning Effects. However I'm still a little hazy on what happens when you combine those two senarios.
Combine these effects with Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief.
You have Ivy, Spellthief and Arbor Elf on the field. You attempt to mutate Archipelagore onto the Arbor Elf, Ivy triggers and you get a second copy. In response your opponent removes Ivy from the field.

What happens to the Copy-ipelagore?
Does this answer change for whatever reason if the opponent removes both Ivy and the Elf before either Archipelagore can resolve?

The copy enters the battlefield as a token copy of the creature as an independent object. If the original loses its target, or anything else changes with the original, that has no effect on the copy.
The copy becomes a token as a consequence of two rules, rule 702.104b and rule 707.10f

702.140b As a mutating creature spell begins resolving, if its target is illegal, it ceases to be a mutating creature spell and continues resolving as a creature spell and will be put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell’s controller.
707.10f Some effects copy a permanent spell. As that copy resolves, it ceases being a copy of a spell and becomes a token permanent. (See rule 608.3f.)

As the copy of the Archipelagore starts to resolve, the target (Ivy) is illegal because it is no longer on the battlefield. So the Archipelagore copy stops being a mutating creature spell, and instead is just a regular creature spell. Then since is a copy of a creature spell, it enters the battlefield as a token copy of the creature.
As a more general rule, copies of spells (or anything else) exist independent of the original once they are created. Removing the Arbor Elf doesn't affect the copy, because that's not the copy's target.


text:
Wayta Trainer Prodigy & Non-straight forward damaging effects
Wayta, Trainer Prodigy is a pretty easy card to understand. If something being dealt damage would cause an ability to trigger it happens twice. So effects like Polyraptor would create two copies from one damage source. Rite of Passage+Creature would add 2x +1/+1 counters, and Stuffy Doll would deal 2 damage instead of 1.
How does Wayta interact with cards like Marauding Raptor?
Marauding Raptor has a damaging component, and an effect based on if damage done & creature type match, but it's not worded as straight forward as traditional Enrage cards. Do these two interact, assuming the initial triggering effect is a 3/3 Vanilla Dinosaur?
Additionally: Does Wayta care about "Excess Damage", and when those effects trigger?
Most cards that use the "Excess Damage" mechanic have clauses specifying they only affect opponent creatures, or they're non-permanents. Wayta does not care about those cards. One outliner is Maarika, Brutal Gladiator (Zangief). If some effect allowed Maarika under your control to somehow over-damage one of your other creatures, causing you to sacrifice a permanent, would Wayta also be able to double that effect?
(Something you normally wouldn't want to happen, obviously. This is the only example currently, being a permanent and doesn't specify opponent-creatures. If there are better examples please mention them.)

Wayta does not interact with Marauding Raptor.
Wayta only doubles the triggers of abilities that trigger off your creature being dealt damage. However, the ability of Marauding Raptor is triggered by another creature entering the battlefield. The +2/+0 effect is part of that ability's effect itself, conditional on the damaged creature being a Dinosaur. It's not a triggered ability itself.

113.2c An object may have multiple abilities. If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability. [..]

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”

Wayta does interact with Maarika.
When your Maarika deals damage to a creature you control, the resulting damage event has one of your creatures receiving damage. That causes Wayta to double the event. Excess damage only factors into this insofar as it determines whether or not Maarika triggers at all.

The second part is not correct. Wayta does actually double triggered abilities that trigger from a creature dealing damage, as long as the damage was dealt to a creature you control. Wayta's first ruling mentions that it doubles the ability granted by Mephidross Vampire, which is "Whenever this creature deals damage to a creature, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature."

I don't understand that ruling. Wayta clearly states "damage being dealt to a creature you control", meaning your creature is the recipient of the damage. That is is not the same as "deals damage to a creature" of e.g. Mephidros Vampire, your creature being the source of the damage. Those area clearly different kinds of events.

It would only double Mephidross Vampire's ability if the creature deals damage to a creature you control. In that case, dealing damage to a creature and damage being dealt to a creature you control is the same event.

Yes but MV triggers off dealing damage, not the other creature being dealt damage, so why would Wwayta double? Clearly, Wayta was designed for e.g. Polyraptor.

Because dealing damage and being dealt damage is a single event.

The other fellow seems to have deleted his comments. Which is a shame because it's important to point out that Wayta's first official ruling & example seem to contradict her actual card text. Just incase someone else brings it up, I can easily see it causing confusion until WotC updates that ruling.

The answer previously stated that Wayta does not interact with Maarika. I made comments suggesting that the referenced ruling justified changing that statement, and I deleted the comments because I considered them obsolete once the change had been made. I have undeleted my comments because I didn't expect deleting them to cause that confusion.

Marauding Raptor has a damaging component, and an effect based on if damage done & creature type match, but it's not worded as straight forward as traditional Enrage cards.

Marauding Raptor isn't an Enrage card and isn't meant to be seen as similar to one. Instead, it was designed (in the same set) to enable cards with the Enrage mechanic. It deals damage to another creature; the idea is that you play this in a dinosaur tribal deck where "another creature" has an enrage ability, so you get synergy (at the expense of marking damage on the creature, which could kill it or make it temporarily more vulnerable).
The effect reads:

Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, Marauding Raptor deals 2 damage to it. If a Dinosaur is dealt damage this way, Marauding Raptor gets +2/+0 until end of turn.

This is one effect, that is resolved all at once. The +2/+0 result is conditional, but it is not "triggered" by the damage that Marauding Raptor did to the other creature. Therefore, Wayta does not interact with this.
A triggered ability starts with "when" or "whenever", not "if". The entire effect is triggered by a creature entering the battlefield under your control - and not by a Dinosaur being dealt damage "this way". The phrase "this way", incidentally, is another hint that this sentence does not define a separate effect.

Does Wayta care about "Excess Damage", and when those effects trigger?

Wayta does not make any particular distinction regarding excess damage. However, to deal excess damage entails dealing damage. Maarika says

Whenever Maarika deals damage to a creature, if that creature was dealt excess damage this turn, that creature’s controller sacrifices a noncreature, nonland permanent.

That's a triggered ability (it starts with "whenever"), with an "intervening if". If Maarika deals damage to "a creature you control" while you also control Wayta, then "a creature you control" is "being dealt damage", and that event "causes a triggered ability of a permanent you control" to trigger (since we're in a situation where "Maarika deals damage to a creature"). When a source deals damage to a permanent, damage is (ordinarily) dealt to that permanent. The dealing and the being-dealt are not treated as separate events, since nothing can happen in between.
Therefore, Wayta's replacement effect ("If...") takes effect, creating another instance of the triggered ability. Each instance will then check whether "that creature was dealt excess damage this turn" (and normally the answer will be the same each time that's checked); for each instance where the condition was met, "that creature's controller" (which will normally be you, each time) sacrifices a noncreature, nonland permanent.
However, all of this depends on Maarika dealing damage (it doesn't have to be combat damage) to your own creature, while you also control Wayta. If for example you control Maarika and you attack an opponent who controls Wayta, and your opponent chump-blocks Maarika, Maarika's effect is not doubled up. That's because the triggered ability (on Maarika) that was "caused to trigger" by the excess combat damage, was not a triggered ability "of a permanent you control" (from your opponent's perspective).


text:
Does the possibility of claiming tricks prevent the defense from profitting from declarer's errors?
Suppose, the declarer claims 12 tricks in a slam, but you have the opinion that
declarer can make a mistake.
Can you demand declarer to play it out, or does the tournament director decide
how many tricks declarer can claim ?
If the last answer is right, does this not prevent the defense from profitting
from declarer's errors ?

I wanted to add the tags "rules" and/or "claim", but I do not have enough reputation.

Are you claiming the possibility of error from (a) the claim itself being inaccurate; or (b) that declarer could not actually track the claim accurately through the remaining (unplayed) tricks? It sounds like you are asking the latter, but only the former even makes sense as a question.

Of course, I mean error in playing. Even if the claimer CAN make 12 tricks, he might miss them if he has to play.

Making a proper claim is vastly more complicated, in general, than playing the hand out. Any declarer who can accurately make a complicated claim might as well be reading the backs of the cards - playing the hand out will be trivially easy.

If a proper claim is defined to be a claim which is correct assuming good play (choosing the right track WITHOUT knowing the enemy cards based on statistics), then a claim could lead to more tricks than the player would have achieved in a real game. So, how is a claim handled in practice ?

Have you ever played the game against competent opponents? I applaud your attempt to generate questions for Bridge but you seem to be under several mistaken assumptions about the nature of the game.  Also, please edit your clarifications back into the question itself, as comments are not to be regarded as permanent.

Meta discussion on rules tag - http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/818/do-we-really-need-a-rules-tag

See The Laws Of Bridge (pdf), specifically Laws 68-71.
If a claim is doubted by any player (including dummy) the Director must be summoned. It's worth noting that:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order
  in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which
  the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

and:

The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play
  not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an
  alternative normal line of play that would be less successful.
“normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved

So the rules would preclude a claimer from gaining an advantage by claiming.

Your question displays a gross misunderstanding of the capabilities of good players, even those merely the best in their club. At the club in Kingston where I mastered the game, the top 10 or 12 players could all remember the location of every significant card, for all 26 hands of a session, even several hours after a game. Once or twice a year the Director would be called in the auction of the first or second round with "This hand hasn't been shuffled since last week.", followed by an outline of where all the cards were in all four hands, and what contracts could and couldn't be made by both sides.
Also, a sound claim must cover all possible lies of the cards that remain possible given the knowledge available when the claim is made. It is for this reason that claims are only rarely made when trumps are outstanding. However it is not at all unusual for expert players to claim and concede even endplays such as Throw-ins and Simple and Double Squeezes. At this caliber of play, those techniques are common place, and thoroughly understood by all parties. By the time the hands are well enough known for a sound claim to be made, there are no mistakes left to be made in the hand by any competent, never mind expert, player; any to be made are already history.

This is overstating the abilities of many people playing in club duplicate games who are in the upper third of their clubs. Perhaps these people are not "competent" players by your standards, but they include regular players, many of them life masters. I havve seen many such players make occasional errors in stating claims that if not challenged would lead to incorrect resuts. This soes not happen all the tiem or even very often, but it does happen..

The Laws of Bridge state that once declarer makes a claim, play has ceased.  If the claim is disputed, the director may be called (Law 69). If all four players agree to play the hand out, they may do so but must accept the result.  In tournament bridge, the director always is called as the declarer may have unlawfully gained information through the dispute to his claim.

According to the official Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2017 version),
Law 68 C reads:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand.

LAW 68 D reads:

After any claim or concession, play is suspended.

If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies.
If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either
(a) the Director may immediately be summoned and no action should be taken pending his arrival, Law 70 applies; or
(b) upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:
(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.
(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

Law 70 reads

A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds
as follows.
B. Clariﬁcation Statement Repeated

The Director requires claimer to repeat the clariﬁcation statement he made at the time of his claim.
Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).
The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

...

D. Director’s Considerations

The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clariﬁcation statement if there is an alternative normal21 line of play that would be less successful.
The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner selecting a particular play from among alternative normal21 plays.

E. Unstated Line of Play

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon ﬁnding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal21 line of play.
The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clariﬁed in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).

This means that the claimer should state, right after the claim is made, how s/he proposes to play the hand, in sufficient detail so that no significant questions are left. This statement is binding. If any player thinks the claim is not correct, that person may suggest playing out the hand, and if all 4 players agree, play resumes. If anyone objects  to the claim but there is not agreement to play out, the director is called and decides the result based on the claim statement, any stated objections, the previous play, and the lie of the cards.  The claimer is not allowed to take a winning finesse not mentioned in the claim statement unless it would become marked before it needs to be taken on any normal line of play.
In general, any doubtful points are resolved against the claimer. Making a claim that one is unsure of is poor play, but claimers do make mistakes. Making a claim when the result is clear is considered good play and proper courtesy, leaving more time for subsequent hands. This is especially true in online play, where time limits are strict, so not making an obvious claim is considered poor play or poor sportsmanship.
Making a dubious but complex claim in hopes that the opponents will accept it rather than figure out whether it is valid or not is considered very poor sportsmanship, hardly better than cheating. However, I have seen this done in club play.
Prior to the 2017 laws  the Director had to be called for all challenged claims, playing one out was against the law.
If the claimer's statement indicates that the claimer has made (will make) an error, as assessed by the Director, the non-claiming side gets the benefit of that error.

I wish that any downvoters would leave a comment indicting what they think is wrong with this answer. In the absence of a comment, I cannot improve the answer, others cannot use the reasons to write better answers, and readers have no idea why someone objects to the answer. Such a downvote seems pointless. The above answer quotes directly from the Laws, and is i think correct in all aspects. If anyone can point out an error, please do so.

No idea why the downvotes. Seems comprehensive to me!

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


text:
Contract Bridge: Revoke first noted by dummy
Declarer is awarded bid for 3 hearts.  Opponents double and declarer redoubles. He is not vulnerable and makes seven tricks. However, dummy looks at one of the defender's hands and during play and calls a revoke.  Should play have stopped at that time and the hand thrown in because of the dummy not following the guidelines of Rule 43.  Instead declarer and dummy invoke a two trick penalty on us and claim they made the redoubled bid.  How do I score that hand?   Help, someone, please

Dummy looks at defender’s hand seems like a major problem to me. What format is this? Club, tournament, friends playing, etc.?

Friends playing.

Citations in this answer are to the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge).The Laws  of Rubber Bridge are very similar.
Relevant Laws
LAW 9 (PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY) A 4 (page 13) says:

Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity until play of the hand is concluded
(This corresponds to law 13 for Rubber Bridge)

Under Law 43 (Dummy's limitations) (page 49 of the law booklet), Law 43 A (1)(b) and 1(c) says:

(b) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.
(c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the
play to declarer.

Law 43 A 2 and A 3 say:

2.(a) Dummy may not exchange hands with declarer.
(b) Dummy may not leave his seat to watch declarer’s play of the hand.
(c) Dummy may not look at the face of a card in either defender’s hand.

A defender may not show dummy his hand

Law 43 B 3 says:

If dummy after his violation of the limitations listed in A2 is the first to draw attention to a offender's irregularity, there is no immediate rectification. Play continues as though no irregularity had occurred. At the end of play
if the defending side has gained through its irregularity the Director adjusts only its score, taking away that advantage. The declaring side retains the score achieved at the table.

(This corresponds to law 43 for Rubber Bridge)
Law 63 A (page 70) msays
(This corresponds to law 43 for Rubber Bridge)

A revoke becomes established:

when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).
when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.
when a member of the offending side makes a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.
when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession;

Law 64 (PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE) C (1) (page 72) says:

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non-o‘ending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

(This corresponds to law 64 for Rubber Bridge)
Analysis
It is not explicitly said in the question that the revoke was established. If it was not it should have been corrected and play should have proceeded.
If the revoke was established and dummy called attention to it during play, there should not have been an automatic two-trick adjustment, Instead, play should have continued. After play was complete, the damage done by the revoke, if any, should have been assessed, by the Director in a duplicate game, by the Arbiter in a club rubber game or any game that has an Arbiter, or by the players in any Rubber game without an Arbiter. The damage done by the revoke should have been restored. That is, if the revoke led to the offenders taking one trick more than they otherwise would have, the non-offenders would be awarded a one-trick adjustment, or whatever number of tricks difference the revoke caused. If there is honest doubt as to hoe much damage was done, it should be resolved against the offenders.In a duplicate game under Law 43 B 3 there would probably be different scored assigned to the two sides by the Director.
If the dummy called attention to the revoke after play was complete, the normal two trick adjustment should have been made. However, if the damage was more than two tricks, the adjustment should restore all damage, to result in the same score that would have been achieved if the revoke had not occurred.
In no case should the had be thrown in because of a revoke, or because of dummy calling attention to a revoke.
In a duplicate game the Director would, if there was doubt, and if feasible, conduct a poll of players of similar skill level to help determine the amount of damage.
In an informal friendly game, dummy might kibitz (watch) declarer's play, although this would violate law 43 A 2 in a duplicate or club rubber game. But even in a friendly game it is a bad idea fro dummy to be looking at the cards still in the hand of either defender, and if dummy does watch declarer, s/he should be particularly careful not to make any comment on the play, or call attention to any error or irregularity until play is complete.
Without the hands and the play up to the point of the revoke, I cannot independently asses the damage done by the revoke.
Background
I am a qualified ACBL club director who ran a small bridge club for a number of years, prior to 2010.

Perhaps you missed it, but dummy actually kibitzed Defender’s hand - that seems like it would be relevant in duplicate play.

@Joe I did miss that, I will update my answer.

@Joe Answer updated. Question says dummy was looking at defender's cards, not declarer's unless I misread it.

In friendly play, the rules generally go out the window on this sort of thing. Is it okay for dummy to kibitz? In my friendly games, it might be - depending on how seriously we were playing.  If that is okay, then I’d rather dummy call attention to issues.
In a friendly game, if it’s feasible I’d try to go back to the moment the problem happened and fix it. That’s better for practice and for fun.
If you’re practicing seriously though and want to follow the rules carefully, dummy shouldn’t kibitz and shouldn’t mention anything, as David’s answer notes. I would probably agree with tossing in the hand, unless the points matter for something meaningful - in which case I wouldn’t say it was just a friendly game …

In an informal friendly game, the rules are whatever players agree on, which makes the question somewhat unanswerable. When i have played at someone's house, we played pretty much by the Laws, but with a somewhat greater margin of tolerance than a club duplicate game would give.

I agree with your first sentence (hence the answer!).  I think it’s useful to have both here - sometimes it’s worth remembering the informality and sometimes you want the rules.

Fair enough. I agree that both answers are useful. I will update mine later tonight if possible, in any case within 24 hrs.


text:
Searching for Plant Growth Board Game with Stacking
I am trying to find a game that is similar to Photosynthesis. Unless I am completely misremembering, it plays very similar to Photosynthesis, with a central area that everybody competes in and a sun that rotates around the board. However, instead of using 2-d cut-outs of trees, as Photosynthesis has, this game had stackable game pieces representing roots, vines, flowers etc.Does anything like this exist?

I never saw the game in person or played, I believe I saw it on boardgamegeek.com. Takenoko looks the most similar, but the actual game play area was very tight and there were no meeple-type pieces. It seemed like it was a square grid with dimensions of ~7-9 square units (whatever the size of the pieces/ tiles were) and I vaguely remember the pieces having some height to them, like little plastic majong tiles. They may have snapped together, similar to legos, but I'm more uncertain of that last detail than the others.The sun would "shine" on the gameboard from the 4 cardinal directions and higher stacked tiles would block the light for anything behind it.

When did you play it? Can you describe any of the mechanics of the game (like how you earned points, what purpose the sun served, was the board square or hexagonal, extra)?

Can you describe the decoration of the pieces or the board at all?  Were they mostly plain, with simple designs? Vibrant colors like Photosynthesis? Pastels?  The additional details you've added so far are good, but every little bit helps.  Even when you saw the game helps - if you saw the game five years ago it would rule out a vast swath of new games.

Sounds like Arboria

players play cards to grow flowers, move the sun, move the cloud, create rain, or destroy opponents' flowers. On your turn, play three cards from all available (yours and the unused ones from your preceding opponents). Once the sun has circled the board, the game is over. Points are allocated by multiplying the height of your biggest flowers by the number of same color flowers in a row.

Thanks! I'm sure that is it, though I remember the game pieces differently. Now we'll see how hard it is to get my hands on a copy. Luckily, I just ordered Photosynthesis, which the consensus seems to indicate is a little better. Thanks again!

The only game I can think of that involves plants growing by stacking of pieces is Takenoko. It doesn't fit perfectly but I can't think of any other game at all that involved building plants with stacking pieces.


text:
Revealing an effect of a card after player makes their choice
I'm working on designing a money management board game that features different event cards where players must make choices. The trouble I'm having is that I can't figure out how to reveal the effect of a player's choice without having the player know about the effect beforehand. For example, say you have a scenario like this:
Your phone bill is due today. You can choose to:
A) Pay the minimum ($30)
B) Pay the full amount ($100)
If the player picks choice B, then their credit will improve (+1 Credit) because they have paid the bill in full.
How do I reveal the effect of the player's choice until after they have made their decision? If I wrote it as
B) Pay the full amount (+1Credit) then everyone would pick Choice B because it is so obvious.
Btw, this is a serious game so players should be able to learn something from it.

Given how people manage money in real life, that decision may not be as obvious as you think.

Gloomhaven, Trivial Pursuit, and probably numerous other games place the results on the opposite side of the card.

Gloomhaven and puzzles in books place the result on another page.

Puzzles in some publications place the result upside down

You could borrow from the "Crossroads" idea used in Dead of Winter and Gen7 - in those games there's a deck of Crossroads cards, and on your turn the player to your left draws one of them, and if its condition triggers they read it out and let you know what the choices are.
So you could have it that cards are drawn by the next player in turn order, and there's a part they read out, followed by a part that triggers only when the choice is made. Note that there's a risk that the players will learn what the effects are unless you either have too many cards to memorise or near-duplicate cards with slightly different effects.
Alternatively, you can just let the player make their decision based on the full text of the card, but make it so that the decisions aren't obvious choices. For example, make money a scarce resource so that while it would be nice to pay $100 to get +1 Credit it might put you at risk of not being able to afford something else; or make it so that paying the full amount gives 0, 1 or 2 Credit based on some other factor so it isn't a uniformly good bonus.

You can use the backside of the card
Gloomhaven does this, where the setup and query are on one side with the resolution on the other. I thought Arkham Horror did as well, but it didn't, it let you have everything up front and make your decision that way. I swear I've seen it somewhere else, though. Sentinels of the Multiverse sorta does this with the OblivAeon scions.
The back side is then secret from all players (which for Gloomhaven is important, as it is fully coop). This also allows for multiple variants of the same setup. The game also has you draw from the bottom of the deck (and as the draw is so rare, my group keeps the city and travel decks in the box) so the fact that there's visible information on both sides it's completely hidden. (Alternatively, draw from the top, where the facing side is the setup, which doesn't give away a whole lot, depending on what the deck is used for and how often is pulled from).
For example in Gloomhaven you run across a rat-thing peddler offering you "a delicious meal, best you've ever had."
One version of the card, if you eat, you get blessed.
The other? Cursed.

There are many techniques you can use to have someone not know the effect.  Using the back of the card (such as in Eldrich Horror), having another player read the card (such as Dead of Winter), or having a separate rulebook with lookups (such as Betrayal at House on Hill).
The biggest challenge you have if you do this is replay-ability.  Once a player knows some or all of the "hidden" effects, that player will have a massive advantage.  There are really only three ways to fix this:

Skip the hidden information.  Have the game create meaningful choices through tradeoffs rather than through people not knowing the outcome.  For example, money gives players short term advantages by letting them do more, so a player may do something disadvantageous credit-wise to do something else.
Use randomization.  There needs to be a random bad effect if a player chooses the bad option and/or a random good effect if they choose the good option.  This is much easier to implement, as you can then have a player draw some number of cards (usually 1) from a particular deck or roll a die to see what happens.  This removes some of the advantage from veteran players (they can still gain advantage by knowing the distribution of cards in the good/bad effect decks, but they won't know which card will happen next).  Eldritch Horror did this with double-sided cards by having several copies of each card with identical fronts but different consequences on the card backs.  Also, this is potentially better psychological enforcement of whatever concept you're trying to teach with the game (look into Intermittent Reinforcement vs Continuous Reinforcement).
Create a lot of content.  This is the angle taken by Trivial Pursuit and Betrayal at House on Hill.  By creating tons of different content, it's hard for a player to know what they will encounter.  This is really challenging for you as the game designer.


text:
Info about this coin obstacle course game from Micki Gemla Sweden?
I found this old coin obstacle course game from Micki Gemla Made in Sweden?
There where no hard cover so can anyone help me with the name of this game?
And also maybe give some more information about it?

It's a miniature golf sim game played with coins instead of balls. It was made in 1970 by Micki Leksaker Sweden. It was just called "Minigolf"

(Image from https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-1970-wooden-roll-coin-484615066 )
You play by rolling your coin down the tall slot/slide to take each shot.
Rules (printed on the box):

Playing rules for “roll-a-coin” mini golf game
Any number of people can play. The game comprises of [sic] nine different obstacles numbered from 1 to 9.
Obstacles number 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 each have two parts.
One plays with an ordinary quarter coin or the Swedish 5 öre coin that is included, which is placed in the slot of the stand positioned at the edge of the playing surface.
The player is awarded one point for each play plus the number of points shown in the divisions (if the coin does not roll into the cup). The player may have 7 plays for each obstacle. If he does not pass the obstacle, then he will receive a 12 point penalty.

The player who received the smallest number of points is the winner


text:
Does anyone know what this peg game is?
I was just given this game from a box in my grandmothers house and we have no idea what it is. We think there may be some pegs missing and it uses a round solitaire board with two sets of pegs.

If you could provide some pictures of the game it would help a lot

Just added one, i meant to but forgot to upload one

Strongly suspect it is just European/French peg solitaire. The two colors of pegs are likely just aesthetic, as is common. As you say, you do appear to be missing a peg (probably white).

@johnjon looks like one, but the holes are not arranged in a cross fashion... this one seems to have additional holes, and looks more like an octagon. Perhaps a variation of peg?

Google "French peg solitaire" and you'll see many, many examples of boards just like this one.

It’s the French and Swedish version of (Peg) Solitaire.
https://www.mastersofgames.com/rules/solitaire-rules.htm

The Rules of Solitaire
Equipment
The game of Solitaire is most commonly played on a 33 point board (as pictured above left) in a cross shape with 32 pegs, marbles or pieces. In France and Sweden a 37 point board is more common with 36 pegs, marbles or pieces.
Solitaire can also be played on other shapes of board - two of the most interesting are a 41 point board (take the 33 point board and add 3 extra points at the 4 ends of the cross) and the 45 point board (take the 37 point board and add a single point in the middle of each of the 4 square ends - to makes a square).
Preparation and Objective
The game is set up so that pieces fill every hole except the middle hole.
The objective is to remove every piece except one, with the final piece ending up in the centre hole. Solitaire is played by one person and is therefore technically not a game at all, but a puzzle.
Basic Play
The player makes successive capturing moves, removing a single piece each turn until is it impossible to make any more capturing moves.
Each turn, the player captures a piece by jumping over that piece orthogonally (not diagonally) from one adjacent point to the vacant adjacent point on the other side.
Therefore, the first turn can be made only by jumping a piece into the middle hole from one of 4 possible points.
Advanced Play
Once you have mastered the basic game, target a different hole as the hole that the final piece should finish in. You can also aim to get certain patterns of pieces left over.
Interestingly, it has been deduced that the 37 point board is less complex than the 33 point board.


text:
In this case, why was "Longest Train" not a tie in Ticket to Ride?

They both are 40, correct?
Then shouldn't it be a tie?

Obviously other people figured it out anyways, but I would suggest you could improve your question a lot by pointing out which tracks you're looking at and how you're counting them. Having seen the correct answer, I now see the 3D tokens are different from the flat spaces. But it wasn't immediately obvious to me. Perhaps that's fine, since I've never played the game and would be less suited to answer the question anyways. Just a thought. I'd at least point out how you're scoring them in future questions.

Yellow's "longest train" is only 38 points. Loops won't count towards the "longest train" count unless they can be continued without doubling over itself. Otherwise, only the longest branch will be counted.
So, taking a segment of your example:

Here, the segment would be worth 11 points without counting the extra two trains. This is better than the alternative where the longest train tries to follow the loop:

This segment is only worth 9 points total. It tries to follow the loop but has no way to continue without doubling over existing track, so it has to terminate at Dallas. The only way the whole loop could be counted is if the track can continue after completing it:

In this case, I've added a hypothetical extension off of Dallas: This way all the trains in the loop could all be counted.

Or if the loop is at the end, it's always possible to start at the midpoint, go around it in full, and continue in the only direction the route continues. Like in the first image if the 1-2-3 connections were not there and you went from Ok City to Dallas etc.

Arguably, you could come from the other end and have the loop be 32-37 (still one train short of 38) rather than 4-9 which might or might not be a good illustration

Green appears to have a length of 40 and Yellow appears to have a length of 38.
Looking at the green path there are a total of 4 cars that can't be counted in the longest path. Sault St. Marie to Toronto and New York to Pittsburgh.
Looking at the yellow path and there are a total of 5 cars that can't be counted. Dallas to Oklahoma City and Denver to Salt Lake City.
In order to qualify for the longest path it needs to be a single path with no branches and never doubling back on itself.


text:
Identify this wooden 24 hole pegboard game
What game is this pegboard for?

It has a row of 2-5 hole groups (10 peg holes) on each side with 4 peg holes at the top.

I tried googling for what's on the plaque, and it seems to be an adress to a residential area, and it looks rather home made. Seeing as it says "Games, Puzzles & Things" on the side, it might be a puzzle rather than a game. It's hard to see what the right-most word is after "Leisure Time", but looks like Crafts or something, but nothing I googled came back with any hits.

can we get a better picture of that label on the side of the board?

Thanks for your interest. You are right about the label. It was for a game and crafts company in Midland, Mi. I did a search for them but nothing showed up. This item is at least 30 years old. It was from my deceased parents home.

FWIW, I would guess that this board (with 2 colors of pegs, bilateral symmetry, 10 holes in groups of 5, some extra holes after the 10) might be for scoring, similar to a cribbage board, and wouldn't be the whole game in itself. (But the plaque might be counter-evidence.)

Given the peg hole groupings and the board being football-shaped, this might be a handcrafted (American) football dice travel game.
The group of 4 peg holes on the left track downs, and the 20 peg holes on the right track progress down the field, five yards per hole.
Each down, progress is determined for the player on offense by rolling a pair of 6-sided dice and consulting a chart indicating yards gained or lost.
Some peg boards provide tracks for players' overall scores and a track for the game's 4 quarters, but on this board scores and game time would be noted on paper.
An image search for "football dice peg board" in your favorite search engine will display several variations, for example:

@Cohensius, thank you for editing in a representative photo.  Much appreciated!


text:
Ticket to Ride Märklin destination tickets
I'm looking to recreate the Märklin version.
I need a list of which destination tickets are included.
Does anyone have a list, or a picture like the one I took of the Germany version below?

What is your question exactly?

Or just support designers and publishers, no matter how successful, and buy a proper copy?

This could work as a fine question if you delete everything except the actual question in the second paragraph.

I don't fee that finding ways for people to create pirated versions of games is in scope for this site.

Agree with @JoeW and voting to delete - there's legal issues with this question

this game is OOP, with little hope of ever being reprinted

What I need help with is which destination tickets are included. Does anyone have a list, or a picture like the one I took below of Germany?

Images can be found on BGG.
And a spreadsheet of the info can also be found on BGG.
Golden Tickets:

Silver Tickets:

I'm guessing downvoters are just letting their opinion of the question spill over to this answer, but in case there is any actual shortcoming with the answer: please let me know how the answer can be improved.

+1 to compensate. This information could be very helpful to identify missing tickets from an incomplete set.


text:
Identify a 2 player matching card game with 4 cards
Help me find this card game I used to play with my dad.
I have gone through hundreds of websites and posts but can't find an answer, so my last step is to ask you great people.
I am assuming this is a rare variant, or a geographically local game (South Asian).
Game rules
Players: 2.
To win: Have 4 matching cards of the same value e.g. four Jacks, or four 10s.
Deck: Single standard deck of 52 cards.
Setup:

Both players are dealt 4 cards each.
(hidden to the opponent, but visible at all times to the card holder)
One card is placed face up as the discard pile.
The rest of the deck is placed face down as the draw pile.

Gameplay:

On each players turn, they can choose to take one of two actions:

Pick up the top card from the draw
pile (face down)
Pick up the top card from the discard pile (face up)

At the end of turn the player must discard down to 4 cards.
Players keep taking turns until they have 4 of a kind.
E.g. x4 Jacks or x4 10s.

Note: If the draw pile (face down) has run out, then the all cards in the discard pile (except the most recent one at the top) are re-shuffled and placed face down to become the new draw pile.
It is a really fun game as you can purposely try to throw the opponent off by picking up a card they discarded (to make them think that it is the set you are going after, etc.)
I want to play this game with other people, but I have no idea what its called. I would be thrilled to find an answer, and if you haven't come across this game I hope you enjoy it.

I think you might have missed a rule? If the opponent picks a card from your hand, you will only have 3 cards left in your hand, do you pick 2 cards, or don’t you discard a card, or do you play with only 3 cards the next round?

Hi @Snostorp, you are correct, to clarify there is no picking cards from each others hands, you can only get a card from the opposing players hand if they drop the card to pick up one from the top of the deck or from the top of the discard pile.

This is a draw-and-discard game, also known as Rummy.  So we are looking for a 4-cards-hand Rummy where the goal is a Set of 4.  Check the Oriental Rummy Games at https://www.pagat.com/rummy/


text:
Vintage Monopoly Game: What Year is it?
I have a nearly complete Monopoly set that I've been researching, and some dates I found tossed around are 1947 and 1955 (on selling pages), but I still can't even confirm the decade it was made. Here are the details of my set:
BOX:

Similar to this picture (taken from here) - but the border and sides are red, not white, and the bottom text is

PROPERTY TRADING BOARD GAME [black text]
Manufactured in N.Z. by [red]
THOS. HOLDSWORTH & SONS LTD.
LONDON & LEEDS
Another HOLDSON Product

BOARD:

Bright green, with "TRADE MARK 711981" written below the logo
CARDS/MONEY:

Chance and Community Chest cards have rounded corners, no pictures, and the Chance cards are more pinkish than orange or red.
Money colours are: yellow ($1), light blue ($5), greyish blue ($10), green ($20), pink ($50), yellow-orange ($100), red-orange ($500).
Title Deeds: the mortgage side is red text, and my set has the error described here where the '1 house' rent for the last yellow property is $120 instead of $110 like the other two cards.
PIECES:
Houses/hotels are wooden, with houses being smaller and green, hotels red. Dice are plastic, red with white dots. My 6 tokens are plastic cone-like things with thin tops and round bases.
I'm sure this is enough information to come up with some possible years, I just can't find them! Thanks in advance for any input on this :)
EDIT: I can't find a copyright year anywhere but I found at the bottom of the rules it says "W. & H. LTD. - 13288"

Copyright year is often useful. At the very least, it'll provide a minimum.

If the box looks like the images below, I'd say it's from the 1950's which is when all the mentions of a board with that trademark number appear to be dated.  I've found examples estimated at 1955 and 1957 for year of production (linked below).

http://www.cathyscollectables.co.uk/pages/Vintage_Game_Waddingtons_Monopoly_Board_Only_P_711981_Circa_1957_England_258870-z=879773&p=108919.cfm
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop/toys-and-games/games/john-waddinton-vintage-1955-edition-monopoly-trade-mark-711981-hd_101549207

1953
According to the reference I give below, the exact year would be 1953.

The colour of the cards, the red and white dice, the patent number 711981, and the New Zealand  provenance all indicate this.
There are more details on the site, that you have not made available to us (photos of the title deeds, playing pieces) that would allow confirmation of this date.
Reference : http://worldofmonopoly.com/albert/new_zealand.htm

That site is making a guess on the year of release "That is why I assume this set with its very special flat tokens was issued around 1953." it could be later or it could be before.


text:
Mirrodin Besieged: do I win despite failing to draw a card?
Suppose I control Mirrodin Besieged, having selected Phyrexian:

Phyrexian — At the beginning of your end step, draw a card, then discard a card. Then if there are fifteen or more artifact cards in your graveyard, target opponent loses the game.

As I enter my end step, my library is empty, and I have fifteen artifact cards in my graveyard.
Who wins?

This question was inspired by the question and discussion here. I believe this is a case where the outcome is different - I win because the ability of Mirrodin Besieged resolves fully before state-based actions are checked, so my failure to draw a card never gets "noticed". But I'm far from sure whether I'm interpreting the rules correctly here....

In a game where you have only one opponent remaining, you would win the game before you can lose it. With more than one opponent remaining, both you and the targeted opponent would lose.
Losing due to trying to draw from an empty library is a state-based action:

704.5. The state-based actions are as follows:

704.5b If a player attempted to draw a card from a library with no cards in it since the last time state-based actions were checked, that player loses the game.

However, state-based actions are not checked during the resolution of spells or abilities:

704.4. Unlike triggered abilities, state-based actions pay no attention to what happens during the resolution of a spell or ability.

So if you try to draw from an empty library during Mirrodin Besieged ability's resolution, you won't lose the game until it has actually finished resolving and the active player would gain priority, because that's when state-based actions are checked:

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. [..]

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

As soon as a player loses, they leave the game, and if you have no opponents remaining, you immediately win.

104.1. A game ends immediately when a player wins, when the game is a draw, or when the game is restarted.

104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player’s opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.

So in essence, Mirroding Besieged starts resolving. You carry out as many instructions as you can, and the last instruction is that a target opponent loses the game. In a game where the targeted opponent is the only opponent remaining (or in a 2-Headed Giant game), that opponent losing would be the immediate end of the game, and you would be the winner. In game with more than one opponent remaining (except 2HG), the targeted opponent would lose, you would lose immediately afterwards when SBAs are checked, and the game would continue for the other players.

Do you need to make a caveat about being down to 2 players in a multiplayer game?

I don't think I need to, but I'll clarify anyway.

So, the multi-player game caveat you state at the beginning of the answer, only applies if there are 3 or more players left in the game?  If it's a multi-player game down to 2 players, the OP wins?

Yes with multiplayer I simply mean "more than 2 players are currently in the game".