text:
How can I get my heavy card stock game board to lie flat?
I have a game board made of heavy card stock that doesn't lie flat at the creases, and the sections bow a little. Is there a way to keep it lying flat? Maybe a way to mount it?
The board is from Commands & Colors: Ancients.

possible dupe of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/194/protecting-the-surface-of-your-board-games

I disagree that this is a duplicate. While there may be similar solutions, it definitely is a different problem... (A more descriptive title wouldn't hurt though)

@Kempeth Any recommendations on a better title?

Something along the lines of "Board doesn't lie flat. What to do?"

I've always just overbent the board at the creases, and it usually helps it lay flatter.

I am humbled in not trying the obvious, easy solution. Though it looks like I may have to over-bend each time I take the board out of the box. Accepting this as it is simple and cheap.

@Rob, After doing it a few times, it starts to take on the new 'shape'.

From the discussion about protecting board sufaces comes the idea of placing a sheet of Plexiglas on top of your board. That just might have enough weight to push it down. If it doesn't you'll still have a flat albeit slightly tilted surface.

+1 Plexiglas is a fine idea for weighing down (and flattening) a warped board.  The one problem with it is when you are playing a tile (or modular) based game, like Road Kill Rally (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/65225/road-kill-rally).  Having to lift the Plexiglas each turn sucks.  How do we straighten warped cardboard?

You could try adhering the card stock to modeling plywood (the <1/8" variety) to add rigidity, but keep the board from being too thick.

The simple answer is corrugated cardboard. Cheap and effective, but it looks bad from one end.
Another option is to find a larger board from another game and glue your board to it, trimming the edges of the board and re-wrapping them with paper tape.

Not a bad idea finding another board in general, but the C&C: Ancients board is much large than most.

Foam core board and spray adhesive
I had a similar problem. The board in my case wasn't creased, but it was printed on flimsy card stock. The board was black so I bought a sheet of black foam core from a hobby store (Michaels in my case, but they carry it at Target, Staples, and many others). I sprayed the back of the game board with some spray adhesive and glued it to the foam core board.
You can either cut the foam board to size before gluing or after. I cut it before and it seemed to work okay, although it made lining up the board during gluing pretty critical and difficult. I found a sharp Exacto knife was the best way to cut the board.
You have several options about how to mount it:

If you cut the foam board to full-size obviously you won't be able to fit the board in the original box. Perhaps you don't care; or it could be a deal-breaker. If you don't care, this is the best option as it will take the most wear.
You could cut the board at the seam (leaving you with two mounted boards that will lie flat but won't be connected).
You could leave the board uncut but cut two pieces of foam and glue them to each side of the crease. This will enable the board to fold in on itself and the two halves will be connected by the crease.
Similar to above, you could try and cut through only the foam core backing and the foam, but not cut through the facing sheet that you intend to glue to. This would supply one more layer of paper connecting the halves besides the game board itself.


text:
Monopoly hotel sell to pay debt to opponent
I recently played Monopoly and was forced to sell hotels to pay my opponent. The problem was that the bank only had two houses left, so I was unable to sell hotels because there weren't enough houses to replace them with. I only wanted to sell the hotels because I didn't need any more money.
The rules state the number of houses and hotels are finite, so what can I do in this situation: when there there is no way to sell hotels and replace with houses? Assume everything else was mortgaged and I had no money.

My guess would be that in addition to selling the hotel, you'd also have to sell houses until you have reduced the number of houses on the property such that there are enough to put on the board

I asked this same question a while ago.

The rules clearly state that houses and hotels are a finite resource:

BUILDING SHORTAGES: When the Bank has no houses to sell, players wishing to build must wait for some player to return or sell his/her houses to the Bank before building. If there are a limited number of houses and hotels available and two or more players wish to buy more than the Bank has, the houses or hotels must be sold at auction to the highest bidder.

Furthermore, the rules for selling houses and hotels are clear:

Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price paid for them.
  All houses on one color-group must be sold one by one, evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.
  All hotels on one color-group may be sold at once, or they may be sold one house at a time (one hotel equals five houses), evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.

The rules do not clearly cover the situation you describe, but I think they implicitly force you into selling more than you need to cover your debts.
Specifically, if there are only two houses left on the board, you would have to sell your hotels and houses in the reverse order you build them until there are enough house and hotel pieces available on the board to accurately reflect what you've done. In your case this means selling from a full set of hotels down to two houses.
Strategically I'd recommend a different play. If the hotels are the only improvements you have on the entire board you're probably screwed anyway, but if not I'd consider selling houses you own on other properties first.

Hotels are complete "units." They can be sold as such, or a player can receive houses as "change," providing there are enough houses for this purpose.
In this case, the most "change" you can receive is two houses. You have to sell one hotel outright, and the equivalent of four houses in each of the remaining two properties, putting one house on each of those.
I'm assuming that this will allow you to pay off the debt, and you'll have a little bit left over. You can't buy any more houses until at least one is made available. You may unmortgage other property with what money you have left.
Another solution is to offer most or all of your mortgaged property in exchange for either cancellation of the debt (by the landlord), or to a third party for enough to pay the debt, or in "chunks" to third and fourth parties. (If it's a two way game, you're lost anyway). In a multiway game, people will have to worry about third parties, and that may give you some leverage to make a deal that will help them, more than it helps their opponents. On the other hand, if your hotels are the "big threat" in the game, others may be happy to see it disappear.
For future questions, it might be helpful to know which monopoly your hotels are on, what your other properties are, the number of other players, and their holdings.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What's behind the "Duck of Doom" card?

"You should know better than to pick up a duck in a dungeon."

Should I, really? Most of the cards in basic Munchkin are humorous references to Dungeons & Dragons or other tabletop RPG culture. I'm fairly familiar with both, though my history of personal involvement in them may not be long. But I just don't get the joke here.

Is this meant to be an "inside joke" for D&D/RPG fans, or is it just some random humor made up for the Munchkin universe? If it is an existing cultural reference, what is it referring to?

What do I know. I have a chicken on my head. (See my avatar)

@ikegami Yeah, I don't get that one either. I think I remember finding something out about it awhile ago, but I've forgotten. The duck just came up in recent discussion, so I figured I'd ask.

Perhaps it's a duckatrice. Also nethack.

There is a long and storied tradition of unspeakably awful deathtraps showing up in dungeons. Kind and generous dungeon masters would allow such traps to be found, but others would skip the tedious step of permitting the party Thief to check for traps, and simply spring the trap upon the unsuspecting victim, sans saving throw, sans opportunity to escape, and sans chance to survive.
These evil Dungeon Masters often point to Gary Gygax as their inspiration. Gygax was, by most accounts, a tough-but-fair DM, but he also created the module Tomb of Horrors: the most trap-filled, instantly-lethal, no-saving-throw dungeon published at that time. (It may still remain the most-lethal professionally-published dungeon, for all I know.)
Some examples of the kind of traps Gygax used in the Tomb of Horrors:

A tapestry that, when torn, fills the entire room with green slime (which is nigh-instantly fatal).
A variety of cursed things: a Cursed Spear of Backbiting (does exactly what it says on the tin, to your back), valuable items that summon demons when taken, and a gem seems to grant you a wish, but then explodes (killing all within 15 feet)
An archway that causes you to reverse gender and alignment if you walk through it.
A variety of teleport traps that take you back to the beginning of the dungeon, sans your equipment.
A giant face, with a 3' wide mouth you could crawl into – it's actually a Sphere of Annihilation (die immediately, no save). Some of the teleport traps mentioned above  dump you right in front of said face (instead of at the dungeon entrance), possibly giving you the impression that if you walk into the face, you'll end up back where you were before you teleported.

On a personal note, I have played through a few Gygax-inspired dungeons. The twisted traps that a clever DM can come up with are truly amazing, truly enlightening, and truly lethal. (It was good fun; we all expected to die horribly, and were not disappointed.)
The Duck of Doom, then, is likely inspired by exactly that sort of Evil Dungeon Master. A duck that curses you horribly the instant you pick it up is exactly the kind of thing that an Evil DM would put in.
For the phrase "Duck of Doom", the oldest role-playing-game-related results I found on Google were from Munchkin, so Munchkin itself is likely the originator. (There's some ancient Australian bird, Bullockornis, occasionally called the Demon Duck of Doom, but it's utterly unrelated to "harmless" rubber ducks in dungeons and cursed items.)

I don't think it's a reference to anything specific, other than the tendency for sadistic Dungeon Masters to make innocuous items into deathtraps.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if one of Grimtooth's Traps had a Duck in it.  While the Grimtooth's Traps books are out of print, a recent KickStarter finished with plans to reprint all the books in the series.

Why would you expect to randomly find a rubber duck in a dungeon?
That's right, you wouldn't.  There must be a REASON it's there... and can you imagine any good reason for a rubber duck to be in a dungeon?
Right, exactly.  Of course not.  Therefore, it's been put there by someone or someTHING.  That's never a good sign in a dungeon.
Therefore, finding a rubber duck in a dungeon is a sign of Very Bad Things.  You should know better than to pick it up.

Related Chekhov's gun

Judges guild had a module called "Dark Tower" and made a parody to go along with it "Legendary Duck Tower" where a lot of things in the dungeon were replaced with Ducks. Probably a long shot, but could be a good homage to it!

I thought that it came from the movie Unforgiven, where the barely literate sheriff reads aloud "The Duke of Doom" as The Duck of Doom*.

it may not have been "of Doom" as my memory is faulty but he definitely pronounced Duke as Duck.

For reference, the actual movie phrase was "Duck of Death." I'm not sure that these two things are really related, but it's an interesting catch.

I've got no evidence for it, but I guess there's a chance it could be a nod to the Demonic Duck from El Goonish Shive.
The Demonic Duck is a minor recurring character in El Goonish Shive. In canon, he only appears when a distraction is needed and he is summoned. A character will stumble into an awkward situation, try to use the duck as a distraction and either flee from the situation or change it to be less awkward. The duck will then usually grumble about feeling used.

I'm afraid that El Goonish Shive's oldest comic is from 2002, and the first Munchkin set (which contained the Duck of Doom) was released in 2001.

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

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


text:
Why isn't "Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small" called "Agricola: All Creatures Great and Small"?
It's always been rather jarring to me that the excellent game "Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small" has that name, rather than the usual expression, "All Creatures Great and Small".
(Most people know the expression "All Creatures Great and Small" from the hymn "All Things Bright and Beautiful" or the film and TV series of that title based on James Herriot's books.)
So, my question is: why wasn't the game's title the more familiar expression? Was it some kind of trademark issue relating to the works based on James Herriot's books? Or was the name chosen by someone who wasn't very familiar with the reference and got it a bit wrong, for example? It'd be really interesting if someone knows this story!
Update: someone's asked essentially the same question on Board Game Geek, but with no definitive answer there. It does add the interesting detail, though, that the German name for the game, "Agricola: Die Bauern und das liebe Vieh" is very similar to the German name for the James Herriot TV show, "Der Doktor und das liebe Vieh" so presumably the reference is deliberate. It's still very strange that the English name should have this discordance, though.

Upvoted - I do feel like this question is not explicitly off topic, despite most questions on the site revolving around rules and gameplay ambiguities. It's a direct, answerable question, and interesting trivia besides -- I'm not alone in having stumbled over the name, expecting it to be "All Creatures, Great and Small."
I've sent a message to (the likely very busy!) Uwe Rosenberg himself on BoardGameGeek about this. If I hear back, I'll update.

@Manath I think it's on-topic, for the reasons you say and because it's about a board game. We don't share Arqade's (the gaming SE) policy that "Speculative questions about developer intent, with respect to both mechanics and narrative" are off-topic.

Never heard of the phrase great and small. I've heard of the phrase big and small many times, and recognize it. I'm in the U.S.; maybe the creators had a similar understanding.

I am almost certain this is a UK / US difference. Specifically, I believe it was named this way because of a marketing decision by the US publisher.
Research:
Although Agricola's creator is Uwe Rosenberg: "a German game designer", the main publisher is Mayfair Games:
"an American publisher of board, card, and roleplaying games"
As you mentioned "All Creatures Great and Small" is a well known UK book/tv series.
This page, shows release titles in different countries. Each language's word for "Great" (Spanish: grandes, Italian: grandi, Dutch: groot, Polish: duze, Russian: большие) all translate to "big" or "large". Even though that is one of the definitions of great, they don't immediately translate to "great". "Big" is a simpler translation that cuts straight to it's meaning.
Why is that simple direct translation relevant? Because that's one common difference between UK and US English. Americans tend to simplify English (some might prefer to say "dumb-down" haha). Check out this page for US/UK spelling comparison, where in every example the US version is just simpler.
I would bet that if the TV series, "All Creatures Great and Small", were remade in the US, that they would change "great" to "big", just like they did with this movie, "All Creatures Big and Small".
If we take a look at that movie's release titles in other countries, the title chosen for UK is "Two by Two". Perhaps they knew the phrase wouldn't sound right in the British ear, and "All Creatures Great and Small" was an already well-known title there.
Moving on, let's find the phrase in a dictionary.
The only one I could find that accepted the phrase is OxfordDictionaries.com. Both phrases using "great" or "big" bring up only the phrase "All Creatures Great and Small." So I would call that the proper or truer phrase. Found on this page.
Did Americans change other phrases using the word "great"? Dictionary Time!
Not only other phrases but if we look at some of the example sentences given for the definitions in this Oxford UK dictionary, a few don't sit right in my American ear.
UK Dictionary: "I was a great fan of Hank's" --- US preference: "I was a big fan of Hank's"
UK Dictionary: "You great oaf!" -- US preference: "You big oaf!"
UK Dictionary: "My father was a great one for buying gadgets" meaning an enthusiast (In US, this sounds like he was skilled at buying gadgets at good prices)
-- US preference: "My father was a big one for buying gadgets" (communicates more of a liking and enthusiasm for it, in the US)
UK Dictionary: "to a great extent" -- US preference: "to a large extent"
(Note that the "US preference" is my personal American ear's preference, so I'm curious if other Americans disagree with any of those.)
Wish I could find more definitive proof, but hopefully this is enough evidence to at least satisfy your curiosity, in case we don't hear back from the game's creator, Uwe Rosenberg.

There are counter-examples, such as Great Depression, Great Plains, and Great Lakes

In fact, there's a popular political movement to start using "great" again. ;)

I agree with your US preferred language.  I am a native US speaker of some years ;) But I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the question.  Are you saying that the preferred American title would use big?  'Cause it sounds like you are, and I'd disagree, since it's trying to use a known phrase, like the OP pointed out.  I think your point about the translation of the term for "great" into English defaulting to "big" is the reason.  They chose the simple term when translating without recognition for the existing, common phrasing in English.

@ikegami Make America Big Again!

@ikegami That's hilarious. But actually, I don't see those as counter-examples. Great Depression, Great Lakes, Great Plains, and even the Great War (WWI), were named back when American English was much closer to UK English. But great is rarely used to mean "large" anymore in the US, especially informally. I would be very curious to survey Americans on the meaning behind each of those examples of "great" to see if they think they mean "big/large" or "superior/outstanding". I suspect the latter, even for Great Plains and Great Lakes, especially for young Americans.

@Quasi_Stomach Yes I do believe the preferred title to be marketed in USA would use "big" instead of "great". The main reason being that young Americans (the target audience of this game, at least in the US Publisher's mind) are not familiar with the phrase "Great and Small". I would bet that if you asked young Americans, most would try to understand "All creatures great and small" as meaning "All animals superior and small", which is quite confusing. There was no "translation" from UK to US English. I think it was a deliberate marketing decision to ignore the phrase and deliver clear meaning.

The reason American spelling is simpler than British spelling is to balance out the cognitive burden of using imperial measurements.

@ikegami Make America Bigly Again!

@Stephen lmao to both!


text:
Who gets the tokens from Chasm Skulker?
If a player takes control of your Chasm Skulker, then it dies while they control it, do they also get the tokens it creates?

Yes, they get the tokens.
Since they control the Chasm Skulker, they also control its triggered ability ("When Chasm Skulker dies..."). And then since they control the ability, they're the ones who follow the instructions to put tokens onto the battlefield.

110.2a If an effect instructs a player to put an object onto the battlefield, that object enters the battlefield under that player’s control unless the effect states otherwise.
112.8. The controller of an activated ability on the stack is the player who activated it. The controller of a triggered ability on the stack (other than a delayed triggered ability) is the player who controlled the ability’s source when it triggered, or, if it had no controller, the player who owned the ability’s source when it triggered.

In combination with 603.6d which is a bit long but essentially says that for death triggers like this one, you look before the creature died to see how the trigger works.

603.6d. Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to “look back in time” to determine if these abilities trigger.

Note that they also own the tokens, since the tokens entered the battlefield under their control. This doesn't generally matter, but just in case!

110.5a A token is both owned and controlled by the player under whose control it entered the battlefield.

@ghoppe Thanks, somehow forgot there would be an explicit rule for that.

Shouldn't 603.6d be mentioned here? That is the rule that makes it clear that the player who controlled Chasm Skulker is still considered to control it for the purposes of the "dies" trigger. I'm not sure 112.8 really applies here, because your opponent does NOT control the triggered ability's source when it triggered. Rather it controlled it right before it triggered, which is good enough for "dies" triggers.

@GendoIkari It's the combination of the two, yes? 603.6d just says you look back to before to figure out what happens, then you apply 112.8 based on that state.


text:
Can Auras be moved between creatures?
Say I play Valeron Warden and then play Knightly Valor, enchanting Valeron Warden. Valeron Warden now has +2/+2 and Vilgilance.  On the next turn, I play Archangel of Tithes, a much stronger creature. To make it stronger, can I move the enchantment, Knightly Valor from Valeron Warden and enchant Archangel of Tithes?
All I can find on this is that it must have a target and that it can be sent to the graveyard if the target is sent to the graveyard.

The thing that can move around between creatures, by the way, is Equipment.

Nice...negative vote.  For what?

Asking about downvotes often isn't terribly productive since the user who voted won't be notified about your comment. But my best guess would be lack of research effort (one of the things shown when you hover over the downvote arrow): It's something that's covered in the basic rules, and the Google results for things like "can you move auras mtg" answer this pretty directly

Then shut the site down since this can all be googled!  LOL - don't do that.  I come to SE when things on a Google search aren't clear to me.  Sorry if this is terribly simplistic to the rest of you

No you cannot move the enchantment (unless you have a card like Aura Finesse.  Aura spells need a target when they are cast.

113.1b Aura spells are always targeted. These are the only permanent spells with targets. An Aura’s target is specified by its enchant
keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). The target(s) are chosen
as the spell is cast; see rule 601.2c. An Aura permanent doesn’t
target anything; only the spell is targeted. (An activated or
triggered ability of an Aura permanent can also be targeted.)

The target is only chosen when it is cast and is a spell (ie. on the stack but before it has resolved and entered the battlefield).  Unless something allows you to move it (Simic Guildmage, etc.) there is no way for you to cast it again while it is on the battlefield and choose a new target.

OK...the combination of both 601.2c and 608.2b explicitly state targeting as part of both the casting and resolution of the spell - declaring and verifying a target as legally target-able. This is what Diego was trying to get me to see.  But the rule(s) stating as much are what I was looking for.

@SteveMangiameli If you have questions like this, the basic rules are really much better. There's a brief bit about auras early on in the rules, then the entry for "aura" in the glossary tells you pretty much exactly what it means, and it's all written to be much more understandable than the comprehensive rules.

@SteveMangiameli Also note that these don't specifically say it can't be moved, they just explain that when you cast it you get to attach it to a creature. The reason you can't move it is exactly what diego said: this is all the rules say you can do.

In general once an Aura is enchanting an object it stays enchanting that object. There are no rules that allow you to move Auras from one object to another, therefore you cannot do it.
There are exceptions though, cards like Simic Guildmage have the ability to move Auras to different permanents, and Illusory Gains moves itself whenever a creature enters the battlefield.

In general I would tend to agree.  But I don't see any rules stating you can't or that once played on a permanent it's locked to that permanent.  If you can show me something like that I'll mark this as the answer. The cards you linked to imply you are correct but not explicit enough for what I'm looking for.

@SteveMangiameli That isn't how the rule of Magic work. The rules give you permission to do things, since they don't give you permission to move Auras you cannot do so.

An aura is an enchantment, which works like a spell.  It goes on the stack.  There are other enchantments that state, add one to your mana pool, or add +1/+1 to all creatures under your control.  Knightly Valor says enchant a creature.  It doesn't say once and only once, just like add one to your mana pool is not a one time event.  So this seems like a gray area to me, barring anythig that states otherwise.

@SteveMangiameli And those work because there are rules saying they do. There is no rule saying you can move an enchantment, therefore you cannot do it. Also, what enchantment are you talking about that adds mana to your mana pool?

Let's back up a sec...take Simic Guildmage out of the equation - it's a creature not an aura enchantment.  Second, Illusory Gains very first line says "Enchant Creature" - same as Knightly Valor.  Where does it say this is a one time event?  Other enchantments like Silkwrap state when the action triggers.  I'll have to get back with you on the mana adding card, I don't remember it off had and it might be an artifact.

@SteveMangiameli Are you looking for this: 303.4. Some enchantments have the subtype “Aura.” An Aura enters the battlefield attached to an object or player. What an Aura can be attached to is defined by its enchant keyword ability (see rule 702.5, “Enchant”). Other effects can limit what a permanent can be enchanted by.

I read that and about a dozen other references.  I may just have to live with an implication short of a stated rule.  Just seems to be a gray area.  Pacifism is another card that seems like it would benefit from moving where the controller wants it to.

diego's point about the rules telling you what you can do is key. There is no rule that says you can attach auras wherever you want whenever you want, just as there is no rule saying you can't just add mana to your mana pool as you like (who needs lands?). Why not just declare victory? There's no rule saying you can't do that either.

Hao Yo - the card says Enchant Creature; it doesn't say when or how.  So you are left to understanding the rules about how this occurs.  Those rules exist and that's what I was looking for.  This is moot anyway...the question has been sufficiently answered.  Perhaps a more succinct question would have been with regard to the rules for targeting, but I didn't know that when asking the original question.

@SteveMangiameli - Ah, ok. I guess it wasn't clear to some of us that the question, at heart, was about how auras work, as opposed to the narrower interpretation of "can you move auras at will".

@SteveMangiameli The Enchant keyword is defined in rule 702.5, and it doesn't do anything. It just restricts what types of objects the Aura can attach to.

@SteveMangiameli As diego showed, "Enchant creature" is NOT an instruction to follow. 303.4 defines what "Enchant creature" means. It doesn't mean "Pick a creature an enchant it". It is a restriction on what sort of things the aura can enchant.

An Aura is attached to something when it enters the battlefield, and it doesn't get to move around. From the basic rules (in the glossary):

Aura
A special type of enchantment that can be attached to a permanent. Each Aura has the keyword "enchant" followed by what it can be attached to: "enchant creature," "enchant land," and so on. When you cast an Aura spell, you choose one of the right kind of permanent to target. When the
Aura resolves, it's put onto the battlefield attached to that permanent (it's not targeting it anymore). The Aura stays there until it's destroyed or the permanent it's attached to leaves the battlefield. If the permanent leaves the battlefield, the Aura card is put into your graveyard.

Yes, you can figure out the answer to your question from the comprehensive rules (113.1b plus the generic rules for casting a spell in 601.2, and the lack of anything in the rules that says you can move it around), but the basic rules are easier and quicker to understand, and you also learn a lot more in the process. For example in this case, you learned for free that auras go to the graveyard when they get detached, but from the comprehensive rules you'd have to have thought to look up state-based actions to find out. And to really verify that there wasn't something somewhere that did say they could be moved, you'd have to search/read through everything about auras.


text:
Do auras and equipment stay on cards if they stop being creatures?
Ojutai Monument can be turned into a creature card until end of turn. If I attached enchantments or equipment to it, would they stay attached even when the card turns back into a non-creature artifact?
Reasoning for yes

The card is not leaving the battlefield, so the cards attached wouldn't either.

Reasoning for no

How would a simple artifact gain the effects only a creature could have?

Not really an answer rather a method of getting round this, Artifact equipment can be equipped to another creature after you attack with the dragon on you last main phase. So it is possible to equip it with "Equipment" however enchantments are auras and cant connect to the creature when it becomes an artefact again so they will disappear

Equipment will fall off, and Auras most likely will as well.
Equipment can only be attached to creatures. If it finds itself attached to a non-creature permanent, like when the Ojutai Monument turns back into a plain old non-creature artifact, that's illegal, and it'll be detached.

301.5. Some artifacts have the subtype “Equipment.” An Equipment can be attached to a creature. It can’t legally be attached to an object that isn’t a creature.

704.5p If an Equipment or Fortification is attached to an illegal permanent, it becomes unattached from that permanent. It remains on the battlefield.

If an Aura says "Enchant Creature" on it, that means it can only be attached to creatures. So if it finds itself attached to a non-creature artifact instead, that's illegal, and it's put into its owner's graveyard. If on the other hand the enchantment said "Enchant permanent" (e.g. Take Possession) it'd be able to stay attached.

702.5a Enchant is a static ability, written “Enchant [object or player].” The enchant ability restricts what an Aura spell can target and what an Aura can enchant.

704.5n If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

And these checks occur when state-based actions are checked, so there isn't a chance for anyone to have priority to do anything about it.


text:
Can Panic Spellbomb be returned to the library in response to its ability?
When activating the ability on Panic Spellbomb (tap, Sacrifice Panic Spellbomb: Target creature can't block this turn.), can the opponent then use an Instant such as Banishing Stroke to put Panic Spellbomb on the bottom of it's owner's library? Both are happening at instant speed, so do they stack like typical instants?

Your opponent can't do that. Sacrificing the Spellbomb is part of the cost, and you pay costs as part of activating the ability and putting it on the stack, and only once you're done with all that does anyone get priority. So by the time your opponent gets the chance to do anything, it's already in your graveyard. (This is just like how your opponent couldn't do something in response to you paying mana for a spell or ability.)
If the Spellbomb weren't being sacrificed, your opponent could cast Banishing Stroke on it, but it wouldn't really accomplish anything. Once an ability is activated, it exists on the stack independently of its source. (Yes, activated abilities use the stack.) You'd activate the ability, and your opponent could cast Banishing Stroke in response. The Banishing Stroke would then be on top of the stack, and resolve first. It'd put the Spellbomb on the bottom of your library, then the Spellbomb's ability would resolve as usual.
Side note: all spells and activated abilities use the stack, regardless of whether they're instants (or at "instant speed"). The important thing about instants and activated abilities is that they can be cast/activated any time you have priority, e.g. while something's already on the stack. That is, the bottom thing on the stack definitely doesn't have to be at "instant speed", just the things added on top of it (usually) - and the stack resolves top-down the same way no matter what's on it.

All spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities use the stack. Panic Spellbomb's ability is no exception.  Although it does happen at instant speed, Panic Spellbomb's ability is not actually an instant spell, it is an activated ability. From the comprehensive MTG rules:

602.1. Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as "[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]"

Panic Spellbomb's ability reads: "Tap, Sacrifice Panic Spellbomb: Target creature can't block this turn." Sacrificing Panic Spellbomb is part of the cost of activating it's ability because it comes before the colon.

602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

This means that in order to put Panic Spellbomb's ability on the stack, you must pay its costs (tap it and sacrifice it) first, meaning that it would be in your graveyard before it even went on the stack in the first place. Panic Spellbomb would then be an illegal target for Banishing Stroke as Panic Spellbomb would be in the graveyard.


text:
Does a card like Languish count as a damage-dealing sorcery?
I was thinking of using Mark of Asylum to protect my creatures from cards like Languish, but does giving all creatures -4/-4 count as damage dealt in the same way, for instance, Swirling Sandstorm does?

No, only spells and abilities that actually say damage deal damage. (Creatures can also deal damage in combat or when fighting, of course.) Languish just changes power and toughness.

And things were "damage" is in the rules for the thing, like combat and fight.

Also, damage causes life loss; but life loss isn't damage!


text:
Does adding a subtype to a creature count as entering the battlefield?
I have Seraph Sanctuary in play, which lets me gain life when an Angel enters the battlefield. If I play Call to Serve on a creature, turning it into an Angel, does adding the subtype like that count as an Angel entering the battlefield, so that I gain life?

The question I proposed as a duplicate is about adding a type (turning something into a creature) not a subtype, but the answer's the same: the object hasn't entered the battlefield.

@Jefromi Agreed.

No, attaching Call to Serve to a creature you control will not trigger Seraph Sanctuary's ability. A permanent triggers "enters the battlefield" abilities when it transitions from not being on the battlefield to being on the battlefield, whether it be from the resolution of a creature spell, from the creation of a creature token, or from some other instruction. However, Call to Serve just changes the type of a creature that is already on the battlefield.


text:
Do multiple Eternal Thirst give a creature multiple copies of the same triggered ability?
If I have a creature with two copies of Eternal Thirst on it, and a creature my opponent control dies, do I get one or two +1/+1 counters?

@Rainbolt Not 100% - in that case, the triggered abilities are all on separate creatures, so it's clear that they must all be independent. This one's about a single creature having two copies of the same ability. (More like the common double-exalted case, not sure I see one of those here though.)

@Jefromi If the title of this question were edited to "Can one creature have two copies of the same ability?" then I would consider retracting my close vote. Until then, that's not what it asks, and I think it's a duplicate.

@Rainbolt That's exactly what it's asking, just in a less generic way. Eternal Thirst grants a triggered ability, and "do they stack?" means "does it get multiple copies". If you think it's not the clearest possible wording, okay - you can edit as well as I can. But that doesn't mean it's a duplicate.

After the title change, this is now a duplicate of Do Thorncaster Sliver's trigger abilities stack?

@Rainbolt Coincidentally it was also a duplicate of that before the title change, since the title change had no effect on the meaning of the question. (But thank you for finding a duplicate to mark, of course.)

You'll get two counters. Each copy of Eternal Thirst grants the creature an independent triggered ability. The two abilities happen to be the same, but there are still two of them. They'll both trigger, both go on the stack (separately!), and each will add one counter as it resolves.

Ok, thx :) Just to make sure, the lifelinks don't stack right?

@Niklas, "702.15e Multiple instances of lifelink on the same object are redundant." Note that this does not apply to cards such as Spirit Link, which is worded similarly but does not actually grant the lifelink keyword ability.

@Niklas Yup, with most basic keyword abilities (flying, trample, menace, lifelink, deathtouch, reach, etc), a creature either has it or it doesn't.


text:
How does the die rolling work in Betrayal at House on the Hill?
There are a lot of parts into the game where i just dont know what to do with the die. For example, when I have to roll a 3+ to cross a bridge, how many dice is it when it's not a might or speed or sanity or knowledge roll?

Welcome to the site! If you have multiple unrelated questions, please ask each separately rather than all in one. I've answered your first question here; you can edit out the others and make other questions. Also, have you read the rulebook? Most of the questions you've asked here are pretty basic and should be easily answerable by reading the rules (it's not a long rulebook).

I went ahead and kept only the first of the questions, since it's the one that was in the title and the body, so it seemed important. Please do repost the others, though!

To briefly answer the questions that got edited out:
1: The turn doesn't end but your movement goes to 0. Normally this means you have nothing else to do so you end your turn, but you can still use items and interact with things in the room (e.g. try to open the vault).
2: You draw a card for a room tile when you enter that room only as you reveal it. You might draw several cards if events cause you to reveal and move into new rooms.
3: If you have to draw for a particular floor you discard tiles until you get a valid floor. When you run out, shuffle the pile.

The number of dice you roll is equal to your stat for the roll you need. So if it tells you to make a might roll, and your might is 3, then you roll 3 dice.

It was a little unclear originally (I edited a bit), but I think the OP thought that there were some places where it didn't actually tell you a stat. I don't think that's the case, though; for example the bridge on the tower says "a might roll of 3+", the chasm says "a speed roll of 3+", and so on. (I don't own the game, going off images online, sorry if I messed something up.)

There are a few separate rolls that aren't based on a trait. Usually, if there's no trait to check it'll tell you how many dice to use. This includes events such as the granny on the telephone and rooms such as the mystic elevator (both 2 dice, from memory).
One common type of roll that doesn't use a trait is the haunt roll, which you roll after each omen card is drawn. As detailed in the general rules, a haunt roll is always 6 dice, and succeeds (doesn't trigger the haunt) if the result is at least the number of omen cards drawn so far. Since you can roll up to 12 on 6 dice, there are 13 omen cards (and omen room tiles) to guarantee that a haunt will always happen eventually.


text:
Can a creature be killed by damage from two different instants?
During a game, an opponent cast two instants, one after another. One did two damage to a creature, while the second instant did two damage and if that killed my creature, did 3 damage to me. My creature was a 4/4, so obviously it did 3 damage to me according to my opponent. Is that a legal move? Assuming the first instant resolved, would that leave my creature at a 4/2? Or would the card have no effect?

The first spell you mention could be any number of cards, but can you confirm that the second spell was Searing Blood?

Yes, that was a legal move.
You may cast multiple instants in the same turn. There's no limit beyond having the instants and being able to pay their cost.
After taking the first two damage, your 4/4 would still be a 4/4. Those two numbers represent power/toughness - toughness is not health, but the amount of damage a creature can withstand in one turn.
Your 4/4 would be a 4/4 with two damage marked against it after the first spell, then a 4/4 with four damaged marked against it after the second. Since it has taken damage at least equal to its toughness in one turn, it dies.

This brings up the question: Are there any ways to remove these damage counters?

@FreeAsInBeer You could ask that in its own question. "Is there any way to remove damage that's already been dealt?" or something.

@FreeAsInBeer incidentally, they're not counters. I guess you could use some sort of physical object to help you track how much damage a creature has taken in the turn so far, but counters are a separate thing in Magic, with a specific meaning in the rules.

@doppelgreener I'd thought about it, but found it was pertinent enough to the current discussion, while also probably being a rarely asked question so I figured I'd ask it as a comment instead of cluttering the question feed with something some would consider dumb.

@FreeAsInBeer Ask it as a new question. I don't think it's relevant (except that we're talking about damage), and leading on with questions isn't what comments are for. However, it's a good question - the answer might be "no except for this one card but here's some alternatives that are about as good" or something and I'd be interested to know. Let's put it this way: I think it's good enough that if you don't ask it, I probably will!

@doppelgreener Here you go.


text:
In what order does Scale Blessing place counters?
I have two creatures in the field:

2/2 creature
2/2 creature with 2 +1/+1 counters on it,

I then play Scale Blessing. Does it work on the creature that has more than one +1/+1 counters on it? With the result being:

2/2 creature w/ +2/+2
2/2 creature w/ +2/+2

? Please help!

To complement on the answer: "that has a +1/+1 counter on it" does not mean "that has one +1/+1 counter on it", it means "that has at least one +1/+1 counter on it"

You'll end up with a 2/2 with two +1/+1 counters, and a 2/2 with three +1/+1 counters.
There are two separate things to do, in the order they're written on the card:

Bolster 1: put a +1/+1 counter on the 2/2 that doesn't have any counters yet. (It's your creature with the least toughness.) You now have one creature with one counter, and one with two. It's good for you that the bolster comes first, because next...
Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature that has a +1/+1 counter on it. It says "each creature that has a +1/+1 counter on it", not "exactly one +1/+1 counter", so that's both of your creatures! Now you have one creature with two counters, and one with three.

It's true that the reminder text for bolster is at the very end, but it's just a quick explanation of what bolster means. The actual text instructing you to bolster 1 is is the first thing on the card, so it's the first thing you do.

If I understand he question correctly, what he's asking is if the counters are teamed into effect when figuring out which creature has the "least toughness". You do answer this in your response, but not directly.


text:
What are permanents?
What are the specific types of permanents in the game? Are lands included in permanents?

Could you please try to put actual questions in the title, and when possible, give a bit more background about why you're asking questions? That'll make it a lot easier for people to answer. (It does also help if you upvote and accept answers, or comment if anything's unclear, so that people know for sure if they're covering what you wanted to know.)

The Basic Rulebook answers this question.

permanent—Lands, creatures, artifacts,
  enchantments, and planeswalkers are
  permanents. They enter the battlefield after you
  cast them. Token creatures are also permanents.
  Instants and sorceries are not permanents. They
  go to the graveyard after they resolve.

A permanent is any card or token on the battlefield. This includes lands, creatures, artifacts, enchantments, and planeswalkers.
Note that they have to actually be on the battlefield to be permanents. For example, a creature card on the battlefield is a permanent, though it's usually just referred to as a creature - the "permanent is implied". If it's on the stack, in the process of being cast, it's a creature spell, not a permanent. And if it's elsewhere like in your hand or graveyard, it's just a creature card, still not a permanent.


text:
How does Sheltered Aerie work?
I have Sheltered Aerie enchantment aura on one land. Does the mana that get added while it's tapped stay after your end phase? Does the mana keep adding up?

Correction: The Aura is enchanting a Land (a type of card), not a mana (an non-physical resource).

No, all players' mana pools get emptied at the end of every step and phase of the turn.

500.4. When a step or phase ends, any unused mana left in a player’s mana pool empties. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

There are some cards  that let you keep some or all of your mana, but they always state that clearly in the card text, and Sheltered Aerie is not one of those cards.

No, your mana pool empties at the end of every step and phase.

500.4. When a step or phase ends, any unused mana left in a player’s mana pool empties. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

There's nothing exceptional about the mana from Sheltered Aerie.


text:
How much damage does Acolyte of the Inferno's ability deal?
Acolyte of the Inferno has this ability:

Whenever Acolyte of the Inferno becomes blocked by a creature, it deals 2 damage to that creature.

Does that mean it deals 2+current power to blocking creature?

No. When the Acolyte is blocked, it immediately deals two damage to that creature, before combat damage is handled. This goes on the stack the same as instants that would be cast after blockers are assigned but before damage is dealt. This means that if it is blocked by a one or two toughness creature, that creature dies before dealing damage to the acolyte.

No, it does exactly what it says: it deals two damage. This ability will trigger in the declare blockers step, when your opponent declares a blocker for the Acolyte.
If the creature isn't already dead from that two damage, then in the combat damage step, it will also deal damage equal to its power to the blocking creature. (Of course, if the blocking creature has first strike, it would kill Acolyte of the Inferno before it got to deal its combat damage.) So in some cases the total damage dealt will be two plus its power, but it can also easily be just two damage.
A creature's power is the amount of damage it'll deal when it deals combat damage, to your opponent or a blocking creature when you've attacked, or to your opponent's attacking creature when you've blocked. Any abilities like this are completely independent of the creature's power.
Beyond that, if a card cares about a creature's power, it'll explicitly say so. For example, Tail Slash:

Target creature you control deals damage equal to its power to target creature you don't control.

There's also the "fight" mechanic, for example on Savage Punch; when two creatures fight, each deals damage equal to its power to the other creature.
Some creatures even have abilities built in that do things like this, for example Spikeshot Elder. But again, everything like this explicitly mentions the creature's power.


text:
How does double strike work?
If I have a creature with 4/4 double strike, does it kill each blocking creature with toughness 4 or less due to first strike?

It seems you lack knowledge of the basic rules of magic, especially about how double strike works. I suggest you get to know them first. Furthermore I would like to suggest you search this website for "double strike" and read through all questions and answers and try to understand it. You would probably know the answer then

Specifically, you should definitely look at the Basic Rules. It has pretty clear explanations of all the basic stuff, and a glossary of terms.

...except the most recent basic rules are actually a little too basic. I just looked, and there's not even an example of multiple blocking creatures. For now, the M14 Basic Rules are still available and probably much more helpful.

Creatures always deal damage equal to their power. Creatures with double strike do this twice.
Specifically, a creature with double strike deals damage equal to its power once during the first strike damage step, and once during the regular combat damage step. Creatures with first strike deal damage just once during the first strike damage step, and regular creatures deal damage just once during the regular combat damage step.
When your attacking creature is blocked by multiple creatures, you pick an order to assign damage. Your creature deals lethal damage to the first, then if there's still damage left over, goes on to the second, and so on. It never gets to deal more damage than its power, though - it's just a question of how it's spread across the blocking creatures.
So for example, if your 4/4 with double strike is blocked by two 4/4s (without first strike or double strike), during the first strike damage step your 4/4 would deal 4 damage to of your opponent's 4/4s (killing it before it has a chance to deal damage), then during regular combat damage your 4/4 and your opponent's remaining 4/4 would deal 4 damage to each other (killing each other). End result: you traded your 4/4 double strike for two regular 4/4s.
Similarly, if your 4/4 were blocked by three 3/3s, during first strike damage it'd deal 3 damage to the first (killing it) and deal one damage to the next one, then during regular combat damage it'd deal two damage to that one (finishing it off) and two damage to the last one, taking 6 damage in return (killing it). End result: you traded your 4/4 double strike for two regular 3/3s.

Your 4/4 creature will deal 4 damage, and then it will deal 4 damage again.
If you attack with a 4/4 creature that has double strike, and it gets blocked by two regular 4/4 creatures, the following will happen:

First Combat Damage Step

Your attacker deals a total of 4 damage to the first blocker.
The opposing blockers assign no damage.

The first blocker dies.
Second Combat Damage Step

Your attacker deals a total of 4 damage to the remaining.
Simultaneously, the surviving blocker deals a total of 4 damage to your attacker.

Your creature and the second blocker die simultaneously.

You must choose which blocker is first and second the moment that blocks are declared, and you must always assign lethal damage to the first one before you move on to the second one.

You have to deal lethal to the first creature before moving on to the next, right? So there's no way to spread out the damage in the first strike combat damage step. The funky thing you're allowed to do is to deal more than lethal, not less.

I think that if you have a single 4/4 double striker blocked by 2 4/4 vanilla creatures, you cannot deal damage in a way that does not destroy both blockers.

@murgatroid99 Good point, and nice example of how this is different from just dealing 8 damage all at once (in which case you could deal it all to one creature).

@Jefromi I forgot about that yesterday - thanks for reminding me.


text:
Agricola: Fireplaces and Cooking Hearths
Last night I played my first game of Agricola and I was amazed how great game it was.
But one thing  is not clear to me, when owing Fireplace / Cooking Hearth, can I trade for example 2 x vegetable for 4 food (or for example 3 sheep for 6 food) in one Fireplace ? Or is it allowed to trade only one vegetable / animal for food ? And can I trade vegetables and animals at the same time ?
When I played with my friends yesterday we played so that we can convert as many vegetables/animals for food as we can. But when I reread rules I've noticed line saying:

A player may own several Fireplaces and Cooking Hearths.

So why would I build more Fireplaces / Cooking Hearths if I can convert as many vegetables / animals to food in my turn ?

Yes, you can use each as much as you want. The reason to own more than one is mostly if you get a better one later when you could only afford a cheap one earlier; or to deprive other players of them.

Also they are worth points; sometimes there's nothing better to do, especially if you have a clay surplus.

Note also that you're allowed to trade in the fireplace for the cooking hearth, and not have to pay any resources.
There are two reasons you might want both a fireplace and a cooking hearth, or two fireplaces etc.
1. To prevent others from getting them.
2. For points. They're worth one point each.

The Major Improvement Cooking Hearth is worth 1 point.


text:
Does a permanent that was a creature until end of turn remain tapped after it stops being one?
If a non-creature permanent turns into a creature until end of turn and attacks, does it remain tapped after it stops being one?
For example, if I activate Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker's first ability, then attack with him, and then end my turn, will Sarkhan remain tapped when he stops being a dragon?

The technical term you're looking for is tapped, not "turned".

Thanks. I play cards on another language and couldn't remember the name of the term in english.

Yes: Being tapped/untapped is a part of the status of a permanent and is independent of its type (creature/not creature) or other characteristic.

110.6. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.
110.6a Status is not a characteristic, though it may affect a permanent’s characteristics.

In your example, Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker will remain tapped even after your turn ends.


text:
What happens when I gain control of a creature that's a different color from my deck?
If I take control of a black creature using a white deck, how do I pay the mana cost to attack if I don't have swamps in my deck? Please help, I'm new to the game.

You do not need to pay mana to attack (unless a card specifically says you do like Propaganda), and I can't think of one that requires you to pay black mana.

What white cards are you using to gain control of a black creature?  The only cards I can find are extremely old, nothing recent.

I cannot understand why you think that you need mana in order to attack. Is there something that you haven't mentioned in the question that requires you to pay in order to attack? Please add an example with real cards.

re the close votes: "this question seems to involve a misunderstanding about the basic rules" is not the same as "unclear what you're asking". We can help beginners too, as shown by the two answers.

You may want to check the Basic Rulebook (PDF), as it would clear up some misconceptions you appear to have about the game. This is not the fold-out that may have come with your cards - this is a full rulebook that covers more grounds, and has helped me get a handle on the game as well.

You don't need to pay mana to attack unless a card specifically says so. So, if you take control of a black creature using a white deck, you can attack with that creature.

The only cost-like requirement to attacking is the tapping of the attacker. There is no mana cost. While certain cards impose restrictions on attacking, and while some even impose a cost (e.g. Ghostly Prison), the cost never requires colored mana.
Many creatures have abilities that require colored mana to activate. If you control such a creature, and if you don't have the ability to produce mana of that color, you may not activate its ability. For example, if you control a Asphodel Wanderer and you have no means of creating black mana, you can't use its ability.

of course you also have Norn’s Annex which does ask for colored mana but that also can be paid with life

Could just as easily have said "of course you also have Norn’s Annex which asks for life, but can also be paid with colored mana"


text:
Are power and toughness "used up"?
Let's say I get two creatures to fight. One is a 4/4 the other is a 1/1. The 4/4 destroys the 1/1, but does the 4/4 become effectively a 3/3, so that later in the combat step it will only be able to assign 3 damage? Or does it get its power back after the fight so it is effectively a 4/3 (a 4/4 with 1 dmg counter on it)?
Or say a 4/4 attacks and a 3/3 blocks. Combat resolves, the 3/3 is dead and the 4/4 is now a 1/1, so if a 2/2 then fights the 1/1 (4/4) it dies? Or does the 4/4 just become a 4/1 after combat resolves?
I'm just trying to understand whether power can be used up like toughness in a turn, or if it just assigns it for the fight or combat step then resets back to full power. I understand fight is totally different to combat.

I suspect that there's a older duplicate of this somewhere, but I didn't find it with a quick search, so I went ahead and answered. I also edited your question a bit to make it easier for people to find in the future, and clearer!

Toughness never gets used up. Damage doesn't change toughness (or power), and it doesn't use counters, it's simply marked on creatures. If a creature ends up marked with damage greater than or equal to its toughness, it dies. But the whole time, the creature still has its original toughness. You probably shouldn't even think of it as having its toughness effectively reduced; that might confuse you in other situations.*
Similarly, power never gets used up. When a creature deals damage, whether fighting or in combat or any other way, its power doesn't change.
If you look at the reminder text for fighting, or the full rules for it or combat damage, you'll see something like "...deals damage equal to its power." That's all that happens: the power dictates how much damage it deals. There's nothing about the power changing.
In your first example, if you get a 4/4 and a 1/1 to fight, you end up with a 4/4 with one damage marked on it, and a dead 1/1. If subsequently that 4/4 gets into combat or fights again, it'll still deal four damage. It'll only take three additional damage to kill it, since it already has one marked on it. So for example, if it were blocked by a 3/4, they'd kill each other: it'd deal 4 damage to the 3/4, and the 3/4 would deal 3 damage to it, bringing it up to 4 damage, enough to kill it.
Basically the same thing happens in your second example. If a 3/3 creature blocks a 4/4 creature, the 3/3 will take 4 damage and die, and the 4/4 will take 3 damage and live. It'll still be a 4/4, but it'll only take one additional damage to kill it. If it then fights with a 1/4, they'll kill each other: it'll deal 4 damage to the 1/4, and the 1/4 will deal 1 damage to it, which brings it up to 4 damage, enough to kill it.

* For example, if you have a 4/4 that has 3 damage marked on it, your opponent can still use Valorous Stance ("Destroy target creature with toughness 4 or greater.") to kill it, since its toughness is still 4.

Note that a lot of the MTG Planeswalker video games use reducing toughness as a shorthand for "how much more damage this creature can take." So you'll see that 4/4 turn into a 4/3 with the 3 in red. This is just a visual shorthand. It's still a creature with toughness 4.

I suggest it needs to be mentioned that any marked damage goes away at the end of each turn. Unlike say in Hearthstone - or pretty much any other computer based game of similar nature.


text:
Can two bases be scored in one turn?
If a base scores and a minion moves to another base, like First Mate or Flying Monkey, and the new base has more power than the breaking point, does the new base score on this turn or next turn?

According to page 6 of the rules, the last thing you do after scoring a base (after discarding minions, and moving the First Mate and its ilk) is to "Check to see if another base is ready to be scored. Score it too, the same way."
So every time you score a base, you check all of the other bases and see if they're ready to be scored. The player whose turn it is still decides what order to score them in.

This is correct. Note that once a base has been selected to score, any specials or changes in power won't stop it scoring even if it drops below the break point. However, specials during one base scoring can cause a different base to not score when it otherwise would have.


text:
Will Heroic trigger if a spell would cause the creature to lose all abilities?
So me and a buddy of mine got into a argument: he had Setessan Battle Priest out which has heroic

Whenever you cast a spell that targets Setessan Battle Priest, you gain 2 life

Then he played Turn to Frog, which takes all abilities away and makes it a 1/1 Blue Frog until end of turn. He said he gained two life because Heroic triggers from the spell. I said that it took away the ability so it doesn't activate. Who was right?

At the bottom of the page you linked for Setessan Battle Priest, it states "Heroic abilities will resolve before the spell that caused them to trigger."

Yes, Heroic does trigger in that situation, and he does gain the 2 life. This is because Heroic triggers when you cast the spell, before it resolves and has any effects. Basically, it plays out like this:

Your opponent casts Turn to Frog targeting his Setessan Battle Priest. The Priest's Heroic ability triggers. Now there are two objects on the stack: the Heroic ability is on top of the Turn to Frog spell.
The Heroic ability resolves, and your opponent gains 2 life.
Turn to Frog resolves and the Priest loses all of its abilities.

The rulings on Setessan Battle Priest's Gatherer page also mention this:

Heroic abilities will resolve before the spell that caused them to trigger.


text:
Are there big differences in gameplay (not just theme) between Munchkin sets?
I have looked around and was overwhelmed by the number of Munchkin base sets out there. I googled what the best Munchkin set is, but so far, all I found is that I should pick the theme I like best. But I'm not sure if there might be other factors.
In reality I'm looking for the answer to the question: what Munchkin set is the best in terms of card functionality, bad stuff, and surprising and interesting turnouts? Or is the gameplay broadly similar between them and the theme is the only big difference?

Welcome! I think you had a pretty answerable question at the core here, so I've edited your question to focus on that and avoid it being closed as too subjective.

I have played the super hero, pirate, legendary, old west, and "normal" munchkin.  There is no significant difference between them wrt "Card Functionality", "Bad Stuff" and "surprising and interesting turnouts".  All 5 sets have similar card functionality, similar bad stuff, and lots of surprising, amusing, and interesting turnouts.
Really it does just come down to, "is there a genre you enjoy?"  Then, that's the variant you should play because you'll get the jokes.
ps. Tsuama534 mentions some very interesting rule changes in Munchkin Cthulhu and Munchkin Apocalypse in his answer.  There are no corresponding rule changes in the expansions I mentioned.

I have played regular Munchkin, Munchkin Cthulhu, and Munchkin Apocalypse.
The two non-regular sets each had one big difference.
Munchkin Cthulhu has special Cultist Rules.
Among them is a rule that when every player is a Cultist then a game immediately ends.
This tends to end games with low player counts very fast. I think this is a major difference from the regular game.
Munchkin Apocalypse also has a built-in timer in form of Seals.
In my experience this doesn't affect the game time very much but it introduces some extra complexity to the simple game of Munchin.
In both regular Munchkin and Munchkin Cthulhu to win you need to maximize your character level.
In Munchkin Apocalypse you may also win by having the highest combat bonus when the Seventh Seal is opened. This alternative way of winning may bring more strategy or more chaos to the game, depending on the group.
Besides that, differences between these three sets are very minor.

I haven't played all themes but its my understanding that they can all work together.  In fact, you can just shuffle the different sets together and play with all of the expanded characters/items/steeds/etc.  Of course if you have cards that go together they will be harder to pair up because you are playing with a larger deck.
As a result the core game mechanics are unchanged between them.
According to a SuperMod on this thread (SJgames is the producer of Munchkin):
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=66801

Every Munchkin game except the original comes with rules or hints on how to blend that particular game with the others. All those games have their rules available online on their individual web pages, too.

In conclusion, what you were told is correct.  Go with whatever theme you fancy more.  And if you decide you get bored of that one, just go buy another and spice it up a bit.

I have played through most (though not all) of the munchkin sets, and I think that you would enjoy playing any set combined with "Cheat with Both Hands". Just trying to have a fun set to choose from is great, and adding in all the crazy cards and class/race cards makes it even better. I would try to stuff your munchkin set full of big items and monsters that you enjoy playing against, that's how I usually pick out what my particulars doors and cards are, and it works out very well. So just make sure to pick out a set you like, a set that is crazy, and pick your favorites from both.


text:
Can you become the deputy of Arkham after another player has?
If someone has taken this card, is another player able to seize it from them by trading in trophies at the police station to become the deputy themselves? If so, do they take the Patrol Wagon (whether it has been discarded or not) and/or the Deputy's Revolver? It isn't clear whether this would be officially having it lost or stolen.

When you say "seize", do you mean trading it to another player as you do with items?

I mean can he go to the police station and become deputy, then take it from the other player.

This is explicitly answered in the FAQ:

Q: Can an investigator trade in trophies to become the Deputy if another investigator is already the Deputy (the existing Deputy would stop being Deputy)? If so, do they acquire the Patrol Wagon and/or Deputy’s Revolver if they are still in the other investigator’s possession?
A: No.

I haven't read all the cards, but is there a way for a person to stop being deputy once they are? If so, can someone else then become the deputy?

@Joey It's not an item, so it can't be lost/stolen. I believe the only way you can ever stop being the deputy is if you're devoured, at which point it'd be discarded. I don't think any rules explicitly cover that, but it'd probably make sense for a new player to be able to get deputized at that point.

I suppose the fact that the faq question says "if another is already the deputy" may imply that it is "yes, if someone else is not deputy (anymore)"

@Joey It might be noteworthy (you or general) that as far as I can tell, the patrol wagon and revolver are items, so the only thing untradable is the "job" itself which basically gives money which can also be traded.  It does make sense that you cannot trade/buyout the capability not to be arrested and anything else that comes with the title=)

My previous comment erroneously said you cannot be arrested, sorry.  I was thinking about curfew doesn't affect the deputy.  Sorry about that.  I cannot edit so am adding instead, rather than directing another @.


text:
When does Chief of the Edge die?
Lets say my friend attacks with Chief of the Edge and two other Warrior creatures, and I declare three blockers, one on each creature. If Chief of the Edge dies due to combat damage from blockers, when do the other Warriors lose the +1/+0? Is it instantly and now his 2 other creatures are normal again?

How does the Chief die? Is it as a result of combat damage? Or are you doing something like Lightning Strike to kill it during your Declare Blockers step? Also is First Strike involved in any way?

From blocking thats what I was really wondering about. So if I kill him with a creature that has first strike his other creatures lose the +1

All combat damage happens simultaneously, and creatures who have taken lethal damage will die almost immediately after damage is assigned (before the next time any player could do anything else; when state-based actions are checked). This means that the warrior creatures will still do the 1 extra damage during the combat which causes Chief of the Edge to die, and will lose the +1/+0 immediately after that.

You're asking "when does the Chief die" but honestly, you need to tell us that, as ironic as that sounds.
If there is "nothing fancy" and there's just his attackers and your blockers, then all his attackers will all get the +1/+0 bonus.
If you kill the Chief with First Strike damage, or if you kill him with an instant or an ability on your Declare Blockers step, then by the time his other warriors do damage the Chief isn't around anymore, so they wouldn't get the bonus.
So really, it all depends on which step the Chief dies on.

The ability on Chief of the Edge is a static ability. It only applies while he is on the battlefield. The instant that Chief dies, the effect created by his ability ceases to exist.

112.3d [...] Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield [...]

If Chief of the Edge takes lethal damage, then the next time state-based actions are checked, he will die, and all other warriors will instantly lose the +1/+0 granted by his ability.


text:
Will returning a creature trigger Prowess?
Pre-amble
So I am currently building a Blue & White Prowess + Heroic deck in Standard. The idea that I can boost my heroic creatures with instants and auras and reap the benefit across all my prowess creatures.
Possible combo
I'm interested to know if the below combination will work. The Lotus-Eye Mystics would be in the graveyard, and then I would play Rally the Ancestors. In an ideal scenario the Rally the Ancestors would trigger the Lotus-Eye Mystics Prowess because it's an instant. Then I can return an enchantment aura back to my hand also.

Assumption
I am assuming that Prowess has to be on the battlefield for the effect to trigger, which means that Rally the Ancestors would return the Lotus-Eye Mystics to the battlefield, but because they were in the graveyard when the instant was cast, the Prowess effect cannot trigger.
Is my assumption correct?

To cast is to put on the stack, choose targets, and pay costs. It happens "long before" the spell resolves.

Glad to see you returned. If you want to tag a card in an answer or question, type [mtg:Card Name]. It will automatically create links to the Gatherer, just like this: Rally the Ancestors. Also, when discussing a mechanic, you can assist answerers by linking to MTGSalvation's page on that mechanic. The syntax is easy: [Prowess](http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Prowess). Finally, you might be interested in seeing how U/W Heroic is holding up in the big tournaments.

I know "proc" is a word for this too, but "trigger" (as in "triggered ability") is the Magic word.

The creature with Prowess has to be on the battlefield to trigger it.
Prowess is a triggered ability that only works while the card it's printed on is on the battlefield, i.e. as long as it's a permanent. Therefore, if you return Lotus-Eye Mystics with Rally the Ancestors, the Mystics will not get the Prowess trigger from that.
You will, however, get the enters-the-battlefield trigger from the Mystics.


text:
How do major online game stores set Magic: the Gathering card prices?
I understand complete answers might not be public, but is there any public information on how major sites (like StarCityGames, TCGPlayer, Abu, etc), price their cards?
In particular, since the prices fluctuate often and there are a huge number of cards, I assume there is some automation, so I'm interested in any algorithms they might be using. I'm looking for references or insider perspective, not just speculation.

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I'd say that it's probably based on supply and demand (or projected supply and demand).

:( like I said, looking for references or insider perspective.  No speculation, please.

These sites list thousands of cards for sale, with prices fluctuating often.  I assume pricing is in part, or whole automated, and I'm wondering what goes into that process.

yeah I guess I'm wondering if any parts of their algorithms are public, or how "supply and demand" is implemented in the case of these or other major sites selling Magic cards

I included LGS in the title, which means Large Game Store.  it was edited by someone else...  The edits obfuscate the question quite a bit.

@TanDollars: LGS is more usually understood as Local Game Store, as far as I know

I've seen it far more often used to mean Large, but I've edited the question and title to avoid use of the term entirely

I don't understand why this is at -1... is this not a relevant question to this board?  is there somewhere better to place it?

@TanDollars Downvotes primarily mean "unclear or not useful" (as you can see when you hover over the arrow); it does not mean the question is off topic. Given the amount of discussion in the comments, seems reasonable for someone to have found it unclear, especially when it said "LGS".

hopefully that will change now that I have edited it

For what it's worth, if you're curious about the topic in general, not just the details of those sites' pricing, you might want to search for "dynamic pricing" (or "dynamic pricing algorithms").

This question would receive a better answer on http://economics.stackexchange.com/. But it is technically on topic here as well.

I think is highly unlikely that you'll get an "insider" answer here. Your main question is:
"Is there any public information on how major sites price their cards?"
And an straight forward answer would be: No. Wizards of the Cost does not set prices on ANY card, it all comes down to how much people pay, supply and demand. Whenever a new set releases, I'd say there is some sort of standard pricing depending on the card rarity. This is why, very close to the release, you see most Planeswalkers cost around $20, and then those with a high demand go to around $40-$50 pretty quickly. It is with time and use of the cards, demand or performance of different decks, that prices settle at some point. For a while at least. It is easy to predict, for example, that the fetchlands that are now in standard are going to see their prices go through the roof once Khans rotates out of the format.
As for automation, TCG has a price aggregator (think on how pricegrabber.com works), and they get information from different sources. They are not actually pricing anything, just showing you lowest prices. Most of this information (think of services that provide them) are public (for a price). So, technically, you can study the behavior on the price of different cards and kind of "predict" prices of similar, future cards, with some margin of error. At the end, the price of a card depends on perception of the value it can have on a given deck. And this is pretty hard to put on code.

I think everyone knows Wizards doesn't set the prices; that's why the OP is asking how the stores set them.

yeah, Wizards isn't really relevant here.  I appreciate your attempt at an answer, but as specified speculation isn't an appropriate answer.  There are thousands and thousands of Magic cards, and the biggest online stores sell most of them.  These cards also vary in price quite a bit, presumably too much overhead for a person or group to price using their personal judgment


text:
Does Vorinclex help its controller or its owner?
I play a Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger commander deck casually with friends. If one of my opponents plays Mind Control (or something similar) and takes control of Vorinclex, do the triggered abilities now benefit my opponent and hurt me? That is, does it help its controller or the owner?
Also, since my opponent tapped lands to play Mind Control while Vorinclex was still mine, I think the lands he tapped to cast Mind Control stays tapped next turn. Is my thinking here correct?

possible duplicate of Ordeal of Heliod and changing creature control

All instances of the word "you" on an ability refer the controller of the source of that ability.

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

If an opponent gains control of Vorinclax, then that opponent gets extra mana from tapping lands, and yours do not untap during your untap step. In other words, Vorinclax controlled by an opponent hurts you and helps your opponent.
When your opponent taps lands to pay for Mind Control, you control Vorinclax. Those lands will not untap during your opponent's next untap step.

If you're still looking for the rule, it's 109.5.

@murgtroid Perfect! There are over 400 occurrences of the word in the document, and for some reason, searching for "you" in quotes returns zero results using Google Chrome's ctrl+f function. Thanks a bunch.

And for the second question, they tapped the lands to pay for Mind Control while you still controlled Vorinclex, so they indeed stay tapped, just as they also only produced one mana at the time.

@Rainbolt For reference, I found it by looking in the glossary, which actually has an entry for "You, Your." And, as an aside, Ctrl+F (at least in Chrome) searches literal strings, and doesn't parse stuff like quotation marks.

@Jefromi I totally missed the second question. Fixed.

I think the problem with quotation marks comes down to the fact that the comprehensive rules are (for no good reason I can comprehend) no longer available in text format, so the 'smart' quotes are embedded in the document itself.

The comprehensive rules are in fact available in text format. However, it looks like that document also has the smart quotes. And you are correct that that is the problem: a search for "you" using smart quotes copied from the document does correctly find rule 109.5.

@StevenStadnicki Wizards unfortunately has archived the old page: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/tcg/article.aspx?x=magic/rules and it still ranks very well, but hasn't been updated. The new "rules and formats" page: http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats links to the current comprehensive rules: http://magic.wizards.com/en/gameinfo/gameplay/formats/comprehensiverules which still have three formats.

As a rule of thumb - always assume controller unless the card says otherwise


text:
Can I use a nonbasic land that taps and gives me either a red or white mana if I only have red mana in my deck?
Can I use a nonbasic land that taps and gives me either a red or white mana if I only have red mana in my deck?

What do you mean by "I only have red mana in my deck?"

My deck is only red and black and so I only have red and black land but I want to know if I can use a non basic land that taps and gives me either a red or white land to my mana pool even though I don't have any white lands

Is this a commander question?

@Kurtis It's a good idea to respond to comments that request clarification by editing the question itself. Basically, pretend that these comments don't exist and anything you write here could be wiped away at any moment.

I'm not sure. I'm pretty new to Magic. Do you think I could still use it and only take a red mana when I tap it?

It gives either red or white mana, as you say in your question. So, even if it was in a deck with both colors, you'd still choose just one. And it doesn't really matter. You can add white mana to your mana pool in a deck with only red and black cards; it's just less useful.

@Kurtis: you appear to think that the nonbasic land gives you a land of the type you tap it for? It doesn't.

@Kurtis If RemcoGerlich was right and you're confused about land vs mana, please have a look at the basic rules - they'll probably clear up a lot of things for you.

For example, compare: Wind-Scarred Crag, which produces red or white mana, with Arid Mesa, which lets you search your library for a Mountain or Plains, which will provide red or white mana respectively.

Kurtis, I would echo @RemcoGerlich's question: what do (or did) you think happens when you tap a land for mana? Did you think it allowed you to pull a land card from your deck and put it into play? That's a very common misconception (so don't feel bad), but that's not how it works. If you did have that impression, I think that's the reason your question is confusing many people.

This site really needs a canonical "land is not mana" post, e.g. for people that think that Dark Ritual lets you search your library for three swamps and put them into play.

@Kevin I was actually just thinking the same thing, but I'm not sure how much it would help. I don't think it's very likely that a new user coming to ask a question like this would happen to find that other question first.

@GendoIkari, Sure, but it would save commenters time by letting them link to an excellent pre-prepared explanation, rather than having to rehash it on the fly every time.

Speaking of excellent, pre-prepared explanations, Jefromi linked to one a few comments up. The basic rulebook says "Lands provide mana [...]." and "When you want to pay a mana cost, tap (turn sideways) the necessary lands on the battlefield. This shows that you’ve used those lands to produce mana."

Yes, as long as you're not playing Commander
In normal decks, you can use whatever (format legal) cards you want in any combination. You can play a Plains in an all Red deck if you really want to, though it's probably a bad idea.
If you're playing Commander, there is an additional rule that says that cards must match the color identity of the commander. This means that your cards can't have any mana symbols anywhere on them that don't match one of your commander's colors. In this case, if your commander isn't at least partially white, then you can't use a land that could tap for white mana.

@Kurtis When someone writes an answer that satisfies your question, you can click on the check mark next to their name to accept it. This let's other users know that your question was answered. You can always come back and accept a different answer if someone writes a better one.

Nitpick: In commander you can't have a land with a "{T}: add {W}" ability , but you can have a land with a "{T}: add one mana of any colour" ability, even though both colloquially "can tap for white"

@Caleth the answer specifically refers to mana symbols, which accurately represents the Commander ruleset - whether a land can produce a certain type of mana isn't important, but the occurrance of mana symbols is.

Quoting from the basic rulebook, page 15 ("Building Your Own Deck"):

You build [your deck] using whichever Magic cards you want. There are two rules: your deck must have at least 60 cards, and your deck can't have more than four copies of any single card (except for basic lands).

This only applies to "Constructed" games - the "Limited" format follows slightly different rules; also certain tournament formats may restrict cards to only come from certain sets, and may also ban or restrict specific cards, as per the banned/restricted list. However, outside of the Commander format there are no rules preventing you from including multi-colour lands unless they are specifically in one of those lists.
If you do include one of those lands, there are a few things to note:

It does exactly what it says on it - so if it says "T: Add W or R to your mana pool", then you may tap it to add either one white mana or one red mana to your mana pool. If your deck has no use for white mana, then you probably won't ever choose to do so, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

The land is not a basic land of any type (unless some card specifies otherwise). So even if it produces W/R mana, it is not a Plains or a Mountain (or an Island, Swamp or Forest).

As stated above, since it is not a basic land you can not have more than four copies in your deck, or more than one copy if it is on the restricted list for the format you are playing.


text:
I bought the Dixit Odyssey standalone game and was wondering which expansions would best match up
I bought the Dixit Odyssey standalone base game and was wondering which expansions would best match up. I want to keep the expansion by the same artist (So not Journey). I also want the cards as abstract as possible. I do not want to purchase the original Dixit as I have forked out extra money for the Odyssey base game, I just want the best expansion. Any advice would be hugely helpful.

When it comes to the differences between various Dixit games, I'm hoping you've already read this question (and its answers).
But to answer your question, I'm not sure there are really that many choices to make. Dixit 1, 2 and 3 are meant to provide similar experiences but with different cards, so there's no real difference there in terms of abstraction or complexity. They are each equally apart from the Oddyssey game. And maybe I haven't noticed the way to do it, but once the cards are shuffled together, you can't really tell the decks apart. (truth be told, I haven't really tried it. The more cards, the merrier)
The only real choice is between those three expansions, and Journey. Sadly I haven't played Journey but I've read it feels similar to Odyssey (so I'm guessing less abstract, but that's speculation on my part).
Some people advise you to look at the cards of each expansion so you can decide which one to purchase. To me that always felt like spoiling on the fun. I've never browsed through the decks, not even once, and on very rare occasions I still get cards in my hand that I thought I'd never seen before.


text:
When can I cast spells?
I'm wondering if spell casting only happens after attacks and blocking has been declared or if it's just at the second main phase? I've spoken to a few players in my area, but there aren't many people around here who play,  and I'm not sure I understand.

If you have questions like this, you should definitely read the basic rules - they'll answer this as well as most of the other questions you'll have when starting out. See also this previous question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/20861/chart-or-diagram-explaining-magics-turn-structure

Artifacts, creatures, enchantments, lands, planeswalkers, and sorceries can be cast during your first or second main phase.
Instants, such as Lightning Bolt, can be cast during any step except for the untap step and most cleanup steps. You can cast instants after attacking but before your opponent has a chance to block. You cannot cast instants in the middle of another spell or ability resolving.
After any spell or ability resolves, the player who is currently taking a turn gets the opportunity to cast things first.
Some spells or abilities, such as Quicken, modify when you can cast things.
If you are interested in the nitty gritty details, Section 5 of the comprehensive rules, which covers "Turn Structure", has nearly 150 rules that you can read. Much of it has been condensed into this neat chart, but a lot of (situationally relevant) information has been left out.

It depends on what type of spell you are referring to. Most spells can be cast either during the first main phase of your turn (which is before combat), or during the second main phase (which is after combat). This includes creature spells, sorcery spells, enchantment spells, artifact spells, and planeswalker spells.
Instant spells, and spells with "Flash", can be cast at anytime you have priority, which can be on other players' turns, during certain parts of combat, etc.


text:
Does preventing damage prevent things like land destruction?
For example, if a player plays Personal Sanctuary then plays Armageddon does the damage prevention mean they don't lose lands?

What reason have you to believe that preventing damage would also prevent the loss of your lands?

Also note that Personal Protection will do nothing to prevent damage to your creatures.

@Rainbolt I assume he didn't know that damage is a specific word in MTG, and was going off the general definition, as in something that's harmful to him.

Yup, I know the actual question here is basically "what does damage mean?" but I didn't want to alter it that drastically when editing.

No, for two reasons.

If it doesn't say "deal(s) damage", it doesn't deal damage.
It's only damage if it's the result of the "deal damage" keyword action. That means those words must appear in the rule or effect. Currently the only damage caused by the rules is combat damage. So if it's not combat damage, and if the effect doesn't use the words "deal damage", it's not damage.
For example,

In the Combat Damage Step, attacking and defending creatures deal damage. If any of that damage is directed to you, it will be nullified. You won't lose life (or gain poison counters if the attacking creature has Poison or Infect) if you don't block an attacking creature because you are protected from the damage that would cause you to lose life (or gain poison counters).

A Lightning Bolt targeting you will have no effect.

Armageddon destroys lands. It does not deal damage, so it's not affected by Personal Sanctuary.

Sign in Blood causes lose of life. It does not deal damage, so it's not affected by Personal Sanctuary.

"You" refers specifically to the player.
Personal Sanctuary only protects you from damage. Your permanents are not protected.
For example,

A Lightning Bolt targeting you will have no effect.

A Lightning Bolt targeting one of your creatures will deal damage as normal.

No, "prevent all damage" only prevents actual damage - the kind of thing that happens when a creature deals combat damage to you, or a spell or ability deals damage (it'll actually say "damage", like "Lightning Strike deals 3 damage to target creature or player").
It will not stop anything else; Armageddon will still destroy lands, Wrath of God will still destroy creatures, and so on.

Firstly Personal Sanctuary only protects you not your permanents.
Nope the the only time a damage prevention effect can save a land is when the land is also a creature (weird but it sometimes happens) and is actually assigned damage from a spell, ability or another creature.
Similarly damage prevention doesn't work against effects that say 'lose life' (this phrase is used on effects that affect a player) or destroy creatures outright. So for example Personal Sanctuary won't protect you against some thing like Absorb Vie.


text:
How to make Rotate Dial with rivet?
First off I'm not sure what a Rotate Dial is actually called. I am thinking of something similar to a HeroClix base (a rotating top piece with a hole, which reveals different stats on the bottom piece as it rotates), but I'm trying to make them out of cardboard. So a 2 circle pieces of chipboard, one with a notch cut out, and somehow attached.
I was thinking I can attach them together with a plastic (or metal) rivet. However since my pieces are smallish ~1.5in, I'm having a hard time finding a small enough rivet.
Is there a name for this?
Is there a known good way to make this thing?

Thebes has a similar component, if I understand right, and the rules just call it a wheel. http://boardgamegeek.com/image/2334221/thebes Not a very helpful name for searching for more like it, unfortunately.

That makes it difficult to google... :(

And yes that is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for the link!

Yeah, hopefully there's another common name out there. (The Thebes example isn't much help for you, since it's several inches across.)

Find some FFG X-Wing miniatures on eBay and wash the dials with acetone?

That is a pretty expensive way to go. If I just needed a few that might be a good options, but I need about a hundred.

It looks like "wheel" and "dial" (or "game dial") are other names for this.
I found a couple BGG threads with some suggestions:
How do you make a game dial?
Plastic grommets for cardboard wheels (ala BSG)
The main things you could search for are:

(paper) binding screws/screw posts/chicago screws (there's a site called Chicago Screws that sells them, but it's also a generic name)
paper rivets
brads/brass fasteners

I know you said it you couldn't find small enough rivets, but I searched a bit and it looks like paper rivets are made down to a few mm across,

Do you mean something like this: http://www.garrettwade.com/document-fastener/p/25S07.02/ or this https://www.chicagoscrews.com/Small-Head-Unslotted-Plastic-Chicago-Screws ?

@ohmusama The former looks like a type of paper rivets that might not be what you want, and the latter looks like binding screws/screw posts/chicago screws. I don't think any of the names refer to something where every single thing with that name will work (they could all be too wide or long, the rivets could be too tight, etc), but they should all include something that would, so they're all things you can search for or ask for in stores.

Depending on how sturdy these need to be you could try attaching the pieces together with a brass brad.  Granted it will not work for terribly long before it gets worn out, but if it's just for prototyping it should be sufficient.


text:
Does Sarkhan the Dragonspeaker tap with his +1?
A friend and I had a little confusion. He was playing with Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker and activated the +1, then attacked. The creature did not have vigilance, and wasn't destroyed. So naturally, it would tap. But my friend said because it goes back to being a planeswalker at the end of the turn, it doesn't tap.
So, is there any rule that clarifies this?

Yes, you'll tap him to attack, like any other creature. The same goes for any other planeswalker that's presently a creature (unless it has vigilance, as you've noticed), such as Gideon Jura — being creatures, they'll follow any of the usual rules for creatures.
This also means that when he returns to being a plain old planeswalker, he'll be tapped. Planeswalkers can be tapped! There's nothing saying planeswalkers can't be tapped. He'll untap at your next untap step, just like any other permanent.

Great appreciation, Doppelgreener. That is what I thought would happen.

Any permanent can be tapped, although planeswalkers and enchantments are rarely tapped. "Tappedness" is a property of all permanents. Doppelgreener's answer explains the situation well, but here are the supporting rules:
From the comprehensive rules:

110.6. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.

On untapping:

502.2. Second, the active player determines which permanents he or she controls will untap. Then he or she untaps them all simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. Normally, all of a player’s permanents untap, but effects can keep one or more of a player’s permanents from untapping.