text:
Can infinite scry 1 be shortcut by searching through your deck?
One of my standard decks is a 4-Color Rites deck.  It has a few combos where infinite "dies" triggers are used.  One of them involves having a Catacomb Sifter in play with a Brood Monitor and an Eldrazi Displacer.
The combo involves sacrificing the 3 scions created by the Brood Monitor, which creates 3 "scry 1" triggers from the Catacomb Sifter and adds 3 colorless mana to your pool.  The mana just created then is used to activate the Eldrazi Displacer's ability to flicker the Brood Monitor.  The Brood Monitor then enters the battlefield and it's triggered ability causes it to create 3 new Eldrazi Scions.  This can be repeated infinitely, creating an infinite number of scry 1 triggers.
At regular REL events like FNM, I describe this to my opponents and ask if I can just cut to the card I'm looking for as long as I keep my deck in order.  At competitive REL events would this be an appropriate shortcut to propose?
Another question: if the infinite triggers were scry 2 or more, then could you stack your deck as well? Are you allowed to just grab your deck and cut/stack it as a shortcut or is that not an appropriate shortcut for all RELs?

An Official Ruling (requires a Judge Apps account to view) by high-level tournament judges explicitly says that you can take those shortcuts:

A player with the ability to scry 1 ‘infinitely’ may shortcut this action by examining the library without reordering it and cutting it to a specific location. A player with the ability to scry 2 or more infinitely may shortcut this action by rearranging her library in any way she likes, but she must do so quickly. Players are not required to know the mathematics or technical steps behind this.

Technically, by the definition in the Comprehensive Rules, each of those situations would actually involve two shortcuts. The rule that's relevant here is 726.2a:

At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.

The highlighted part is what makes this tricky. Technically, you can't say "I scry until I see a particular card", but we can work around that.
Scry 1
In the case where you can only Scry 1 a number of times, and you want to search your deck for a particular card and cut to have that card on top, you would use two shortcuts to technically make this work:

Scry 1 N times, where N is the number of cards in your library, and choose to put the card on the bottom each time. This is functionally equivalent to looking at your entire library without changing its order.

Choose a card with K cards on top of it, then Scry K and choose to put the card on bottom each time. This is equivalent to cutting the deck just above the card you are looking for.

Scry 2+
This case is a little more complicated. When you want to stack your deck, you're not just scrying a certain number of cards to the bottom; you're taking a large number of steps of reordering two cards at a time to eventually end up at the desired order. But it still can be done according to the rules using these shortcuts:

Scry 2 N/2 times (rounded up), where N is the number of cards in your library (or enough to see your whole library), and choose to put the cards on the bottom each time. As in the first case, you have to know the current order of your library to deterministically make the next shortcut.

Technically, to be fully compliant with the rules, here you would lay out exactly the sequence of scrys you would do to get the order you want (like "Put the top card on bottom, then put the second from top card on bottom, then put the top card on bottom, etc."). Unfortunately, working out that sequence and reciting it would probably take as long as just doing it manually, which would probably count as slow play. However, it's likely that your opponent would accept "Now that I know the order of my library, I could give a sequence of scrys to arbitrarily reorder my deck, so I would like to skip that and just stack my deck".

Hey, an application for bubble sort!

Does bubble sort work in a ring? Anyhow, wouldn't it just be: find cards 1 & 2, scry to bottom. Find card 3, cycle until the top cards are 3,1,2, scry to bottom in 1,2,3 order.  Find card 4.  Repeat.

You can bubble sort with these constraints, by tracking the position of the "front" of the "array" relative to the top of the library, and using the scry to do whatever flip you would do at the current position. Then you would just cycle through the deck until the front of the array is the top. I think that what you're describing essentially is bubble sort, but going in the other direction.

Possibly relevant: A player with the ability to scry 1 ‘infinitely’ may shortcut this action by examining the library without reordering it and cutting it to a specific location. A player with the ability to scry 2 or more infinitely may shortcut this action by rearranging her library in any way she likes, but she must do so quickly. Players are not required to know the mathematics or technical steps behind this. August 2013.

Except that I can't actually view any of those rulings. Those links just don't do anything for me.

Oh yeah, I forgot that http://apps.magicjudges.org/ doesn't have open registration. It's mostly just discussion about that ruling and what it should be, if you want I can copy/paste parts of it.

Or you talking about the 'Shortcut' link not working? It looks like it it supposed to expand a section below it, but it wasn't working for me so I just looked at the page source.

That's exactly what I was talking about, and that's exactly what I did to see the rulings. I think there's just something wrong with their CSS or something.

A minor nitpick, in the scry 2 explanation, the first should be "Scry N / 2 times, rounded up". With scry 2, 2N will allow you to go through your library four times.

You're right. That statement was intended to be read "(Scry 2) (N times)", but as you point out, that's still more than necessary. It doesn't really matter, but I changed it anyway to be precise.

Yes, you can propose any shortcut you like, at any time. If the sequence of plays is legal and your opponent accepts it, you are free to do your combo as you described. At a sanctioned event, preferably ask a judge before taking the shortcut you describe.
The Rules Enforcement Level (REL) doesn't really come into play here. What you are proposing is perfectly fine under the comprehensive rules:

716.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.
716.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.

The only possible obstacle to the way you want to handle "infinite scry n" is that even when infinite scrying, you are not allowed to look at your deck as a whole, only n cards at a time. You would have to memorize the order of cards to decide when to stop scrying. However, you are allowed to take notes during the game as described in the Tournament rules, section 2.11, so you could write down the order of cards as you scry them. Therefore, you could easily argue that it is equivalent to looking at your whole deck instead, and in the interest of swift play, it should be acceptable to look at the whole deck.
Be aware though, especially at competitive REL, that action could be deemed illegal and a judge might award you a Warning for "Game Play Error — Looking at Extra Cards". When in doubt, always ask a judge at the event.

I don't understand why you say that they should ask a judge before proposing a shortcut. I see nothing in the Tournament Rules that indicates that judges should be involved in proposing/announcing shortcuts.

Not for proposing the shortcut itself, but whether the proposed shortcut itself is legal. As I wrote, Scry N only allows looking at N cards at a time, and even if I described a sequence involving any number of Scry N effects, I would still only be allowed to look at N cards at a time. At no point am I allowed to look at more than N cards at the same time, which would be the case if I picked up and looked at my whole library. But again, instead of taking notes I could simply look at the whole library  instead. Taking notes is covered by the tournament rules, however.

Therefore, it seems prudent to ask a judge whether I could replace the process of writing down the order of my library, N cards at a time, with just looking at the whole library, which, again, is not allowed as per the Scry rules, as long as N < library size.

It depends on how you look at it. This shortcut allows you to look at every card an arbitrary number of times, which is functionally equivalent to looking at all of the cards at once. If a shortcut allows you to make (for example) multiple tokens at the same time, there's no clear reason that it wouldn't also let you access multiple pieces of hidden information simultaneously.

Is taking notes a "game choice"? Is choosing what to write down based on what card one sees a "conditional" act? Would writing down the order of one's entire deck be "slow play"?

I may have the record for longest shortcut. Ten turns in having had to expend my primary win condition to survive and already at negative life, I said "I have a counterspell in my hand and nothing useful in my deck, however I will deck you in four hours at this rate of play (his deck was enormous) unless you can do something about it." Turned out he could; my counterspell would take out his only remaining way of defeating me but eventually he would draw his infinite gears and draw the game.


text:
Games similar to X-Wing?
Recently I played the X-Wing miniature game and I'd like to find a game that is similar to that,  but not collectible. I don't want to buy lots of ships to play as I like.
EDIT: As @PhillipKendall suggested, this are some aspects of the game I like:

Strategic game
Squad set up
Unit movement
Possibility of having special skills for each unit

Is there something like that?

In order for this to be answerable, you should add details as to which aspects of X-Wing make it enjoyable for you.

@PhilipKendall Game recommendations are off topic for this site.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to own the most cards possible?
What's the most cards I can own at once in a game, presumably with the cooperation of all players?
I think it's something like Graveyard Busybody with an Abyssal Persecutor, so the opponent(s) can have all their cards in the graveyard and the game still goes on.
That gives a player ownership of all the cards that's possible to be played in a game.
But are there ways beyond that? Like my hypothetical "turning an infinite number of tokens into 'cards' a.k.a 'things that will persist beyond death'", is currently impossible, but are there other ways?

Could you clarify what mean by "own"? Ownership is a very specifically defined term in the MtG rules, and the things you are referring to do not change ownership in any way.

All the cards that changed card ownership are really old and banned - cards change control of other cards, or zones in a few silver bordered cases, but ownership is something different and does not change.

@PhilipKendall - Make it so cards that cards that were played by your opponent can now be affected by cards that say "Your Graveyard / Lands / Whatever", such as [mtg:Unburial Rites]... Interesting that [mtg:Reanimate] itself can be used on any graveyard...

I believe there aren't any cards that say "your lands," "your creatures," or anything else that's "your" followed by a card type (except in reminder text).

@TannerSwett - Well, it seems to be more "X you control", for cards, when not talking about spaces like Library or Graveyard. ... Not sure if editing "control" for "own" in now is changing the question too much. I think it is...?

At this point, I think it would be a good idea to ask a second question. You could even copy and paste most of this question into a new question, and just change "own" to "control," and that would be totally fine, in my opinion. (Other people may feel differently.)

@TannerSwett - Thanks! Yeah, that's my future plans. I think I'll wait a bit for more people to maybe chime in, etc.

@TannerSwett - Made: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/54338/whats-the-most-cards-i-can-control-at-once

Case 1: Tournament Rules Magic: N + 15 cards, where N is the number of cards in your deck.
There is currently no way to exchange ownership of cards in Magic: The Gathering that is legal in tournament play.  Cards that refer to fetching cards from "Outside the Game" like Living Wish may only search your sideboard, which is limited to 15 cards.  The maximum number of cards you can own in a game is equal to the size of your deck + the size of your sideboard.

Case 2: Tabletop Magic, legal magic cards only: N + M, where N is the number of cards in your deck and M is your total collection of magic cards.
Per rulings on any of the cards that refer to "Outside the Game", any card from your collection may be fetched by these cards assuming they follow the criteria specified by the card.

In a sanctioned event, a card that’s “outside the game” is one that’s in your sideboard. In an unsanctioned event, you may choose any card from your collection.

Here's the combo we're going to set up and use in later stages.

Aluren, Soul Warden and City of Brass on the battlefield
Cavern Harpy, Man-o'-War, Eternal Witness, Cloud of Fairies, and Research in your hand

Tap City of Brass for mana.
Cast Cloud of Fairies and untap City of Brass
Cast Cavern Harpy and return Cloud of Fairies to your hand.
Pay one life to return Cavern Harpy to your hand.

This nets you one mana of any color and returns to a previous game state.  Repeat for any amount of mana you need.

Cast Research, get four cards from your collection and shuffle them into your library.
Cast Eternal Witness to return Research to your hand.
Cast Man-o'-War to return Eternal Witness to your hand.
Cast Cavern Harpy to return Man-o'-War to your hand.
Pay one life to return Cavern Harpy to your hand.

You've now net +2 life and in the same game state as before.  Repeat until your collection is in your library.

Case 3: Tabletop Magic, Ante Cards allowed: N + M, 1 * (Number of Opponents) after the game is over.
If you are playing with Ante rules and your opponents aren't cooperating with you and are deliberately trying to prevent you from owning as many cards as possible, the number is the same N + M from before, plus receiving each player's Ante once the game is over.
There are ways to own every card in every player's deck + collection using Ante, but due to the ability for a player to concede at any time, opponents would be able to prevent you from pulling off any combo that allows you to steal cards.  The cards anted by opponents would then become yours after the game ends.

Case 4: Tabletop Magic, Ante Cards allowed, opponents cooperating with you: all cards in all players respective collections.
Using only Ante cards in tabletop magic and with your opponents cooperating with you, it is possible to own every card in every player's collection using a handful of new cards.

Use the same board state as Case 2, but also have Hive Mind on the battlefield.  Cast Research until all of your opponents collections are in their library.
Have a method to create infinite token copies of a creature.  For the sake of argument, use Rite of Replication to make your copies.  Recur it back to your hand in the same process as Research from Case 2.
Create a number of token copies of Tempest Efreet equal to or greater the number of cards owned by each opponent.
Create a copy of Jeweled Bird for each player, Harmless Offering a copy to each opponent (using your infinite mana and recursion from step 1 to do so), and have each player use the token to put their anted card into the graveyard.  The token of Jeweled Bird ceases to exist in Ante as tokens can only exist on the battlefield.
Cast Time Walk, cast Sway of the Stars, and while Sway is on the stack also cast Teferi's Protection.  Your opponent's entire collection is now either in their hand or library, your board is unaffected due to Teferi's Protection.
Once your permanents phase in at the beginning of your next turn, use your copies of Tempest Efreet to steal your opponent's hands.  These tokens disappear once they enter your opponent's graveyard.  (Note: we're using Time Walk so that opponents don't get another draw step before you can start stealing cards, and would thus have to discard to 7.)
As your opponents draw their first card every turn, use another Tempest Efreet copy to steal that card from them.
(Optional) If an opponent owns more cards than you, use Timetwister and your infinite recursion from step 1 to continuously shuffle your graveyard into your library so that you don't run out of cards.

Case 5: Tabletop Magic (We're gonna need a bigger table), ante/silver bordered cards allowed, all members of humanity cooperating with you: all cards in existence either owned by someone who is reachable by phone, and all cards currently in booster packs
Additions needed from Case 4:

Better than One needs to be in your deck
Booster Tutor needs to be in your deck
An infinite real-world money combo (Combo of choice left to the reader)

Have the same board state as Case 4.
Use Better than One to make every opponent find a partner, but fail to find one yourself (it's important to fail to find a team mate, as your combo does not work with N-Headed Giant partners, which players recruited via Better than One become).
Recruit every human being on the planet (since humanity is cooperating with us, that means that people who own MTG cards but are out of contact with humanity would come back into contact to make sure they can give us their magic cards using a convoluted in game combo using multiple illegal cards).
Use the combo from Case 4 to make them fetch and then steal all of their cards.
Destroy Hive Mind in some way, and use your infinite money combo alongside your infinite copies of Booster Tutor to purchase and open every extant Magic: The Gathering product in existence.  Be sure to destroy Hive Mind because all these people are being nice and helping you steal their cards, and it would be rude to make them also buy the packs for you.

Please share the details of your preferred infinite money combo :)

There is no limit to the amount of cards in your deck. For a given number N, the simplest way to own at least N cards during a gaming of Magic is to start with N cards in your deck.

100.5. If a deck must contain at least a certain number of cards, that number is referred to as a minimum deck size. There is no maximum deck size for non-Commander decks.

Most cards are limited to four copies each, but basic lands and cards like Relentless Rats are not.
Also, the only cards which change the owner of other cards are either silver-bordered or referring to ante and are outright banned in any competitive format.

Hmm... Is it too late to clarify "increase the number of cards I own, beyond the starting number"?

It's best not to edit the question to change what it's asking in a way that invalidates existing answers. So, yes, probably too late. You could post a separate followup question though.

Are there any silver-bordered cards that change ownership? I suppose there might be, but I can't come up with the correct search terms. Also, you need to be able to shuffle your deck reasonably, so in addition to collecting an N-card deck to play with, you'd better practice shuffling too. Hope you have big hands. (Would it be allowed to shuffle with a machine? That would probably make it easier to deal with a huge deck.)

The rules at least used to require that you be able to randomize your deck without assistance in a reasonable amount of time.  This appears to have been taken out in recent years (likely for accessibility reasons) as I cannot find this rule anymore in the comprehensive or tournament rules.

Aside from putting more cards in your own deck or taking ownership of your opponent's cards, you could explore cards that add cards to your hand from outside the game (often known as "wishes", after a cycle in Judgment). Many wishes don't exile themselves, so you could find ways to replay them to add more cards to your hand.
In particular, Fae of Wishes looks like a good candidate for bringing arbitrary numbers of cards into the game. Play the adventure, wish for a card, play the faerie from exile, and then return it to your hand and repeat (much easier for a creature on the battlefield than a spell in the graveyard). With a card-efficient way of bouncing it and a sufficient supply of mana, you could hypothetically stuff your entire collection (except creatures) into your hand.

I've refined the first search to eliminate Companions (which can only fetch themselves from outside the game) and a number of Un-cards that refer to people outside the game.

@Allure OP specified "with the cooperation of all players", so I assume they aren't looking at a competitive game.

The rulings of Graveyard Busybody include:

Cards owned by your opponents still go to the appropriate graveyard.

and

Speaking of [another ruling], cards in graveyards are shuffled into their owners’ libraries. You won’t put any cards from graveyards you stole, er . . . borrowed into your library.

which appears to imply that the graveyards are "yours", but you don't own the cards.
Which matches how the "owner" in game terms closely shadows the actual owner of the cards, e.g. if a player leaves a multiplayer game, cards they own also leave the game. Which they would do in any case if the player decided to pick up their belongings and go.
(108.3 does say that "Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante." and that instead "The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in their deck [etc.]", which could make a difference if a player plays with a borrowed deck. In the worst case, it could mean that all players play with cards actually owned by some other player in the same game... But even if someone does play with a deck borrowed from a friend, they still get to pick up that deck and go when conceding the game, and there's not much the game rules can do about that.)

Cadence's answer describes one mechanism for moving cards from your sideboard (if in a tournament setting) or from your collection (in a "casual" setting) into your game.  Their answer focuses on wishes.  There are many other ways to bring cards from outside the game into the game.  My personal favorite is Spawnsire of Ulamog.  i.e. bring as many cards as you want from outside the game all at once.
That said, the number of cards that can exist in a game are determined by the format.  Different formats have different numbers.  For instance, in Magic the Gathering: Arena, your deck and sideboard together can have a max size of 250 cards.
In tournament play, your sideboard (which is the extent of your collection "outside the game") can have at most 15 cards.  Your deck can be as large as you can shuffle it in a reasonable amount of time.  (Shuffling 400 cards in a reasonable amount of time is quite difficult....)
In casual play, you are allowed to bring all cards you own from outside the game into the game via these mechanisms.

From 2008 2016, there were over 20 billion MtG cards printed. So the total number of cards is probably in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 billion. However, a Gathering ruling on Battle of Wits says "In tournaments, you must be able to shuffle your entire deck within a reasonable amount of time." So it would be up to a judge how long "a reasonable amount of time" would be.

Not mentioned in other answers, but limited to MTG Arena, are some digital-only mechanics which can add cards to the game, which are considered owned by you; conjure, draft, and double team.
The most prevalent example from my experience is Oracle of the Alpha, with which I have been able to add hundreds of good cards to my deck pretty consistently.

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


text:
What's the most cards I can control at once?
What's the most cards I can control at once in a game, allowing the cooperation of all players, but best if not?
A.k.a as many cards that can be affected by "X you control" effects like Serra's Blessing.
A.k.a not about the number of cards I start with or can take with me at the end of the game.
I still think it's something like Graveyard Busybody with an Abyssal Persecutor, so the opponent(s) can have all their cards in the graveyard and the game still goes on.
That gives a player control of all the cards that's possible to be played in a game.
But are there ways beyond that? Like my hypothetical "turning an infinite number of tokens into 'cards' a.k.a 'things that will persist beyond death'", is currently impossible, but are there other ways?
With everyone's cooperation, I suppose the "you own" part on something like Spawnsire of Ulamog, can be waived and just allow any kind of Eldrazi or other cards, via Artificial Evolution, to be brought in, regardless of ownership?
Without such waiving, would be best, but that's just a hope.

Why do you want to specifically control many cards? "Control" is a term that only applies to the battlefield and stack, and those are also the two zones in which non-card objects can persistently exist. Practically speaking, there is no difference between having 100 creature cards with vigilance because of Serra's Blessing, and having 100 creature tokens with vigilance because of Serra's Blessing.

@murgatroid99 - Just wondering about the limits of Magic.

It just seems like there is maybe an understanding gap here. You seem to understand that control is different from ownership, because you asked this question separately from the one about ownership. But the only reason for that distinction is because there are effects that can change control of things. If you are aware of those effects, it seems obvious to me that the answer is "all of the cards in the game", and so I'm wondering what else you're looking for here, and whether you were missing one of those things that seems obvious to me.

@murgatroid99 - I wasn't sure if there were any physical limits to MTG, but the current answer seems to indicate: "You can only control as many cards as that exist", and there really is no way to spawn cards from nothing. I didn't connect the "tokens cannot turn into cards" and "there are only tokens and cards" together. Not sure if there's some way to cover Admiral Beckett Brass's inability to grab lands from anywhere... ... Oh, and I didn't know that there's no mechanic that grabs cards unowned by anyone, like hypothetically in unsealed packs.

Hopefully it's clear now from the answers here and on your other questions that "cards" as used in MTG are specific physical objects. They can't be spawned from nothing because matter can't be created from nothing in real life. And Admiral Beckett Brass is just one example of a card with a control-changing effect. There are dozens or hundreds of cards with control-changing effects, and various ways to cover their individual limits.

I believe MTGO capped the number of permantens you can control at ~200, to prevent the program from crashing, and there probably is an upper bound for MTGA aswell. Do you want someone to dig up these numbers, or are these irrelevant to your question?

@SwimmerF - Oh, yeah, I'd like to know that!

There is no limit.
Technically you can't control infinite cards, because nothing in black-bordered Magic can ever be infinite. You can have numbers that are arbitrarily large, but they must always be finite.
For example, you can set up a loop that gains you life without any limit. Copy a Leonin Relic-Warder with a Phyrexian Metamorph, have something like Soul Warden that gives you life, then target the Metamorph with its own ability over and over.
But at no point can your life total ever actually be infinite. If you actually set up this combo in a game, you can say "I'm going to do this loop 999,999,999 times" and gain 999,999,999 life, or a billion life, or a trillion, or a quadrillion, or any number you want, there's no limit on it. But it will always be a finite number.
(Is this incredibly pedantic nitpicking? Yes. But sometimes these pedantic details can matter a lot in Magic.)
So there's no limit on how many cards you can control: use some infinite mana and infinite spell recursion combination to cast Mastermind's Acquisition over and over, for example, and play every permanent card in your collection. But that number will always be finite. You can never control an infinite number of cards.

A nitpick on your nitpicking, but the rules for cards like Mastermind's Acquisition define "outside the game" as "In your sideboard"

@Andrew True, but isn't that only for tournament play? I thought in non-tournament play (like your average game of Commander) it was anything in your collection.

officially those cards do not work at all in commander - the only way they would function would be because of play group [tag:house-rules] allowing them to refer to something other than a sideboard that does not exist. Same with kitchen table magic, allowing them to do anything other than access a sideboard is a house rule. I think there is some talk in the commander rules committee of creating official wish boards, but AFAIK they are still not officially allowed.

@Andrew According to the notes on this card Draconis was right that it is only restricted to the sideboard in tournaments: https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=414343

@Andrew Afaict the "outside the game means the sideboard" rule is only a tournament thing, not part of the Comprehensive Rules; look at the wording of 108.3b for example, which talks about determining ownership of a card that's outside the game and not in the sideboard. You're right about Commander (I didn't realize my group was using a house rule there), but that's because of a specific rule of the Commander format (rule 11 on the site), not because of lack of sideboards; it seems it's completely legal in kitchen table Magic.

The limit is however many cards you have access to
There is no limit on the number of players who can play the game. A card like Admiral Beckett Brass allows for repeatable (effectively infinite) control. So how many players can you play with? How many creatures can they play with?
If you want to include "cards you own" then you can do that. In tournament settings that's limited to your 15 card sideboard.
But the answer depends on how many cards you have access to. It would seem there is no limit on that.
Cheekily, this answer previously had infinite because an infinite number of players each "donating" one card to you would give you infinite cards. But with infinite players you would never get a turn, so... you'd never get to get more cards (unless they all started to cast "donate.")

I think "unlimited" would be a better term that "infinite" here; since nothing in MTG can ever be infinite. (Discounting Infinity Elemental)

You can also cast (or copy) a Wish spell arbitrarily many times, putting an arbitrarily large amount of cards from outside the game under your control. Some wishes like Mastermind's Acquisition can be recurred.

@GendoIkari If you haven't reached infinity yet, it's because you haven't given it enough time yet.

And there are a number of cards (Mostly planeswalker ults and threaten effects) that let you gain control of all creatures on the battlefield.

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


text:
Can you tap your Mox Amber for colorless mana with only a colorless legendary in play?
If I have one of the Karn planeswalkers in play as my only legendary permanent can I then tap my Mox Amber for a colourless mana?

It's right on the Gatherer page... "If your legendary creatures and planeswalkers are all colorless, you can activate Mox Amber’s ability, but you won’t add any mana. Colorless is not a color."

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/42273/will-mirror-gallery-make-it-impossible-for-your-mox-amber-to-produce-mana

No.
Colorless is not a color; Mox Amber can never produce colorless because it says it produces "any color [...]".

105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, they must choose one of the five colors. “Multicolored” is not a color. Neither is “colorless.”

Colorless is not a color
No, you cannot tap a Mox Amber for colorless mana. Mox Amber says

{T}: Add one mana of any color among legendary creatures and planeswalkers you control.


text:
Can I play a card for its miracle cost in this situation?
A friend and I were discussing this situation:
Player A attacks with all creatures, opponent (player B) have no blockers and gonna be lethal. Before damage step, player B plays Opt, resolves, and draw a Terminus. He reveals it, so miracle triggers go to stack. In response, before the miracle triggers resolve, player A activates an Aether Vial with two counters, resolves, and put a Kitesail Freebooter in the battlefield. Kitesail Freebooter triggered ability triggers, and player B decides that it resolves, so player A removes the Terminus from his hand. Now, while the miracle trigger is still on the stack, player B casts Path to Exile, exiling the Kitesail Freebooter. Terminus returns to his hand.
The question here is: when the miracle-triggered ability resolves, will player B be able to cast Terminus for its miracle cost, or is it considered another different card, like when you blink a permanent to save it from being a target?
(NOTE: We know already that player B could respond to the Kitesail Freebooter with the Path to Exile, so player A sees the hand and discards nothing, as the Kitesail Freebooter is not on the battlefield, but this is not the question we have).

No, Terminus could not be played here
As you already suspect, that the Terminus is a new object at the end of the sequence of plays you describe. It's still in playerB's hand where the miracle trigger would expect it, but it's a new object regardless, because it changed zones.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. [..]

The complete rules for miracle also mention what happens when the Terminus in this case leaves the hand:

702.93a Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.11). “Miracle [cost]” means “You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it’s the first card you’ve drawn this turn. When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost.”
702.93b If a player chooses to reveal a card using its miracle ability, they play with that card revealed until that card leaves their hand, that ability resolves, or that ability otherwise leaves the stack.

According to an older thread in the mtg-salvations forum (posting #22 and #23) player B can't cast it after it was exiled, since it changed zones and therefore is considered a new object.


text:
How does Ashiok, Dream Render interact with the Vigor/Hostility and Profane Memento cards?
I have questions regarding this ruling on Ashiok, Dream Render:

If Ashiok’s last ability targets an opponent, the cards put into their graveyard will be among the cards exiled by the ability. No player may take any actions between the time the cards are put into a graveyard and the time your opponents’ graveyards are all exiled.

Suppose player A uses Ashiok, Dream Render's -1 loyalty ability to target player B. Player B puts the top four cards of their library into their graveyard. But:

What if Player B puts Vigor or Hostility into their graveyard as part of those four? Would Vigor or Hostility be shuffled into player B's library?
What if Player C has Profane Memento on the battlefield? Does player C gain life for each creature that that is put into the graveyard?

The ruling states that a player does not get an action during Ashiok's loyalty ability, but are these effects player abilities?

Vigor and Hostility will be exiled and not shuffled back. The controller of Profane Memento will gain life.
The part about players not being able to take actions during the resolution of Ashiok's loyalty ability means that no player may cast spells, activate abilities, or take special actions such as playing a land. For all of these, priority, the right to do these things, is necessary. Players do not get priority during the resolution of spells and abilities.
However, there are more kinds of abilities than just activated abilities. Vigor/Hostility and Profane Memento have triggered abilities that trigger automatically whenever their trigger condition is met. They can trigger anytime, even during the resolution of spells and abilities, and do not require anyone to have priority, so they will all trigger as soon as Ashiok's ability puts them into the graveyard.
However, they only enter the stack (and can later resolve) after the current spell or ability has finished resolving. By that time, Vigor/Hostility have already been exiled, and their triggered abilities resolve without doing anything, because the creatures they are referring to, respectively, are no longer in the zone they were expected to be. Profane Memento's ability, on the other hand, does not care where the creature card that triggered it is right now, so when those Profane Memento's triggered abilities resolve, its controller will gain life.

Okay, I think I get it. Thank you for that answer. So, would Blightsteel Colossus actually go into library since it states "if it would go into the graveyard"?

Exactly, Blightsteel Colossus has an ability with a replacement effect, which works differently from triggered abilities. The "putting into graveyard" part of Ashiok would never happen for the Colossus and be replaced with shuffling it back, so Ashiok can't exile the Colossus, and it would not trigger Profane Memento because it never hits the graveyard

@coreyj31 I think it is worth adding the replacement effect case, represented by Blightsteel Colossus to the original question.

@John and adding the replacement effect case to the answer, in the question or not


text:
In 7 Wonders Duel: Pantheon, the "Ra" Divinity card lets you steal one Wonder from an opponent; do you choose, or is it random?
In 7 Wonders Duel: Pantheon, the Divinity card Ra takes away one Wonder from your opponent, but it is not clear in the rules if you can choose or have to randomly draw or the opponent decides which one they are giving to you. Does anyone has clarification on this?

I believe 'Steal' will mean of your choice.
I've taken screen shots here of rules from Pantheon and Agora with Agora on top.  It's using the Baal god rather that Ra but it still uses the word 'steal.  Unfortunately the 'steal a wonder' icon isn't in agora hence using Baal to answer this question about terminology instead.

Both these descriptions use exactly the same icon.  In Agora rules it it clarified that the taking is 'of your choice'.  I think it would be very confusing for a player looking at the same icon in a different expansion and assuming it was random pick.

I've just realised my problem today. We always played with our wonders hidden until played. But just checked in the rulebook, they should be visible on the table always. So basically, you steal one from your opponent's visible non-built wonders so it now makes total sense.
Thank you!

Glad you spotted the issue.  Why did you have wonders hidden when they are drafted face up?

I don't know why, we have been playing this game for more than one and a half years now, but did this since the beginning. It will add a change to our game-flow so actually nice :)

All of us will have 'that rule we got wrong for years'. I was playing Snowdonia wrong for about 10 years.

I have no official answer, but the rules say:

Steal an opponent's Wonder which has not yet been constructed; it is added to your own Wonders.

Since you are "stealing", you get to decide what you take - at least, this is how I've played it up until now.

This ability seems to be very powerful anyway so we opted in our house rules as randomly chosen out of the available ones, but your explanation also makes sense. Would be good to see a definitive answer on it.

The implementation on Board Game Arena lets Ra's user choose which wonder to steal, so I think we can be pretty sure that that is indeed the intended effect.


text:
Should I draft leaders or bid for houses first in Lorenzo Il Magnifico?
I'm playing with the Houses of Reinassance expansion. The manual isn't too clear on whether leader drafting comes before house bidding or not. The wording states something like:

Leader drafting is done during preparation
House bidding is done before the first round

From this wording we've concluded leader drafting comes first, but we're unsure, and I haven't been able to find an FAQ so far.

What do you mean by 'House Bidding'?  this isn't a term used in the rules.   The word 'House'. is only used in an example as text on a card.  https://cmon-files.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/assets_item/resource/49/Rulebook_LorenzoIlMagnifico.pdf

@StartPlayer I'm referring to the Houses of Renaissance expansion rules

Ah that wasn't clear to me from the question.  Probably worth editing to say that then.  I've not played the expansion, just base game, which is probably why I didn't recognise the term.

In the base game rules advanced set up players are instructed to take a personal bonus tile and then draft leaders.
In the expansion rules auction for the Family Tiles is listed before drafting leaders.  This auction also gives players their start resources.  in base game starting resources are also done before drafting leaders.
Whilst I agree that 'before the first round' could be read both ways I would go 'Family Tiles' and then 'Leader drafting' as the instruction to add new leaders is not given until after the auction in the rules.


text:
How does reshuffling the draw pile in Uno Flip! work?
When reshuffling the draw pile in Uno Flip!, do I keep the bottom card from the discard pile (as it is the last flip card meaning it is on the same color we left the dark side on so we can continue with it), and then also the top card (as it is the most recently played card)? Basically meaning we keep the top card for both light and dark side.
The rules say to reshuffle and continue, so my family interprets that as how you do it at the start of the game when you turn the top card over.

The Uno Flip rules do not call out anything special for how to handle a reshuffle:

If no player is out of cards by the time the DRAW pile is depleted, the DISCARD pile is reshuffled and play.

All the references to bottom or top are related to handling them in normal play, for example:

Flip Card - when you play this card, everything flips from the Light Side to the Dark Side.
Once the Flip card has been played, flip over the Discard Pile (the card just played will
now be on the bottom)

Typically in card games, if something other than the standard English definition of a reshuffle is expected, there will be a rule handling the edge case.


text:
What story does "Love Letter" tell?
I heard about the game Love Letter from some board game blogs. I have read its rules, although I haven't really started playing it yet. It is a very interesting game indeed. But what puzzles me is:
What story does Love Letter tell?
The Wikipedia article on Love Letter says that

Each player aims to deliver a love letter to the princess with the assistance of collaborators.

But it doesn't explain what role the player plays, or what story each game tells.
What does it mean when a particular card is in your hand?
I have some confusion about this.

For example, when a King in your hand, what does it mean?
Does it mean you are playing as a king?
No, that's impossible... Because you can discard the King; then you are not a king anymore.
Or does it mean your love letter is in the king's hand?
If that is true, why doesn't the king give the letter to the princess directly and let you get married?

Another interesting example:
What does it mean when you have a Princess in your hand?
Does it mean that the princess has got your love letter?
Or you have eloped with the princess? And then caught by guards?

The game is a bit abstract, when it comes to the theme connection with mechanics, but I don't think it's quite that confusing.
Quoting from Premium Edition Rules (emphasis added)

In the wake of the arrest of Queen Marianna for high treason, none was more heartbroken than her daughter, Princess Annette. Suitors throughout the City-State of Tempest sought to ease Annette’s sorrow by courting her, seeking to bring some joy into her life.
You are one of these suitors, trying to get your love letter to the Princess. Unfortunately, she has locked herself in the palace, so you must rely on intermediaries to carry your message.
During the game, you hold one secret card in your hand. This is who currently carries your message of love for the Princess. Make sure that the person closest to the Princess holds your love letter at the end of the day, so it reaches her first!

The card you hold out of your turn would represent who's currently holding your love letter. At the end of the round, the closer that closest person to the princess is the one to deliver that suitors letter first. Apparently its first come, first served, but lets not dwell on that.
On your turn you have a chance to have one character exert their influence over the other suitors or at least the people happening to hold their letters, while the other gets your letter passed to them.
How exactly are you getting all these people, all the way to the king, to help you out with this? We don't really know, maybe you're just so sweet with your words.
As for the princess, you have somehow managed to get the letter directly at her hands. However, she doesn't read it immediately but instead...

[...] Obviously, you want the princess to carry your letter. However, she is self-conscious about matters of the heart, and if confronted, will toss your letter in the fire and deny looking at any correspondence.
If you discard the Princess — no matter how or why — she has tossed your letter into the fire. [...]

Very thank you for the detailed explanation! But I still have some confusion. For example, when a King in your hand, what happens if some player use a Guard to designates you with a King? Why you must be eliminated? As you said, the king currently carries your letter. Does this mean that the guard have the permission to check the king's pocket? Could you explain the guard's behavior further?

@chansey I doubt there's the level of detail you seem to be looking for here. You will find a bit more from the linked manual, but that part of the game is a lot more on the abstract, mechanics driven style. Not every part of board games is neatly explained within the theme. Though trying can be fun in it's own right, as the results may be quite amusing in their absurdity.

@chansey The Guard passes the letter to the Countess, whispering that it's for her friend, the Princess, then goes off looking for the letter sent by his patron's rival. He tries the King, who is indeed holding a letter. He salutes the King. "All clear, sire," he says. The King, embarrassed to be seen with a scented love letter, crumples it up and throws it away...


text:
Jhessian Thief and Aqueous Form
If I have a Jhessian Thief enchanted with an Aqueous Form, and it deals damage to my opponent, do I get to Scry 1 before or after I draw a card from Jhessian Thief's ability?

Aqueous Form's scry ability triggers when the creature attacks. Jhessian Thief's draw ability triggers when it deals combat damage to a player. Thus Aqueous Form's ability will trigger and resolve in the declare attackers step. Jhessian Thief's ability won't trigger until later, in the combat damage step.

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


text:
Custom Heroes Ascended Forms
Custom Heroes is a new game (2017), and I need some clarification, if you were a playtester, rules writer, or game designer for it.
An Ascended Form can be played to beat any previous play. The rulebook example says "After an ascended form is used, play continues around the table as normal, though only another ascended form may beat a previously played ascended form ...."
It's the word normal that puzzles me. Is it simply referring to the order of play, or does it mean that the ascended form is like a wild card, but after that players can return to the basic pattern, for example
four 8s
ascended form
four 9s

I don't believe that's what it means, but if not, then playing an ascended form will quickly terminate that round/pile. It would be a power play to try to force the ascended forms into the shuffle.  Is that the idea?

Playing an Ascended Form can indeed shorten the round.
What that sentence means is that an Ascended Form does not immediately end the round. The round continues, but the only legal play is another Ascended Form  (which causes the following player's turn to be skipped, etc). One must match or beat the current set, and only an Ascended Form matches or beats an Ascended Form.
That said, an Ascended Form does immediately end the round in a two-player game. In a two-player game, you need to beat (not match) the current set, and nothing beats an Ascended Form.


text:
7 Wonders: Do board resources (brown and gray) count for VPs when counting guild and commerce points?
Three guilds (Workers, Shipowners, Craftsmens) award VPs for resource cards. Also some commerce cards (e.g., Haven) award coins and VPs for resource cards. Do you include Board resources in the count, or only cards? The instructions say "cards," but I'm making sure they are specifically restricting this, and not using the term more broadly.

No.
The guilds in question specifically award points for cards.

Workers Guild: 1 victory point for each brown card present in the neighboring cities.
Shipowners Guild: 1 victory point for each brown, gray and purple card in your city. Clarification: the Shipowners Guild counts towards this total.
Craftmans Guild: 2 victory points for each gray card present in the neighboring cities.

And the last sentence in the base game Rulebook makes it clear this only refers to actual cards. [Emphasis added]

Clarification: Resources produced by boards are NOT considered as cards (Vineyard, Bazaar, Guilds, ...).

Thanks for the answer. I'm constantly amazed by the organization of rulebooks. Why isn't this stated at the Boards section, too?

this clarification was not provided in the polish rulebook, good to know


text:
Can you use trading to build a wonder in 7 Wonders Duel?
In 7 Wonders Duel, one routinely purchases resources from the bank to build a Building. This is covered by these two rules:

Resource Cost
Some cards have a resource cost.
  To construct them, you must produce the corresponding resources AND/OR buy
  them from the bank via the trading rules....

and

Trading
Often, you will want to construct a Building while you’re missing one or more
  required resources. In that case, you can always purchase the missing resources
  from the bank....

EDIT (to add a rules statement regarding a comment):
The first sentence of the Overview & Object of the Game section

In 7 Wonders Duel, each player is leading a civilization and will construct Buildings and Wonders. All of the Buildings constructed by a player together with their Wonders are called a "city". ... Each Age card represents a Building.

Then in the Game Elements ** section, the **Guild and Age cards subsection:

In 7 Wonders Duel, all of the Age and Guild cards represent Buildings. The Building cards all consist of a name, and effect and a construction cost.

Wonders are described in a separate subsection:

Each large card represents a Wonder from the Age of Antiquity. Each Wonder consists of a name, a construction cost, and an effect.

So, the rules are very clear in distinguishing between a Wonder and a Building in the definitions of the Game Elements.
 (end of EDIT)
Notice that the Trading specifically mentions Buildings and not Wonders. Is it the proper interpretation that Wonders cannot be built by Trading resources with the bank since Wonders aren't stated in this rule? Or is it allowed?
(For comparison, in regular 7 Wonders, the group I play with routinely purchase resources from neighbors in order to build Wonders.)

I think it would be tricky to say a wonder is not a building.   The rules also never refer to anything as 'building cards'   The decks are called called Age and Guild cards (page 3)   if your interpretation were correct then a "guild' couldn't be constructed with resources from trading either.   I agree with answer below.   It would be unusual for this to not be clarified with a specific example in the rules if you couldn't buy missing resources for wonders.

@MildlyPerilous See my edit in my question. Wonders are not the same as Buildings as described in the rules.

I get what your saying but I'd hope if such a distinction was to be made that would be clarified in rules.   To be honest reading your interpretation I've been reading the rules over and over today as you had got my thinking.  However I've found online clarification from the designer which I'll post as an answer.

@MildlyPerilous I look forward to the clarification. As currently written, the designer made a clear distinction between Buildings and Wonders.  If he wishes to modify the Trading rules he should publish that.

Honestly it kind of ruins the game if you came just buy all the resources for the wonders, especially if you can buy a wonder with a additional turn play, and buy then next wonder with the next turn and so on....

Turns out this same questions has been asked on BGG.  Thankfully the designer Bruno Cathala has responded to this question clear "just to confirm: yes you can !".
I can see from the question that a stretch it could be interpreted that Wonders are not buildings by wording of rules but the designer has clarified that trading is allowed for wonder construction.
BGG rules forum link.

Great detective work!  I hope the publisher will modify the rules to eliminate the confusion because often rules are very specific, and capitalizing Building and Wonder makes them specific categories that shouldn't be mixed, plus the very specific and separate listing in Game Elements.

I can't link to a rule book right now ... However ...
The two rules you quoted are part of the section of the rule book entitled "Constructing in 7 Wonders Duel" (page 8).
On Page 10, it lists your options for a turn:

Construct a Building
Construct a Wonder

From this, I would conclude that trading (an element of Constructing) is allowed when Constructing a Wonder.

link to rules  http://www.7wondersduel.com/files/rules/7-Wonders-Duel-Rules-US.pdf

@hymie The first sentence on page 8 is "Throughout the game you will construct Buildings and Wonders. Most of the Buildings have a resource cost....The Wonders all have resource cost."  Buildings and Wonders are considered to be distinct and separate categories by this and other statements (see my edit to my question).  The section on Trading mentions only Buildings, not Wonders. On page 10, the construction only mentions paying the costs of Buildings and Wonders, but is neutral on the Trading issue. The Trading subsection back on page 8 would control that.


text:
Assigning damage to multiple blockers
Okay so when I was looking up the answer to a different question I had I found this

You assign 2 damage on the first target, but he's not dead yet until you assign all 5 damage that you have. So all the remaining creature are still 2/2 so you are forces to a assign at least 2 damages on each so assign 2 damage on the second in the row, and 1 damage to the 3rd creature for a grand total of 5 damages. The forth creature receive no damage.

So if this is correct, this is something I didn't know about blocking multiple creatures (I'm fairly new to the game and have never actually had it happen, only been reading about the fact that you can double block)
So if I attack with 6/6, and am blocked with 4/4 and 2/3
This is how I thought it worked

I choose order of 4/4 then 2/3
So 4/4 dies because I did 6 damage, 6/6 took 4
2/3 dies because I did 6 damage, 6/6 took 2
My 6/6 died because it took a total of 6 damage

So is that correct? Or is it like this

Attack with 6/6
Blocked by 4/4 and 2/3
Order of 4/4 then 2/3, 4 damage and 2 damage (Total of 6, my creatures attack number)
4/4 dies because it took 4 damage, 6/6 takes 4 damage
2/3 lives because it took 2 damage, 6/6 take 2 damage
My 6/6 dies because it took a total of 6 damage

Source

Note that the formatting is not coming out the way you are intending here. On this site, when you place just a single new line in your text, it treats it just like a space. This is causing your questions to look like they are missing punctuation and making them hard to read correctly. You can check the question preview as you are typing to see how it will look.

It is the second one. Because your creature has a power of 6, you can deal a total of 6 damage during combat. If you are blocked by 2 creatures, you can choose how to divide that 6 damage between the 2 blocking creatures (though you you have assign lethal damage to one of them in order to also deal damage to the other). You don't get to deal 6 damage to each creature.

The latter. Each creature deals damage equal to its power to all blockers, attackers and defending players or planeswalkers, not to each of them.
Simultaneously,

The 6/6 deals 4 damage to the 4/4[1].
The 6/6 deals 2 damage to the 2/3.
The 4/4 deals 4 damage to the 6/6.
The 2/3 deals 2 damage to the 6/6.

Shortly after, when State-Based Actions are performed, the following happens simultaneously:

The 6/6 is destroyed for having damage equal to or exceeding its toughness.
The 4/4 is destroyed for having damage equal to or exceeding its toughness.

That's assuming the minimum damage is dealt to each creature. You can choose to "overkill" if you so desire, but it's rarely helpful.

His first scenario, what he thought was true, is that his creature deals 6 damage to EACH of the blocking creatures.

They are different because in one, the 2/3 survives because I was only allowed to deal 2 damage to it because I already used 4 damage on the 4/4 to kill it

Regarding "overkill is rarely helpful", it's quite common to have combat tricks that will allow a creature to survive the initially allocated amount of damage so if you are more interested in killing one over the other you may want to factor in whatever combat tricks the opponent might have available and then assign your damage whilst taking that into account.

@Cronax, That makes no sense. There's no chance to do any "combat tricks" after damage is assigned. (510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. [...] 510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. [...]) The only time it makes sense to overkill is when abilities (such as Lifelink) there are abilities that check how much damage was done, or when shields that are already in place would reduce the damage.

@ikegami as far as I am aware, as seen in http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Declare_Blockers_Step part 509.5 is the moment where you could play combat tricks but where damage assignment order has already been declared

@Cronax, Damage assignment order, yes, but not damage assignment. The "common combat tricks" you mentioned earlier are illegal. You can't use any abilities or cast any spells after damage has been assigned (or "allocated", as you called it). As such, there's very rarely any reason to overkill.

@ikegami I interpret the rules to mean that the player never actually decides how much damage to assign to each blocker but only the order in which damage will be assigned until you reach the maximum amount of damage for that attacker. When the blockers are 4/4 and 2/2 and you have a 6/6 this means the blocking player can make the 4/4 into a 5/5 to save the 2/2. This matters more when you are giving both blockers +1/+1, since if only the order is decided, the 4/4 will never live, whereas if the actual amount of damage is also decided, both 4/4 and 2/2 can live.

@Cronax, "both 4/4 and 2/2 can live", No, the 4/4 can't live if the damage assignment order is 4/4 then 2/2, and if the 4/4 becomes a 5/5.

@ikegami doesn't that mean that you never have a chance to overkill?

@Cronax, huh? In step 1 of my answer, the 6/6 could have done 5 or 6 damage to the 4/4, overkilling it. The 2/2 would have survived, though. Like I said, rarely any reason to do that.


text:
Does Lighting Shriekers ability activate if it dies or was exiled?
So if anyone noticed I've been asking a few random unrelated questions since last night
Im new to magic and I bought a box of bulk common cards to get started (Theres been a few I added to my main deck, but mostly Im using it to learn how the game works.)
So I have a Lightning Shrieker
So it says "At the begining of the end step, Lightning Shrieker's owner shuffles it into their library."
Does this take effect if it died or was exiled? And if so what can keep it from being returned to the library?
I actually did find an answer to this question (But it was on tumblr so I don't really trust they know, because of what I say next) and they said if it dies it does mot return to the library, and it can only be returned from the battlefield
The main reason I don't trust this is because while reading my bulk of cards I've seen a good number of cards that say "Return (Creature name) to (Place) from battlefield"
And this one does not say "from battlefield"
Edit: Sorry I should have been more clear, I know it doesn't activate by being exiled or destroyed, my question was when I get to the end step does the trigger still activate from exile or the graveyard?

There's no conditional on that effect, except "At the beginning of the end step".
Roughly speaking, any effect is going to apply only when the card is in play, "on the battlefield", unless the effect specifies otherwise.
So the effect takes place when it says it does, roughly at the end of the current turn.  Not when it dies or is exiled.  Since the card has Haste, in effect, you get a 5/5 attacker with flying & trample for one turn only that then gets shuffled back into your deck.  Unless you have some other way to tinker with the mechanics, that effect will always take place at the end of any turn.
To clarify further, your tumblr information is correct; if it dies, and is in the graveyard at end of turn, the effect will not apply, and it will stay in the graveyard.
Something that can exile the card and then bring it back the next turn would, temporarily, circumvent the effect, if you want to keep it in play. (I thought there was a Blink card that would do this, but cannot find it now).

Anything like Flickerwisp can delay the trigger for one turn by blinking the creature. You can also use Sundial of the Infinite :)


text:
Citadels: Price of the poorhouse from Dark City
What is the price of the poorhouse from The Dark City expansion? I'm asking, because in my (German) edition the poorhouse doesn't have any coins printed on it, so I suppose this is an error by the publisher.

In the US version, the Poor House costs 5 gold. In European versions, it costs 0 gold. The general consensus is that you should play the Poor House with its face value. If your version says 0 cost, that's what you should play it as. If you don't want to do that, make sure you inform everyone about this before the game starts.
It's not clear which publisher is in error, as the creator of the game, Bruno Faidutti, never spoke on the subject.
There are a lot of inconsistencies between European and US versions of Citadels. Someone on BGG once claimed that the 0 cost version is a misprint, but as far as I could tell they had no official source for that information, and it caused a bit of debate.

Personally I think a 0 cost Poor House is most fitting. After all, why should building a Poor House cost as much as building a Castle?

The poor house gives you quite some advantage, so building it shouldn't be free. I'll go with the costs of 5 gold, thanks.

I never experienced any kind of advantage of having a zero cost Poor House. It gets stolen or destroyed quite easily. Even though you'll get a completed city a bit faster, your city will be worth a lot less. But as long as you and your fellow players agree on the cost before the game starts, you're free to choose whichever way you wish to play.

The cost is 5 gold. (Link to Fantasy Flight Poor House card)

A word of caution, I have seen threads that note that the zero cost is a misprint, but players can choose to play it that way. Nothing official from Bruno Fadutti or Fantasy Flight Games, but I didn't do an extensive search.


text:
How does the timing work on damage redirection?
In Sentinels of the Multiverse, the villain Apostate has a card called the Orb of Delirium.  This card has 12hp, and it says: "Whenever a Villain Relic other than this card would be dealt Damage, redirect that Damage to this card."
Suppose that Apostate has the Orb in play and has three other relics.  Suppose that I use a power (for example, Tempest's area-of-effect attack) that deals 6 damage to each non-hero target.  Does this damage any relics other than the orb?
In other words, do I do this:

deal 6 damage to the orb
deal 6 damage to relic 2, redirect damage to the orb, orb dies
deal 6 damage to relic 3
deal 6 damage to relic 4

Or do I do this:

deal 6 damage to the orb
deal 6 damage to relic 2, redirect damage to the orb
deal 6 damage to relic 3, redirect damage to the orb
deal 6 damage to relic 4, redirect damage to the orb
the orb dies

If any relics other than the orb do get damaged, do I get to choose which ones, or does it happen in a specific order?

My guess is it would act the same like in this question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/29843/how-does-the-timing-work-when-area-of-effect-damage-creates-new-targets . So basically the orb dies after the second redirect, and then the rest of the damage goes to 3 and 4

In a case like this you would chose the order that the damage happened one card at a time. If your goal was to destroy as many of the relics as possible you would do the damage something like this.

6 damage to the orb
6 damage to the relic you don't want destroyed this redirects to the orb destroying it
6 damage to the next relic
6 damage to the next relic

By remembering that each time you do damage it is considered separately, and if a response happens because of that damage then it takes place before the next damage from the original source is done. This is something that is important to remember and doing it all in the correct order can be the difference between winning and losing a game.
The only thing that needs to be done in the order they came out is the start/end of turn effects on a card. Such as the what happens during the villain/environment turn.

I'm glad to hear this, but do you have a rules citation?  Is this in the original rulebook, or in official errata or an FAQ somewhere?

This is how it works in the digital version of the game. You can watch many of the podcasts and see them chose the order of damage.

"By remembering that each time you do damage it is considered separately, and if a response happens because of that damage then it takes place before the next damage from the original source is done." This is the key, think of it like state-based actions in MTG: after every action (dealing damage, drawing a card, etc) check to see if a target has zero or fewer hitpoints, remove it if so. Also, check to see there are any triggers that respond to that action and resolve those before continuing with any further actions. The Digital App is an excellent resource for these sorts of "order" questions

It should be the former. I can't really think of any thing to use as proof except watching the Twitch Stream where they play the digital version of Sentinels. Damage is resolved one card at a time. In your second example the only way that would occur is if all the artifacts were damaged at once.
Instead the artifacts should be damaged in order from first out the last out each time redirecting when possible.

+1 and thanks!  Proof by "this is how the digital version works" is pretty good, but I'll hold off on accepting this answer until I see if someone has a stronger rules citation.  :)

That is incorrect, the damage does not depend on the order they came out in.


text:
Do we really need the Urbanist?
I just got Quadropolis, and I'm confused by the Urbanist rule.  The rule is that, when you take a tile, you place the Urbanist in the place where the tile used to be, and the player after you can't point an architect at the Urbanist.
This seems unnecessarily complicated.  In practice we regularly forget to move the Urbanist.  Also, people frequently seem to forget that they can't point an architect at the Urbanist -- I've caught a few people doing this, but I'm not sure how many have done it and not been noticed.
Here's the calculation I usually perform.  I have three opponents, and clever placement of the Urbanist will inconvenience at most one of them.  It probably won't inconvenience them very much, since they probably have two or three tiles they want, and multiple ways to get those tiles.  If it does inconvenience them, at best I am kingmaking by hurting one opponent but not the other two.  On the other hand, if I take a suboptimal tile in order to inconvenience one of my opponents, that could hurt me a lot!
Also, it takes me a lot of thinking to figure out which tiles are even good for me.  If I also want to spend time evaluating my opponent's board state, that starts to get into analysis paralysis, and I want to respect the other players' time by not taking forever to evaluate something that's probably inconsequential.
Why was this rule added?  If we ignore the rule, what mechanics in the game will break?
(I suspect the rule might be more important in a two-player game.  I've been playing with four players.)

I would say that just because you forget to follow the rules doesn't mean something isn't needed.

@joe you might be right -- I've only played the game four times, and I don't understand it very well yet. That's why I'm asking here! How many times have you played this game? What was your experience with this rule?

I haven't played the game, but in general the rules in a game are there for a reason and forgetting to follow a rule is not a reason to get rid of it. Especially if you have only played it four times then you should be making sure you follow the rule in order to get a better understanding of the reasons behind it.

@JoeW - Until you achieve sufficient mastery in a game, some actions or rules can appear inscrutable.  I don't know how many times I've patiently explained the Chess En Passant rule to people.  On the flip side, some designers  fail to write 100% clear rules or just flat out make mistakes.

@PatLudwig That may be the case but I would still argue that it is hard to make any judgement about a rule when you are making so many mistakes about following the rule.

@JoeW - that is why the querent is here, seeking answers and looking for enlightenment.  If you have further concerns, please take them to meta.

The rule was added because, as the sides of the board get more and more crowded, the urbanist blocks access to tiles.
It then becomes a question of which is more important -- getting the specific tile you desperately want, or taking a less optimal tile that blocks your opponent from getting the tile he desperately wants?

I agree that that's what it does, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.  Placing the Urbanist strategically is expensive, both because I might have to take a worse tile and because I would have to spend a long time analyzing my opponent's board state.  And it only hurts one of my three opponents!  Even if I go to all that effort, isn't it just kingmaking, in the end?

Have you found the Urbanist useful in the games you've played?  Maybe you've got an example?


text:
Generic player position names for five player matches
I know in a four player game the standard terms for the players are:

North
South
East
West

Now that I think about it I can just drop South for three handed games:

North
East
West

Five handed games have that pesky extra player so I have:

Top
Middle Left
Middle Right
Bottom Left
Bottom Right

Those terms work, but they don't have the pizazz of the cardinal directions and feel slightly awkward. What are the usual terms for five handed matches? If there aren't any usual terms, what words can I use that clearly convey the location without sounding awkward?

If it helps the three handed players are positioned like points on an equilateral triangle, and five handed players are positioned like points on a pentagon. Four handed players are positioned like points on a + (plus sign) or diamond.

I've realized that I was ambiguous about the context of the question. What I'm looking for is generic terms used when diagramming play on paper. For an example of what I'm talking about from Bridge:

The problem you are going to run into is that with the names for a 5 player game is that they are all relative to where the player is sitting. At least with the terms in a 4 player game they do have some standard relation to the real world, even if the player in the south position may not be sitting on the south side. For a position like Top you have to have a constant defined starting position to mark from unless the positions just change based on conditions like who is the dealer.

@JoeW I disagree with that view. Typically N/S/E/W are used when describing game play on paper. A prominent example of that can be found in any newspaper bridge column. When you're actually playing a hand you don't need to have the external reference point so you would just use the players name, and relative position would matter. Even if you are describing the game/hand later you would give yourself an arbitrary position. For example you diagram the hands/play and say "I was playing North...."

Bouncing  on @rainbolt's answer, if spatial position is not important in the game you describe but you fear confusion by using A,B,C,D,E or 1,2,3,4,5, you could maybe also go with the Greek alphabet : alpha, beta, gamma, delta or epsilon (or the symbols if you think people are familiar enough with them)...
An alternative I sometimes use when I need to describe players around a table in a rule or an example are first-names. I then tend to use the first letters of the alphabet as their initials to convey the idea of people in a given order. For instance : Alan, Bridget, Carl, Dan and Ellen.

Spatial/relative positioning do play an element in pinochle. There is an order to the play kind of like Hearts. Using names like you suggested would lend itself well to written descriptions of play which is a big bonus.

I don't know of an "usual" way of calling players in that case, but wouldn't a clock analogy do the trick, here?
You could have:

12 o'clock
2 o'clock
5 o'clock
7 o'clock
10 o'clock

+1 If you replace "noon" with "12 o'clock" for consistency this does work better than what I came up with. I'm going to wait a bit before accepting to see if anything better comes along.

OK I will update my post (English is not my mother tongue and I wasn't sure if it's usual to say 12 o'clock instead of Noon/Midnight)

Typically in conversation I would say noon/midnight when discussing time, but 12 o'clock when using a clock for position (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade parodies this). Its a minor thing that didn't stop me from accepting the answer. I want to allow time someone to put forth a different suggestion. I definitely like the clock analogy, and think it fits well.

Also you shouldn't apologize that English isn't your native language. English is my native language and I make gaffs regularly. Also if your English here is any indication you've mastered English to a greater degree than I've mastered any of the additional languages I've learned. I'm married to a native Spanish speaker, and while I'm very good conversationally I don't think my Spanish could compete with your English. :)

Card games often use cardinal seat naming; probably for the intuitive/spatial advantage.  When the number of players forces a decision to be made about how to name a seat using cardinal points, I'd like to offer a few principles that I have long considered and now adopted in my Pinochle Notation (viewable @
http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum/PN.php#Seat# )
Cardinal Naming Principles:

North is always used.
Always use the simpler/shorter cardinal name (versus using the mathematically closer cardinal point) when the degrees from North lands between two compass points.

For pinochle, which may include 2 - 8 players, this is what I would recommend:

2 Seats: N, S
3 Seats: N, SE, SW
4 Seats: N, E, S, W
5 Seats: N, E, SE, SW, W
6 Seats: N, NE, SE, S, SW, NW
7 Seats: N, NE, E, SE, SW, W, NW
8 Seats: N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW

The above successfully avoids using "secondary-intercardinal direction" or 3-part compass directions.
That said, from a programmatical standpoint numerical seat naming is best, but for human comprehension there is usually something to gain from referencing compass points.

I don't think there are any usual terms. This is not as fancy as cardinal directions, but it is simple:

One
Two
Three
Four
Five

The beauty of this approach is that, like cardinal directions, as soon as you know one position, you can easily identify the remaining positions. Granted, you have to know whether the numbering is clockwise or counter-clockwise (people generally expect clockwise, the same way that they expect West to be on the left).
I do not see much confusion stemming from numbering the players. Consider the sentence "Two leads with a two." It is easy to identify that the first "two" is a player, while the second "two" is a rank. In the rare situations where additional clarification is required, simply provide the full qualification, "player two", instead of just "two".

I thought of this and the analog of "A, B, C, D, E". Neither of these systems give the amount of contextual reference I was hoping for. Granted numbers don't suffer from the "D" position vs "D" suit (diamonds) confusion, but they do suffer from the "2" position vs "2" rank confusion. The rank/position confusion is mitigated in pinochle because 2-5 aren't in the deck, but it isn't as clean as I would like.

@Erik I updated the answer since you updated your question, but the general idea remains the same. I also addressed your comment about how rank versus player might caught confusion if they are numbered the same. I don't think it will cause much confusion, but it really depends on your abilities as a writer. Any word used in poor context can be made confusing.

You do have a valid point about the confusion being mitigated with unambiguous writing/tables. Adding the "Player" prefix is completely logical as well.

In chemistry, a five-memeber ring molecule has positions named by distance from a given reference point.
Call this reference North. Positions adjacent to North are called alpha, and positions adjacent to alpha are called beta (hence these words in the name of some drugs). The distinction is further made by North's handedness: alpha-left is the player immediately to North's left, while beta-right is the player two places to their right, and so on.
In a six-member ring, the positions relative to North by increasing distance are ortho, meta, para. That last is the position opposite North, and so it can be dropped from a five-member ring naming system. Similar differentiation is done using left/right again.
If you want to be particularly fancy, you could also use levo- and dextrorotary or L and D, for left/right respectively.
All of these combinations also happen to use unique letters for any given position or direction: A and B or the symbols alpha and beta; L and R or L and D; and O, M, P. It is therefore clear which position is referred to, regardless of whether distance or direction is given first in any shorthand.


text:
Necroskitter and Everlasting Torment
I am playing a game of EDH against 3 other opponents and I control an Everlasting Torment and Horde of Notions, and I have a Necroskitter in my graveyard. My opponents control a whole host of non-token creatures. If one of us were to cast a Blasphemous Act for example and I use Horde of Notions ability to bring back Necroskitter, would I then gain control of all creatures that died to Blasphemous Act?
If so, as a bonus question: What about if they cast Anger of the Gods instead of Blasphemous Act?

You will get back all non-token creatures killed by having 0 (or less) toughness after the Blasphemous Act thanks to the Necroskitter (unless something else prevents them from hitting the graveyard or moves them from the graveyard before your triggers resolve).
What happens is :

Someone casts Blasphemous Act.
In response you bring back your Necroskitter with Horde of Notions
Blasphemous Act resolves, all creatures get 13 -1/-1 counters.
State based effects are checked, all creatures with 0 toughness or less die.
Necroskitter triggers for each dying creature your opponents control.
Profit!

Note: while they trigger Necroskitter like any creature, you won't return token creatures because they cease to exist as soon as they enter the graveyard.
Note 2: You also won't get the creatures if they get moved from the graveyard before your triggers resolve (it can happen depending on which player is the active player if something like a Mortus Strider dies) or if they don't get into the graveyard in the first place (for example with a Rest in Peace on the battlefield, in which case Necroskitter doesn't trigger at all).
This doesn't work with Anger of the Gods, because it says "If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead.". It works even if the damage was done in the form of -1/-1 counters. And it is a replacement effect, preventing the act of dying altogether so you don't get Necroskitter triggers at all, just like with Rest in Peace.

Thank you. I thought that was what happened but I wanted to double check. I haven't actually been in the scenario yet but I have all the components in my deck so wanted to check for the future

Would it be more correct to say all nontoken creatures?


text:
The Duke - Assassin Movement
We have been playing the game, The Duke, and confusion came up regarding the movement for the Assassin tile.

Based on the slide rules, a tile can move as many spaces as they want in the shown direction until they would hit another tile, friendly or enemy.
The jump rules state that a tile can jump over an adjacent tile to the space beyond it.
So the question is, for this tile with a jump slide, can the slide begin in the adjacent tile or must the assassin move at least two spaces away?

According to the official rules, the Slide and Jump Slide icons allow

...a Troop Tile to move any number of squares in the direction shown

It seems that the icons are place on the outside edges as emphasis that their movement is not limited in that direction.

While I understand your logic, this seems unnecessary since slides are used on plenty of other tiles. I see no reason they would put the jump slide farther away from the icon just to make sure I remember how a slide works.

According to: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/13008817#13008817
The Assassin tile (the only tile in the original game using a Jump Slide icon) can not move to the adjacent square. The game rules (excerpts quoted below) are very clear on this, and their ruling from GENCON is incorrect and not supported by those official rules. The misconception seems to be centered around the name. People seem to believe a “Jump Slide” should, first jump, then slide; even if the rules say otherwise.
I believe Catalyst should either change the rules, or follow them an advise GENCON on the rules.
SLIDE
This icon allows a Troop Tile to move |any| number of squares in the direction shown...
JUMP SLIDE
This icon follows the |exact| rules for Slide, with the following |addition|: this icon |allows| a Troop Tile to move in the direction of the Jump Slide icon and completely ignore |any| tile that might be adjacent, along the direction indicated.

Not sure if you are still curious about Assassin, but even if not, maybe someone other is.
So, briefly:

Assassin has to make a jump, and then slide. This makes impossible for him to move into adjacent square.
You cannot make a slide when capturing tile after jump.
Slide action is optional - you can stay in place after non-capturing jump.

Src: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/13008817#13008817

The existing answer cites and provides the rules for a Jump Slide, which imply that the jump is not required. The Jump Slide is in all ways exactly the same as a Slide, except that the Troop Tile may ignore an adjacent tile before continuing to move.

So placement of icons on the Assassin is quite misleading (one empty space between a pawn in the middle and jump-slide icon suggests requirement of jumping).

Also, take a look at this clarification:
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/13008817#13008817


text:
At what vulnerabilities should one raise partner's overcall to the level supported by the law of total tricks?
Neither vulnerable at matchpoints, I dealt and passed. My left hand opponent bid one heart and partner overcalled two clubs. I put her on six of the suit, and after right hand opponent raised to three hearts (showing a limit raise with 4 card support), I competed to five clubs and bought the contract (doubled) with the following: ♠ 6532 ♡ T ♢872 ♣ Q9842.
We went down two doubled (-300) and saved a 420 game. Partner felt that I should have made this sacrifice only with favorable vulnerability (opponents only vulnerable). I was taught to make it even at equal vulnerability  (-300 versus -420 or -500 versus -620), avoiding this only at unfavorable (-500 versus -420).
Partner's fear was that we might go down three. Also, she is an older person who was weaned on Goren. But would modern experts sacrifice with what I had?

This is going to depend a lot on how sound the 2C overcall is and how good your opponents are.

Also, it's useful to know how many hearts the raise tends to promise, because the more sophisticated version of the Law of Total Tricks depends on how many hearts they have.

@AlexanderWoo: Actually, partner had only AJ753 of clubs (five instead of six), but she had 14 high card points, which is enough more than "10" to compensate. The right hand opponent would have had four hearts to raise to three, and the two of them had a total of ten hearts for their 4 heart bid. Other than my partner, most members of the club are LOTT fans. We actually got a top on the board because all the other N-S pairs made five hearts (-450 to other E-Ws versus our -300).

Was the "raise" 2H, 3H weak, 3H strong, 4H weak, 3C, 4C splinter, 2N, or something more exotic?  Did the opponents have an agreement that your 5C bid create a forcing pass situation?  (I usually play that 2H/3H/4H are all weak raises with 3/4/5 trump (though an 8hcp hand with 4 trump probably raises only to 2) and 3C is an  invitational or better heart raise - with some partners I have even more ways to raise.)  One of the main reasons for an immediate 5C raise is that it makes it harder for them to find 6H if that is on - are the opponents good enough for this to be a consideration?

@AlexanderWoo" Raise tp 3 hearts was invitational, with 10 high card points and four hearts, opener bid four with 14 high card points and six hearts. All the other N-S pairs bid and made 5 hearts, but our opponents got a bottom for "selling out" to five clubs, giving us a top.

I've edited in the information from your comment.

Your partner's fear of "down three" is well founded. I see no basis for making your 5 Clubs call. Here's why:

Your stated assumption of 6 clubs in partner's hand, in order to abuse Law Of Total Tricks, is baseless. This has never been the basis of 2-over-1 overcalls.

Your rationalization that Partner's extra values compensate for the "missing" club is reason to not make the call, rather than to do so. They ensure that your call is not shutting opponents out of a slam, and even suggests possibility that the bad Heart split might mean a set of 4 hearts.

Losing Trick Count, a good means of double-checking the soundness of calls such as you have made, has your hand at 9 losers and Partner at (a distributional) 7 for a minimum overcall. Subtracting this sum from 24 yields an expectation of taking just 8 tricks, a 3 trick set and a losing board.

With opponents on a known 9 card heart fit and Partner holding AJxxx of clubs, the actual result of 9 tricks is presumably from:

5 club tricks partner's hand due to a winning finesse in the suit;
2 heart ruffs in your hand; and
2 side suit tricks in partner's hand.

However you state -450 (+450 for opponents) as the par result for this hand. Since neither opponent seems to have a club void, which almost certainly would have resulted in a 5 heart call, this means Partner stole a trick on the play: as the club ace and two side tricks aren't going anywhere on defense.
To me it seems that partner saved your *** with brilliant play, pulling a top out from ashes; and instead of congratulating her on the fine work you try to insist that her criticism of your outrageously bad call was unfounded. Frankly, you don't deserve partners of this quality.

I now concede my partner's point that this raise should have been reserved for non-vulnerable versus vulnerable. Thanks for your help.

This was the partner I visited every day in the hospital and every other day in rehab during her recent injury. So I've "earned" her partnership, just not at the bridge table.

@TomAu: You are a good human being; I've never doubted that. I also realize, and appreciate, that the Bridge tag here is kept alive largely through your questions. If you are ever in my neighbourhood, I'd be pleased to sit down and buy you a drink.

@TomAu: Looks good to me. Thank you.


text:
Can a clue giver let team know they are almost right?
Can a clue giver let his team know that they have the right word, but he wants a different form?  For example, the team players respond with “symphonic” and the word is “symphony”.  Can the clue giver say, “that word is right” and then gesture to keep trying other forms by rolling his hands?

For that specific case, the clue giver can say "noun form".

I struggled to find a copy of the printed rules for this online, only various guide.  There is a Rules summary on BGG that clear says -

The Clue Giver cannot use hand gestures

So 'rolling his hands' is technically against the rules.
I also wouldn't say "that word is right". because in the example you gave it wasn't.   I can't see anything in the rules that says you can't say "that's almost right"
The important thing to remember is you playing a fun party game.   In games like this if a player becomes to strict and rules lawyering that it stops being fun.  If a player makes a minor rules violation then keep it fun and let it go the first time.  In the UK there is a radio show called "Just a Minute" which is a silly party game.  when players do minor things wrong the Host gives player "The benefit of the doubt" to let players get away with small things but that they will try to redress later.  I think this is good practice in all party games.
If you look at the rules queries for Taboo on BGG there are lots with 'Dispute' in the title.   Its a fun silly game and not worth a dispute about, Don't let the rules get in the way of just enjoying playing.


text:
Do I take two prize cards when a Pokemon-EX is discarded?
When using the Cursed Shovel trainer card and you remove two cards from your opponent’s deck, if one of the discarded cards is a Mega Mewtwo EX, does it entitle me to take two prize cards?

I've put what seems to be a more appropriate tag on this. If you actually meant to refer to some house rules you are using, please state exactly what those house rules are.

The wording on Cursed Shovel says

If the Pokémon this card is attached to is Knocked Out by damage from
an opponent’s attack, discard the top 2 cards of your opponent’s deck

Looking at The rules here for Pokémon-EX say

When one of your Pokémon-EX is Knocked Out, your opponent takes 2 Prize cards.

The appendix for 'knocked out' says

A Pokémon is Knocked Out if it has damage greater than or equal to its
Hit Points. That Pokémon goes to the discard pile along with all cards
attached to it. When one of your opponent’s Pokémon is Knocked Out,
take one of your Prize card

So you would not be entitled to take two prize cards.  You only take a prize card when you knock a Pokemon out.  Cursed shovel places Pokemon in the discard pile, it is not the same as 'knocking out' and would not give a prize at all.


text:
Do I have to make a suggestion or can I just end turn?
The rules are not clear. Every turn I can make a suggestion once I am in a room, but do I have to? Can I just end my turn?

From the rules here

As soon as you enter a room, make a suggestion.

It's very common in games rules to use the word 'may' when something is optional.  The rules use the word 'may' in other places.  This would mean that making a suggestion is compulsory on entering a room.
However you may not remain in a room on your next turn. (and thus make another suggestion)

You may make only one Suggestion after entering a particular room.  To
make your next Suggestion, you must either enter a different Room or,
sometime after your next turn remain in a particular Room.

Thats not how I was taught the game as a child and we just stayed in the same room making suggestions!  So I've learnt something new today.

What if you are very close to make an accusation because only few clues left, do you just start making random suggestions even though you’ve already mentioned it earlier?

That for you as the player to make a tactical decision on.  I'm just answering the rules question!  as it is not 'may' then you 'must' make a suggestion on entering a room.

If the question is, "Am I required to make a suggestion whenever I enter a room?", then strictly speaking the answer is yes.  The rules explicitly say "make a suggestion".
However (except in the case of the first time in the game that a player enters a room) in practice you can effectively avoid this by simply repeating a suggestion that you or someone else has previously made.
And making it look like a mistake could be more advantageous than giving people the information that you are refraining from making a suggestion.