text:
Can a character without a skill use a card that adds to that skill?
I'm playing Seoni who has a d4 for Strength and no Melee skill. If I want to resolve a combat check with my strength can I play a Soldier card which adds 1d4 to a Melee combat check if I don't have the Melee skill? Are my normal attacks, by default, Melee?

After reading some other forums, I believe the answer is actually Yes
Note: someone of the below is copied from David C Ellis's answer.
From the Paizo FAQ's Attempting a Check section:

Cards that require a check specify the skill or skills you can use to attempt the check. Each check to defeat or acquire a card lists one or more skills; you may choose any of the listed skills for your check. For example, if a check lists Dexterity, Disable, Strength, and Melee, you may use any one of those skills to attempt your check.

and

Even if your character doesn’t have any of the skills listed for a check, you can still attempt the check (unless you’re trying to recharge a card; see Recharge on page 15), but your die is a d4.
(Recharge on page 15 reads:)if you don't have at least one of the skills listed for the check, you cannot attempt to recharge the card

and

Players may not play cards that modify a skill unless you’re using that skill, and players may not play cards that affect combat unless you’re attempting a combat check.

So based on the first and second quote, you have to choose one of the skills listed on the card you're attempting to acquire/defeat/etc. even if you don't have that skill on your character card, but your die will be a d4. The wording "Even if your character doesn’t have any of the skills" simply suggests an extreme case, it doesn't mean that's the only situation where you can use a d4. It implies that you may use a d4 for a skill check with a skill you don't have, even if there are other skills (that you do have) to choose from. The only exception is recharging. In that case, you must recharge using one of the skills that you do have.
Then, based on the third quote, you can only play cards that modify the skill you chose so if you chose melee (even though it's not on your character card), you may use an ally that modifies your melee check. This third quote just states that you may not use an ally that, say, adds a die to your intelligence check if you chose melee as your check attempt skill.

Unfortunately, No.
From the Paizo FAQ's Attempting a Check section:

Cards that require a check specify the skill or skills you can use to attempt the check. Each check to defeat or acquire a card lists one or more skills; you may choose any of the listed skills for your check. For example, if a check lists Dexterity, Disable, Strength, and Melee, you may use any one of those skills to attempt your check.

Also:

Players may not play cards that modify a skill unless you’re using that skill, and players may not play cards that affect combat unless you’re attempting a combat check.

So based on the first part, you have to choose one of the listed skills for your check, and if you do not have the skill, you cannot choose it. Then, based on the second part, you can only play cards that modify the skill you chose.
So since your character does not have the Melee skill, you cannot choose to use it to resolve the check, so therefore you cannot use the Soldier to add to the check.

actually i've been reading through other forums and also the
FAQ you posted and you CAN use an ally to assist you on a check where you don't have the skill. you simply roll and a d4 + your ally's die. in your answer it even says "you may choose any of the listed skills for your check". that's referring to the card you're trying to acquire/defeat, not your character card. otherwise why would seoni's starting deck contain all these allies that help her with various check if she can't even perform those checks?

@mikelt21 I've just seen the edit you suggested for this answer. Completely modifying an answer to the point the entire meaning changes is far beyond what editing is for - if there's another stance you think is correct, write your own answer for this question and accept it.

gotcha thanks for the info. is there a way to delete the edit?


text:
Can my deck have fewer cards after sideboard?
Traditionally, you're supposed to have 60 cards in your main deck, and 15 cards in your sideboard.  But let's say that I had 64 cards in my main deck and 15 cards in my sideboard.  For game 2 & 3, could I reduce my main deck to 60 cards and effectively have 4 more cards in my sideboard, or do I have to keep my main deck at 64 cards?

You can in fact change your deck size after sideboarding, with restrictions. The Magic Tournament Rules, section 6.1 says

Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size. If a player chooses to use a sideboard, it may not contain more than fifteen cards.

And section 6.2 says

Players may exchange any number of cards between their deck and sideboard, provided that the resulting deck and sideboard are legal. There are no restrictions on the number of cards a player may exchange this way. Cards do not need to be exchanged on a one-for-one basis.

So, you can move a different number of cards into your sideboard and into your deck, but when you're done, you still have to have at least 60 cards in your deck and at most 15 cards in your sideboard.
In your specific case, you cannot decrease your deck size because your sideboard is already at the maximum size.

It is worth noting that although there is no maximum deck size you need to be able to shuffle your deck in a timely manner. That is why modern Battle of Wits decks are virtually impossible to play in real life.

No you can not.

100.4a In constructed play, a sideboard may contain no more than fifteen cards

If you brought your deck down to 60 cards, at that point your sideboard would be 19 cards, violating this rule.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Creatures pumping each other and combat damage
Suppose I have two Myr Galvanizers, so they give a +1/+1 to each other.
If I attack with both, and my opponent blocks one with a 5/5 creature and kills it, does the surviving one still deal 3 damage to the defending player? Or the damage to players is assigned after the blockings among creatures are solved?

Just as a bit of an explanation, all combat damage is dealt simultaneously during the same combat damage step (first strike combat damage happens before). However, if you had the other 3/3 blocked by a 2/5, then your "surviving" Myr B would have 2 damage marked on it. After the first Myr A dies it stops pumping Myr B, so Myr B is now a 2/2 with 2 damage marked on it, so it dies.

Three damage would be dealt to the defending player. All combat damage is assigned and then dealt simultaneously. Rules 510.1 and 510.2 explain this:

510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. A player assigns a creature’s combat damage according to the following rules:

(Those rules are explained in the next few rules, but they aren't relevant for this question.)

510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt.
  Example: Squadron Hawk (a 1/1 creature with flying) and Goblin Piker (a 2/1 creature) are attacking. Mogg Fanatic (a 1/1 creature with the ability “Sacrifice Mogg Fanatic: Mogg Fanatic deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) blocks the Goblin Piker. The defending player sacrifices Mogg Fanatic during the declare blockers step to deal 1 damage to the Squadron Hawk. The Hawk is destroyed. The Piker deals and is dealt no combat damage this turn. If the defending player instead left Mogg Fanatic on the battlefield, the Fanatic and the Piker would have dealt lethal damage to one another, but the Squadron Hawk couldn’t have been dealt damage.

(emphasis added to both rule quotes)

Nice!  It's worth noting that a first/double-strike combat step could possibly kill one of the creatures, and the damage would be different since non-first strike creatures wouldn't be dealing damage until the second combat step

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


text:
How do I play Z.O.D.?
As someone with a 3d-printer and a love of board games I was really excited when I found Z.O.D. by Ill Gotten Games.
The pieces looks great, and I have always wanted to try miniature figure gaming. But how do I play it? I have looked everywhere and I cannot find any rules or anything else on how to play it.
I did have the suspicion that as suchiuomizu answers the pieces are meant to be used with some other established rules/game, so let me modify the question a little bit: How do I play with the pieces? What kind of ruleset or other game can I use them for? Where to start?

This question is now a bit broad as there can be many different possible rules you can use for these miniatures.

Sorry about that. Feel free to edit. I guess my main inquiry is that I love the pieces, have a 3d-printer and want to use that as a starting point to play miniature games, but I have no idea where to start.

maybe change to where can i find rules for these ...

You don't.  The site you linked to explained they are meant to be used for other games.  There aren't any rules specifically for these pieces.

We designed these 3d-printable files to be optimized for home printing and cover a wide (and expanding) variety of themes and genres. Whether you use them for RPG dungeon-delves, wargaming scenics, or anything else, these tiles print and assemble fast and easy and come off your build plate ready to paint!

ZOD says it's “digital files of modular 3D-printable terrain for tabletop miniature gaming”. These are the tiles, not the miniatures on the tiles, just in case that's not clear.
That said, they're cool tiles.
When ZOD is talking about tabletop miniature gaming, it doesn't seem to be talking about board games. It's talking about tabletop role-playing games, like Dungeons & Dragons which you might have heard of. There's thousands of those (RPGGeek catalogues over 8,000). Many of those do not use minis or tiles, some will. Dungeons & Dragons is one of the ones that does. RPG Stack Exchange has an intro to roleplaying and an intro to D&D available.
The Ill Gotten Games Patreon includes minis and even some creature designs for use in D&D, and lots of their posts have "dungeons & dragons" for a tag, so I'm reasonably confident that's the market they're targeting. It's also a market that predominantly wants stuff like this.
Tabletop Wargaming was also something they could've been referring to, but wargame players are not usually looking for tilesets the way D&D players are.

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


text:
Starfield Field of Nyx and Mirror March
If you cast a Mirror March and have five enchantments on the battlefield, including a Starfield of Nyx and another Mirror March, does the preexisting Mirror March copy the Mirror March that you just cast?

Is the second Starfield relevant to the question at all?

@ArcanistLupus Perhaps they mean "of the the five enchantments on the battlefield, there are two such that one is Mirror March and one is Starfield of Nyx".

Yes that is what I was trying to explain.

When the Mirror March enters the battlefield, it copies itself and the existing Mirror March copies it.
The Starfield's effect applies to the Mirror March as soon as it is on the battlefield, so each Mirror March sees both itself and any later Mirror March enter the battlefield as a creature, triggering its ability.

why would the first Mirror March copy itself? it's not entering the battlefield

I think that was a combination of misreading a previous comment and slightly misreading the question. I've fixed it.

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


text:
Can I play countered sorcery speed spells with Guile?
During an opponent's turn, I had Guile and used Rethink to counter a permanent spell (in my case, it was a Deathbringer Thoctar).
Guile's second ability states "if a spell or ability you control would counter a spell, instead exile that spell and you may play that card without paying its mana cost" which makes no mention of timing.
There's no ruling posted on The Gatherer, but some forum posts around the web suggest I can play it out of turn. Can anyone provide rule snippets or examples from sanctioned tournaments to provide a definitive answer?

This is really just a repeat of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/24809/terminus-as-an-instant

Yes, when you control Guile and counter a spell, you can cast that spell immediately, no matter what type it is.
To explain, I'll need to give a little background. The Magic rules are fundamentally constructive in nature: they define all of the parts of the game and procedures, then list the things you are allowed to do, and then subtract the things you are not allowed to do (not necessarily written in that order). For example, there are rules that define your hand and battlefield, and cards, and permanents, and the land type. Then there is a rule that says when you are allowed to play a land, and what restrictions there are on taking that action.
Now, if we consider the rules regarding the Creature type, we see that rule 302.1 says

A player who has priority may cast a creature card from his or her hand during a main phase of his or her turn when the stack is empty. Casting a creature as a spell uses the stack. (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.")

It does not say that you are not allowed to cast it at other times. If something else does allow you to cast a creature spell at another time, there's nothing stopping you from doing so. Now, the third step of resolving a spell or ability, 608.2c, says

The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions.

So when you control Guile and counter a Creature spell, Guile's replacement effect modifies the counterspell's instructions to say that you exile the spell and you may cast it. Now you have another instruction giving you an option to cast a (particular) creature spell, in addition to the option provided by rule 302.1.
The timing rules for other types is worded similarly to 302.1, so this same logic applies to other types.

There actually is a Gatherer ruling related to the timing. I bolded the relevant sentences.

Guile's second ability replaces "counter [a certain spell]" with "exile [a certain spell] and you may cast it without paying its mana cost." You have the option to cast it immediately upon its exile. If you choose not to, it remains exiled and you don't get another chance to cast it. If the spell or ability that tried to counter the spell has additional effects, it then continues to resolve.

This means you cast the spell during the resolution of whatever counter spell you cast. Since normally you can't cast spells during the resolution of a spell this means you have to ignore normal timing restrictions (like only being able to cast it during your main phase when the stack is empty), it how ever doesn't ignore restrictions like Savage Beating's

Cast Savage Beating only during your turn and only during combat.

In order to cast it at some other time the ability would need to explicitly give you that ability, like Outpost Siege which gives you the ability to play it until the end of turn, or Kheru Spellsnatcher which gives you the ability to play the card as long as it is exiled (and the Spellsnatcher is on the battlefield)

Are you suggesting that it would say "you have the option to cast it immediately if able" if casting it was still held to timing restrictions? I've read this ruling, but it doesn't seem clear that you can cast otherwise unplayable spells.

Consider this: no standard timing restriction allows you to cast a spell during the resolution of another spell or ability. So a spell or ability that instructs you to cast a spell must ignore timing rules.

@Murkaeus Villanous Wealth is another good example. The ruling on that card specifically says "You cast the cards one at a time as Villainous Wealth is resolving [...]".

@Rainbolt Good point. Villainous Wealth actually has a ruling about timing as well.


text:
Two pay cards and a Just Say No
If I play 2 rent cards and an opponent plays a just say no card, how many rents does it cancel? one rent or two?

What game are you asking about?

Probably Monopoly Deal

"Just Say No" cancels the effect of a single card. So if you have two rent cards to play, you should play them one at at time to see if your opponent plays JSN to each.


text:
Is spellbook building with only a single core set possible?
Let‘s say a friend of mine and me buy a single core set of Mage Wars, play some games with pre-defined spellbooks and then want to start building our own ones.
Although building a deck can be quiet fun, it also takes a lot of time (as we know from “Star Wars X-Wing”). Do we just simultaneously build our spellbooks and find a somewhat fair draw-method in case both of us want to have the same card? That could take a lot of time before „actually playing“, especially if we have to do the maths manually.
In X-Wing we use one of the online builders, build our fleets and if a card is taken by both players, we simply use a sheet of paper as a replacement. Then we meet and can directly dive into the game. In Mage Wars cards a way more important and using a sheet of paper seems silly here. Furthermore I was not able to find a (finished) online builder project. (Edit: Found one: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/sbb/#)
Question: Is spellbook building with only a single core set possible? What are alternatives to the idea outlined above? Getting two core sets seems rather expensive, if each player is only allowed to use cards of “his” set.

As far as I understand, you know that both players may need the same card. If that's the case, then what do you don't know? I'm not sure what you're asking about.

My wife and i play with the Mage-War Academy core set.
We each have a custom deck. Since the wizard and the beast master have no common type of spell, it's rather easy.
However, should we both want the same spell in 3 copies when the said spell is only available in 1-3 copy, you should photocopy it so that both player has acces to the number they chose. i'd recommend sleeving them, cause... y'know... paper. Since the cards are not drawn, it is of no matter if it's different from others.
Take special notice of the enchantment cards. They are used as "hidden" information. You should play a completely unrelated card (i recommend using Equipment cards of the OPPOSING wizard) in its stead so that it looks and feel like a normal card. And switching the card with your paper one when it is revealed. Take care to have different "replacement" card for each of your enchants. And write on a sheet of paper the corresponding pair so your opponent cannot accuse you of lying.
Be warned that most gaming groups and tournaments will not let you play with fake cards.


text:
Using blade on supporting unit in A Game Of Thrones
Is it possible to use the Valyrian Steel Blade to add +1 strength on my unit which is supporting other player during his battle?

This is clearly stated on page 20 of the rulebook. (For reference the rulebook and the FAQ.)
On p. 20 it states:

If either the attacker or the defender holds the Valyrian Steel Blade token, that player now has the option of using its ability to provide +1 to his total Combat Strength. If used, flip the token to its faded side, as a reminder that it cannot be used again this round.

So, no, a supporting player is neither the attacker or defender and so cannot use the Valyrian Steel Blade in that combat.


text:
Are there any good intermediate deck building resources available in magic
I've gotten to the place where the run of the mill 'basic deck-building' guides offer no more help to me and yet the advanced deck building resources are still a little out of my reach. I am wondering if anyone can recommend any good resources to me that might help.
I realize this is sort of a relative question, so I will provide a hypothetical question I might ask, given the level I am at in my current proficiency-
(this next paragraph is the set up for my hypothetical question)
Say, for example, I want to build a strong enchantment deck: I am at the point where I realize that enchantments have their weaknesses, most notably, a removal spell can completely ruin all the momentum you have built up in the game with a single card. So, when building this deck, an important aspect of it should be built around either countering or protecting against such a event. So I should think about something like hexproof or being able to return cards from my grave yard.
Question: Whether I go for either hexproof or graveyard return, how many cards in my 60 card deck should I dedicate to this protection?
That's an example of the type of question I would be likely to ask at my current skill level. I would love to know any resources that would be good for someone at my stage in the game.
I am not looking for an answer to this hypothetical question and I am not looking for an answer such as, 'Put some in your deck and play it until it works."
*I'm looking for a resource that provides, basic, guidelines for this type of thing, at this level.*

Can you give some examples of resources that you think are too advanced? Limited Resources (http://lrcast.com/) is mainly focused on limited but gives good good general advice about Magic. Check it out.

Some resources that come to mind are, for example the 'Next Level Magic/Deckbuilding' books by Patrick Chapin or a deck building series on youtube by a user names xAmsterdamx. All of these resources are very helpful even to me and I understand alot of it. It's just that occasionally they will start to refer to things I've never heard of or very specific situations that I have yet to encounter in the relatively short time I have been playing. So I'm looking for things that help bridge the gap, basically.

As far as I know, there is not a "catch-all" resource that can answer any intermediate question that anyone could possibly dream up. However, I think that you are looking for what I would call "intermediate building blocks".
Here are some building blocks that are relevant to nearly any deck build, but are not so hard to understand for an intermediate player. Please skip over any material you find to be too advanced (except for the rules - don't skip the rules
#What are the rules?
Understanding the rules is the most important tool when building a deck. I find The Judge's Corner on Youtube to be a great resource for understanding the rules. Wizards also releases a "rules clarifications" article right before every new set is released. You can read it to gain a more in-depth knowledge of the more complicated cards.
For example, when Red Deck Wins was in the same meta as Master of Waves, I made a decision to leave Anger of the Gods in my sideboard because Skullcrack removes his protection, and I main decked four Skullcracks. Had I not known the rules, Anger would appear to be useless against Master of Waves.
#How much land?
In standard, this boils down to probabilities. If you have an iPhone or Android phone, I strongly suggest you download the free Manalyzer for Magic the Gathering app and play with the numbers. You want the least number of lands that will still give you a high probability or being able to play the cards that you are most likely to draw. There are countless other apps that were built to help with the math, so search for them.
Using an extreme case to serve as a basis for all other cases, if your deck consists of only 1 drops, and you have a 90% chance to have 3 lands by turn 3, you will probably run out of cards to play on turn 3. That may be good or bad, depending on what the cards are.
In short, you need to determine on what turn(s) you need your mana to be there for you. This ties in to the next topic.
#Fundamental Turn
When does your deck win? I can't do this topic justice, so I suggest you read about it here, from the guy who coined the phrase.
Assume you have calculated your fundamental turn to be 6. You know that another deck that is in the meta has a fundamental turn of 4. What tools do you have to delay their fundamental turn? If you have none, you will lose. If you fill your deck with 1/3 creatures and he has a deck filled with 2/2 creatures, that will delay his fundamental turn. This leads to my last topic.
#The Clock
I can't find the article I wanted to reference here, so I'll reference this one instead.
The clock is basically "if nothing changes, given the knowledge and board state that I have, in how many turns will I win or lose". If your opponent has a 4/4 flyer and you have no board, no cards, and 20 life, you are on a 5 turn clock. If you are milling 5 cards per turn and you have 40 left, you are on an 8 turn clock.
You can anticipate changes to your clock by assuming that your opponent has specific cards in hand and knowing what cards remain in your library. This is where understanding your meta comes in.
#The Metagame
There are other decks out there. The ones that show up to tournaments the most form the "tournament meta". The ones that show up to your local store form the "local store meta". If you play with friends, your friends form your meta. Some metas are more stable than others (like legacy), while some are constantly shifting (like your friends).
I determine my meta using TCG player latest decks, by watching the latest StarCityGames tournaments on Twitch.tv, by watching Grand Prix tournaments (also on Twitch), and by playing a lot.
Once you know your meta, you can calculate the fundamental turn of the decks you will be facing, and adjust your deck to handle it.
Now you have the following resources in your arsenal:

The Judge's Corner and other mtg related playlists you may find
The Manalyzer and other probability tools you may find
A knowledge two important concepts: the fundamental turn and the clock
Your meta and 2-4 ways to discover and explore it

In the case that any of my links go bad, simply search for the bolded keywords. In the case that you know of a better article or tool than one I listed, please edit this answer with your awesome material.


text:
What, generally, happens to card prices when a new set is released?
Journey to Nyx is about to come out an I noticed many of the websites have already priced the cards. I'm wondering if anyone has any advise on when the optimal time to pick up new cards is? I realize that these pre-release prices are somewhat arbitrary and will change. I expect many of the cards to jump in price as soon as they are released as everyone is scrambling to get them then I expect things will die down a little until the pros start making their decks at which point the cards that appear most regularly will sky-rocket. I am assuming that the best point is the trough in the middle. Is this a correct assumption and if so, when will this trough begin? I also guess that the risk here is that many cards that people think will be valuable might end up being duds and conversely, I may end up over-looking sleeper cards that no one guessed would be great cards. Am I going about this the right way or is there a better way? I would greatly appreciate any input.

**EDIT: This question has received several mixed votes on the basis that the answer is speculative. I want to make it understood that I am not asking for a specific or unanswerable question. An analogous hypothetical example to my question would be something in the vein of: When is the best time to buy electronics?
Answer: Prices generally spike right before Christmas and generally are discounted after the Holiday season and before the new models come out.
As it is not written in stone, my hypothetical question is, technically, speculative but given the fact that it happens every year I don't feel that it is an unreasonable question or unanswerable.

**I am not asking if there is a way to tell which cards will fluctuate or what price the will reach/fall to. I'm simply asking if there is, traditionally, a good time to buy new cards from a new set.

Why was this downvoted?

@Gendolkari I upvoted the question because I like it, but I also voted to close the question because it is likely to generate a lot of speculation and it doesn't have a correct answer. You might think a $30 card sucks. I might think a 50 cent rare has potential. We might both be wrong.

Journey into Nyx was actually released last week (May 2).

@Jwodder It doesn't get released until May 12 on MTGO (which is what I play).

I think this is generally a fine question, since as you say you're not trying to predict for specific cards. The one red flag for me was "overlooking sleeper cards" - that's veering back toward "how do I know whether cards will be good".

@Jefromi - You misunderstood stood me. In fact, I made that statement to mean the exact opposite. Perhaps I didn't make my self clear. What I meant with that is that I realize there is no way to foresee if a card will be good/valuable.

After your edit, the question is "When is a good time to buy cards from a new set?" which is possibly the most speculative and subjective question I have ever seen here. The only answer is from someone claiming that predicting prices is impossible, but he can't even prove it. How is this still open? If this doesn't get closed as primarily opinion based, then I don't know what will.

There is no way to accurately predict at what price a given card will settle during a Standard season. Pre-order prices generally spike for mythics and obviously good cards, but as the season continues, prices will fluctuate based on what decks make it in the meta.
Worse, some cards in Standard may find a home in Modern, Legacy, or Vintage (or Commander!), which alters the price in an even more unpredictable way given the larger card pool; at least in Standard you can fairly easily look at what combinations you've got available to you, with under 1000 distinct cards.
Judging what cards are low and will go higher, and what cards are high and will go lower, is a process called speculation. Speculation is not an easy thing to be good at, and there are people who make their (shaky) careers on it.

For a nice demonstration of this unpredictability: http://www.quietspeculation.com/2016/07/infographic-the-value-of-standard-sets-2/ The trends for the total value of all the cards in the set are completely different from set to set.


text:
How much damage do I take when I Trample a Stuffy Doll that has Pariah attached?
Last game I played I faced the following combo:

Stuffy Doll played by an opponent, opponent chose me
Pariah attached to Stuffy Doll

This resulted in an invincible opponent, as long as Pariah is attached to that player.
How exactly will rules be applied when e.g. a 8/8 creature with trampling attacks and is blocked by the Stuffy Doll (enchanted as stated above) that has 0/1 this turn? Do I (as the attacking player) get

1 damage
2 damage
8 damage
some other value?

… when my opponent blocks the 8/8 creature with trampling with his Stuffy Doll?
All mentioned values of damage have been discussed during play.

I'd point out that Stuffy Doll is 0/1, and nothing mentioned in this question would give it two extra toughness. That doesn't change the conclusion, but it is a little weird.

@DavidZ yes, i see the point, i did not remember the name of the active effect when asking the question

You will take 8 damage from the Stuffy Doll's triggered ability.
In the combat damage step, every creature deals combat damage equal to its power, no matter how much toughness the defending creatures have:

510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. [..]
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. [..]

When a creature with Trample deals combat damage, you don't not have to assign all its damage to the blocking creatures; as long as all blocking creatures have been assigned lethal damage, you can assign the rest to the defending player:

702.19b The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. Once all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking. [..]

From sources without Deathtouch, lethal damage is equal to the creature's toughness:

119.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step, even if that permanent stops being a creature. If the total damage marked on a creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a permanent is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.12, “Regenerate”) and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).

From sources with Deathtouch, any damage >= 1 is lethal damage:

702.2b Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature’s toughness. See rules 510.1c–d.
702.2c A creature with toughness greater than 0 that’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked is destroyed as a state-based action. See rule 704.

You have to assign 1 damage (lethal) to the stuffy doll; you then have to distribute the remaining 7 damage between the Doll and the defending player as you like.
Whenever damage is dealt to an object, prevention and replacement effects are applied first:

119.4. Damage is processed in a three-part sequence.
119.4a First, damage is dealt, as modified by replacement and prevention effects that interact with damage. (See rule 614, “Replacement Effects,” and rule 615, “Prevention Effects.”) Abilities that trigger when damage is dealt trigger now and wait to be put on the stack.

Therefore, no matter how much damage you assign to the defending player, Pariah will redirect all damage to the Stuffy Doll; this is a replacement effect:

614.9. Some effects replace damage dealt to one creature, planeswalker, or player with the same damage dealt to another creature, planeswalker, or player; such effects are called redirection effects. [..]

The 8 damage are dealt to the Doll and its triggered ability goes on the stack.

510.3. Third, any abilities that triggered on damage being assigned or dealt go on the stack. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)

Finally, the active player gets priority and the combat damage step ends.

thank you for your answer, but a point of discussion was that the Stuffy Doll can only take 3 damage (with toughness of 3) per action/stack, so if blocking has been handled correctly, the player gets 5 damage, that is dealt to the doll instead. but the doll cannot take more than 3 damage due to its toughness being 3. We regarded this as if a 5/5 creature with Lifelink gets blocked by a 0/1.  Lifelink, in that case, heals the owner for 1 and not for 5. What exactly should case me to get the full 8 damage?

furthermore, why exactly do i have the choice to take that damage in one packet or two? please clarify

@christian.s If you read the rules I quoted carefully, you will see that Trample allows you to distribute the combat damage as you like, as long as all blocking creatures have been assigned lethal damage. If you want, you can assign all 8 damage to the Doll, or 6-2, or 4-4, or 3-5.

@christian.s, your Lifelink example is incorrect. Creatures never "pull their punches", they always deal damage equal to their power. A 5/5 creature with Lifelink would still deal 5 damage to a 0/1 creature, healing the owner for 5 life. A creature's toughness is not a cap on how much damage it can be dealt, it's just a cap on how much damage it can survive.

@Matt I couldn't resist this little nitpick: toughness is a cap on how much damage it can't survive.

@MarcDingena, OK, toughness - 1 is a cap on survivable damage. Toughness itself is a lower bound on lethal damage.

thank you all, this helps. so we all got this wrong during discussion when playing.


text:
Are there similar games to "Love Letter"?
We have a group of 5 or so people that enjoy playing Love Letter to fill in a few spare moments at work over lunch or at the end of the day. The key elements are the game is interesting, fast paced, simple rules and not very long to play a round or four.
I'm wondering is there are any similar games out there? Perhaps with a sci-fi theme?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/129622/love-letter You mean this game?

@user2617804 - Yes, I've added the link.

@ire_and_curses - Glad to see you you like helping people discover the joys of games. Also you linked meta does nothing to point to any other place to find this information, it's just a few people being all superior saying they really don't want to help the casual player out. Really if all you want is game rule nit-picking questions you'll never get enough movement to get out of Beta. A nice General B&CG Q&A site would be great. This one at the moment is pointless to the masses of casual gamers out there. Also remove the recommendations tag sense all recommendations will be closed anyways.

@Justin808 - I sympathise with your frustration. This meta question explains better the rationale for why these kinds of questions are not allowed: Should we ban game recommendation questions?. In a nutshell, there are basically unlimited answers, and they are all opinions. Please understand that this is not personal - the role of a moderator is to enforce the community consensus of the site, that's all.

@Justin808 - Regarding escaping Beta - Many sites across the SE network have similar prohibitions against generic recommendations. See the linked question above. Their beta status or otherwise is independent of those choices. The [tag:recommendations] tag exists to cover historical questions that we have chosen not to delete. I'm sorry if its existence led you to believe such questions were on-topic.

@Justin808 - For recommendations, good options are the boardgames subreddit or Board Game Geek. You can also ask in our chat room.

@Justin808: I understand where you're coming from. As a player, designer, and reviewer of board games, I rarely find occasion to contribute anything to this site. It doesn't upset me, but I guess part of me wishes I had more of a reason to come here :)

@TheChaz2.0 - Its irritating to me, a lot of potentially good SE sites become pointless and unused because of things like this. I would post to meta about it, but you have a minority there who jump down peoples throats for making suggestions they don't already agree with. And SE chat is a joke.

@Justin808: Lost Legacy (The Starship,
Flying Garden,
Whitegold Spire)

There is a Munchkin-version of this game, it's called Loot Letter. It is exactly the same as Love Letter, just with a different theme and therefore different names (and illustrations) for the cards. And I recently saw a Lovecraft Letter which is a more complex further development of Love Letter with additional cards and special effects for when a player turns mad.


text:
Does a Go variant on an infinite board exist?
I've just read the paper Better Computer Go Player with Neural Network and Long-term Prediction which seems to make a big step in direction of getting a better algorithm playing Go than any human.

Source: xkcd.com/1002
Now I was wondering how the game could be changed to something which is well-defined and where humans are still much better than computers.
Does a Go variant on an infinite board exist?
One would have to play it with a computer, of course. Having such an infinite board (of which only the parts which were looked at are calculated, of course) isn't really a programming problem.
As the boundaries seem to be important, one could add random borders to the game. The winning criterion could be an absolute / relative difference in points. What would be the implications of such a game?
Another idea would be to make a (pseudo-)fractal board.

I wonder whether you know even the basics of Go. The finiteness of the board is essential to the game since it is decided by territory count or area count. A Go game on an infinite board would go on forever undecided.

How could you possibly win?

@Chenmunka I thought of an absolute / relative difference in points.

@jknappen: I think the problem is more how to define the end of the game. (Internal) territory may be correctly defined as vacant points only connected along edges to stones of a single colour (contrast with dame, which are connected to both and score for neither, if we ignore Ing’s rules), and that works fine on an infinite board. It still works if we either add captives to territory or count the total area ‘controlled’ by each player (occupied+internal territory). Perhaps this is what moose means by “points” in “an absolute / relative difference in points”.

I suspect that adopting forms of “fairy go” (by analogy with fairy chess) would help a programme far more than a human. I have yet to meet anyone I suspected of having an infinite brain. Our advantage comes from the way we learn about and adapt to new situations, internalise what we learn, and communicate it using a rich array of concepts such as aji-keshi or furikawari and the heuristics embodied in go proverbs such as “play at the centre of symmetry”. I think that at first humans would adapt faster, but that programmes once adapted would have an edge until humans had built up a culture.

...Nim is only solved for starting position.

There is a Go variant without boundaries (but, of course, on a finite board): Torus Go. It is sometimes played in Go clubs or as a side event on Go tournaments. On a traditional board I find it very hard to visualise.

There are variants like 3 dimensional Go, which may be interesting to you.  However, from personal experience as well as seeing higher dans struggle, I'd guess humans are far worse at them than computers :)
I'm not aware of any kind of "infinite" Go that is even remotely playable. The basic problems are ladders, which need to end, and counting, which requires complete separation of space.
As far as I can tell, infinite Go could be achieved via a sequence of spaces that interact, either hierarchically or flat. You could define that a ladder may not leave its subspace etc. Play could either be simultaneous in all subspaces, or in only a selected (number of) subspace(s). While this seems borderline theoretical computing science, I believe it would provide a gameplay quite similar to the original, just with certain additions that make turns a lot more complex.

I think it is a mistake to want to defined a ladder: it is a consequence of the rules, and the same should apply, if at all, on an infinite board.

With a time control, you could play on the infinite board. A player could be forced to pass when the time limit is reached. Eventually, both players pass (unless somebody resigns before) and the game is finished.
I guess, you could play on an infinite board without time control, but to make the game finite, you need to have a limited supply of stones. Basically, than would mean that a stone group that is far enough from others could be considered to be on a separate board.
Or you could keep a running score estimate (captures + territory), and once a player hits a predefined score limit, the player wins and the game ends. You just have to exclude the outside territory (that reaches to infinity) from the score, otherwise Black wins with the first move.
Another interesting approach could be, after a predefined number of steps to start game running, to have an arbiter (or a computer) to end the game after each move with a small probability. So, you never know beforehand when there is the last move, but the expectation of the game length is finite.
With either approach the game would be different from the regular Go because of lack of the usual interaction with the board edges.


text:
Mustering in port territories
Could I get a comprehensive clarification of the rules surrounding mustering and supply limits in territories that have ports?
My understanding is:

When mustering, all territories (whether land, port, or sea) must adhere to supply limits.
When mustering at a Castle/Stronghold territory with a port, units can be placed in either the land, the port, or adjacent sea territory.

Is my understanding of these rules correct?
What it seems is that a player could keep a single infantry on their Castle/Stronghold territory, and because they have two adjacent territories (the port, and the sea) they can muster into, it makes it possible for them continually muster every turn, using the special consolidate power token.
Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct. However remember that as soon as you have two or more ships in the same area (port or sea), they are considered an army and must adhere to supply limits.
Obviously if you muster into both the port and sea you're potentially blocking your port ship for being able to move out into the sea. That makes your castle/stronghold a ripe target for attack as if an enemy were to defeat that one footman, any boats in port would be replaced by an equal number of your enemy's ships (pg.25).
Something else to note: The special Consolidate Power token must be placed on the castle/stronghold in order to muster. You are not allowed to muster by placing the special Consolidate Power token on the port space.

Wait, to clarify, if you capture a territory with a port, you capture the ships?!

If there are ships in the port, yes


text:
How can I mitigate the luck factor of drawing destination tickets in Ticket To Ride?
I get the feeling that a big part of how well someone does in Ticket to Ride, is the drawing of their initial destination tickets, and the drawing of subsequent destination tickets, and how well they fit within the player's existing route, etc.
Are there any house rules for mitigating this? One suggestion might be that three destination tickets can be placed face up on the table, and players can draw from those, or elect to scrap them before drawing from them.
Note: I'm specifically asking about how luck dependent the game is, and if there are any house rules to reduce the luck factor. I'm not asking for strategies used to deal with the standard rules.

Related: How to overcome bad initial tickets

Regarding close: related yes, duplicate no. That question asks about game strategy to mitigate an unfortunate start for one player. This question is asking about strategies, variants, or house rules to balance the game to make it less likely that somebody gets super good/super bad route combinations.

@Samthere actually this question is only about house rules and the other is only about strategy. I linked the question because I thought it would be useful to the OP, not because it answers his question.

Find a new game.
Taking of tickets in Ticket to Ride is supposed to be a high risk/high reward action that has the potential to lose you a significant amount of points. Once you try to mitigate an aspect of a game, you're changing how the game plays in ways that weren't intended by the designer. At this point, it's better to find a new game that more closely aligns with your board gaming preferences. There are over 82,000 games in the Board Game Geek database, and one of them is sure to have the aspects of Ticket to Ride that you enjoy while eliminating the randomness of drawing cards.
My suggestion would be Hansa Teutonica. This is also a strategy game that focuses on taking routes, but instead of taking tickets for points, you are taking actions over the course of the game. One game session should take you about the same amount of time as Ticket to Ride. Hansa Teutonica also has the benefit of multiple paths to victory, so it will have a longer shelf life than Ticket to Ride.

I disagree with this answer. Game designers frequently tweak their own games after they are published and they have the advantage of having had hundreds or thousands more players play their game and give feedback. On top of that, I LOVE TTR, but have the same opinion about the starting cards - there's too much chance in just giving everyone 3 random cards. If one person gets 2 long routes that overlap, they're almost guaranteed a victory. There's nothing wrong with a small tweak to the rules for a game you find nearly perfect.

That being said, I recently played Hansa Teutonica and really enjoyed it, so that's a good recommendation.

The problem with your suggested solution is that it increases the impact of good luck for everyone. The result is that everyone's potential score will be that much higher, so the winner will end up being the person who doesn't get screwed out of routes by other players.
As you say, getting lucky with grouped routes does have an impact on the game, and no amount of cleverly playing around your mixed hand will beat someone who gets a cluster of many tickets in an area.
If you're not doing so already, I would suggest trying Ticket to Ride: Europe. While the luck of the ticket draw is still a factor, it's lessened in a few ways:

Your starting tickets are picked from at least 2 of 4 tickets, where 1 of those tickets is a long route that's only available in the starting hand.
Stations are available, so if you do get screwed on a route you can still complete it using other people's routes and build your other tickets.
Similar to the above point, if you're drawing new routes and nothing matches your game plan, you can pick a route that's mostly completed by your opponents and spend your stations to attach their routes to your network, saving your trains.

If you absolutely want to house rule any of the games, you could do some form of ticket drafting in which, as a group at the start of the game, you build a starting hand publicl. For example everyone gets 4 cards, picks one face up and passes the hand until they have 3 or 4 cards. Then you pick out of those routes normally. If you want to go full-out on this you could then draft the rest of the deck and build individual decks, allowing the players to balance how well the routes go together and giving a vague idea of what routes each player might be capable of without having perfect knowledge of what they're doing. You could just do the deck draft and then have each player draw their initial routes from their drafted deck.

Europe definitely feels closer in this regard. I do find the above issue can cause a lot of problems on the Switzerland map however: the country to country tickets can lead to very high scores for a lucky player.

Our house rule is to take all of the tickets that are 17 or higher, shuffle them, and deal one to each player, and deal the other tickets from the (shuffled) rest of the deck. Then shuffle all remaining tickets to form the ticket pile. That way (similar to TTR:Europe) all players have a long route to choose from at the start.

That's definitely the right line of thinking, imo.

If you want people to have more control over their initial tickets, just give them move to choose from. Instead of 'Draw 4, keep 2-4', you could allow people to 'Draw 6, keep 2-4'. This doesn't impact any part of the game, other than the initial route drafting.
There is of course a very simple solution that doesn't involve house rules: ditch your longest route. Although it feels natural to go for the longest route, you don't have to. Just make sure you get the most points, by any means necessary.

My proposed "house rules" solution is the opposite of the another poster's: Raise the bonus for Longest Route from 10 to 25.
That would give people that drew low destination cards an alternative means of achieving a high score. They would build their destination routes as quickly as possible, then spend the rest of the game 1) connecting them, 2) extending them, and 3) blocking others' routes. The "flexibility" that they gain in this manner might compensate them for the low value of their routes.
Sometimes one might want to do this in "reverse" order (e.g. poaching others' routes first), which might create confusion as to what your routes are.

But Tom, if one player draws Seattle-New York (22 points) and Vancouver-Montreal (20 points), OR Los Angeles-Miami (20 points) and Los Angeles-New York (21 points), or any combination of 2 of those, they'll have an easy route to victory - over 40 points for tickets, and a great head-start on the longest route. If a player starts with 3 smaller routes that don't overlap, working on the longest route isn't always feasible.
The Globetrotter bonus in the 1910 expansion (15 points for most tickets) mitigates the long-ticket advantage in the opposite way - rewarding doing the smaller tickets.

@jfren484: If I had three smaller routes that don't overlap, I'd discard one in favor of the two that most overlap, build them, connect them, and then extend them in the opposite directions. The longer routes are easier to block, so I would try to fill my (short) destination routes quickly, block my opponents' longer ones, and try to build the longest route in the process.


text:
What do board game publishers do? What are the difference between them?
Board games are usually published by one of a variety of different board game publishers - such as Fantasy Flight or Z-Man Games.
My question is - what do the publishers do - and what's the difference between them?
Do board game publishers act much the same way to book publishers do? - ie. selectively publishing games from creators they think will be successful in exchange for a commission - or are their games developed in-house?
For example, I am interested in board game publishers responsibility in:

Manufacturing components. Do board games publishers manufacture components themselves, or outsource them?
Designing games. Do board games publishers design games 'in house' or are they merely publishers for external designers?
Acquiring copyright rights, for example for any games based on franchises (eg Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings), do board game publishers negotiate with the copyright holders themselves, or is that up to the designer?

I appreciate that answers are likely to be different for each board game publisher, so a good answer will give a general overview of what the primary role of board game publishers do, and give some examples of what some of the larger/more popular board game publishers do in respect to these questions.
A good answer might include and example of the size of a larger board game publisher, and outline all the roles each of the staff play.

What do you mean 'what do the publishers do'? They publish games, what sort of things other than that are you looking for?

I'm guessing an analogy might be movie producers. They have many possible tasks: provide money, hire cast and crew, work with script writers, etc. But not all movie producers do all of the tasks movie producers can do. So are you asking what functions publishers can do, and then what publishers do which of these possible things?

This seems like a legitimate question.  He wants to know what a game publisher is, what they do, and what is the difference between them.  Saying "they publish games" is not illuminating.  How do they publish games?  Where do those games come from?  How does the way in which one publisher publishes games, differ from another.  What does 'publish' even entail:  Development, testing, printing, distribution, promotion, etc.?  I can read 100 articles on BGG on how to self publish and how to work with publishers; then work backwards from there, but it seems like some insider knowledge could help.

@Solocutor That you even began to brainstorm the possible questions that the OP might want answers to is an indicator that the question is too broad or unclear. I voted to leave closed.

Well I mostly just repeated the exact questions stated by the OP.  My brainstorming was all on possible answers.  I would like to see an answer to this question, because my own understanding of how game publishing works is more nebulous than I'd like it to be (and I've actually done research on it in the past).  I don't see how it is too broad.  'What does a  do?' is a perfectly legitimate, clear, and common question.  It normally has a concise answer.  This is the opposite of broad.

Please don't describe what a "good answer" to your question would be. If a question is clear and reasonably scoped, it should also be clear whether any given answer is complete, correct, and well written. You can communicate the quality of any individual answer or ask for changes by voting or commenting.

@murgatroid99 given that people think that the question is unclear or too broad, I'm trying to narrow down the question that I'm asking. Feel free to edit it if you think you can otherwise communicate the question in a more effective manner.

@murgatroid99 Describing a "good answer" is a practice I've seen used infrequently to great effect. It should be fine. It tells us more about what the asker's after. We can ignore such a request if we deem it irrelevant.


text:
Should you reveal who was a spy and who wasn't at the end of a game?
I guess this is possibly up to house rules/who is playing.
On one hand, revealing who were the spies also reveals people's play styles, which might make it a bit less fun for future games. It would something akin to revealing one's hole cards after a successful bluff in poker.
On the other hand, it can be quite an intense game, so it's nice to 'clear the air', and not have lingering doubts (especially if someone who wasn't a spy had been accused of being one).

If you don't reveal the spies, how do you know who won?

I'm not very concerned with play styles, as my style is to be 100% convinced of my innocence, regardless of what loyalty card I am dealt!

@user7129 - You know whether the Spies or the Resistance won.

This question is baffling! How does this even work? Do you stipulate at the start "after the game is over, whatever you do don't celebrate!" Why would you not celebrate? When the game ends does everyone just stand up and walk away? /confused

@DanielLim - Lol - look at each other coyly. You'll know if you won or not. :) (By the same token, should a poker player celeberate if he wins a pot by making the other fold?)

Well the comparison to poker doesn't hold up, because you know specifically which player won the pot! Either way, this is very strange. I'd have a distinct feeling of 'lack of closure' if I lost and didn't find out who'd been lying to me.  Similarly, if I'd just spent the last 30-45 minutes lying to people's faces and stressing out about not getting caught - you're bloody right I'm going to celebrate if I successfully trick them!

I've never seen a single player (spy or not) being able to avoid cheering, asking "why you did that" or commenting a recently won/lost The Resistance match. This is an important moment of relief, discussion, curiosity satisfaction and laughter. It's like sharing an adventurous or humorous story with those at the table, maybe strengthening or creating friendship bonds between people.
It is true though, if you play this game a lot with the same group, they might find it easier to know if you're telling the truth or lying... but they will never be sure! And if you think they are, you can try to change your behaviour. One way to achieve that is to know what people expect you to do in certain circumstances, and to get to know that, you can talk about a recently played match. You can also try to copy or remix with your own approach another player's strategy, something that he also might tell you when the game ends. Bottom line: reinventing your play style and avoiding being obvious is also viable through conversation and experience exchange.
Keeping things secret allows you to keep your strategy to yourself and not being able to know what others know. Although mystery is also fun (The Resistance is all about mystery), I find it hard to understand how this way of being mysterious could be better then sharing the experiences in typical The Resistance play sessions. I must also add that some players might even end up frustrated, thanks to not being able to talk about what he and others were thinking.

The whole point (if you play with people multiple times) is to trick them! Of course you should change your behaviour to make yourself unpredictable/more convincing.

I definitely recommend revealing who the spies were at the end.  Not revealing them would just lead to additional frustration, and among friends it could cause unnecessary tension.  You could potentially wait until after a string of 3 or 4 games are completed before revealing who the spies were in each round, but at that point you may not remember with confidence which rounds you were or were not a spy.
One of the things that I would also recommend to those that play against each other a lot is to change your play style as the rounds progress.  It makes it a little more difficult for a fellow resistance member to recognize you, but it will help you for a round when you do become a spy.  A lot of the time it boils down to learning how your fellow spies will act and playing to their strengths such as drawing attention to yourself as a spy and causing confusion to help protect another spy who always ends up real chatty when they are a spy.

I don't understand. You seem to recommend revealing who the spies were at the end. You seem to then immediately say doing so would lead to additional frustration and cause unnecessary tension. Do you mean to say "Not doing so would just lead to..."?

That would be correct, not revealing would lend to additional frutration/unnecessary tension.  Besides, most people that just played and won WANT to reveal who they were to celebrate the victory or talk about how they couldn't believe how one particular aspect of the game went down.  When playing casually with friends, it adds to the enjoyment of the game when we get to talk about it immediately afterwards.

I've edited your answer to make that clearer. It seemed to suggest that revealing them would lend to additional frustration etc.


text:
How do I tell if a game is counterfeit?
There's one of those cheap random items/party supplies stores at the local mall that sells copies of Exploding Kittens for $10 each.
It's a bargain price - it's $15 on Amazon here in Australia, $40ish at most FLGS.
So that makes me suspect that it's a counterfeit copy - but how would I know?

You could contact the manufacturer if that store is a regular seller.
And maybe they buy in bulk to save money. Or they like to get rid of the game once they found out it doesn't contain real exploding kittens.

Or they like to get rid of the it once they found out it doesn't contain a real game

I think it's hard to distinguish compared to foods or electronics which have more standard or official processes or labels to check.

Compare it to a legitimate copy
The easiest way would be to compare it to copy that's known to not be a counterfeit. To start with you might want to look at some pictures of the box on board game geek and see if there are any differences. As with other counterfeit things, looks for misaligned printing, coloring that is off, or other differences. Due note though, the picture I linked to is from the Kickstarter, and the retail boxes might be different (look at the amazon/etc listings and compare those pictures too!)
If it externally looks legit, it could still be a fake; to know for sure you'll need to open it up and actually look at the contents. Are the cards very flimsy? Misprinted? Miscolored? Is the packaging "weird"? My copy came with each deck in shrinkwrapped plastic, if the decks are held together with paper slips, or rubber bands, or not at all, that's a sign it might be counterfeit. For games aside from Exploding Kittens, check other components too... Are pawns made of plastic when they're supposed to be wood? Are they the wrong shape/size?
Ultimately though, it might not be possible to tell just by examination, you may need to find out where the store bought them, and follow the distribution chain to see if it actually leads back to "The Oatmeal" or not. It doesn't hurt to ask the store WHY the item is so cheap compared to MSRP.
For $10 I wouldn't be surprised if it was a) counterfeit and b) made with cheaper materials.
All of that said, do also keep in mind that often times Kickstarter versions of games (which you'll frequently see in pictures on BGG) have better quality components than those that are included in retail versions, so when comparing pictures make sure you are indeed comparing retail to retail (or KS version to KS version).


text:
How replayable is Pandemic Legacy? (Is the game still playable after you have completed it)
So my understanding is that Pandemic Legacy has a story arc of 12-24 games, at which point the game is complete.
My question is - according to the design of the game - is the game still playable as a 'non-story' game, scars and all, once this is complete?
ie. I'm not asking about whether I can play the twelve month story through again
If not - what are people meant to do with their sets?

Possible duplicate of Would it be possible to play through Pandemic Legacy more than once?

That is not a duplicate as this is asking if it can be played a non story game and the duplicate is asking if you can play through the story again.

It's not more replayable than a good meal is reeatable.

"what are people meant to do with their sets?" we kept ours as a memento. Lots of fond memories associated with that set.

It is not intended to be replayable.
Depending on what options you choose during the campaign, certain components are intended to be physically destroyed. You could choose to just set things aside instead of destroying them; though that does take away some of the thematic fun. And then you would just have to ignore any stickers that were put on the board during play if you wanted to play regular Pandemic after.
You can either throw it out or keep it as a souvenir.  As a matter of pure opinion; it is well worth it even though you can’t keep playing it after; those 12-24 games are worth the cost!

Some Legacy games are designed so that at the end of the campaign you have your own unique version of the game that can be played over and over again (I believe Charterstone and Machi Koro Legacy both fall into that group). That said, PL:S1 is not one of those games.

You could potentially re-play the "December" game over and over again, but that's certainly not the intent of the design and for gameplay-related reasons it may not be fantastic (without spoiling too much, the design did not aim to give you something particularly playable or interesting at the end of the campaign, depending on how certain events played out throughout the campaign).

You could, in theory, still play the base game by ignoring all the stickers on the board and cards.  I'm only up to October, but other than character destruction, I've only encountered one thing that permanently destroys a base game part, and it's optional.

Yes, you can use the board, cards, and components to play it as the original Pandemic game. After playing.


text:
Dance with Dragons: Margaery Tyrell vs. Mance Rayder
In the Dance with Dragons expansion, the house card for Margaery Tyrell reads "If you are defending your home or a territory that has power token on it, the final combat strength of your opponent is 2". The house card for Mance Rayder reads "Your final combat strength is equal to the wildling threat".
What happens when these two cards are played against each other? How is the final strength of the Baratheon player resolved?

Baratheon strength 2 is Final if the Throne ranking so determines :
which house executes first and next house executes after. So slightly counter-intuitively the lower Throne ranking would receive the benefit in this case.
http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/73198-house-card-questions/
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/867434/final-combat-strength


text:
In which situations I cannot include isolated mine to a 8 power federation even though then I can't create a federation at all?
The rule book of Gaia Project says that:

you can choose planets that are farther away, as long as those
planets are needed to have a total power value of at least seven
You cannot form a federation by connecting more planets
and satellites than are needed to form it

the key word is "need" and it is unclear what is behind this word. My question is:
Are there situations, in which I cannot include isolated mine to a 8 power federation even though otherwise I can't create a federation at all?
Here are a few examples:

Let's say I have three separate clusters of buildings with power 4 (2xTrading station), 3 (PI), 1 (mine). In general I can not create federation of them, since it would be 8 power and 7 power is possible by excluding one cluster (mine).

But what if the mine is in-between 4-power cluster and PI and is surrounded by my federations already, so there is no way to connect 4-power cluster with PI with out touching mine with my satellites. So I have only three options:
a) create a federation of 8-power including the mine
b) do not create the federation at all
c) develop mine into a 4-power cluster by building another building nearby and create a federation ignoring 2 trading stations below it.
can one say here that I do need to include the mine "to have a total power value of at least seven"?

The very similar situation, but the mine can not be developed into 4-power cluster, so option c) is not an option I either create the 8-power federation or can not create the federation at all.

Is here my "need" considered to be enough?

Another situation, when there is a path to connect 2 trading stations with PI with out a mine, but it requires 24 satellites, and I have only 3 power tokens, so I can not do it right away. Is here my "need" considered to be enough to include the mine?

The same situation as in ex.3, but it is the end of the game, and I don't have resources for sure to get 24 satellites. Is here my "need" considered to be enough?

Please ask one question per post.

@PhilipKendall, there is only one question - "Are there situations, in which I cannot include isolated mine to a 8 power federation even though otherwise I can't create a federation at all?" The rest are just examples to clarify it. All I do is clarifying the rule of the game, it would be weird to split it to several topics. I've added pictures to illustrate my doubts.

When I read this question I see at least 4 different questions being asked.

My understanding of the exact process of forming a federation is this:

Choose structures with a combined power level of at least 7 that are not already part of a federation. (I will call the federation that you are trying to form the forming federation.)

Connect the structures of the forming federation by placing as few satellites as possible.

You must take detours when needed to avoid touching existing federations of yours.
You must include additional structures (that are not already part of a federation) if doing so allows you to use fewer satellites.

If there are several ways of doing so, you can choose how to do it, even if those ways have different power levels.

If you could now remove both at least one of your satellites and one of your structures from the forming federation without falling below the combined power level of 7 nor disconnecting the forming federation, you cannot form that federation. (But you can form one by choosing different structures in step 1, in this case.)

In particular, the need to use as few satellites as possible (for the chosen structures!) is very strong, and it is fine if that means including an additional mine, for example. (Look at the example on page 15.)
So in your examples, you can always form the federation and you always must do so by including the mine in the middle an placing three satellites.
(This follows the official FAQ linked to in the comments by the OP: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2120375/official-federation-faq.)

Do you have any source to back it up?

I will try to come back to this later, but the most important source is the example on page 15: Notice how they say that it is fine to include the additional mine (even though it’s not needed for the power level) because both federations require the same number of satellites and the bigger federation would fall apart if you removed both a satellite and a structure.

(When they talk about removing a structure and satellite, they mean removing them without moving anything else.)

Last point for now: I have some experience with the game on BoardGameArena (which has official licenses for its games) and it works like this on that site.

I've found official faq, which is very similar to your answer. If you modify your answer to include it I will accept it. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2120375/official-federation-faq

Actually, the official FAQ differs from my understanding. (I used to think that taking detours to avoid touching existing federations was illegal, but apparently it’s not.) I changed my answer to reflect that.


text:
How to understand the given Preferans puzzle solution?
There is a Preferans problem:
South chose crosses as the trump.
How many tricks will get South?

Part of the solution the author of problem proposes and that I can't understand is:

 You can take 7 tricks.
 Usually the South want to put ace of diamonds on his first move. It is an error, if the East will answer with ace king, then just six tricks for South, no options, the game is simple. On move from the clubs marriage, answer with crosses or diamonds - no difference. After drawing these suits there is move with a spades left, that leads to desired 6 tricks for South.
 ( If you understand russian you can find solution here: http://review-pref.ru/literatura/54/150/ )

Please help me to understand this. What I see as best play for West-East are:
1. (S) Ad - (W) Kd - (E) 9d
2. (S) Qd - (W) 8d - (E) 10d
3. (S) 7d - (W) 9s - (E) Jd

The task for east here to avoid move in hearts in order to win queen of hearts. But east have only 2 cards to give up.
4. (E) 10c - (S) Qc - (W) 10s
5. (S) 7c - (W) Js - (E) Jc
6. (E) Qs - (S) 8c - (W) Ks
7. (S) 9c - (W) 7h - (E) Ac
And east have to give up hearts. That leads to only 3 tricks for them.


text:
Summoning Beast King Barbaros with Majesty's Fiend on the field
My opponent summoned Majesty's Fiend on their turn, I have Beast King Barbaros in hand. May I summon Beast King without tribute with Majesty's Fiend on the field and what is Beast King's attack when I do?
Beast King Barbaros
3000 ATK

You can Normal Summon/Set this card without Tributing, but its
  original ATK becomes 1900. You can Tribute 3 monsters to Tribute
  Summon this card. If you do: Destroy all cards your opponent controls.

Majesty's Fiend

Cannot be Special Summoned. Monster effects cannot be activated.

Beast King's attack will be 1900 if you normal summon without tribute.
The effect that lets you normal summon him and decrease his attack is a continuous effect, not an activated effect, so Majesty's fiend will have no effect on it.

Ok this makes sense. If it were a trigger then negating his effect would not change him to 3000. That's why Forbidden Chalice will put him at 3400. I know this picking, I'm trying to make this as accurate as possible. The effect that lets you normal summon him is a summoning condition.


text:
What is the very last step that Juragedo can be special summoned and tributed
My opponent declares and attack with a Nekroz holding Nekroz of Decisive Armor in hand. Can I wait until the damage step to special summon and then tribute Juragedo?
Juragedo

During either player's Battle Step: You can Special Summon this card
  from your hand, and if you do, gain 1000 LP. You can only use this
  effect of "Juragedo" once per turn. During either player's turn: You
  can Tribute this card, then target 1 face-up monster you control; it
  gains 1000 ATK until the end of the next turn.

Nekroz of Decisive Armor

During either player's turn: You can discard this card, then target 1
  "Nekroz" monster you control; it gains 1000 ATK and DEF until the end
  of this turn.

To make this as valuable a resource as possible please try and provide detailed reasoning behind your answer.
Thanks.

No. Damage step means leaving the battle step, so you could not special summon juragedo in the damage step. You can special summon him during battle step and then tribute during damage step.


text:
Barrier Statue of the Abyss and Barrier Statue of the Heavens -- A Contradiction?
If both of these cards are on the field, how are their effects resolved?
Barrier Statue of the Abyss(Effect Monster)
No monsters can be Special Summoned, except for DARK monsters.
Barrier Statue of the Heavens (Effect Monster)
No monsters can be Special Summoned, except for LIGHT monsters.

No Monsters can be Special Summoned. Both Monsters have a Continuous Effect (page 14 of PDF) that is active while they are on the field. BSotAbyss blocks all non-DARK Monsters from being special summoned, so when you Attempt to Special Summon a DARK Monster, it is BSotHeaven that blocks you, and vice versa when you Special Summon a LIGHT Monster, it is BSotAbyss that blocks you.

This effect is active while the Effect Monster Card is face-up on the field. The effect starts when the face-up monster appears on the field, and ends once that monster is gone or is no longer face-up; [...]

The Barrier Statues prevent any Special Summoning, unless the Monster is of a matching Atribute (page 11).

Barrier Statue of the Abyss - No monsters can be Special Summoned, except for DARK monsters.
Barrier Statue of the Heavens - No monsters can be Special Summoned, except for LIGHT monsters.

Good!  I like the response!  Is it fair to say if a monster is both "Dark" AND "Light" then you could summon it?  I know of at least one monster that becomes both attributes once on the field, but it couldn't enter the field because from the hand it is only light.  Are there cards which are both of these attributes in your hand, because then you could summon such a card because if you combine these effects it reads "No monsters can be Special Summoned, except for "Dark and Light" monsters", as in they must have BOTH attributes.

@Squirtle, I know of no such card with dual attributes, but if it existed, it could be special summoned with both Barrier Statues on the field. You don't combine the card effects, a DARK or LIGHT monster couldn't be Special Summoned (SS) because the opposite Barrier Statue prevents it. A DARK & LIGHT monster could be SS, because it has a quality that exempts it from both Barrier Statues.

Yes!  When I said "combine" I meant their "intersection" not their union.... or in this case, the union of their constraints.


text:
How many points does a player Peg if they play three of the same cards consecutively, when the other player is out of cards in cribbage?
Player one is out of cards, and player two is starting from 0. Player two lays down three kings in a row. How many points should be pegged? Should it be 2 for the first pair, plus 6 for the royale pair, and then one for last card with a total of 9? Or just 7?

Play king: "ten"
Play king: "twenty for two": peg two
Play king: "thirty for six": peg six
Peg one for last.
The player who plays the three kings will score a total of 9 points for that sequence.


text:
What is the name of this card game?
I'm looking for the name of this game in English.
It's a drinking game, in which the participants get together in a circle and, with a playing cards deck, draw cards and follow their drinking rules (according to each card value).
E.g.: I drew a Queen, so all the ladies that are playing must drink. My friend then draws a Two, so he chooses 2 people to drink. Etc.
Does anyone know this game?
Thanks in advance! :)

Here's one variation, having a couple different names:

Kings Cup (AKA Ring Of Fire or Circle Of Death) Is a popular card drinking game. To play the game you should have a medium size group (at least 4 players). You start by placing a red cup in the middle of everyone and spread a deck of cards around it face down. You then go around in a circle taking turns drawing cards following the rules below.
  The Objective?: Draw all of the Kings

I'm guessing there are many variations of this game, going by many names.


text:
Is the card "Outshine Them All" from the MLP CCG useless?
In the MLP CCG there is a card from the Twilight / Applejack theme deck called "Outshine Them All": http://mlpccg.wikia.com/wiki/Outshine_Them_All_(Premiere)
You have to pay one action token to use it, and it only gives you any action token profit if there's a troublemaker in play.
Is it useless?
(Also, if you feel like giving an opinion:
Should it give you two action tokens for winning a faceoff?
Or should it be one point (vs action token) for winning a faceoff?)
I'm mainly interested in whether or not it's useless and why/why not.
Perhaps even a reason it could even be useful if it's not useless.

What do you mean by "broken"? In the context of Magic the Gathering, I have usually heard the word used to mean "over-powered", but that does not seem to be your meaning here.

I know nothing about the game, but it looks like the intent of the card is you spend a resource now, and potentially get multiple resources in return (since you can accomplish the gain 1 resource effect multiple times).

Yeah, I'm voting to put this on hold as unclear - please define what you mean by 'broken'. Overpowered? Nonfunctional? Absolutely terrible? Something else?

Edited the question. I think it's clearer now.

I think it's better now, but I would suggest removing the entire third paragraph. We're not really equipped to answer questions like "What should this card do?" That will really be completely opinion based. And it's also kind of like asking "Should this card actually be another card instead?" which doesn't really make sense as a question.

I finally got it!
There's a problem called "Monitor EVERYTHING!" and it reduces the cost of Report Resources by one. "Outshine Them All", being a Report Resource and with  only 1 cost, can be played at this problem for free.
Also, the new Crystal Games set has multiple cards that start faceoffs at problems, which I imagine also works for this card.
(I hope it's alright to check my own answer as correct?)

Accepting your own answer is 100% okay and an intended feature of the system. It'll be voted on like any other answer too.

I wouldn't say it is useless, although it doesn't seem particularly useful. You may pay an action token now to receive possibly several action tokens in the future (by defeating several troublemakers at the problem and possibly again when you are in a problem faceoff at the problem). As a strategy, this is troublesome because of the opportunity costs of using the action token in the first place, the uncertainty of winning the final problem faceoff, and the fact that your opponent may not play multiple troublemakers at the problem to avoid giving you additional bonuses.
Here is the scenario where I would be inclined to play this card: It's the main phase and I now have what I consider to be an acceptable power at the troublemaker to win the faceoff next turn. I have a remaining action token after playing all of the other cards I wanted this turn. I can spend that action token now and I can expect to get it back during the troublemaker faceoff next turn. After that, I will have the opportunity to continue to collect additional action tokens for wins at the problem.
As for your second question, winning a faceoff with the card at a problem will earn you one action token plus the normal amount of bonus points.

I've played a grand total of one game of this, so this is not a particularly definitive answer, but I'd say that it is situational and would require a particular kind of deck to support it. It's all a question of whether one Action now is worth potentially many Actions later, and whether you expect to be facing multiple Troublemakers at that problem. Of course you don't know how many Troublemakers your opponent will try to throw at you, so either it's a problem that you want to be facing often, or it's a problem where you're going to play your own Villain and then defeat them.


text:
What's the smallest starting library you can have in commander?
My understanding is, your commander deck is 100 cards.  And you take commander/companions etc. out of your deck before you start and put them in the command zone.
The smallest library I can come up with, is 97 cards.  Where you start with a pair of commander partners, and a companion.
Is there a way to make your library even smaller?
Addendum: I asked the question thinking of the "size of initial library" version of the question.  i.e. identifying if there are any rules loop holes for deck construction that could reduce the deck size.  That said, Allure's answer is awesome, and makes it clear that there are ways "in game" to get to a smaller library that could be important for some decks, I hadn't thought of that avenue, and find that to be a fine answer as well.  Even if that wasn't my initial question.

The companion isn't in your deck, it's in your sideboard. That example starts with 98 cards.

A companion is card number 101, it does not count towards the 100 cards in a commander deck and thus won't reduce the cards in the library.

As far as I'm aware, the answer is 98:

A companion does not count as part of the 100 cards; refer to comprehensive rule 702.139a: "Before the game begins, you may reveal one card you own from outside the game with a companion ability whose condition is fulfilled by your starting deck" (my emphasis).
You can never have more than two Commanders; refer to comprehensive rule 702.124g: "no partner ability or combination of partner abilities can ever let a player have more than two commanders." "Partner abilities" here is defined by 702.124a and includes all of the "base" partner, partner with [name], friends forever, backgrounds and Doctor's companion.
While it's difficult to prove a negative, I'm going to assert there's nothing else which can allow you to reduce the size of your starting library.

(Rules references from the 2024-02-06 Comprehensive Rules)

Technically speaking, there is another mechanic that allows you to reduce the size of your starting library: If you for some reason do allow ante cards in your group (which would be a deviation from the rules, since they are normally banned for Commander and all other formats), but don't play for ante, you get to remove those cards from the deck before playing. There are nine such cards, which means that the actual smallest starting deck size would be 89 under these very specific and constructed conditions.

@TheThirdMan If you're looking at cards which aren't legal in Commander, also Advantageous Proclamation, and probably some un-set cards as well. But at some point you have to start restricting things to things legal in the format as defined by the rules.


text:
How to find the spellbook for a card?
To make the question specific, I'd like to find the spellbook for Cursebound Witch.
My usual go to places for cards are scryfall and Gatherer.  Gatherer appears to not have Arena/Alchemy cards.  I'm assuming Scryfall doesn't have the spellbook, because it's not in mtgjson?
TLDR: I can find the spellbook in various locations, but is there a "canonical" source that's tracking these properly?

Scryfall at the time of this post, has added support for spellbooks.
You can search the card name with spellbook:"Cursebound Witch". Alternately, you can click the Spellbook button below the card image to be taken to that search. For example, here it is indicated on the page of Cursebound Witch:

You can find the list both in client and from an external source.
In the client itself, you can right-click a card that has a spellbook, and then continue right-clicking to cycle through the cards.
Outside of the client, you can find a list of spellbooks for Alchemy: Innistrad on the MtG wiki, here


text:
Does drawing a card in the draw phase use the stack, and related Laboratory Maniac shenanigans
Situations we had tonight:
Opponent has a Laboratory Maniac and an Abundance on the battle field.  I hold a terror in my hand with enough mana in untapped lands to cast it.
S1) Opponent moves to draw phase and has zero cards in library.  Opponent chooses to draw a card.  Can I kill his maniac and win the game?
S2) Opponent has a Staff of Nin and 0 cards in library at beginning of upkeep.  He chooses to draw a card (as opposed to reveal), do I have a chance to respond with my terror?  Or can I not respond?
Is it possible for me to beat my opponent in these situations with a well timed Terror?

I would suggest to simplify questions as much as possible - Abundance seems to have no relevance to the core question. If you mention cards that could be misinterpreted as being part of the question, it might lead answers into a wrong direction. If you think Abundance is relevant, please mention why.

@Hackworth, abundance is critical to this situation, otherwise I can terror during upkeep and force opponent to lose.

I wrote the question, and in the course of writing the question, I figured out the answer.  So, here's my stab at the answer.
S1)  Drawing during the Draw Phase does not use the stack, so you cannot win in this situation.  You must kill the Maniac before the draw phase, but with no maniac on the table, Abundance will keep them from losing the game.
This is covered in rule 504:

Draw Step

504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

S2) Abundance is a replacement effect, so the decision about whether or not to use the abundance is made at the time of the draw.  Thus, if you kill the Maniac at anytime before Nin's draw occurs, your opponent can just chose to use abundance, to avoid losing the game.

I believe that's correct, but you might want to clarify for future readers that in S2, the opponent never even gets to choose whether to draw until after you have made your choice about whether to cast Terror (and, if you chose to cast it, after it has resolved).

It is not possible for use Terror to win here. As long as your opponent has Abundance in play, they cannot be forced to lose the game due to drawing from an empty library.
The key is that the choice to search instead of drawing is part of Abundance's replacement of the draw. This means that you do not have any opportunity to take game actions between them deciding to draw (or search) and them actually drawing (or searching for) a card (i.e. you do not receive priority). It doesn't much matter what else in going on in the game, as long as Abundance is in play.
While not strictly relevant to this point, part of this ruling for Abundance is insightful here:

...Since Abundance’s effect has you put a card into your hand instead of drawing a card, you’ll never be forced to draw a card with an empty library.

In the first situation you described, the best you can do is to not lose the game by using Terror on the Laboratory maniac. In the second situation, your opponent should always win the game; they can win off their draw step, so they can hold off on using Staff of Nin until you cast Terror and then respond with the Staff and win before Terror resolves.
Edit:
I'm completely wrong about the second situation, totally forgot the text on Staff of Nin. Staff's draw is triggered, so is, in this situation, essentially no different from drawing during the draw step. I was confusing Staff with something with an activated draw ability, like Jayemdae Tome. (I can't believe I forgot how Staff of Nin works, that's one of of my best favourite cards)

You misunderstood the question. The core of the question was, "can I use Terror to prevent Lab Maniac from winning the game". Abundance only factors into in insofar as that the opponent has a choice between replacing his empty-library draws with either Lab Maniac or Abundance, but it has no bearing on the Terror-Lab Maniac-card draw timing question.

@Hackworth I think you've misunderstood the question. The final statement of the question, "Is it possible for me to beat my opponent in these situations with a well timed Terror?", makes it's pretty clear.

In that situation, Terror will not help you prevent the opponent from winning.
As you noted in your own answer, drawing a card during the draw step does not use the stack and thus cannot be responded to:

504 Draw Step
504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

Laboratory Maniac's ability creates a replacement effect. If you cant respond to the replaced event (card draw), you also can't respond to the replaced event (game win for your opponent), because the replacement effect happens exactly when the original effect would have happened.
Even if Lab Maniac's ability was a triggered ability (which is purely hypothetical because in that case it wouldn't work as intended, the controller of Lab Maniac would lose before winning the game), Terror still wouldn't help you because the Maniac's ability would already be on the stack and resolve eventually.
Your only chance to prevent the loss is to have Terror resolve before your opponent draws from an empty library. The Upkeep step happens before the Draw step, so that is the last opportunity to kill the Lab Maniac with spells or abilities.
As for Scenario 2, if the card draw is the result of Staff of Nin or any other spell or ability that uses the stack, you can react normally with Terror and prevent the Maniac's replacement effect by destroying him before the draw could even be replaced. Again, if a replacement effect happens, it happens at exactly the time when the original effect would. If the original effect never happens, then neither does the replacement:

614.7. If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn’t do anything.