text:
Using Saboteur after Bridge in Dominion
In Dominion I play a combo: Any card which gives me an additional 2 actions, then Bridge folloewed by Saboteur.
Bridge makes any card in my hand cheaper (i.e. cost $1 less) and cards in other players' hands, which is directly stated in the card's description. What about cards in other players' decks?
After playing Saboteur players should  normally reveal cards from their decks until they find one which costs $3 or more. Does Bridge affect the prices of these cards too? (i.e. Do other players need to find a card worth originally $4 in this case?)

Note that Bridge changes costs for both 'on destroy' and 'on gain', so the effect is neutral with respect to Saboteur, there is no real combo.  Players can still turn their Provinces instead Golds.  But they do skip the $3s.

Well, except the fact you force players to trash more expensive cards, e.g. they can't get away with handful of Villages.

Assuming you have no other 7+ cost cards, if you can play 4 Bridges first you're basically guaranteed to hit  a Province. Unless of course they're all in their hand.

Bridge affects the costs.
From the Dominion Intrigue rules, page 8

Saboteur
...
Costs of cards are affected by Bridge


text:
Is a player required to ship on a wharf if they are able to?
In Puerto Rico, a player is required to ship as many of one good as they can in turn order.
If a player has a wharf, goods available to ship, and is otherwise unable to ship goods on the available ships, is that player required to use their wharf to ship all of one of their remaining goods?  Or are they allowed to, say, hang on to their coffee to sell during a later trader phase?

No,
Using the Wharf is optional, and a player is not required to use it each turn.  Here are a couple quotes from the rules.
The Violet Buildings (page 9)

A player is not required to use the special function of an occupied violet
building if he does not want to (important with the wharf, see below).

The Wharf (page 11 - emphasis, mine)

The wharf can only be used once per captain phase by its owner, but he
may choose when to use it, if at all.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the Void's power cancel out the Spiff's?
In cosmic encounter, one player is the Void (destroys ships instead of sending them to the warp), and another player is the Spiff (attacking player still gets a colony if they lose by 10 or more). If the Spiff attack the Void and lose when they have 5+ ships, do they still get a colony, or is the ship that would become the colony destroyed?

The ship is destroyed. Both abilities are trying to interact with ships that would be going to the void. The FAQ for the Fantasy Flight version (the most recent to date),  indicates that Void trumps all other abilities.

Q: Is there an official ruling on Zombie vs Void?
A: Void trumps Zombie. Zombie's power kicks in when it should go to the warp, however the intent for Void is that it never sends its opponents to the warp at all.

This ruling is not at all obvious when you consider the text on the various cards, and their updated errata. (from the CE Cosmodex)

Spiff - Receives Colony as Loser (G) You have the power to Crash Land. As the offense, if both players revealed attack cards and {your total was 10 or more less than the defense's} you lost the encounter by 10 or more, you may use this power to land one of your ships that would otherwise be lost to the warp on the winning planet. {The ship coexists with the ships already there. This power does not allow you to coexist in places or with aliens that state otherwise.}
Void - Eradicates Opponents' Ships (R) You have the power to Eradicate. As a main player, when you win an encounter, use this power to remove the losing side's ships from the game rather than sending them to the warp. This occurs before any other game effects that affect ships headed to the warp. A player cannot be reduced to fewer ships than the number of foreign colonies needed to win the game. Any eradicated ships that would reduce a player below this number are sent to the warp as usual.

The key text here being in the Void description: "This occurs before any other game effects that affect ships headed to the warp"

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


text:
What happens to an Inkmoth Nexus that has had Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas' -1 ability used on it?
From my initial expectations I'd expect otherwise, but I was recently told at a tournament that an activated Inkmoth Nexus that had been the target of Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas' -1 ability ("Target artifact becomes a 5/5 artifact creature.") would cease being a vanilla 5/5 artifact at the end of the turn when Inkmoth Nexus' ability ends. I was planning on using Revoke Existence, but my plans were quashed.
Was this correct? Without looking at layers or anything, I'd assume appears Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas' ability (which is persistent) would remain active after Inkmoth Nexus' ends, and that on the next turn it would remain a vanilla 5/5 artifact creature.

I would agree with you, and I don't see anything in the rulings for either card that suggests otherwise. But I don't have an authoritative source to back me up here.

Sounds similar to the confusion around the good old Jade Statue...

Whoever gave you the ruling was mistaken.
According to level 4 judge Chris Richter, the Inkmoth Nexus will remain a 5/5 artifact creature land but will lose flying, infect, and its Blinkmoth subtype after the turn ends.
Some more details on what happens afterward:

When the turn ends, the animation effect from the Inkmoth Nexus will
  end. When this happens, the Nexus will be become a 5/5 artifact
  creature land. This Nexus will still have the normal abilities of an
  Inkmoth Nexus, the mana ability and the ‘animation’ activated ability,
  as well. But this permanent will not have flying or infect at this
  point. This is because Inkmoth Nexus’ animation ability has a duration
  that lasts until the end of turn, while the animation effect from
  Tezzeret’s ability does not. The animation effect from Tezzeret’s
  ability will last as long as that permanent remains in play. If no
  other effects are applied, then this Nexus will look like this (a 5/5
  artifact creature land with Nexus abilities) for the rest of the game
  or as long as this Nexus remains in play.
However, you may just want to use additional animation effects on this
  Nexus for strategic reasons. If the Inkmoth Nexus’ animation activated
  ability resolves again, then this permanent will become an 1/1
  artifact creature land with both flying and infect. It is a 1/1
  creature again for the same reason as why it became a 5/5 earlier, the
  power and toughness setting portion of the Nexus’ effect is applied in
  timestamp order and overrides Tezzeret’s effect that makes it a 5/5.
  And, just as earlier, you can use Tezzeret’s ability again as well.
  Doing so will make this permanent into a 5/5 creature with both flying
  and infect. Then, as before, at the end of turn when the Inkmoth
  animation effect wears off it will become a 5/5 artifact creature
  land.


text:
What happens if you cast a card that says "Target Opponent" in Two Headed Giant?
Let's say I'm playing a game of 2HG, and I cast Tribute To Hunger, which reads:

Target opponent sacrifices a creature. You gain life equal to that
  creature's toughness.

Do I get to pick which opponent has to sac a creature, or do I cast it at them (being my two opponents) and they pick?

I think this is answered by the existing question How does metalcraft work in Two-Headed-Giant? Summary: your opponents still count as two separate players, so you pick which one to target.

A Two-Headed Giant game has 4 players, two of which are your opponents. When you cast a spell, you choose a legal target, in this case one of your opponents.

810.1. Two-Headed Giant games are played with two teams of two players each.

Yes you do have to choose.
Since Two-Headed Giant has 2 heads, you have to choose a TARGET head.
And by opponent, you should read "any player not on your team".


text:
Does casting a card and paying for it work like this?
Let's say that I have two cards in my hand, Lion's Eye Diamond and Shock.  According to the rules, the steps to casting a spell are as follows:

Announcing the spell (put the spell on the stack)
Determine Modes
Choose targets
Announce Divisions
Determine Total Cost
Activate Mana Abilities
Pay costs
The spell is now considered cast

So, by reading this, does this mean that I can cast the artifact, then once it resolves cast the Shock by putting it on the Stack, going through the steps, then sacraficing the artifact for it's mana ability (and discarding my hand, which is 0) and paying for the shock with the mana the artifact produced?

Due to the Oracle revision to this card, what your are describing will not work. The current errata states that you can only use Lion's Eye Diamond's ability as an instant. The only abilities you can activate while a spell is being placed on the stack ("Pay Costs") are mana abilities such as tapping lands.
If Lion's Eye Diamond was not changed to specifically state that its ability is played as an instant, what you are describing would work.
Relevant Oracle text:

Sacrifice Lion's Eye Diamond, Discard your hand: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant.

Hmm, I was looking at the original wording... not the oracle wording... hmm....

Ahh, you're correct. I will edit my answer to account for that.

ok, so this particular example doesn't work because of the oracle wording, but the concept still seems to work.  if a mana ability has an additional cost, say paying [1] or sacraficing a creature, or whatever, it's still a mana ability and i can use it after declaring the spell.  gotcha.

@DForck42 Yeah. There's a trick with using Chromatic Sphere (which lets you draw a card as a mana ability -- i.e. not using the stack) to win with Laboratory Maniac without giving your opponent a chance to kill him with a draw trigger on the stack.

Also note the rulings (emphasis added): "The ability is a mana ability, so it is activated and resolves as a mana ability, but it can only be activated at times when you can cast an Instant. Yes, this is a bit weird." Pretty clearly they changed it just to fix this interaction.

@AlexP Indeed. I believe that the most relevant result of that ruling is activating it cannot be responded to (it immediately resolves when placed on the stack).

it should just be [t], sac, discard hand: add 3 mana....

@DForck42 Per the rules, that's still a (stack-free) mana ability. The only constraint is that it makes mana and doesn't target. For an example of a non-mana-ability, look at Witch Engine (target player).

A more common example of when this does work, is using e.g. a chromatic sphere to pay for a card with affinity. That is, you can use the chromatic sphere to reduce the cost, and still use the colored mana to pay for the spell.


text:
Is card counting allowed in Dominion?
Just recently started playing Dominion. The rules say you can count remaining cards, but not in your deck or discard. I was wondering if it would be legal to keep tally marks on paper for specific card draws - both for my cards and an opponents. This might need to just be a house rule, unless it is specifically forbidden. And of course you still might miss something, throwing your count off.

I think you missed something in the rules:

A player is allowed to count how many cards are left in his deck, but not in his discard pile. A player may not look through his deck or his discard pile. A player may look through the trash pile, and players may count the number of cards left in any pile in the supply.

(I typed this from my copy of the Intrigue rules; it looks like it says the same thing in the original rules - it's in the Additional Rules section in both.)
So... you can do exactly what those rules say. If you want to do anything else, that's up to you and the people you play with. It seems pretty clear that keeping track of your discard pile on a sheet of paper is equivalent to counting it. Donald X would seem to agree, saying that using a notebook to keep a tally of score is not officially endorsed by the rules. (Thanks to Rob Renaud for providing that link!)

In many games but especially in a game like Dominion - where the play is meant to be fast and furious - it's really against the spirit of the game to be doing so much to keep track of everything.
There are other great games out there that are "thinkier" (Race for the Galaxy, for one) but Dominion is meant to be low overhead - enjoy it for what it is.


text:
Is there a limit to the maximum number of each card in a Netrunner deck?
In collectible card games there is usually a maximum number of each card one can use in a deck for constructed formats. As a reference, take Magic: The Gathering where most formats allow for 4 of each card (except basic lands) to be played in each deck.
Is there a similar limit to the number of cards in a Netrunner CCG deck?

Nope, there are no card limits.  (Except for the Agenda limit in the Corp deck, there are no deck design limits of any kind.)
This was a reaction by Richard Garfield to a design mistake in Magic.  Originally he thought rarity alone would keep powerful cards balanced, not anticipating the way the collector market would grow.  WotC shortly learned that rarity was irrelevant for this; powerful cards also needed to be high-cost.
In the next two games, Jyhad and NetRunner, the design team tried to make sure that every card was costed correctly and not game-breaking even en masse.  So neither game had a card limit.
(They didn't always do a perfect job, so some tournaments impose card limits, but the game rules don't.)

Really interesting, but basically my dream of having a 'playset' of every card in the game seems rather unfeasible.

@rahzark: Well, it doesn't mean that you would put mass multiples of every card in the deck, only that it's legal.  In practice, you very rarely play more than 2-3 of most cards.  The exceptions are (1) single-card-based 'trick' decks and (2) a few key cards that work so well you often see 6-10 of them in a deck.  (The typical example is "Accounts Receivable" for the Corp; "Misleading Access Menus" is also common.  Runner decks are much less likely to play more than 6 of any card, unless they're built around one card.)


text:
Does Sheltering Word remove an existing enchantment?
If a creature has an enchantment, like Defang, and I cast Sheltering Word on that creature, would the other enchantment be removed? Or does it need to be cast in response to the enchantment being played?

In one of the first tournaments I ever played in, I tried to cast... Mystic Veil I think it was, to remove a troublesome enchantment from an opponent's creature.  Lesson learned the hard way!  I wish I'd been a better player at that time, because it was one of the most absurdly powerful sealed deck pools I've received to this day.  A good player would have qualified for a Pro Tour or something without breaking a sweat, I'm sure...

No, Auras do not target the creature they are attached to once they are in play.  Auras only target a creature while they are a spell on the stack. Yes casting Sheltering Word in response to Defang would make your creature untargetable, and therefore Defang would be countered on resolution.

114.1b Aura spells are always targeted. These are the only permanent spells with targets. An Aura’s target is specified by its enchant keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). The target(s) are chosen as the spell is cast; see rule 601.2c. An Aura permanent doesn’t target anything; only the spell is targeted. (An activated or triggered ability of an Aura permanent can also be targeted.)
702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”

That means: One could cast Sheltering Word in response to Defang to counter Defang (since the aura spell targets). But once Defang is already attached, Sheltering Word does nothing to it (since the aura permanent doesn't target).

Correct. This is the same reason that you can bring back an Oblivion Ring from the graveyard to remove a Geist of Saint Traft. Only casting the spell targets, but entering the battlefield and attaching it does not. Note, however, if you cast Faith's Shield to give a creature protection from White, then the Aura would fall off.


text:
What's the point of the covered character in the Bang! 2-player variant?
The official two-player variant rules say that at the start of the game, you get two character cards, and you choose one to be your "exposed" character and one to be your "covered" character. You can only use the abilities of your exposed character, unless your covered character is specifically targeted by your opponent.
What is the point of the covered character if it's just always going to be in the background? Do the covered character and exposed character ever change during gameplay?

I haven't played this game, but the rules seem fairly clear to me.
1) You can swap which character is covered, and which is exposed, each game turn. So they don't have to stay in the background.

At the beginning of any turn, after dealing with such cards as Jail
  and Dynamite and before Phase 1, the active player chooses one
  character to be exposed and the other to stay cover. In order to do
  this, push the exposed character towards the center.

2) You only get to use your exposed character's ability. The exception is when your covered character is targeted, in which case you get to make a response from them instead (poking their head out of cover).

During your turn, or your opponent’s turn,
  you can only use the ability of your exposed character. However, if
  your covered character is the target of a card (BANG!, Indians!, Duel,
  etc...) you temporarily get the ability of your character in cover
  (and lose the ability of your exposed one), for the short time needed
  to respond (see example below).

3) Your hand size is determined by the life remaining of your exposed character.

When you declare the end of your turn, you must discard from your hand any
  card exceeding the current life points of your exposed character.


text:
How do you handle two epidemics in a row in pandemic?
Instructions on epidemics ask that the discard pile be reshuffled and put back as the last action to take with the card. This means that if a player draws two epidemic cards at the same time, there won't be a discard pile for the pandemic to use for the outbreak step.
What's the most appropriate way to handle this situation?

A related discussion at BoardGameGeek: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/390577/draw-2-epidemic-cards-at-the-same-time

We would handle the epidemics separately (as in Kempeth's answer).  Consequently there would be a discard pile for the second epidemic - it would consist of just the drawn city card (and unless there are some special events in play this would cause an outbreak).

You completely resolve one epidemic card and then the other. I don't have any concrete rule to back that up but consider what would happen if you drew the two cards separately:
In this case it would be obvious that you resolve each card.
And now consider if there should be a difference to what happens in the game depending on how you draw your cards...

From page 6 of the 2013 edition rulebook: "It is rare but possible to draw 2 Epidemic cards at once. In this case, do all three steps [of an epidemic] once and then again. In this case in the second epidemic's Infection card will be the only card to “reshuffle”, ending on top of the Infection Deck. An outbreak will then occur in this city during Infections [...], unless an Event card is played to prevent this." Further, on page 7: "When 2 Epidemic cards are drawn together, events can be played after resolving the first epidemic."

We just encountered this - using the 'shuffle' as a pure shuffle.  Our crew feels that ensuring it isn't top or bottom is essentially 'looking.'  As a result, we ended up having a player draw 2 epidemics during their draw.
Interesting outcome - since the first epidemic cleared the infection discard during the intensify phase, it forced the city where the 2nd epidemic occurred to have an outbreak during the infector phase.
While painful, we decided to allow this possibility.

The Epidemic-shuffling instructions in the Pandemic rules seem to sort of lower the odds that two Epidemic cards are ever adjacent:

Divide the remaining Player cards into a number of piles according to how diﬃcult you’d like to make
  the game. Make the piles as equal in size as is possible.
Shuﬄe an Epidemic card into each pile. Stack the piles on top of each other to form the Player
  Draw Pile. (If the piles aren’t exactly the same size, stack them so that the larger piles are
  above the smaller piles.) Put any excess Epidemic cards back into the box.

This will obviously spread the Epidemics out throughout the deck, but my group also interprets "shuffle into" to imply that we shouldn't let the Epidemic we're putting in each pile to end up on the top or bottom.  As long as the Epidemics are somewhere in the middle of each pile, you won't get two in a row.  Although you might get two very close together and it certainly does suck when that happens.
Setting the deck up in this way will guarantee you don't get a double-epidemic.

I don't think the intent was to keep Epidemic cards from being adjacent. I think the intent of the Player Draw Pile construction is simply to guarantee that the Epidemic cards are distributed (somewhat) evenly. That's not quite the same thing.

The rules are clearly attempting to distribute them evenly, yes.  We choose to take it further and not allow them to be adjacent since the rules don't explicitly handle that case at all, and even having the cards NEAR each other makes it hard enough.  I did say "my group interprets" so your interpretation may vary.

@lilserf I was really just responding to your first sentence about the intent of the rules, not your shuffle interpretation (which I think is an interesting solution). I could be wrong, but I don't think the rules as written make it statistically less likely that two Epidemic cards would be adjacent, compared to simply shuffling them all into the stack.

Maybe not, I dunno.  Seems like since you have to get one at the top of a stack and one at the bottom that does lower the odds compared to just shuffling all 5 (or whatever) into the full deck, but I sure as hell haven't done the math.

The rules do guarantee that you're not going to get three cards in a row. It seems reasonable to assume that they also didn't mean for two cards in a row to occur.

@blueberryfields: I disagree with you conclusion. I believe their intention was just to ensure that on average your epidemics will be somewhat evenly distributed throughout the game. Because otherwise you might draw all of them very early (you loose for sure) or very late in the game (you win for sure). Both wouldn't be very interesting games. - - - If you really want to prevent double epidemics then set aside 3/4/5 cards when you make the stacks and use them as spacers. You can still get 2 epi's in two sequential turns though...

@blueberryfields that is not reasonable to assume. If they didn't want two in a row, they would have set up the rules to avoid that. It's quite a carefully-designed game.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
Is there an official Catan FAQ that is a supplement to the included rules book?
I was wondering if Mayfair Games or Klus himself created an official FAQ for the base (or all versions) of the Settlers of Catan.

Yes. FAQ:
http://www.catan.com/faq.html


text:
Does Jourdonnais's ability negate all or half of Slab the Killer's attack on a successful draw?
The other night we had Slab the Killer in play as well as Jourdonnais. Here are their abilities as listed on the cards...
Jourdonnais

Whenever he is the target of a BANG!, he may "draw!" : on a Heart, he is missed.

Slab the Killer

Player needs 2 Missed! cards to cancel his BANG! card.

When Slab the Killer plays a BANG! against Jourdonnais, how is Jourdonnais's ability applied? Obviously if his ability is unsuccessful, 2 Missed! cards would have to be played, but what happens if Jourdonnais successfully draws a Heart? Is the entire attack cancelled out? Or will an additional Missed! card still need to be played?

Jourdonnais' ability is essentially a built in barrel.
Another Missed! card is needed in addition to drawing the Heart to avoid Slab the Killer's BANG!
This was answered by the designer, Emiliano Sciarra on Boardgamegeek:

Yes. Even if the effect of the Barrel triggers by drawing a Heart card from the deck, you will need another Missed! card from the hand to avoid the hit from Slab.
Since Jourdonnais has a Barrel built in, he may "draw!" once to see if he plays an automatic Missed!. After that, if he drew a Heart he will need a real Missed! from his hand to dodge Slab's shot. Otherwise, he will need two Missed! cards, as anyone else.

If he had a barrel could he use his ability and the barrel in order to miss a bang from slab?

Man, that's a good question.
Offhand from the phrasing you pasted I would say that Jourdonnais wins out here - his ability does not say "on a Heart, he is 'Missed!'", it just says "he is missed."  That would seem to be completely unrelated to the playing of Missed! cards, which is the only thing mentioned for Slab the Killer's ability.
It seems like it might be unbalanced (although the odds of a Heart are only roughly 1/4), but I think I would personally interpret this that a successful "draw" by Jourdonnais will cause even Slab to miss him.

Because Jourdonnais' ability says that you can only block a "BANG!" With two "MISSED" cards Jourdonnais' ability wouldn't even help if you drew a heart. You need "MISSED" cards, a barrel wont block Jourdonnais' ability either.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
What is the proper Algebraic Notation for a pawn being promoted?
Are you supposed to use an arrow → or not.

Pe8→Q
Pe8Q

Where 'P' is the piece being moved (Pawn) , 'Q' is promotion to (Queen), 'e8' is the file ('e') and rank ('8')?

FIDE is not the arbiter of chess-notation.  By far the most common way to express promotion using algebraic notation is e8=Q (note that you do not write P for pawn, only the space it moves to).  This is also the only style supported by PGN, the most widely used format for recording games on a computer.
e8/Q and e8(Q) are also sometimes used, mostly by old-timers or old books.  I have never seen e8Q used (I guess I have seen it, I just never really noticed :) see below)

[Edit] By request, I did a small sampling of the literature I have available.
Of the 22 chess books I own, 14 use algebraic while 8 use descriptive (primarily because they are older books).  Of the 14 algebraic:

8 use the e8=Q style
2 use the e8/Q style
1 uses the e8(Q) style
1 uses the e8Q style

Another 2 use the related symbolic style e8♛

So it looks as those e8Q is not as unpopular as I originally thought, but e8=Q is still overwhelmingly the most popular.

Then I will have to assume that you have done a poll of most people such that you can conclude that e8=Q is used the most often.

@user1873: See edit

According to Wikipedia's Pawn Promotion page,

When a pawn moves to the last rank and promotes, the piece promoted to is indicated at the end of the move notation, for example: e8Q (promoting to queen). Sometimes an equals sign (=) or parentheses are used: e8=Q or e8(Q), but neither format is a FIDE standard. (An equals sign is also sometimes used to indicate the offer of a draw when written on the scoresheet next to a move, but this is not part of algebraic notation.)4 In Portable Game Notation (PGN), pawn promotion is always indicated using the equals sign format (e8=Q).
  In older books, pawn promotions can be found using a forward slash: e8/Q.

According to the World Chess Federation (FIDE) handbook,

C.12 - In the case of the promotion of a pawn, the actual pawn move is indicated, followed immediately by the first letter of the new piece. Examples: d8Q, f8N, b1B, g1R.

Also in the same section, it is not necessary to denote the piece that is being moved if it is a Pawn.
Standard Algebraic Notation:

A pawn promotion move has =Q =N =R or =B appended to that.

Note: Standard algebraic notation (SAN) is the official notation of the FIDE which must be used in all recognized international competition involving human players. Concerning computer chess, SAN is a representation standard for chess moves inside the Portable Game Notation standard using the ASCII Latin alphabet, and should be supported as default notation by all modern chess programs and their user interfaces.
It is also quite possible that the OP was wondering about the use of → (arrow) or not with Figurine Algebraic Notation (FAN). Unfortunately, U+2654 or ♔ and other chess glyphs do not always appear as they should . This is most likely due to the default fonts used in most browsers.

One minor bit of clarification: captures would modify this slightly, yes?  Assuming for instance that there's only one pawn capture possible from the e- to f-files, would the appropriate notation be efQ, ef8Q, or exf8Q?

@StevenStadnicki: if "the actual pawn move" is exf8, then the promotion would be notated as exf8Q.  no modification necessary.

@goldPseudo Ahhh, of course. Thanks! (I don't recall what the correct notation for pawn captures is these days, but that's another question... :-)

That makes good sense - I've seen all of e.g. 'exd5', 'ed5', 'exd' and 'ed' in opening books, so I wasn't quite sure which was formally correct.


text:
In Puerto Rico If only one prospector is chosen during a round, does the other one get a coin placed on it?
If only one prospector is chosen during a round, does the other one get a coin placed on it?

Yes.
Any role not chosen at the end of the round gets a coin placed on it.
I can't find the official rules online, but I can point you to the Universal Head rules summary, which says, under "Reset the Roles":

Place one doubloon on each of the three role cards not
  chosen this round and then return all role cards.

@John Robertson - But there will be one Prospector role card in a player's possession and one Prospector role card not chosen - one of three. The Prospector role card a player took will obviously not receive a doubloon, but the unchosen card will.

The card is the role. The two prospector cards are different roles, they just happen to have the same name.

Yes,
From the rules, pg7 under "A new round ..."

Now, the governor takes three doubloons from the bank, placing one each on the three role cards that were not selected during the round.

Although "prospector" seems like one role, there are two people playing it. Call them prospector 1 and prospector 2.
If prospector 1 is chosen for the current round and prospector 2 isn't, prospector 2 will get a coin placed on him. Meaning that he will be chosen the next time someone needs a prospector.
The prospectors were inserted in the game as a "mechanic" to keep the number of agents greater than the number of players by three. There are no prospectors in a three person game, one in a four person game, and two in a five person game.


text:
What happens if I use the Huge Rock to pay the Income Tax?
The player who draws the Income Tax curse must discard an item.  Each other player must discard an item (or items) of at least as much value as the player who drew Income Tax.  If that player discards a Huge Rock, what must the other players discard?

Since the rock has no value, is that equivalent to 0 gold?
Can the other players discard zero cards?

An item is any treasure card that has a GP value or no value in the bottom right corner.  In this case, yes, the equivalent to "No Value" is 0 gold.
You must discard a card to satisfy Income Tax.  Since the Huge Rock has no value, you must discard at least one card with a value of at least 0, so basically any item will work (note that cards like Impressive Title don't even state "No Value", so it's not an item).

@Allen -- thanks for the edit, I didn't catch that before


text:
Is there a mis-print on the Grabby Guts card?
In Munchkin Zombies, the Grabby Guts card says "You have one extra Hand", but in the bottom right corner, it says "-1 Hand".  Shouldn't it say "+1 Hand" in the corner?

It's a little counter-intuitive, but "-1 Hand" is actually correct.  You aren't allowed to use more than 2 hands-worth of items; to check this, you can add up the number of "hands" on all your used items.
If you have two 1-hand items, "1 hand" + "1 hand" = "2 hands".
If you have two 1-hand items, plus Grabby Guts, you'll have "1 hand" + "1 hand" + "-1 hand" = "1 hand", leaving you with one hand left.

A succinct way of describing the "1 hand," "-1 hand," etc. verbiage is that the term describes the number of hands used to wield the item.

A never think about doing the maths with hands

BTW, the Two-Handed Sword from Munchkin 3: Clerical Errors works exactly the same way: it takes up a total of -1 hand, on account of having two hands of its own.


text:
Smash Up: Microbot Fixer + Microbot Alpha
The Microbot Fixer has the ability:

If this is the first minion you played this turn, you may play an extra minion. Ongoing: Each of your Microbots gains +1 power.

If the Microbot Fixer is already in play, can I play the Microbot Alpha with its ability:

Ongoing : Gains +1 power for each of your other Microbots. All of your minions are considered Microbots.

to boost the power of my other non-robot/non-Microbot cards in play?
Put another way, does the phrase "All of your minions are considered Microbots" affect my other cards (by modifying them into Microbots, allowing them to benefit from the +1 fixer ability), or does it only serve to guide the calculation of the Microbot Alpha's final power?

All your minions gain +1 power, because they are all Microbots.
From the FAQ,

Q: When a card makes all of your minions microbots, and further then gives all of your microbots strength bonuses, is the effect only local to the base those cards are located or are those effects global?
A: If the text does not reference “on this base” or “at this base” then it is global.

Additionally, the rules explain how to handle Ongoing abilities. Since both the Alpha Microbot and Microbot Fixer's effect are active as long as it is in play, all your Minions are Microbots and they all gain +1 Power, and the Alpha gets an additional bonus equal to the number of other Minions.

Ongoing: Most abilities happen, and then they're over. Ongoing abilities are active for as long as they're in play.

I disagree.
The card reads "Gains +1 power for each of your other Microbots. All of your minions are considered Microbots."
The wording on the Alpha says that all minions are considered microbots in direct response to the prior sentence, if you were wondering how to calculate that number. It has one power, not two. The second sentence does indeed clarify the first. It does not transform all your zombies into microbots, thus making the microbot fixer a buff to every minion of yours.
While I understand the argument, in these situations I try to go by the spirit of the game. A card transforming everything into microbots would not have used the word "considered." It would say "all your minions are now microbots."

Do you have any evidence to back this up? The other answer cites the faq,

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


text:
Conflict in Fluxx
Player A and Player B both have 5 Keepers in play.
Player B has 1 Creeper (Prevents Player B from winning)
Player A plays the goal card 5 Keepers which goes like this (goal cards, are the criteria met to win)
"If someone has 5 or more Keepers on the table, then the player with the most Keepers in play wins.
In case of a tie, continue playing until a clear winner emerges."
Does Player A win or does the game continue?

Have you sent your question to Looney Labs? thelab@looneylabs.com They should be able to give you a definitive answer.

Does Player A win or does the game continue?
In case of a tie, continue playing until a clear winner emerges.

There's clearly a tie in the number of Keepers, so you must continue playing.
Player A is not the player with the most Keepers. He's merely a player with the most Keepers. It is explicitly stated that the game does not end in the event of a tie.
It could have been written "If someone has 5 or more Keepers on the table, and if a player has more Keepers than any other players, that player wins."
To win, one must have 5 or more Keepers [satisfied], and one must be the player with the most Keepers [not satisfied].
Player B can't win because he has insufficient Keepers and because he has a Creeper.
Player A can't win because he has insufficient Keepers.
GendoIkari's answer is self-contradictory. "Until a clear winner emerges" only applies if the players keep playing, but he suggests that Player A should win rather than keep playing. That rules out letting Player A win. The only way around that self-contradiction is to keep playing until the tie is broken (or the goal changes, etc).

I think that "until a clear winner emerges" is met due to the creeper. Player A should win, as player B cannot be a winner.

Your answer is self contradictory. "Until a clear winner emerges" only applies if you keep playing, but you said "Player A" should win rather than keep playing.

@atk, He does not satisfy the winning condition. 1) He's got 5 or more Keepers [satisfied], and 2) he's the player with the most Keepers [not satisfied]. A tie is explicitly called out as not meeting the winning condition.

@atk, What part of the card allows you to ignore Player B's Keepers when you check if Player A has the most? Player A is not the player with the most Keepers. He's merely a player with the most Keepers. It is explicitly stated that ties does not end the game.

@ikegami Upon reconsideration, I now agree with you.

@ikegami, I agree now as well, given the wording. However, I would be surprised if that's what the intention was, I think it much more likely that this was a rules oversite (it wouldn't be the first time Fluxx has done this, see "x=x+1 and hand limit 0). It seems that the intention behind "in case of a tie" was to deal with when there would be more than 1 winner. Keep in mind that that goal card was created back when Creepers didn't exists. But, as it stands, I'd have to agree with you.


text:
How does Armed // Dangerous interact with trample?
I have a Ghor-Clan Rampager on the battlefield and I fuse Armed/Dangerous on it. It is going to be a 5/5 with trample and double strike, and all of my opponents creatures are going to be forced to block it.
If my opponent has Burning-Tree Emissary (2/2) and Skarrg Guildmage (2/2), which are going to block my Rampager, will the resulting damage from each combat reduce my opponent's life total? In other words: my Rampager deals 5 damage on the Emissary, which dies, and yet my opponent loses 3 life due to the trample and then another 5 due to the second strike? And then, the same thing against the Guildmage?
If that's correct, my opponent would lose 3 + 5 + 3 + 5 = 16 life, Is that correct?

possible duplicate of How does the double strike mechanic interact with other mechanics like lifelink or trample?

I think this question is sufficiently different from the linked one. The more important aspect in this question is the multiple blockers aspect rather than how trample and double strike interact.

Not a duplicate. André seems to think a 5/5 would kill two 4/4s even without Double Strike, and that's not covered by the linked question.

@Rawrgramming that is a great observation. close-vote retracted. This question could still use some editing to bring out that point.

Exactly @ikegami, that's what I was thinking. Now I got the difference. Very well explained by Rawrgramming below. Thank you!

Unfortunately your understanding is incorrect.
Your 5/5 Ghor-Clan Rampager with trample and double strike will be declared as an attacker, then all creatures able to block it must do so. Your opponent will declare their 2 creatures as blockers, and you will subsequently choose the order in which your ghor-clan rampager will deal its damage to those blocking creatures.
Then the first strike damage phase will occur. Your Ghor-Clan Rampager will assign it's 5 damage to the blockers in the order you chose earlier. First it must assign lethal damage to the first creature. In this case they are both 2 toughness, so 2 damage is "lethal" damage. Once lethal damage has been assigned to the first creature in the damage assignment order, you move onto the next creature with your remaining damage (3). Again assigning 2 lethal damage. At this point your creature has 1 damage left to assign, having assigned lethal damage to all its blockers. This is where trample occurs, and in the first strike step the creature deals 1 damage to your opponent.
Subsequently, these creatures die and things move on to the regular combat damage step, at this point you have 5 damage to assign, a creature without trample at this point (having killed one or more blockers in the first strike damage phase) would have nothing to assign damage to, as creatures without trample can only assign damage to the creatures that are blocking them. As your Ghor-Clan Rampager has trample, the full 5 damage from this damage phase tramples over the now dead blockers onto your opponent. This gives you a total of 6 damage trampled onto your opponent.

When  your 5/5 doublestrike trample is blocked, you have 5 dmg to distribute amongst the defenders in the first strike part of doublestrike.
You deal 2 dmg to the Emissary, 2 to the guildmage. Thats assigning enough dmg to kill those creatures. You have 1 dmg left that is dealt to your opponent.
Then there is the normal part of the double strike. There are no defenders, so you deal 5dmg to your opponent.
In total, you dealt 10 (twice 5) damage, killing his creatures and dealing a total of 6 damage to your opponent.

Your Rampager engages in combat with both blocking creatures at the same time, it will still only do 10 damage in total. You have to assign the first 4 damage to your opponent's creatures, and 1 trample damage can be assigned to the opponent from the first strike damage phase, then you can assign the full 5 damage from the normal damage phase to your opponent to do 6 damage in total to your opponent.

"Fight" has a specific meaning in MTG which is different from the one you used. Please avoid such confusion.


text:
Underworld Connections: Tapping the Land for mana and ability?
Let's say i enchant a land with Underworld Connections. Would i be able to tap said land for mana, and use the ability of Underworld Connections concurrently?

No.
Tapping a land doesn't actually produce mana, activating its ability does. Tapping is merely the paying of the cost to do so.
Unlike abilities that read "Whenever enchanted land is tapped"[1], it's not actually tapping the land that causes Underworld Connections's effect. Tapping is merely paying part of the cost to do so.
As part of activating either the abilities, you will need to tap the land, which will leave you unable to activate the other ability.
Like in real life, just because two abilities have the same cost doesn't mean you can pay the price just once for both.

An example of such an ability is Utopia Sprawl's. Tapping the enchanted Forest for mana produces {G} as normal and triggers Utopia Sprawl's ability to produce a second mana.

No, the following rule makes this pretty clear:

305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words "basic land type," it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability "(tap): Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool," even if the text box doesn't actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is (W); for Islands, (U); for Swamps, (B); for Mountains, (R); and for Forests, (G). See rule 107.4a. Also see rule 605, "Mana Abilities."

So then, if you play Underworld Connections on a Swamp, you now have the following

Swamp
Basic Land - Swamp
(Tap): Add (B) to your mana pool
(Tap), Pay 1 life: Draw a card.

Tapping is part of the cost of each ability, so you can tap the land to pay either cost, but not both at the same time

No.  You can't pay two separate tap costs with a single tap, just as how in real life you can't pay for two separate $1 charges with the same dollar.  To be precise, you can't even activate the abilities at the same time; you have to activate one first and pay its cost, and then afterwards the fact that the land is tapped will prevent you from paying the cost for the other ability.

The canonical Magic analogy is that you can't use the same mana to pay for two different things. (Along with that, just remember that things before the colon in the ability are costs.)


text:
Where to take briefcases from?
In Black Friday, when all three sales tables on the right have been used up, the rulebook says to reload table 2 and use that one for the rest of the game.

After all markers are adjusted, he places the drawn briefcases in the market. The player places all colored briefcases from the table that initiated the price adjustment into the bag. If a sales table initiated the adjustment, the players place the black briefcases from this table in the bag, too. Then, the players use the next sales table. After the third sales table is cleared, the players load the second sales table. When that is cleared, they load the second again and will continue to reload the second table for the remainder of the game.

Where are the briefcases taken from to reload this table - The market or the bag?

An early prototype translation says, "If the cubes came from the Sold Stocks area, the next Sold Stocks area down will be used next. (If all three have been used, form a new Sold Stocks area by taking cubes from the Market, plus a Collapse cube.)" Don't take this as canon, this was an early prototype.

Looks like a bad translation from German to English.
Here's the corresponding paragraph from the german rulebook (no prototype!), page 5:

Nachdem alle Kurse angepasst wurden, kommen die gezogenen Aktenkoffer in den Markt. Die Leiste, die die Preisänderung ausgelöst hat, wird komplett (ggf. inklusive schwarzer Koffer) in den Beutel
  geworfen. Hat eine Verkaufsleiste die Preisänderung ausgelöst, wird ab sofort die nächste Verkaufsleiste darunter genutzt. Erst wenn die dritte Verkaufsleiste abgeräumt wurde, wird wieder eine Verkaufsleiste aus dem Markt bestückt. Hierbei wird die zweite Verkaufsleiste genutzt.

Let me translate the last two sentences:
"Only after the third sales table has been cleared, a sales table is filled again from the market. This is done using the second sales table."
The german rulebook is the original because the game designer (Friedemann Friese) is german.

Almost a year later, but I'm glad to finally have an answer to this question. Thank you for going to the effort of looking this up.


text:
If I cast a spell that gives haste to all my creatures until end of turn, then cast a creature, will it gain haste?
For example, I play Goblin Lackey, then I use Burst of Speed and it gains haste. I attack with it and my opponent doesn't block. I put a Siege-Gang Commander due to Goblin Lackey's effect.
Does the Siege-Gang Commander have haste?

Only creatures in play when Burst of Speed resolves are affected - it even says so in the rulings. But in your example, it won't matter because by the time Goblin Lackey lets you get your extra Goblin out, you're already well past your chance to attack (unless you somehow get a second combat phase).
If you're curious about the actual rules behind this, unfortunately, it's one of the more annoying nitpicky details. Spells and non-static abilities which modify characteristics (name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier) determine the set of objects they apply to when they resolve. Haste is an ability, which is a characteristic, so Burst of Speed only affects the creatures that are on the battlefield when it resolves.
On the other hand, spells and non-static abilities which don't modify characteristics are considered to be modifying the rules of the game and determine what they apply to continuously. For example, there's Dread Charge, which looks like it's granting something like fear, but since it's not actually granting an ability, will indeed apply to creatures which come into play after you cast it. Alternatively, in the context of your example, if hypothetically haste weren't an ability, and instead Burst of Speed said "Until end of turn, creatures you control can attack even if they haven't been under your control continuously since your most recent turn began", then it would affect subsequent creatures that enter the battlefield.
"Indestructible" was recently "fixed" to become a keyword ability, so like with haste and Burst of Speed, for example, Boros Charm now only applies to creatures in play when you cast it. On the other hand, "is unblockable" was changed to "can't be blocked" to emphasize that it's not an ability, so for example Glaring Spotlight's ability does apply to creatures which come into play after you use it.
Here's the full rule:

611.2c If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won't change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability that doesn't modify the characteristics or change the controller of any objects modifies the rules of the game, so it can affect objects that weren't affected when that continuous effect began. If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don't, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.

Example: An effect that reads "All white creatures get +1/+1 until end of turn" gives the bonus to all permanents that are white creatures when the spell or ability resolves -- even if they change color later -- and doesn't affect those that enter the battlefield or turn white afterward.

Example: An effect that reads "Prevent all damage creatures would deal this turn" doesn't modify any object's characteristics, so it's modifying the rules of the game. That means the effect will apply even to damage from creatures that weren't on the battlefield when the continuous effect began. It also affects damage from permanents that become creatures later in the turn.

Finally, static abilities also apply continuously. This isn't usually confusing; they're written as simple statements of fact, like Blur Sliver's "Sliver creatures you control have haste", which while in play gives all your Slivers haste, plain and simple. The full rule for that:

112.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They're simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, "Handling Static Abilities."

You think you can tighten up the wording of the first paragraph? (Seems a little long.) Also, could you bold abilities instead of italicizing it, makes it pop more. I am not sure your last paragraph adds anything to the answer as it doesn't match the template of any know cards (if you know of an example of a spell that sets up a continuous effect that ends at EoT that does modify objects that enter the battlefield after it, use that one, but not [mtg:Chaos Moon], it's too complicated)

If you prefer, I could modify it, and you could approve/reject/improve the edit. If you do (in either case), I will upvote.

@user1873 I don't think there's really that much extraneous stuff in the first paragraph except the nod to your answer; the fact that it doesn't really matter in the example is a relevant point. And I thought that giving a parallel to haste (even though it obviously exists) was easy enough to understand and illustrative of how the rules work. I can add a real card example too though.

@user1873 I also revised the hypothetical to more closely match the actual rules definition of haste (the attacking part, anyway).

A better example than Glaring Spotlight is Akroma's Memorial - with this on the board, creatures you control have haste at all times.

@corsiKa It's not an example of the distinction I'm explaining here. No matter what Akroma's Memorial says, whether it's "creatures you control have haste" or "creature you control can't be blocked by black creatures on Fridays", it's going to apply at all times. I don't think the OP was confused about that kind of thing.

No, Burst of Speed only affects creatures in play at the time it resolves.
From the ruling on Burst of Speed at the bottom of the page:

10/1/2009 Burst of Speed affects only creatures you control at the time it resolves. It won't affect creatures that come under your control later in the turn.


text:
Put twice as many tokens/counters
If I control 2 copies of Primal Vigor which reads:

If one or more tokens would be put onto the battlefield, twice that
  many of those tokens are put onto the battlefield instead.
If one or more +1/+1 counters would be placed on a creature, twice
  that many +1/+1 counters are placed on that creature instead.

Marath, Will of the Wild reads:

Marath, Will of the Wild enters the battlefield with a number of +1/+1
  counters on it equal to the amount of mana spent to cast it.
{X}, Remove X +1/+1 counters from Marath: Choose one —
  Put X +1/+1 counters on target creature; or Marath deals X damage to
  target creature or player; or put an X/X green Elemental creature
  token onto the battlefield. X can't be 0.

When Marath, Will of the Wild enters the battlefield if I have spent 3 mana to cast it, he enters with 3 counters, because those tokens weren't placed on it, but it had them already when it entered. A: Is this Correct?
When I pay 3 and remove 3 +1/+1 counters from Marath and put them on itself, it now has 12 counters, because both Primal Vigors trigger, the first replacement effect changing 3 counters to 6, and the second replacement effect changing 6 counters to 12? B: Is this correct?
Or does Marath die, because between payment and when the ability resolved, it ended up with 0 toughness? I guess the removing is part of the cost, as it comes before the colon.

Doing all its counters at once will cause it to kill itself between when you activate the ability and when it resolves, as it will temporarily be 0 toughness and die to state based effects. However, if you activate it once for 1 and let it resolve, and repeat this process for as many times as you would have done it before, you'll be just fine. You can do this as many times as you have mana for, because it doesn't require a tap. Also, if someone countered your activated ability, or destroyed the creature, you'd only waste one mana on it instead of three or more. =)

Marath will enter the battlefield with 12 counters, because of this rule:

121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being “placed” on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it’s on
  the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a
  counter on it as the result of a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c).

If you use Marath's ability to remove all the counters, it will die before the abilty resolves unless you are increasing its thoughness in some other way. But you are right that it will get four times the number of counters you removed.

Do you know why it says "place counters" with Primal Vigor, but "put counters" with Maranth? I thought actions like "play", "cast", "put", "remove" were well-defined with MTG. Or are "place" and "put" interchangeable?

@Hyperboreus "Play" and "cast" have specific meanings in MTG, but as far as I know, "put", "remove" and "place" use their normal English meanings. I don't know why those cards use different templates.

Worth noting the quoted rule itself uses both 'place' and 'put' interchangeably.

@Hyperboreus, Probably a space issue. Marath's textbox is overflowing and it's already using microtext. "Place" is more format, but "put" takes less space.


text:
Are the large box sets stand alone, or do they require Descent 2nd Edition base-set?
I've been dying to start playing this for a good year now, so I'm finally going to grab a copy. My question is simply do I have to start with the 'base-set' box, or can any of  the larger box sets be used without the base box, for example 'Lair of the Wyrm' or 'The Trollfens'.

You'll need to have the base set.  The expansions are just that.  No rules, no dice, only a few cards to add to the base set.

The base game is required as it provides certain "core components" which are used in every game.
The expansions only provide "additional" components, which complement or replace certain but not all core components. You can however, start with a different campaign in descent 2nd edition.
The general opinion is, that the later campaign books were more balanced, had more story and provided more overall flavor. So if you buy a big box expansion (which come with their own campaigns) you could delve straight into those. The campaigns may be slightly more complicated, as story events mess with some rules, so maybe 1-2 "test games" may be advised to start ANY campaign to ensure that no "beginner mistakes" are made in the first couple of games, which could screw the entire campaign.
Furthermore, all expansions are compatible with each other, so you don't need to buy anything "in order". Just buy whatever seems most interesting for you.


text:
Is it possible to copy a land with Mimic Vat that is turned into creature by an enchantment?
I am considering creating a deck which utilizes a strange combo if it can be done.  It uses Mimic Vat in combination with Awaken the Ancient.
I want to make it so that when my land, which is a 7/7 giant with haste (that's still a land), is sent to the graveyard I can copy it with Mimic Vat's imprint ability.

Is it possible to do this? (Awaken the Ancient's is sent to the graveyard separately, and it's ability is what is making the Mountain a creature?

When Mimic Vat creates the token copy, will it be a 7/7?

Ok, so you manage to spawn token Mountains (not 7/7s) for 3 mana? How is that useful?

That was the question: whether or not the tokens would be creatures.  Adding a snarky "how is that useful" is not appreciated.

That being your question wasn't clear to me at first either. I thought you were asking whether you could still put the Mountain on Mimic Vat, even though putting it in the graveyard would remove the enchantment.

@murgatroid99, fixed. It wasn't clear to me either. I Upvoted your answer, but you might want to add in the 7/7 part.

Looking at my original question now, I see what everyone was confused about. Thank you for fixing it @user1873.

When a non-creature card such as a land is put into a graveyard from play and it is a creature when it dies, you can use Mimic Vat to exile it, and create tokens later.
When you do this, you will create tokens of the card that was exiled, Mountain, not the creature that it was when it died.
One of the rulings on the Gatherer page says:

You may exile a noncreature card with Mimic Vat's first ability. For example, if a nontoken artifact that's become a creature is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, Mimic Vat's first ability triggers and you may exile that card.

With regards to whether the triggered ability will still trigger, even though Awaken the Ancient stops enchanting the Mountain when it dies, rule 603.6d says

Leaves-the-battlefield abilities... will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward.

This means that since the Mountain was still a creature before it left the battlefield (and caused the Aura to become unattached), it does trigger Mimic Vat.

If a nontoken land that somehow became a creature starts heading to the graveyard, Mimic Vat's first ability triggers and you may choose to exile that card.
You may activate Mimic Vat's second ability to put out a copy of a mountain that you exiled. The result will be a Mountain with haste. The Mountain may have been a 7/7 in a previous life, but Cards that change zones forget they ever existed anywhere else.
And not that it makes a difference, but type-changing effects are not copiable anyway.

706.2. ... Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

Thank you for answering that. I've been looking for a rule like that for some time, but couldn't find it because it was hard to word it correctly.

Rule 706.2 does not actually matter in this situation. The mountain you exiled has no type-changing effects to begin with, because it became a plain old Mountain as soon as it went into exile.


text:
Can a tapped creature attack or block?
If I tap a creature to use its activated ability before combat, can I use the same creature to block or attack on the same turn?
My guess: you cannot block and/or attack with a tapped creature on the same turn.

You might want to have a read through the basic rulebook, linked from here http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/tcg/article.aspx?x=magic/rules - it covers this question and a lot of other basic questions.

According to the rules, tapped creatures cannot attack or block:

508.1a The active player chooses which creatures that they control, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began.
509.1a The defending player chooses which creatures they control, if any, will block. The chosen creatures must be untapped.

Note, however, that the untapped state is only checked when they are assigned to attack or block.  This means:

If you tap the creature before combat and have a way to untap the creature again before combat (such as Thousand-Year Elixir), it will be able to attack or block.  Look at Relentless Assault as an example of a card that depends on this to work.

If you tap your opponent's creature before combat (such as with Trip Noose), that creature will be unable to attack unless they have some means to untap it.

If a creature has been assigned as an attacker or blocker and subsequently becomes tapped, it will still be in combat (so you can block with Orim, Samite Healer and then tap it to use it's ability after you have blocked and it will still be a blocking creature).  This is consistent with the fact that creatures normally tap when attacking.

Because creatures normally tap when attacking, you cannot both attack with a creature on your turn and block with it on your opponent's turn (exceptions: if the creature has vigilance or you have a way to untap it).

Also of note: Masako the Humorless.

You cannot attack or block  with a creature that is tapped. So you are correct, if you tap a creature to use an ability before the attack phase, you won't be able to choose it as an attacker, and it won't be an available defender during your opponent's next turn. If you attack with a creature, then you must tap it when you attack with it, so you won't be able to use it's tap ability later in the turn.
Note that "tap a creature's ability" makes no sense. You cannot tap an ability. You can activate an ability, and the cost of activating that ability may be tapping the creature.


text:
In Cosmic Encounter, where do my ships go when I pull them from the warp if I already have 4 ships on each of my planets?
For example if i lose an encounter (as defense) my ships go to the warp. Say they get returned to me where would i put them? Because the rest of my home planets already have 4 and thought 4 was the max you could have on a planet. Obviously cant put them on the planet i just lost during the previous encounter just curious where i could put them.

When returning ships to your bases, you may put the token(s) on any bases where you currently have tokens.
Four is just the starting number, not the limit. You can have more than four.
(Note some rulesets call bases "colonies" instead. It's the same thing -- it just refers to your ships on a planet.)

This is wrong.  The effect returning ships specifies where they go

It's not wrong. It is an accurate answer to the question. There's no need to go full encyclopedia on a simple beginner's question. When returning ships from the warp to your bases/colonies, you can put them on any of your bases/colonies, even where you already have four. Four is not the limit for bases/colonies. There is no limit.

"When returning ships from the warp to your bases/colonies": not all effects return ships there.

Well, sure. But that wasn't the question. If you feel the question needs to be made clearer, ask the OP to clarify it.

Well it's wrong in the sense that your first sentence reads like a general principal, rather than an answer to a specific instance. Why not just say "When returning ships to your bases from the warp..."?

Summary
The effect that tells you to get the ships back will tell you where you can put them.  Whether or not there is a limit depends on where the ships are going.  Normally, this will be to one of your colonies, which do not have a ship limit.

Full Explanation
The effect that tells you to get the ships back will tell you where you can put them.  Ships returned from the warp are usually placed on any of your colonies (a planet where you have ships).  For examples, see the rules for the Regroup Phase, the rules for the defender rewards, and the rules for the Zombie power below.

[Regroup Phase:] During the Regroup Phase, the offense retrieves one of their ships from the warp and places it on any of their home or foreign colonies, stacking it on top of another one of their ships.
[Defender Rewards:] For each ship a defensive ally committed to the encounter, that player can ... Take one of their ships from the warp and place it on one of their colonies of their choice.
[Zombie Power:] Whenever you should lose ships to the warp, use this power to instead return them to any of your colonies and keep using them.

Note that a "colony" is any planet where you have ships:

Each stack of one or more ships on a planet represents one colony.

Not all warp-return effects do this.  For example, the Invader flair super effect sends them into an encounter:

During an Invasion! encounter, you may retrieve ships from the warp to send into the encounter (the normal limit of four applies).

There is no limit to the number of ships a player can have on a colony.  The four ships per colony is just during setup:

Set Up Warp, Planets, Ships, and Colonies: Players place their planets in front of them, stacking four of their ships on each of their planets.

However, there is a limit on the number of ships an attacking or allied player can bring to an encounter:

[Offensive Player:] After choosing a planet, the offense must decide how many of their ships to commit to the encounter. The offense must place one to four of their ships on the hyperspace gate.
[Ally:] When a player becomes an ally, they must commit one to four of their ships to the encounter.

Notice that the Invader flare card mentions that there is a limit of ships you can bring to an encounter, where return effects that send ships to colonies do not mention any ship placement limit (because there isn't a ship placement limit for colonies).

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


text:
Loki's Trickery card rss
Suppose that players A, B, and C are in battle.
Players A and B each play the Loki's Trickery card (If you lose, steal 1 rage from the winning player ).
Player C wins the battle, but he has only 1 rage
What happens now ?
Which player will steal the 1 rage from Player C?

It depends on who started the pillage.
Starting with the pillaging player, go in turn order. The first player executes their Loki's Trickery effect and steals a rage. The second player now cannot do so.
Source.


text:
Am I doomed in Shithead end-game?
This end-game puzzle is for Shithead. I am beginner, and was quite surprised this end-game seems lost to me. Is it a mathematical loss? You can treat this as a "perfect knowledge" and "perfect play" puzzle. That is, both players know what cards remain and will play optimally.
The hidden cards (2 and 5) are unknown to the players, but it would clearly be a loss if my opponent had the hidden 2, but the puzzle is if he has the hidden 5, as he did.
Player 1: One hidden card: 2. Cards in hand: 2, 44, 9999, JJJ, QQQQ, AAAA.
Player 2: One hidden card: 5. No cards in hand.
Board: J.
It is player 1s turn to act.
It seems to me that the fact that there are only sets (4 of a kind) left, reset cards plus 44 and 5, means I will always have to hand my opponent either 44 into his 5, or give him a reset card for the sets.

Is this an end-game you found somewhere, as a puzzle? Or one that occurred in your own play? Rules are important: Wikipedia suggests a few variations in the rules, and we'd need to know either the rules being played by the person who set the puzzle, or you in your own play. If it is a puzzle, and they're playing by different rules than you, that may be why the puzzle-setter thinks it's possible but you don't.

Very important rule: Wikipedia suggests that Player 1 must play 2, QQQQ or AAAA. My own experience (/memory) would suggest that player 1 could play 2, J, JJ, JJJ, Q, QQ, QQQ, QQQQ, A, AA, AAA or AAAA. Even if JJ were down all those would still be allowed (other than JJJ being impossible).

(Although, even with my own rules I've not been able to find a solution.)

@AndyT Thanks for the reply. I see your point! I was not aware that according to the "standard" you HAD to play a set. This rule was not enforced, and you could choose to take the board or play your sets at any time. I will review your suggestion. Also, would it be possible to correct the tag that was added? It should be "shit" not "shift".


text:
When to buy cards costing 1 "Rune" in Ascension?
I rarely purchase 1-Rune cards. Their effects are pretty poor, and I feel that these cards lower my deck strength (Note: I'm a recovering Dominion addict, and a strong believer in "trash early; trash often" strategies).
I might buy a 1-Rune card if:

I won't get through my deck before the game is over, or
There are quite a few on the board and I have a bunch to spend (here I'm
hoping that a higher cost card will come up).

When, if ever, is it a good idea to buy 1-Rune cards?
(Edit - I had confused "Rune" with "Honor". I mean the Resource that the Apprentice provides, and which is the COST of adding a card to your deck)

(If someone would do me the favor of cleaning up the formatting, I would greatly appreciate it. For some reason I can't get numbered lists to display properly...)

I think you may want to differentiate between the 'free' 1-honor cards like Spike Vixen or even Arha Initiate and the ones like Lifebond Initiate.  The former are always a good buy (when you have nothing else to buy) because they cost no space; the latter I think you're right to avoid almost uniformly.

@Steven: Please see the corrected version of the question. Even though Spike Vixen is outside the scope of the (corrected) question, I will comment that I would rather buy a Heavy if it's late in the game, to prevent my opponents from having access to a potentially better card that would replace SV (for example).

When, if ever, is it a good idea to buy 1-Rune cards?
Almost always. If Chapel in Dominion has taught you anything, it is that trashing the chaff from your deck makes you much more likely to draw the good cards in your deck. For this reason, you should almost always buy Void Initiate. This is especially true early in the game, when you have a high density of Apprentice & Militia cards that are the polluting your deck (which are also worth 0 Honor).
For similar reasons, you should almost always buy Arha Initiate. It gains you 1 Honor (half the cost of a Heavy Infantry, and a third the cost of a Mystic and replaces itself when drawn.

Lifebound Initiate isn't a bad card, but buying a copy isn't a no brainer like Void and Arha Initiate cards are. This card becomes much better with other Lifebound Cards in your deck, and other Void/(Enlightened) cards that strip your deck of the chaff/(draw more) and make you draw into your Lifebound cards more often

Mechana Initiate is the worst of the bunch. I would almost never buy this card. The flexibility of adding Runes or Power doesn't seem that great. Perhaps if enough Burrower Mark II (Draw 1 first Mechana) or Rocket Courier X-99 (When acquire Mechana put into play) and other Mechana cards are available in the center row, then I might consider it, but usually I would pass.

Regarding holding off on buying a Heavy Infantry instead of an Initiate to prevent an opponent gaining a better card
The only real way to calculate this would be to figure out how likely a good card would come up, when your opponent wouldn't have had access to the card if they had to buy the Initiate themselves. For example, imagine if our opponent has 5 Runes worth of cards in their hand and 2 Power. There are 48 cards left in the center deck, (one of each different name). Lets assume for the moment that all the cards showing in the center row have 3 Power or more, and are 6 Runes or more. By not buying the Initiate, you have the possibility of the new center card being a 5 Rune cost card, that your opponent wouldn't have been able to purchase if you hadn't removed the initiate from the center row for them. Since their are only 5 cards that cost 5 Runes ( Ascetic of the Lidless Eye, Flytrap Witch, Snapdragon, Watchmaker's Altar, Voidthirster) out of 48  5/48 = 10% of the time you help your opponent.
Technically speaking, 3 of those 5 cards only gain you 2 Honor anyway. If the game was close to ending, and no one would be able to shuffle anyway, those 3 wouldn't matter (they could have just bought a Mystic and Heavy Infantry instead). If you had exactly 2 Runes though, it would be more likely in this scenario that you would draw one of the 4x Initiates to replace the Initiate in the center row. So you should probably buy the Initiate anyway.

Thanks for the answer. I actually haven't played Ascension proper since the SoS expansion was released on iOS, but I probably play 3-4 games a day of RotF/SoS. The 1-rune cards in SoS are worth - at most - as much as Lifebound Initiate, which is still pretty low in my eyes.

I think you're missing a big factor, and that's opportunity cost. Example: Arha Initiate may be a great buy for points, but I would pick Mystic over it almost every time in the early game to increase my buying power.

Opportunity cost is also the reason I would get Arbiter of the Precipice over Void Initiative. The former cycles through your deck faster, and will almost always give you a hand that has better buying power.

When considering expansions, some of the cross-set card interactions are covered here...
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/27079/13749
With just that set alone, Lifebound Initiate combos with Snapdragon (5/2 l/c... 5 cost, 2 honor; lifebound construct) which says you get +1 honor for the first l/h you play.  This card also pairs with Runic Lycanthrope to get +2 power as well.  Void Initiate is nice early on to thin out your deck of Militias and Apprentices.
It may be a good idea to buy these as a cheap way to get new cards into the CR (center row).  In your OP, you mentioned higher cost cards, but also Monsters.  If you have 1 rune and 8 power, buying one of those cards could clear the way for a juicy Monster for all that power to kill.
Cross expansion stuff not covered in that link...
Immortal Heroes (exp #3)
-has an Enlightened event where each Enlightened card you buy lets you draw one card
-has a Void event where each Void card you get lets you banish a card from your hand or discard pile
ALL EXPANSIONS
-There are cards that look for # of lifebound cards played, or have Unite effects, or Multi-Unite with Realms Unraveled (exp #6)


text:
Will a developer fix a (small) broken mechanic, or should I fix it before the submission process begins?
I am (co)designing a pickup-and-deliver strategy game.
Extensive playtesting has revealed what I believe to be a slightly broken aspect of the endgame (basically, there comes a point when everyone can visualize the rest of the game, and there's nothing to be done to change the outcome/winner). The first 45 minutes of the game play smoothly and are quite enjoyable; it's only the last couple minutes that get stale when the end is in sight.
Knowing that "KC" will likely be submitted to an established publisher - and expecting their developers to take over -  we have only taken the theme, artwork, and rulebook so far.

Will a publisher accept games that have slightly broken aspects to them, or is the designer responsible for having a mechanically polished game at the start of the submission process?

Edit:
Consider Settlers, but without development cards (and also without longest road, as those points are temporary). This hypothetical game would be "broken" in the same way that mine is - not to mention missing out on what is a great aspect of the game.
There would be no hidden information. A king would rise, and at some point everyone would be able to see the same writing on the wall: if something extremely unlucky doesn't happen, the final victory position of each player will remain unchanged.
So in terms of this hypothetical Setllers game, my original question might be reworded:

Have any games been submitted to publishers with noticeable problems that were subsequently fixed by the developer's addition of a new mechanic? (If so, what are they, and who are the publishers?!)

Edit 2: I believe the solution to lie in an alternative scoring mechanism that introduces hidden information and (more) variance/randomness. Rather than advancing a certain number on the VP track for completing certain tasks, basically players will take a tile corresponding to the task they completed. The tiles will have various VP's on them with a certain distribution (think Jaipur bonus tiles).
A simple example: Ticket to Ride. In TtR, you immediately score 15/10/7 etc. for claiming routes of length 6/5/4. If, instead of scoring this immediately, players took tiles from the 6/5/4 "stack" upon completion of corresponding routes, this would be like my game. The tiles for a "6" route would probably range from 14-17 VP each, "5"s would range from 9-11, etc.
The larger issue remains (for future games of mine and of others): how much should the designer do before submitting to a publisher?

Soooo, why not fix it? Is the basic issue that you don't have a fix in mind and hope the developer will?

@mattdm, Trust me: the co-designer and I are dedicating our creative energies to fixing this! With all the unknowns (for me, at least) surrounding how much a publisher can/will change, I thought it pertinent to ask if this is even something worth doing.

You should fix it before submitting the game.
The developer will have plenty of work to do anyway, from working on issues you're not even aware of, to tweaking factors to bring the game closer into line with the publisher's target audience. The better your game is before you submit it, the more likely that first play will be fun enough to make the publisher take interest.

Thanks for your input. At what point does a (perceived) issue switch from being something minor that the developer will handle, to being something major that I need to fix beforehand? The game is fun (I have to say that, but publishers that saw it at last year's BGG-CON could see the enjoyment even before the setup/explanation was finished)... it's just that there is a chance for players to "lose the wind in their sails" in the last 1-5 minutes.

I would say it's the point at which you are no longer convinced that the proposed change is an improvement at all. To use your Catan example in the OP: The game would be incomplete and need improvement without the devo cards. But perhaps a developer tweaked the distribution. Maybe there were originally fewer Soldier cards, but the developers felt that the power cards drew too much of the game's focus, so more were added to water down the big specials and VPs. Maybe some playtesters liked the powerful devo cards, but the developers felt the game would appeal to more players without them.

Here's an example, based on my own published game ( http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/107834/montana ). As sent to the publisher, the game included Straights and Flushes of length 3 and 4, but no short Straight Flushes. The game was balanced fine, since those hands are rare, but in playtesting, the players kept asking "where are the short straight flushes?" So the developer added them and that seems to satisfy people's sense of symmetry.

Inspired by Condottiere, eh? I'll have to check this out :)


text:
Can a solo game be converted into a cooperative game (and vice versa)?
Note: this is not (just) a theoretical question. I have been asked to develop a solo game mode for the game that I am working on, and I'm wondering if I should start with a cooperative mode instead.
Q 1: Given a solo game (i.e. a game designed/intended for one player), what qualities must it have - positive and negative - for it to have a natural extension for multiple, cooperating players?
One such quality would be the control of several characters: if the player is responsible for the movement/actions of several otherwise-independent characters, it would be reasonable to assign each character to a player (thereby creating a "cooperative" game).

Q 2: Given a multiplayer cooperative game (i.e. a game designed/intended for several players to work together toward a common goal), what qualities must it have - positive and negative - for it to have a natural... distillation to a solo game?
Most of what I've come up with on this end is a list of things/games that won't work.
Escape: Curse of the Temple and Space Alert are two popular cooperative games that are played on a timer (which is actually an audio soundtrack). Without changing the soundtrack/game length, it would be tough for a single player to do what 4-5 players are usually responsible for.
The game play of Hanabi relies entirely on the limited information that each player has, and on controlling communication. A single player... well, it would be hard to imagine Hanabi keeping its elegance in a solo mode.

You may get more poignant responses if you split this into the two respective questions. Also right now I am not sure this is   answerable without opinion and conjecture. Could you potentially narrow the scope to make it more answerable?

@Pow-Ian: I appreciate that this is a challenging question (or two challenging, related questions). And while I agree that this - like almost any question that isn't "what is the rule on X" - might permit some subjectivity in the response, a good answer will make a claim and support it with objective evidence. This isn't a persuasive piece, but rather an investigation.

Q1: Two things it must have:

Two or more opposing factions or teams. A solo player is simply on one side, then by expanding the game to allow players to be on either side, the game can become multiplayer and/or cooperative.
A limit to the number of rewards or prizes the factions are trying to accomplish. This is what evokes the competition. A solo player is competing against the computer to be the first to win the prizes. Then to expand to multiplayer/cooperative, the players are on separate teams are now competing for the limited number of prizes (and be the fastest to do it).

I don't think having opposing factions makes for a cooperative game, but rather a competitive game.

The human users need not necessarily be on the opposite factions. Take Halo for example, where two users are cooperatively on the same team, yet there are still two opposing factions.

Your answer sounds like it is talking about competitive games, while the OP asked for cooperative games (where success is measured as a whole)


text:
How does US/UK scoring work for the invasion of Japan?
In the game Churchill, how does US/UK scoring work for the invasion of Japan?  We've been poring over the rules, coming to several different conclusions.
If all US/UK fronts invade Japan at once, how many points do the US/UK each get for the invasion:

24,
8,
or some other amount?

Japan can be invaded by four different fronts: the USSR from the north, and the US/UK from the west, south, and east.  For this question, we can ignore the northern front.

At the end of the game, anywhere from zero to three of these fronts could be occupying Japan.  According to the rules (p 18):

A Front scores points for the furthest space it has advanced toward, or into, an Axis country.  A player does not score points for spaces that the Front passed through, just the last space it advanced into, to include an Axis country.

and, regarding how many points players get if Germany/Japan surrender:

8 [points] per Axis country where they have a Front (all US and UK Fronts give 8 points to both the US and the UK)

So let's say all three fronts have made it into Japan (since we're ignoring the northern front).  How many points is that worth for the US/UK?

24 points, because (regarding surrendered Axis countries) "all US and UK Fronts give 8 points to both the US and the UK"
8 points, because players receive "8 VP per Axis country where they have a Front"

24 points seems unlikely, because that's an enormous number of points to get, in a game where the US/UK get only 8 points for conquering Germany.
8 points seems unlikely, because that would mean the US loses two points for invading past Kyushu and Okinawa.
How does the scoring actually work?

According to Q&A:

How many points does a player receive for Japan surrender if they have more than one front in that Axis country?
Per rule 9.4.G each player receives 8 VP per Axis Country (NOT front) where they have a Front. So, if the US Central and SW Pacific Fronts enter Japan during the same conference the US and the UK receive 8 VPs each , NOT 16. If in addition to this example the CBI Front also entered Japan, the same outcome would pertain. Additionally, since you only receive VPs for the last space that a front occupies this can lower a player’s potential score in some instances and is a known and intended result.

Link: https://www.gmtgames.com/churchill/ChurchillErrataClarifications2Sep2015.pdf


text:
Why do older players keep their money under the edge of the board?
I've been seeing a strange behavior that I don't understand.  It seems to only happen with somewhat older players.
When they have paper money in a game, they slide it partway under the edge of the game board.  Where is this behavior coming from?  Is there a game that teaches it?
I've asked, and they've said it's just what you're supposed to do in board games.  It's particularly disconcerting when the board is modular and being explored during the game, or when lifting the board to slide your money under it causes pieces to be knocked over.
I've even seen players lose money this way, money that gets slid too far under the board and isn't discovered until we're cleaning up.
Is there a clear, understandable reason for this?

I'm 25 and do this. I think I learned it from  playing with my grandparents when I was young,  but they are only  64 now.

This has most likely been passed down throughout the generations as "the way to do it", without any actual backing reasons, but there are some situations where it is beneficial to put the money under the edge of the game board.

Small playing areas (such as a small table) where space is at a minimum, so it makes sense to conserve space by putting money under the edge of the board.
Playing outside (where it can be windy) or inside with a fan can cause the money to be shifted constantly, so sliding it under the board allows it to be pinned down.
In games where money is not the driving factor (such as Monopoly, where the Title Deeds are more important), it helps to keep your focus on what matters.
It makes it easier to keep the denominations in separate piles (if that applies) as you don't need to worry about sifting through a single pile to find the right denomination.

Joey has already mentioned the playful/imagination aspect of it which may also apply in some cases.

I sometimes puyt the money under the board because other players did it that way (aka "the way to do it"), but always sorted by denominations. Which makes me disagree with bullet #4.

I never thought of it, but now that you do mention it, I do recall sliding Monopoly money under the board separated by denomination (as a kid in the 80s). The best reason I can think for why we did that is that it was simply fun to pretend you were pulling money out of a cash register. You could argue it made making change or putting together amounts faster, but I don't think it amounted to more than simply watching others do it (most likely for the aforementioned reason). I doubt a specific game taught it.

I was born in 1987 and we sometimes used to do it with Monopoly. It certainly wasn't something you had to do but I think it was fun too. I also remember putting the mission card and the cards you win at Risk to put it that way

Some practical use could be by the way that it saves space when you have a small table and also when you play outside the wind can't blow everything away.

I'm Dutch and we also did this with Monopoly in the 80s. Nowadays perhaps with some railroad management games.

Same here. French from the 90s. Was there a commercial that inclined us to do so ?


text:
Largest card size for board games
What's the largest card size in a board game that's still current (in print sometime in the 21st century)?
I'm looking for cards that are used as cards, not as placemats.  This means that the cards are used in a deck or a pile containing multiple cards at a time.
(A good answer would be in both inches and millimeters.)

Why do you want to know this?

@PatLudwig, I design board games for a company that's interested in keeping an eye on card sizes in the marketplace.

The Great Project cards in 7 Wonders: Babel are huge. You only use 1 at a time and they're essentially placemats, but they're cards in that they're designed to be shuffled for randomisation (and not printed as thicker tiles like the wonder boards). I don't know the size exactly but I'll have a check later.

This PDF from maydaygames.com contains the sizes of cards for just about every modern game.  It looks like the largest one on there is for Planechase at 89mm x 127mm (3.5" x 5").

I'm surprised something beat out Dixit.


text:
Has Magic always had tapped/untapped tokens?
It's been a long time since I've played Magic.  (My "new" cards are from 4th edition.)
As I recall, tokens could be created and destroyed, but they could never be tapped or untapped.  In practice, people represented them with pennies or scraps of paper.
Now I'm seeing talk about tapping and untapping tokens, and cards being sold to represent tokens to make this job easier.
When did Magic start tapping and untapping tokens?
Alternatively, if they've always allowed it and my memory and/or understanding of the rules is simply faulty, feel free to make that clear in your answer.

I have a suspicion you've confused and conflated tokens with counters in your memory. Certainly counters don't get tapped, just added or removed, and are also represented with pennies or scraps of paper.

Tokens could always be tapped & untapped.  They're (usually) supposed to be creatures, after all, and creatures tap & untap.
Exhibit A: The very first token-generating card, The Hive, from Alpha:

Note that the text says "mak[e] sure to indicate when each Wasp is tapped."

Could you imagine if cards were still made with this much text? Wowzers!

They shifted a lot of that text into rules for just that reason.