text:
What is the most life you can have at the end of your first turn with only three cards?
You start this game with 3 cards of your choice in hand.
Your opponent starts with 0 cards in their hand.
Both libraries do not contain any other useful cards.
What is the highest life total you can end your turn at?
Assume you start at 20 life points. Beyond that, the rules can follow any of the official two-player formats by Wizard of the Coast.

Extra Challenge: If you want a personal challenge (although this is not what I am looking for in the answers to this question), try to find the 4-card infinite-life combo that made me restrict the puzzle to 3 cards only.

Define "useful cards"... can you use cards in your library in some way as long as you aren't casting them or otherwise caring about what specific cards they are?

@GendoIkari If a specific card is needed for the solution to work, that card is not in either library. If any card would work, that's fine (such as if hand-size or discard is needed)

Would it be allowed to specify that the library contains all creature cards; if it doesn't matter what cards they are?

@Gendolkari Probably not. In that case creatures would be useful cards since they are vital to the solution.

@DavidCoffron When you say "end your turn", do you mean that the opponent has to be alive after whatever actions I take until the regular end of my turn, or can the combo immediately win the game as well?

There is a cheating answer which only uses two of my cards, but requires the top card of the opponent's library to be something specific.

It seems to me to depend on 2 things. What is the legality rules, and what is your starting life total? A few of my friends made a format where you start at 500+ life, or you could be at 40, or 20! Please specify.

Specifically, could you be playing commander

@CollinB Addressed

That hasn't really clarified anything. Commander is one of the listed formats, and it explicitly allows for 2 players. If you want to start at 20 life, just say that. Otherwise, you might as well just say that you start at 40 life and bump everyone's score up by 20.

@murgatroid99 Good point. I'll do that

So no Silver-Bordered Cards

Note, if your opponent helps you out, you can get significantly higher.  i.e. take David's answer, combined with Hackworth's answer as one trivial example.  So you're assuming a goldfish opponent?  If so, that seems to make Hackworth's answer less "reasonable."

With just 2 cards, you can be at arbitrarily many life points.
The 2-card combo is Black Lotus and Game of Chaos. As long as both you and your opponent keep playing, the stakes increase indefinitely, and you can end the game whenever you win a flip.
Assuming both you and your opponent keep playing exactly until someone gets to zero life or below during Game of Chaos' resolution, you can go to 103 life with the 2 card combo, or 109 with 3 cards.
If you win (+1), lose (-2), lose (-4), win (+8), lose (-16), win (+32), win (+64), then you (and your opponent) will be at

21 (19),
19 (21),
15 (25),
23 (17),
7 (33),
39 (1),
103 (-63) life.

At the start of the game, reveal Providence for another 6 life - this doesn't change the sequence of coinflips because your opponent would still fall to 1 life at the same point of the sequence.

OP asks for the highest life total you can end your turn with, do you  end the turn if your opponent loses?

Of course. When the game ends, the turn ends also. You are thinking of "finishing" the turn, which is a difference.

I think the infinite-life solution is far more interesting - the goal isn't to win, it's to have the highest life total.

It would be interesting in its own way - since the game presumably still takes place in physical reality, the life total couldn't acually be infinite. You can flip a coin only so many times during the length of the game; specifically, you can flip a single coin at most once per Planck time. Assuming 1 coin at hand and a 50 minute round of a sanctioned event, you could flip it at most 5,565e+46 times, and, if you win every flip, for a life total of 19 + (2^5,565e+46) life. You couldn't use shortcut rules to name a higher number either, obviously, because coin flips.

Also, the terminology is indeed "end turn", not "finish turn" - the end step in the ending phase is commonly referred to as "end of turn", and cards that referenced "end of turn" are now errata'ed at referencing the "end step". Karn Liberated allows you to end (and restart) a game without ever reaching the end step of turn in which he was activated, so it's not really clear to me that you do actually end your turn if the game ends. It depends on how pedantic you want to be with the interpretation of the OP's "end of your turn".

This question was about the difference between ending and finishing a turn. Spoiler: the official tournament rules use the term "finishing" a turn to mean to take it through all its phases, while "ending" a turn means ending it immediately as per CompRules 716. Also see CR 104, "Ending the game".

There is a difference between "end the turn" as a verb, and "at the end of your first turn". Ending the turn is a specific action that is irrelevant to this question. In game cards, "at the end of your turn" is an old wording for "at the beginning of your end step".

You should use Providence instead of Radiant Fountain for 4 more

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to assume that the person playing Game of Chaos makes their decisions in a way that rationally optimizes to achieve victory, considering that they already chose to put Game of Chaos in their deck and play it.

Your opponent would only lose due to 0 or less life after the resolution of Game of Chaos, so you can keep playing arbitrarily long

@MatthewJensen Yes, I'm aware of that. Which is why I wrote you can get to arbitrarily many life points as long as both keep playing.

Here is my best solution (42 Life Points):
3 Cards:

Black Lotus
Illusions of Grandeur
Radiant Fountain

Turn

Pass until Precombat Main Phase
Play Radiant Fountain [gain 2 life]
Cast Black Lotus
Activate Radiant Fountain
Activate Black Lotus's ability, adding
Cast Illusions of Grandeur [gain 20 life]
Pass until End Phase

I think it is very likely that this is the greatest amount of life you can gain deterministically in a single turn with 3 cards. There aren't any good combos with just 0-cost cards, so you need mana. Illusions of Grandeur is the card that deterministically gains you the most life immediately without any other supporting cards. And Radiant Fountain is the 0-cost card that gains the most life immediately without any other supporting cards.

The best deterministic solution I can find with only two cards is 35: Nourishing Shoal + Autochthon Wurm.

You can get to 43 if you use Chancellor of the Dross, or 46 if you use Providence instead of Radiant Fountain.

@John We need the mana from Radiant Fountain to cast Illusions of Grandeur

Argh.  Very sorry to miss that point, for some reason I thought it was converted manacost 3.

41 life without using Black Lotus
This is a legacy/modern entry (i.e. doesn't use Black Lotus).
Reveal Providence to go to 26 life.  Then exile Autochthon Wurm to cast Nourishing Shoal to gain 15 life.
Multiplayer: 20 + 9 * number of opponents
The question clarifies that there are two players.  If we relax that restriction, we can do better in cases where there are 4 or more players.  Have 3 Chancellor of the Dross in your opening hand and reveal all three to steal 9 life per opponent.
4 Cards: Arbitrarily high life
The question specifies three cards for a reason.  Allowing one more card lets you go infinite.  The 4 cards are Black Lotus, Daru Spiritualist, Shuko, and Diamond Valley.
Use Black Lotus to Cast Daru Spiritualist and Shuko.  Repeatedly equip Shuko to Daru Spiritualist, giving Daru Spiritualist +2 toughness each time, until has [arbitrarity high odd number] toughness.  Play Diamond Valley and use it to sacrifice Daru Spiritualist to gain [arbitrarity high odd number] life.

I'm going to cheat a bit... because you didn't specifically state that this was a 2-player game only (though you did use the word "both"...)
Hand:

Black Lotus
Black Lotus
Blood Tithe

This gives you an unbounded 3n life, where n is the number of opponents you have in the game.
With only 2 cards, you can get 2n life using Syphon Soul instead.

They say "both libraries", and they also say "opponent" singular. I think this is a stretch.

I agree it's a stretch. I did mention the use of the word "both" in my answer.

4n: Exsanguinate

3x Chancellor of the Dross for 9n

Is there any format where you can actually have two Lotuses in your deck? (EDIT: apparently "freeform" is an official format in Magic Online)

Why not just dark ritual from the lotus and not have this 2 lotus nonsense. Or I guess a swamp

I think that's not really relevant to my answer... I could have just said "4 mana and Blood Tithe". Any format casual enough to have a large number of opponents is also going to be casual enough to not follow any restricted or banned lists. "Kitchen table magic" exists; people play MTG randomly with friends without playing any specific tournament-sanctioned format.

Speaking of cheating: Since there are so many solutions with 2 lotuses despite it being restricted I'll just assume that "3 cards of your choice" means no restrictions whatsoever. Therefore you could just use 1 Blacker Lotus and you'd have a 2-card combo.

@Alex I started by looking for silver-bordered solutions before coming across this.

Just use Chancellor of the Dross and avoid this whole argument.  It's the one card equivalent of the posted combo

@Zags Ooooooh, that means we can combine the combos, i.e. Chancellor of Dross, Blacker Lotus AND Bloot Tithe. XD Now we're at 2x3n life.

@GendoIkari So you explicitly looked at Unglued etc. and then didn't remember the Blacker Lotus? That's funny. XD

Black Lotus x 2, Auriok Salvagers, Stream of Life
Play the lotuses and crack them for white.  Cast Salvagers, use the 2 leftover to return lotus.
Cast lotus, crack for white, return lotus  -> repeat as much as you want to gain a white mana each loop.
Return lotus, crack for green mana, cast stream of life for x + arbitrarily large number .

I count 4 cards in your solution

@murgatroid99 He may have been solving for my 4-card infinite (although my solution was different)... Perhaps I should have been clear that that isn't what I wanted in answers.

The best I can manage is 32 life:

Black Lotus
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Sheltering Word

Cast Black Lotus and sacrifice for 3 green mana.
Cast Phyrexian Dradnaught.
In response to the etb, cast Shltering Word. [gain 12 life]

A second solution for 32 life:

Black Lotus
Ritual of Restoration
Weather the Storm

Cast Black Lotus and sacrifice for 3 white mana.
Cast Ritual of Restoration, returning Black Lotus to hand.
Cast Black Lotus and sacrifice for 3 green mana.
Cast Weather the Storm, creating 3 copies with storm. [gain 3 life * 4]

All the other answers are accounting the initial 20 life, I suggest you do the same to provide a comparable result.

Yeah, my first assumption was that this was a joke answer and you were intentionally damaging yourself rather than gaining life.

I love that even with this combo, it's just barely above lotus+chaplain's blessing+chaplain's blessing

Black Lotus x2
Beacon of immortality
Depends on the format how much life you gain. 20 on a default game for example or 40 in Commander for example

I found another solution to the extra personal challenge (4 card ⇒ infinite life):

Mox Lotus
black lotus
show and tell
White Sun's Twilight

This is how it works:

Play black lotus
Play show and tell playing the Mox Lotus
With the infinite mana cast White Sun's Twilight when x is trillions or infinity (technically you have to pick a number)

now you have infinite life

Cool answer!  Not sure that Unhinged has ever been "official WoTC format legal", though - certainly isn't now.


text:
Can Ass Whuppin' be used to target a permanent in your own game?
Ass Whuppin' is a silver-bordered card from the set Unhinged whose card text reads "Destroy target silver-bordered permanent in any game you can see from your seat."  Technically, if me or my opponent have silver-bordered cards in play, I can probably see them from my seat, so can I target them for removal with this spell?  Or does it have to be a silver-bordered permanent from a different game?  I've checked the Unhinged FAQ and Google, and can't find any answers to this scenario.  The FAQ does mention that the target has to be in a silver-bordered game, i.e., a game where at least one player is using a deck that uses at least one silver-bordered card.  But that's about it.  Technically, if I'm using Ass Whuppin', then I'm in a silver-bordered game myself.
Edit:  It's occurred to me I should probably provide the FAQ:  Unhinged FAQTIWDAWCC

Yes, you can see your own game, and Ass Whuppin' makes no limitation on which game its target has to be in, so you can target cards in your own game. This is necessary to be able to use the card at all in a silver-bordered game when nobody around you is playing another silver-bordered game.
That being said, the whole point of Ass Whuppin', and indeed all Un-sets, is to mess with the rules of the game and have a good laugh about it. If you can mess with other games through Ass Whuppin', but you are looking to powerplay in your own game, you're probably doing it wrong.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does Wizard's Lightning stop Archfiend's Vessel?
So, I'm watching this youtuber play Magic: the Gathering Arena, and he was able to stop an Archfiend's Vessel from triggering when it is pulled from the graveyard by casting a Wizard's Lightning, targeting it.  You can see the interaction starting around the 13:50 mark here:  Wizard's Lightning stops Archfiend's Vessel  For reference, Archfiend's Vessel says that when it enters the battlefield from or is cast from your graveyard, exile it.  If you do, create a 5/5 black Demon creature token with flying.  Wizard's Lightning deals 3 damage to any target.
I'm confused about how this works, and my question is just: how?  When the Vessel enters the battlefield, its ability triggers immediately, Wizard's Lightning is played, deals 3 damage, kills the Vessel, but the Vessel's ability was already on the stack, shouldn't it have still been able to go off?  Is this a quirk or bug with Arena, or is this how the interaction is actually supposed to resolve?

Wizard's Lightning was surely used in response to Archfiend's Vessel's triggered ability, which means the spell was cast and resolved after the ability triggered, but before the triggered ability resolved. The Archfiend's Vessel is on the battlefield as a 1/1 until its triggered ability resolves, and thus easily succumbs to Wizard's Lightning.
The triggered ability does go on to resolve, and it does attempt to exile Archfiend's Vessel, but it fails to do so since Archfiend's Vessel doesn't exist anymore.[CR 400.7] And since Archfiend's Vessel can't be exiled, the "if you do" clause is false, and the Demon isn't created.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are nine exceptions to this rule: [None of them are relevant here.]

A ruling on Gatherer confirms this conclusion.

The ruling on Gatherer also covers this scenario: "If Archfiend’s Vessel leaves the battlefield while its triggered ability is on the stack, you can’t exile it from the zone it’s put into, so you won’t create a Demon."

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


text:
Space version of a monopoly like game?
Trying to find a boardgame from my childhood.  it was basically Monopoly in space.

all the pieces were little rockets
the board was a map of our solar system
each moon around the planets had deed cards
there were these little metal objects that were fuel depots
you could put the fuel depots on the moons you bought
there was also a fuel tracker and if you ran out of fuel you lost the game

anyone remember the name of this game? would have come out probably mid-1980's.

Googling "space monopoly" brings up Solarquest.

Yep, this looks like the game!  thank you sir.  Also didn't know they recently did a reprint.  just ordered a copy from amazon! sweet

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1836/solarquest


text:
How does your opponent verify that you're able to cast a Companion card?
Normally, in Magic the Gathering, your library is a hidden zone; neither you nor your opponent are allowed to look at the cards in it during a game of Magic: the Gathering unless an effect says that you can. However, with the release of Ikoria, there are now Companion cards that allow you to cast them if you've obeyed certain deck building restrictions.
When you go to cast one from outside the game, how does your opponent verify that you meet the deckbuilding requirement for doing so? They can't look at the contents of your library, so it's entirely possible that your deck has one or more cards that violate the Companion's deckbuilding restriction, and you just haven't played them to a public zone yet. I've look at the article on the WotC website explaining the set mechanics of Ikoria, and it doesn't mention this problem at all.
You can choose a Companion that you're incapable of casting (e.g. to trick the opponent into thinking your deck is something it isn't), right? Is the only way for your opponent to verify your ability to cast a Companion to call a Judge to look at your decklist?

Presenting a card as your companion requires you meet the companion condition. Like every keyword in magic, there is a section of the comprehensive rules that cover the ability, and those rules are what really matter. I think what you're doing is reading the reminder text as if it were the entirety of the rules for companion (reminding that you could originally cast a companion from outside the game once, now can add it to your hand for 3 mana) Here are the sections, with my emphasis:

103.1b If a player wishes to reveal a card with a companion ability that they own from outside the game, they may do so after setting aside their sideboard. A player may reveal no more than one card this way, and may do so only if their deck fulfills the condition of that card’s companion ability. (See rule 702.138, “Companion.”)
702.138a Companion is a keyword ability that functions outside the game. It’s written as “Companion—[Condition].” Before the game begins, you may reveal one card you own from outside the game with a companion ability whose condition is fulfilled by your starting deck. (See rule 103.1b.) If you do, once during that game, you may play that card from outside the game.  Once during the game, any time you have priority and the stack is empty, but only during a main phase of your turn, you may pay {3} and put that card into your hand. This is a special action that doesn’t use the stack (see rule 116.2g). This is a change from previous rules.

These two connected rules, with one being a restating of part of the other with a different focus (one from the start of game rules section, the other from the companion section) explain how companion really works - that the deck MUST meet the companion restriction for you to reveal this card. The text in brackets on the card (the reminder text) originally told you what you can do with your companion, before the rules change, but the rules themselves say how a card can become your companion. Revealing a companion that your deck does not meet the conditions for makes it an illegal deck.
As for how you verify if a deck is legal under companion rules, this works the same way as any other deck construction rule, that is you assume the deck is legally constructed until you prove otherwise. If you see a 5th copy of any of the cards (other than the 18 cards that specifically allow you to run more than 4 copies) you see the deck is illegal and act on that. So if you see a 2 drop in a deck with Keruga, the Macrosage as the companion, you know the deck rules have been violated. This is actually pretty hard to hide - You can't play that card, it can't be in your hand when you get hit with something like Thoughtseize, it can't be milled from your deck, and your opponent can't play any card that lets them look at your deck like Surgical Extraction. An invalid companion would be just as hard to hide as a 5th copy of a card to an opponent paying attention.
Any potential psychological advantage fooling your opponent about what your deck is by announcing a companion that couldn't legally be your companion really doesn't exist - now you're playing with a deck that doesn't have 60 useful cards in it, it has say 50 cards that match the restriction and 10 dead ones that show you to be cheating so you could never let your opponent see them. It's also just poor sportsmanship to try and cheat.

"13 you can legally have more than 4 copies of"?  I count 15:  Relentless Rats, Rat Colony, Persistent Petitioner, Shadowborn Apostle, 6 basic land types, 5 snow covered basic lands.  https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[any]+[number]+[cards]+[named]+[deck]

(For anyone else wondering, the 6th basic land type is Wastes from Oath of the Gatewatch, which gives colorless mana: https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=407693)

@John i had forgotten about petitioner and colony

Those are merely the ones you can have "any number of" copies of. There's also Seven Dwarves :)

@KarlKnechtel Yes... I also forgot about them...

Okay, that should be it. (Aside from being an un-card, that one is artificially restricted to one copy.)

The MTG wiki has a page on this, though it actually doesn't mention basic.

@BradC Wastes is not a basic land type though. Wastes is the name of a basic land card that has no sub types

@IvoBeckers it should have been a type... it actually does mess up the rules on how land works, or at least it did, for them to make it a 6th basic land without a type.

They designed most of the condition so that they would show up in casual game play so that they can be easily verified.  Reading the background on it they considered land count but that isn't easy to verify in play.

@KarlKnechtel filtering out silver border and acorn stamps like this solves that one false positive (and any future ones)

Companion-related cheating is much the same as other existing forms of cheating regarding illegal decks and sideboard. Call a judge just like in any other situation where you suspect someone is running an illegal deck.
The updated Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG) has specifically addressed Companion cards. At a high level, Companion deck restrictions fall under other existing deck restrictions and enforcement actions. For example, it was already illegal to run more than 4 copies of any card (other than basic land) or a 59 card constructed deck.
For constructed events, decklists should be used. From the decklist, Judges should be able to verify that an opponent's deck does or doesn't meet the required deckbuilding restriction for companion. Most decklists errors are penalized with a game loss, but the Companion-related errors (if caught early enough) may be remedied instead.

Companions affect what the player intended to play, and may produce a situation in which the deck and decklist match, but violate the restriction on the intended companion. In these situations, it is acceptable to alter the deck and sideboard configuration to meet the restriction.

If there is no problem with the decklist, but you suspect that a player has improperly sideboarded, this fall under a Deck Problem (section 3.5). By default, these errors (which are assumed to be honest mistakes) carry only a warning, but a judge may upgrade these sideboarding errors as needed. New guidance regarding Companion-related Deck Problems includes:

If the error caused a violation of a companion restriction and it is a post-sideboard game (or a pre-sideboard game and the player has elected to continue with the deck they registered that does not match the revealed companion condition), choose at random from cards in the sideboard that meet the companion restriction; the opponent decides where each chosen card goes. If making the deck match the companion condition is impossible, upgrade the penalty to a Game Loss.

And possible upgrades to a game loss regarding companion:

Upgrade: If an error resulted in more copies of a main deck card being played than were
  registered or allowed by companion restriction and this was discovered after the game had
  begun, the penalty is a Game Loss unless all copies of the card are still in the random portion of the library. For example if the decklist has two copies of Shock in the main deck and two in the sideboard, but a search finds two copies of Shock in the library with another already in the graveyard, the penalty is upgraded.

A player may declare a companion only if that player's starting deck conforms to that companion's deckbuilding rule. You cannot directly check your opponent's deck for being legal for that companion; only a judge may perform a deck check. You assume the opponent follows all rules until you see they don't; in that case, you call a judge. That being said, there is no way for players to gain an unfair advantage from misconstructing a deck under the companion rules or otherwise, since all such attempts would become public the moment they would reveal the illegal card(s).
By declaring a card as a companion, a player claims that their current starting deck conforms to the additional deckbuilding rule imposed by that companion. If that player's current starting deck would not in fact be legal for that companion, the player is not allowed to declare that companion in the first place, let alone to cast it from outside the game. Of course, as stated above, you have no way of checking that at the start of a game, but the "contract" is that you believe the opponent until you see contrary evidence.
Declaring a companion happens before each game starts and is public knowledge, because the declared companion card is visible to all players while it's still in the sideboard:

702.138a Companion is a keyword ability that functions outside the game. It’s written as “Companion—[Condition].” Before the game begins, you may reveal one card you own from outside the game with a companion ability whose condition is fulfilled by your starting deck. (See rule 103.1b.) If you do, once during that game, you may play that card from outside the game.

Note that, unlike e.g. the Commander in Commander games, declaring a companion is neither mandatory nor fixed. If you choose to not declare a companion for a game, then there are no additional deckbuilding rules for that game. Sideboarding between games changes your starting deck and therefore might affect the legality of a certain companion. You can even declare a different companion for each game, as long as you sideboarded accordingly:

Starting Deck
After a player has set aside their sideboard, their remaining deck becomes their starting deck. See rule 103.1.

If, at any point during the game, a card that does violate the current companion's rule is revealed, you call a jduge who will then perform a deck check. I'm no judge, but intuitively, I would apply a harsh penalty (game loss) for illegally declaring a companion, even by mistake - declaring a companion can completely change the way their opponent would play the game. Even if the companion, or none of the illegal cards, are played, their implied potential can cause drastic strategic changes, such as withholding counters or removal.
If the illegal companion was declared intentionally, it would be cheating and cause for disqualification. Determining which applies is up to the judge.

"There is no way for your opponent to secretly break the deckbuilding rules and gain an advantage from it" I can think of one: the quantum Companion. Build a deck that violates the rule, then decide whether or not to cast it based on the events of the game, the matchup, and what you've drawn.

Again, there is no point for your opponent in doing that. As soon as your opponent plays/shows a card that would violate the companion condition, you call a judge. And if he can never play such a card because he would immediately reveal himself, what's the point of intentionally misconstructing the deck that way?

You can have a Companion with a deck that violates the deckbuilding rule, but you can't cast it, right? So you build your deck with the cards that violate the companion's rule, and then in each game, you decide whether or not you cast your Companion or to cast the forbidden card - and mess around with your sideboard between each game to conceal any changes to your decklist to justify whether or not you're able to cast it.

I think I know what you are getting at. I added a bit about sideboarding.

@nick012000 I suppose that, because a Companion has to be revealed as the game starts (if you are using it as a Companion and not just an ordinary card in your deck), your ability to play cards that violate the restriction is determined from the beginning of the game. You can't make a mid-game choice between using your Companion and playing cards that violate the restriction.

@DavidZ But you can choose a card as a Companion that you don't meet the requirements to cast as a Companion, can't you? As a result, if you choose a card as a Companion that you can't cast, you could just go "Oh, yeah, I can't actually cast that. I just chose it as a Companion to trick you."

@nick012000 Which would make it an illegal deck, since you have broken the rules for deck construction, and that's a warning with potential upgrades to game loss depending on the judge and the rules level. Players would be disadvantaged by putting forth a companion which is illegal, since they couldn't ever play or even reveal the card(s) in deck that break that rule.

@Andrew You could, though? It's the casting of the Companion that's restricted by the deckbuilding requirement, not its selection as Companion, isn't it? You'd only be cheating if you knowingly cast it with an illegal deck.

@nick012000 no - selecting it as your companion when the deck does not meet the condition violates 702.138a

@Andrew That's not what the cards themselves say, so if that's true, it's worth an Answer in its own right.

@nick012000 It's the first block quote in Hackworth's answer. "Before the game begins, you may reveal one card you own from outside the game with a companion ability whose condition is fulfilled by your starting deck" If the card revealed as the companion does not have its companion ability met - this rule has been broken.

@Andrew He didn't address this specific point, though, which is one of the core parts of the confusion, so it's worth an Answer in its own right.

@nick012000 Just out of curiosity, why are you capitalizing "Answer"?

@DavidZ To make it clear that I'm talking about StackExchange Answers and not just generic answers in the comments. I suppose I could ask a Question on Meta about the proper capitalization of Question and Answer, though.

@nick012000 Ah, well then, at least for me it was not successful in making that clear. I suppose it doesn't really matter, although it'd be a perfectly reasonable thing to ask about on the meta site if you want to.

"That being said, there is no way for players to gain an unfair advantage from misconstructing a deck under the companion rules or otherwise, since all such attempts would become public the moment they would reveal the illegal card(s)." Suppose you were to play Yorion with fewer cards than prescribed, and a lab maniac effect (of which there are effectively two in standard right now); it would be a little harder than that to detect the issue, although of course your opponent could count your milled cards as they are milled.

"You can even declare a different companion for each game, as long as you sideboarded accordingly" So I can side out my companion and then side in cards that would be illegal with that companion? I guess that helps explain why it takes a sideboard slot instead of using the command zone or something.

@KarlKnechtel it uses a sideboard slot because WotC/MtG has long defined cards "outside of the game" as youe sideboard, for cards like wishes and spawnsire of ulamog. The same outside the gane definition applies except in Commander.


text:
Auction when player has not enough money to buy?
A player puts a power plant up for auction.
Is that allowed if he doesn't have enough money to buy it himself?

No he is not.
According to the rules (Pdf):

The player chooses one power plant from the actual market (top row) and then makes a bid to purchase it (the player must bid at least the minimum bid (number of the
  power plant), but may start with a higher bid.

The player starting the auction must start with the opening bid.
If he wins the bid he must pay the bank:

He pays his highest bid to the bank and takes the power plant.

This implies that one must have enough money for the bid.

Correct. I can't believe I missed that...


text:
How can I use Sliver Overlord to find non-Slivers?
I have Sliver Overlord as my commander. Is there a combo that will let me search for non-Sliver combo cards using Sliver Overlord? Id like to be able to use Sliver Overlord to find said card/ cards as well

Can you be more specific in what your problem is? You want to use Sliver Overlord to find which particular cards?

Ok to be honest im trying to search for Paradox engine using sliver overlord i found a plan to do so but i confused Mirror Entity's bottom ability and am looking for a replacement this was my idea Mirror Entity, Zur the Enchanter, Intruder Alarm or id look for March of the Machines thin Paradox engine

There are 2 cards that allow you to search for non-sliver cards as if they were slivers: Arcane Adaptation and Conspiracy.
The first can add the sliver type to creature cards you own (and control), and the second sets the creature type of creature cards you own (and control).

Was just about to post these same 2 cards. Still working with gatherer search to see if there are any others.

A less efficient way could also be Artificial Evolution, which you can use to change the word "sliver" to a different creature type

Thanks but how would i search for the enchantment with sliver overlord or is there not a way?

Ok to be honest im trying to search for Paradox engine using sliver overlord i found a plan to do so but i confused Mirror Entity's bottom ability and am looking for a replacement this was my idea Mirror Entity, Zur the Enchanter, Intruder Alarm or id look for March of the Machines thin Paradox engine

You will not be able to search for Paradox Engine because it is not a creature. I don't think there's any way to search for a non-Creature with Sliver Overlord. But there are plenty of other cards you could put in your deck that would allow you to search for Paradox Engine.

March of the machines fixes that

@KCkingcollin March of the Machines doesn't help you, because it only affects artifacts on the battlefield.  Permanents that aren't in play are "[type] cards" rather than having the type itself, and aren't effected by things like March of the Machines unless the card specifically mentions [type] cards like Conspiracy and Arcane Adaptation do.  I recommend Hoarding Dragon instead.

Well that just sucks thanks for the recommendation thogh

Update: Maskwood Nexus makes all your creatures, creature spells, and creature cards you own every creature type (including sliver)


text:
Possible to play 2x2 with 1 core set and data pack in Netrunner?
I have just purchased the Android Netrunner Core Set, played a few games, and am now excited to play more.
The problem is that our usual gaming group consists of 4 people, and to my knowledge the Core Set only allows you to build up to 2 playable decks (1 corp, 1 runner) for play at the same time, because of the number of neutral cards.
I would like to know what would be the most economical way to extend the Core Set with enough cards to build 2 enjoyable Runner and Corp decks for play at the same time without actually shelling out another 40$ for a second core set?

fwiw a second core set shouldn't cost you $40: http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/165000

How are you playing 2x2 Netrunner?  Do you just mean playing two games at once each of which have two players or are you using some unofficial Netrunner variant?

The problem with trying to have two simultaneous decks is the economy cards, you really do need a set of say Sure Gamble/Hedge Fund in your decks, particularly if you're dealing with a limited card pool.

Most data packs won't meet this requirement on their own (for the exception, see this answer on this question). From the rulebook, page 7:

To make a starter deck, take all the cards of a single Corporate or
  Runner faction and shuffle in all of the neutral cards for the chosen
  side.

That's 22 neutral cards on the corp side, and 15 for the runners. On average let's assume you can make up 5 of them by pulling in other-color cards, you still need a few more cards. A data pack is going to have maybe 3 neutral cards and 6 of each color typically, so by the time you have 2 data packs you could probably technically pull off 2 separate simultaneous games, as long as nobody is playing the same faction. However, this will limit what you can do in terms of deckbuilding - both runners fighting over Sure Gamble, for example. That will become less and less annoying as the number of data packs you own goes up, but won't likely stop being a topic of conversation. :)

Some neutral cards in datapacks can have influence costs. If you're not careful, you could wind up building invalid decks.

True, but I'm not sure it's relevant.

It actually is possible with the core set and the What Lies Ahead data pack.  See my answer for detail.

Short answer: Buy the What Lies Ahead data pack.  That with the core set lets you build two legal runner decks and two legal corp decks.

Longer answer
I assume from your question that you've already read the rules on deck building and aren't just trying to build the starter decks.  If you're thinking about buying data packs, you pretty much have to be building custom decks for things to even make sense.
If you're just going to play you're own decks against each other, you can do whatever you want in terms of deck building.  When limited in cards, ignoring influence limits is the best way to be able to follow agenda density requirements and deck minimums.  As long as your decks are fun to play against each other, that's really what matters.
If you want to follow all the deck-building rules, here's the run down:

Runner Decks
The base game comes with enough cards for you to be able to build two legal runner decks by having each run cards from the third faction.  Remember that you can spend up to 15 influence on out of faction cards (at least for the core set identities).  For the runners, all they need to do is get up to 45 cards (at least for the core set identities) while still staying under influence limits.
Let's assume we're making Shaper and Anarch decks.  The core set comes with 31 shaper cards and 32 anarch cards, with 15 neutral cards.  If we split the neutral cards between the two, that means we have two decks of 39 and still haven't used any influence.  That means each deck can run 6 criminal cards and has 15 influence to spend doing so.  Between Forged Activation Orders, Special Order, Easy Mark, Femme Fetale, and Bank Job, (all either 1 or 2 influence per copy) you're good to go.

Corp Decks
The primary limitation in building decks is the corp's agenda requirement.  The core set does not come with enough agendas to legally build multiple corp decks.  This is problematic because agendas cannot be run in decks of other factions (they have no influence value, which is different than having an influence of zero).  Of secondary concern for the corp is ICE.  The rule book suggests 17 - 20 pieces of ice for a 45 - 49 card deck.  This is an area where the corps might be hurting.
The deck building rules require 20 - 21 agenda points for the 45 - 49 deck size required by all the core set identities.  Given the core set only ships with 5 or 6 points of agendas in each faction and 15 points of neutral agendas, we need more to work with here.
The data pack What Lies Ahead is the best of the data packs for enabling more decks because it contains an agenda of each faction.  If you only buy this data pack, one of your corp decks must be NBN, as you need the 3-point Restructured Datapool.  This lets you run the neutral Private Security Forces in your NBN deck and the Priority Requisitions in your other corp deck of choice (along with the core set agendas and the corresponding What Lies Ahead agendas) and have two corp decks that meet agenda density requirements.
Now on to the ICE issue.  NBN (which must be one of your corps because of agendas) starts with 9 pieces of ICE from the core set, and gain another 3 (TMI) from What Lies Ahead.  If we split the core set's 6 pieces of neutral ICE (Wall of Static and Enigma) between our two corp decks, that means the NBN deck is already up to 15 pieces of ICE.  This means you only need 2 - 5 pieces of out-of-faction ICE which is fine on a 15 influence budget (look at Ice Wall, Shadow, Rototurret, Chum, and Wall of Thorns for 1-influence ICE).  You also get the neutral ICE Draco in What Lies Ahead, which probably works well in the NBN deck (goes with the "trace" theme).
All of the other corporations have at least 9 pieces of ICE in the core set, get another three from What Lies Ahead (though if you're running Haas-Bioroid, you'll probably need a Priority Requisition or an Accelerated Beta Test to be able to rez Janus 1.0, so maybe don't run all three copies of him), which leaves you in a similar situation to the NBN deck.  Pretty easy to get to the 17 - 20 range.
The fact that What Lies Ahead includes a piece of ICE and an Agenda for each of the four corporations is what makes it the ideal data pack to buy if you're just going to buy one.  Also, Morning Star is amazing.

2x2 Netrunner:
I'm curious as to how you're playing 2x2 Netrunner, as the standard rulebook does not support this at all.  The only rules I've run into on the topic were designed for the old Netrunner game (that's Netrunner the CCG, not Android: Netrunner the LCG), but could probably be adapted: http://www.darkpact.de/netrunner/variants/theBigSellOut.html.  That said, the simple solution is just pair off and play two games at the same time.  I'd be interested to know which you do.

A Purchasing Alternative
All you need from the core set to build multiple starter decks is a set of each of the neutral cards from the core set.  There are ways of buying these sets, such as buying a special of all the "triplicate cards from the core set" from http://borntoplaygames.com/product-category/customizable/netrunner/.  This would let you use the rulebook's recommended starter decks and have any corporation pair you want.

While it's almost possible with just core set for 2 runner 2 corp decks, not recommended.
The first couple of data-packs, especially the Genesis cycle give you enough to start doing some things. What Lies Ahead alone has more Agendas to build a second corp deck.

The most economical way I know of is to peruse eBay or some other commerce site that sells what is commonly called a "Core Completion Set" or something similarly named. In essence, someone has accumulated extra copies of the 1x and/or 2x cards from the Core set and is offering them for sale.
Another common practice for players starting to get serious into Netrunner is to simply buy a second Core set, but I'd personally look into finding a Completion Set from a highly rated seller first.

Usually this is the advice I'd give to someone who really wanted to have 3x of every card for the sake of deckbuilding, but I don't think it matches the asker's case very well. I also think there are more economical options than buying a core completion set on ebay. That goes for ~$55 on ebay, but you could get 2x extra core sets on coolstuffinc for LESS than that, and sell off the extras of the 2x cards for $20-$30. But unless the asker really cares about 3x of every card, data packs are still probably better: 60 cards for ~$10 vs. 77 cards for $20-$30 or even $55. Do you sell c/c on ebay?

My apologies if you are not trying to make a profit here, it just seems highly suspicious that you'd give such specific purchase advice that is aimed at spending more money than necessary. If this was a sincere answer then I hope you'll a) stick around and b) make more efficient shopping choices in the future. ;)

@AndrewVandever: I'm not a seller of any sort. I looked on eBay briefly (at work, so time is limited) to verify your $55 dollar claim, which seems high. I found some entries for 1 of each 2-quantity card going for about 10 dollars or less. I wasn't able to find anything addressing the 1-quantity cards, or any all-encompassing completion kits. But, it's eBay and at the whim of sellers, and I lack the time to do a thorough search right now.

No problem. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=netrunner+core+completion&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc It costs slightly less (not including shipping) to buy a second and third full core set than to buy one of those kits. It's those 11x2 one-of cards that get you. A 3rd copy of two-of cards is cheaper as you said, but still about the same as a data pack, which also adds diversity. I think the reason is that the 2-of kits are sold by people like me who bought the extra core sets and are looking to recoup, and the core completion sets are sold by scalpers looking for margin.

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


text:
How is mana value calculated for a melded card?
How is mana value/CMC calculated for melded cards like Mishra, Lost to Phyrexia; Urza, Planeswalker; and Titania, Gaea Incarnate cards?
Both Google and Scryfall calculate the mana values as such, but there is no mana in the top right corner:

Mishra, Lost to Phyrexia CMC=7
Urza, Planeswalker CMC=8
Titania, Gaea Incarnate CMC=3

The mana value (formerly known as "converted mana cost") of a melded permanent is defined as part of Rule 713, Meld Cards:

713.4b While the two cards of a meld pair are on the battlefield as a melded permanent, ... its mana value is the sum of the mana values of its front faces.

Therefore the mana value of Mishra, Lost to Phyrexia is the sum of mana values of Mishra, Claimed by Gix (4) and Phyrexian Dragon Engine (3).


text:
In Dos when is it too late to shout "Dos"?
If a player lays out all their cards during their turn without calling Dos (technically ending the game), can another player call Dos on the player if they don’t notice during the time they are laying down the cards?
The game specified exact steps for when to move cards over and when to lay down bonus cards. We’ve been playing that we have until discarding to call Dos, but this doesn’t really give the other players an opportunity to call Dos in this situation. It’s happened a couple times now that Dos hasn’t been called because we’ve allowed that leeway for all other plays.
Now some feel this is unfair even though that was what was agreed in the beginning. However, cards are not moved to discard until the laying down is done so it really doesn’t work when going out. We see that needs to change, but the real question we are asking is:
Can someone call Dos after the game is technically over?
If they don’t call before the cards are laid down is it too late?

From the way I am reading the rules you can call dos on another player up until the point that the round ends. As soon as a player plays their last card it is to late to call dos as that would cause the player to get more points.
Offical Rules
Rules
Rules for calling dos

Here is where Dos and Uno are similar. Once you have exactly TWO cards in your hand, remember to yell out “Dos". If you forget to shout “Dos" and are caught by another player (who says “Dos" before you do), you must draw 2 cards from the Draw pile as a penalty, but take note that you only draw the two cards at the END of your turn (when you are just about to end it).

End of round rules

The first player who discards all his/her cards is the winner of the round. If the player earned any Double Color Match Bonuses during his/her turn, then all the other players should draw cards as well, before tallying up the points. The winner of the round gets to score points from all the cards in other player’s hands and become the dealer for the next round.

I agree, but you find the real rule book here: https://www.mattelgames.com/sites/mattel_games/files/2018-03/FRM36-0970-G2_IS_web.pdf

@OlaStröm Thanks for that link, I have added it but left in the other link as the official rules link does not appear to allow for copying the content.


text:
Does Rith, the Awakener count only permanents I own?
Does Rith, the Awakener count only permanents I own, or should I count my opponents permanents too?

The relevant part of Rith's ability says "for each permanent of that color", without any further qualification on what sorts of things get counted. Therefore, you count each thing that is a permanent of that color. Whether you own the permanent or someone else does, that has no effect on whether it is a permanent of that color; in other words, permanents owned by all players should be counted.
Similarly, it doesn't matter who controls the permanent, what kind of permanent it is, how long it's been on the battlefield, whether it's a card or a token, whether it's transformed or flipped, etc.


text:
Responding to Plague Engineer
If I have a lot of 1/1 Goblins on the battlefield and my opponent casts Plague Engineer can I save them all by responding with Fatal Push on the Plague Engineer or does the -1/-1 effect occur before I can kill Plague Engineer? Sorry, I seem to be struggling with a very basic rule here.

You cannot.
From the ruling on Gatherer for Plague Engineer:

The choice of creature type is made as Plague Engineer enters the battlefield. Players can’t respond to this choice. The -1/-1 effect starts applying immediately.

The reason this is the case is because plague engineer's ability is static. You can't respond to the choice of creature type because it's not an ETB trigger. For as long as the engineer exists on the battlefield his ability is in effect, and he needs to be on the battlefield in order to target him, so once you are able to target him your goblins have been dead for a while.

To go a little further with ApotheosisCM's answer, the effect on Plague Engineer

As Plague Engineer enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.

is a replacement effect, which means that, instead of the creature entering the battlefield normally, you take an additional step as he enters the battlefield i.e. choose "Goblin".  The critical thing to note is that this does not use the stack, it just takes place as a part of the Plague Engineer resolving.
Replacement effects can generally be distinguished from triggered abilities due to the use of the word "As" at the beginning of the effect.  If the ability was instead worded as

When Plague Engineer enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.

Then it would be a triggered ability, and you would have a chance to respond with Fatal Push.  However, I don't know if there are any cards that are phrased this way.

Unfortunately not. In order for you to target Plague Engineer with your Fatal Push it has to already be on the battlefield. That means that it's effect has already occured and your gobbos are gone. If you had countered it with a Counterspell then it wouldn't hit the battlefield and your 1/1s would be safe.

Yes, I think I figured it out after I asked the question. Just like if Goblin Ringleader enters the battlefield and dies, immediately I would lose the Ringleader but still would be able to reveal 4 cards putting the Goblins in my hand. This is correct, isn;t it? Better get sleeving up some Icon of Ancestroys then!

Could I save the Goblins by Vialing in a Goblin Chieftain?

@Padjinski Yes, Aether Vialing in something that would boost their toughness, like a chieftain, while the Engineer is on the stack will save the goblins.


text:
Initial meld and additional pair of same rank
Playing Canasta, can I make the initial meld of:
2,A,A,A and 8,8,8,8 = 120 and then pick up the 8 from the discard pile with 8,8 remaining in my hand?
when the situation is:

My hand: 2,A,A,A, 8,8,8,8, 8,8, J,J,3.
My opponent throws an 8 to the discard pile.
I need 120 for my initial meld.

Yes, you can do this, but you have the order wrong. You don’t first meld, and then pick up the discard pile. First you show the 8,8 from your hand, and lay them down along with the enough other cards so that the total meld is at least 120, which can include the value of the 8 from the discard pile as well.
From these rules:

in order to achieve the minimum count, you must either meld entirely from your hand after drawing from the stock, or you must use two natural cards from your hand which match the top card of the discard pile. In this second case, you can count the value of the top discard, along with the cards you play from your hand in this and any other melds, towards the minimum count. You cannot count any other cards in the pile which you may intend to add in the same turn.

If we play that you cannot count the value of the top discard and the pair as part of the initial meld, would you still agree that you can do this.

@Sue I don’t understand your question. It sounds like you are talking about using a house rule where you can’t use those points as part of the minimum? You can use whatever house rules you want; but it’s not how the regular game works.

@Sue looks like I misread part of your question. I have updated my answer to be more specific.


text:
What card game is this? Similar to spades
I'm from a latin american country and a game called casino is very popular (not to be confused with poker or actually casino games)
It's a four player game with a partnership. Making it a 2v2. The first team to reach 21 points wins.
The cards considered points are the aces scoring as 1 point. The 10 of diamonds and the 2 of spades both counting as 2 points respectively.
The dealer gives 13 cards to each player.
This is where the games separates itself from spades or all fours.
Instead of going by rounds and winning tricks or bidding how many points you'll get, the game is played by taking towards your team as many cards as possible. You do this by taking same numbered cards.
For Example: The first player to play puts down a 4 (since it's advice to start playing low numbered cards) the next player decides, if possible, to take the 4 in the table with a 4 of his own. If he does he adds to the team card pool. If he wishes not to take the card or can't he has to drop another card. For example putting down a 3.
Now the next player may choose to use a 7 he has in his hand and take both cards, (because 4+3=7) and so on and so forth.
Points start appearing when you add them to a certain card. For example if you know you have all four kings you can add an ace (which counts as a number 1) to a queen (making it 13 the numerical value of a king)
Scoring: At the end of the round count for each team how many aces, 10D and the 2S.  There are times where there are several cards on the table when the first 4 turns finish and players may choose to either take or add and combine cards.

You've already identified the game as Casino. If that's not the game, could you clarify in what way it differs or why that is not the answer to your question in your question?

This isn't even a question - you've just written a short description of a game you already know the identity for.

Judging by the answer, it would seem the extra S in the name is throwing off his search. Searching for "casino card game" or something is almost never going to yield the result he's looking for.

Thank you very much everyone. I had tried googling casino card game many times before yet every single result was poker or some other las Vegas type gambling game. Never occurred to me to Google it with 2 s. Anyway I'm happy you were all helpful.

Funny cause I googled 'Casino card game' and got the Wikipedia page for Cassino as the third entry and the other two were rules for 'Casino' which looked similar to your rules.

Sounds like Cassino (also called Casino according to Wikipedia).

Thanks for the help. That tricky second s was throwing off my searches. I'm glad my country didn't swap the original name or else it would've been so much harder to find the game. Thanks

You should edit more details about the game into the answer, so that it's clearer to others how/why it matches the asker's description.


text:
Can anyone identify this variant of Yukon solitaire?
I learned this game from my grandfather, and I want wondering if anyone else has seen it before or knows the name of it. I think it is a Yukon variant.

Deck: one deck with no jokers (52 cards).

Deal: The Tableau is filled with 7 piles containing 7 cards each: Moving left to right deal one card face up and 6 face down to form 7 rows. Then, on top of those cards from left to right deal 2 face up and 5 face down. Then from left to right deal 3 face up and 4 face down, so on and so forth until there is a face up card dealt on the rightmost stack. The 3 leftover cards can be played at any time.

Play: same way as standard Yukon, where stacks of cards can be moved around as long as the destination card is opposite suit and one rank higher.

Goal: Build the 4 foundations piles from Aces to Kings.

Any wisdom on this would be much appreciated, thanks!

maybe you can find it at this list of ~545 Solitaire games: https://www.bvssolitaire.com/rules/

My mom and I also played this version. She called it Long Solitaire. I have looked for this version online but haven’t been able to find it. I still play it with real cards.


text:
Two jokers in the same meld
At the end of the game, I replaced a joker with a tile, then used that joker with another joker and a 10 tile to make a run of 10,11,12 to win.  Is this a legitimate play?

I have found no rule that prevent you from using two jokers in a single set:

The Joker: There are two jokers in the game. Each joker can be used as
  any tile in a set, and its number and color are that of the tile
  needed to complete the set. On future turns, a joker can be retrieved
  from a set on the table by a player who can replace it during his/her
  turn with any tiles that can keep the set legitimate. This tile can
  come from the table or from a player’s rack. In the case of a group of
  three tiles, the joker can be replaced by a tile of either of the
  missing colors. When a player retrieves a joker, the joker will once
  again have any value or color. However, a player who retrieves a joker
  must play the joker on his/her current turn to make a new set, and
  must also use at least one tile from his/her rack on that turn (just
  as on any other turn). A player cannot retrieve a joker before s/he
  has played his/her initial meld.

According to these tournament rules, two jokers in one meld is a legal move.
Tournament rules

Either joker can be used to complete any Meld (either Set or Run). Two jokers can be used in a single Meld.

It would depend on the rules set you're using. Most rules do not prohibit it (and therefore allow it by consequence of the rest of the rules).
According to the "Variations" section of the Rummikub rules on Pagat:

Most rule sets do not explicitly state whether two jokers can be used in the same combination. It would be unusual to want to commit both jokers in this way, but since there is no rule against it, it is reasonable to assume that it is allowed. Indeed the current edition of the online rules from Lemada Light Industries Ltd. does explicitly allow it. A player who puts down a combination of a three tiles of which two are jokers must clearly state whether it is meant to be a set of equal tiles or a sequence, and this will determine the tiles that are needed if a player later wants to reclaim a joker from this combination.


text:
Name this card game
Looking for the name of this card game:
Layout: I would lay four cards face down in front of each player, then four cards face up on the first four. Then I deal players 5 cards as their hand, then place the remainder of the deck in the center flipping over the top card and lay it beside the deck.
Play: each player has to play a card equal to or higher than the turned up card next to the deck from the 5 cards in their hand. Once you get through your 5 hand you then move on to the four cards face up. Then when you’ve gone through those you play the final four face down ones. First player out of cards wins.
Rules:

If you can’t play an equal or higher card you have to draw up to 5 cards from the center deck, but if you draw a card you can play,  you can stop drawing and play that card immediately.
2’s and 10’s are wild, however with a 10 you can also play one extra card
Aces are high

I’d really like to know it’s official name to see if there are variations of it! Thanks for the help!

I figured out it’s a version of Shed, Karma, Sh*thead, Palace.  They fall in the category of games that entail discarding or shedding cards. I found it at the suggested similar questions.


text:
In Spades, who wins if both partnerships reach more than 500?
If the final score is 504 to 505? Who wins? You both reached 500 exactly and the 5 and the 4 are just indicators of bags. So who wins? The person with less bags or do you just play one more round?

The partnership that have more points.  That is the partnership that scored 505.  The 1 points per overtrick is a real point, not just an indicator of bags.
From Pagat:

The side which reaches 500 points first wins the game. If both sides reach 500 points in the same deal, the side with the higher score wins.

Yes.  Bags are both liabilities and assets.


text:
in Tic-tac-toe on an NxN board, what is the minimum goal (number in a row) that guarantees a tie?
I've been working on a Tic-Tac-Toe AI (Minimax with AB pruning).
As far as I can tell, for an NxN board, player 1 can always win if the goal is to get less than N-1 in a row (for N > 4). Is there a known bound for the number in a row or the size of the board?

This generalization of Tic-Tac-Toe is called m,n,k-game.  (getting k in a row on a (m,n) board). See wikipedia for some known results -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M,n,k-game

This generalization of Tic-Tac-Toe is called m,n,k-game. (the goal is to get k in a row on a (m,n) board).
Some known bounds: (source wikipedia)

(5,5,4) is a draw.
(6,6,5) is a draw.
(7,7,5) and (8,8,5) are draws.
(15,15,5) is a win.
(9,6,6) and (7,7,6) are both draws via pairings.

When the goal is 9 or larger (k>=9) the second player can force a draw:

When k = 9 and the board is infinite, the second
  player can draw via a "pairing strategy". A draw on an infinite board
  means that the game will go on forever with perfect play. A pairing
  strategy involves dividing all the squares of the board into pairs in
  such a way that by always playing on the pair of the first player's
  square, the second player is ensured that the first player cannot get
  k in a line. A pairing strategy on an infinite board can be applied to
  any finite board as well - if the strategy calls for making a move
  outside the board, then the second player makes an arbitrary move
  inside the board.


text:
American Canasta - initial meld with less than the required points
If a player puts down an initial meld that is less than the required number of points, what happens?

The exposed cards become subject to the usual exposed card penalty:
From section 55 of the rules (emphasis added):

If for the initial meld of his side a player shows less than the required count, he must validate his meld if possible with additional cards. If he cannot do so, or does not do so before discarding, all the cards he has exposed from his hand are dealt with under rule 54. If he has incorrectly taken the discard, he must restore it to the pile before making his own discard from his exposed cards.

54:

If a player exposes one or more cards from his hand, except to make a legal meld, all such cards must be left face up on the table and discarded in successive turns, except that the obligation to discard lapses for each such card that is included in a valid meld (including its use to take the discard pile.)


text:
What board games have maps that change each time?
I'm designing a board game
Each time the game is played, the board must change and also be revealed as player pieces scout the edges of the known map
Can anybody name other board games with similar mechanics that I can study for ideas?

On BoardGameGeek there are listings for two mechanisms that are likely to help - over 7,000 games are listed under Modular Board, and 166 under Map Addition.

Betrayal at House on the Hill is a pretty perfect fit for that description - as players open the doors of the house for the first time, rooms are added from the stack, randomising the layout of the house every game

As my game is in a supernatural attic that does sound like it fits the bill, thanks!


text:
Solitaire game with all cards up in 5 rows of 10 cards each?
What is this game?
The rules are:
Goal - To create four "foundations" from all the cards.
Foundations - Build up in suit from Ace to King.
Initial Tableau - 50 cards in 5 rows of 10 each and two cards on the side.  All cards are faced up.
Actions - You can move the cards around alternating between red and black in descending numerical order.
Temporary spaces - You can have up to three extra cards on the side.

That sounds a lot like freecell with a different amount of rows

The synonym for "increasing" is "ascending", not "a sending".

The game sounds like Seahaven Towers. Here is a JavaScript version of the game. The one clarification is that you may have four extra cards on the side. A short explanation of the rules, from the link above.

Sea Haven Towers is a solitaire game created by Art Cabral and is similar to Freecell, Eight Off, and Baker's Game.
There are 4 temporary spaces and 4 foundations above the 10 columns of the tableau. Foundations are build up in suit from Ace to King. Temporary spaces can hold one card at a time.
The bottom card of each column is available for play. It may be moved to a temporary space, the foundation, or another column building downward in suit. Empty columns may be filled only by a King.
To improve the game play, multiple cards may be dragged at once as long as there are enough empty temporary spaces such that the move could be made by moving the cards individually.

No, this game is nothing like what's been described in the question.


text:
German card game that involves betting 'knocks'
Played this card game a couple years ago while backpacking in South America with some Germans (I think).
There was a betting system, but we didn't use any chips or currency, etc. It had a somewhat similar strategic angle like poker, but was less reliant on chance or bluffing and more reliant on statistics and probability.
Basically you could bet 'knocks' (like, knocking on the table) - and you had 21 knocks and if you were more confident in your hand, you could bet additional knocks. If you hit 21 (or ran out, starting at 21, I can't remember), you lost. You had some cards out in the middle, but some in your own hand.
I wish I remembered more about the scoring of how you won hands but it was a long time ago...

I've never played this predecessor to Poker myself, but maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poch fits? i imagine the board could be well improvised

Could it have been a German variant of the Dutch game Toepen -
https://www.pagat.com/last/toepen.html#knocking
The knocking increases the stake in terms of 'lives'.

It sounds like it is Twenty-One; one of the variants of Black Jack which does not involve actual money.
At least it is helpful to count cards in Black Jack, that would match what you wrote about probability.


text:
Is there any card game where the cards' back color is meaningful?
Many card games are played using a double deck of 52+2 cards where the back colors are different (e.g., in Italy it's customary to have red and blue).
Is there any game, played with such a traditional set of cards, where the back's color is meaningful?
E.g., if I play a blue 7 of Spades the outcome could be different from playing a red 7 of Spades.

PS new to the site, I probably need help with tagging...

Double Solitaire utilizes the different backs to aid separating the decks between games, but that's not quite what you're looking for.

Partially depends on what you mean by “meaningful”; the information could be used strategically to help with card counting in pretty much any game played with 2 different-colored decks.

Nertz requires a different color back (or back design) for each player to determine the score at the end of the game, so two-player Nertz would match your description.

Each player (team) scores one point for each of their own cards that they managed to play into the common area. To determine this, the foundation piles have to be sorted out according to the owners of the cards - this is why it is necessary that the decks have different backs.

I have upvoted but, if I understand correctly, the cards are different when you count the points and not when you play them, aren't they?

Sure. Cards with one back score points for one player/team. Cards with the other back score points for the other player/team. You could score them as they are played (but then, you wouldn't need different backs). The backs determine whose hand they get played from, if that nuance/spin helps any -- the back influence play in that fashion. I'll concede that thats just splitting hairs, though.

The card game Mao involves creating of rules at play time by the players, so rules involving the back patterns can be introduced if desired.

I'm more interested in rules cast in stone.  However I doubt that anyone else could upvote if you don't provide a reference to Mao.

The only rule of Mao that we are officially allowed to share is this one.  At the risk of being called out and having to take a penalty next time I play though for explaining rules, I can tell you it is effectively a game like crazy eights or uno with several rules specific to the whims of whoever is hosting the game.  The point is to confuse the other players as they try to understand and intuit the full list of rules being used to avoid taking penalties and call others out for breaking them.  After each round, the winner gets to add an additional unspoken rule.


text:
Is there a strategy PVP board/card game with Negative Feedback loops?
Feedback loops (for those who aren't aware)
(A Negative Feedback Loop is the technical term for "comeback mechanics", akin to what you experience in Mario Kart.  This is when the game makes it easier for the underdog to come back, punishes those who are winning, and causes games to always feel tense despite differences in experience.
In contrast, a Positive Feedback Loop is when winning encourages more winning.  For example, taking one of your pieces in Chess isn't just tallying another point, but it actually makes the rest of my game easier and your game harder.)

I'm a sucker for negative feedback loops...
However, most of the popular PvP board/card games I've played were the opposite (Star Realms, Netrunner, MTG, Pokemon, BANG, Chess, etc), as these games encouraged uphill battles due to persistent board states.
I know that some games have implemented some N.F.L. mechanics, but I haven't come across a game that uses N.F.L.s as a trend.  For instance:

Monopoly has a Community Chest effect that makes players pay based on the properties that they own (a N.F.L. mechanic), yet is mostly defined by your early success and provides few options for catching up.  The winner is generally the winner by a huge margin.
Magic The Gathering has a few mechanics that reward a player for having fewer lands or creatures, but most mechanics become stronger based on synergies and landing a "win more" solution that your opponent can't respond to/interact with.  Having a strong board state makes you more resistant to loss, rewarding winners with more winning.
Munchkin has several cards/monsters that change how they interact with higher/lower level players, but since gear can assist with earning more gear, and your level contributes to your overall ability to kill monsters, and several low-level monsters have some severe penalties (which will only impact those who are doing poorly), Munchkin feels mostly as a P.F.L. game (although this can be heavily mitigated based on how cutthroat your table is, as agreements/relationships can be a major factor for success at later levels).

The only popular game I can think of that relies on a N.F.L. is Uno, as you start running out of options as your hand gets smaller (which can mean you end up drawing lots of cards and losing your lead).  But I'm looking for something with a little more complexity and skill.

The Question:
Are there critically acclaimed strategic games that regularly use Negative Feedback Loops?

I think that "identify this game" isn't quite appropriate, since there isn't a specific game that you have in mind.

This looks like a game recommendation question which is off topic.

@Joe-W I tried to look all the way through the board rules, but I didn't see anything that mentioned that recommendation requests were off-topic.  It said to narrow it down to a concise problem, don't ask a question that can have a book-full of answers, and don't ask a question that is too open-ended. I think I did that adequately. I'm not asking if people have preferences, but instead I'm asking if something fits a specific criteria. Is there something I'm missing?

Help/On-topic: "We're not the right place to ask questions about: ... Game Recommendation/Shopping questions, this includes all questions that could be phrased like: Best game for ... ? Which game is like ... ?"

By PvP you mean 2 players game?  I think that most games with more than 2 players implement some N.F.L.

The great granddaddy of deck-building actually does have a negative feedback loop in it:
In Dominion, victory points come in the form of green cards which you add to your deck[1]. In every game of Dominion you will have access to three basic Victory cards - Estate, Duchy and Province - and there are others that get added as part of choosing the kingdom for a given game. The basic Victory cards, and many of the others, have no playable effect, meaning that a player who jumps straight into buying them gets an initial boost in their score, but will soon find that their hands are full of junk cards that they can't use to progress the game. By comparison, a player who focuses on building up a strong engine in their deck may not have any meaningful score until the 10th turn, at which point they can buy multiple Provinces to end the game and win.
Another game which has a kind of negative feedback loop is Power Grid. In Power Grid, the turn order is determined based on increasing number of cities. If you have more cities (and can power them), you get more money, but you also get last pick when buying resources and building new cities. This can mean you get screwed out of both, putting you at a severe disadvantage. This effect is actually so strong that positioning yourself correctly in turn order is an important part of the strategy of the game, and some people dislike it because it becomes such a major component of the game.
[1] In a couple of the expansions, namely Prosperity and Empires, there are ways of acquiring victory point tokens which do not clog up your deck. And in many of the expansions, there are Victory cards that can also be played as Actions or Treasures, so they're not completely useless during the game.

Codenames has a NFL effect in that if you've guessed a lot of your team's words, and the other team hasn't guessed many of theirs, then it's easier to guess your opponent's words (because more of the unguessed words are your opponents').
Robo Rally has the explicit NFL of the lasers, but the biggest feedback loop is that if there's a clump of players, then anyone far ahead or far behind it has a large advantage.
In Parade, if you have the most of a particular color, then each of your cards of that color are worth only one point, rather than their face value (the winner is whoever has the lowest number of points).
Century: Spice Road doesn't have NFL, but at least it has very little PFL. The resources in the game are trader cards, spices, and victory points. And they're almost entirely in that order: trader cards get you spices, and spices get you victory points. Victory points don't get you trader cards or spices, a while technically spices can get you trader cards, for the most part if someone is using spices to get trader cards to get spices to get trader cards, they're doing it wrong. There is someone PFL within the spices (you may, for instance, need to first get to cinnamon to get your engine going), but not much.

Viral
Viral is an area control game where the area that you are controlling is a human body - each player is playing as a viral infection trying to infect the person.
Tiebreaking in zone control is decided by current victory point totals, with the losing player winning all ties.  Since zones usually only have 2 or 3 pieces per player, being able to win ties can be very powerful.
Additionally, while controlling zones earns victory points, it also increases the research being done on you.  When that gets too high, medical treatment washes all of your tokens from the body, and you have to start over.
These two features give the game a fairly tight rubber band.


text:
Identify a fantasy board game from the 90's
I had a game in the 90s when I was a kid. These are the traits I remember:

Some kind of fantasy game.
A big carton board consisting of two pieces: upper level and underground level.
The game paths were perpendicular to each other. There were carton doors that were set up all around the board. They can be unlocked with the card that has a key on it.
A couple of playing card decks.
As far as I remember only two usual dices.
There were a couple of figurines (not players) that were positioned across the board. Players had to fight them if faced. I remember they were plastic and nicely done. If I am not mistaken one was green and looked like the Grim Reaper, but not as tall.

Unfortunately, that is all I can remember. I played it in the late 90s, but I am from Ukraine so it might have been issued earlier than that.
Thank you in advance for your help.

After a while, I have found this game on the internet. It is called Secrets of the Dark Lord.
It was released in Russia in 1999, and I doubt that it was localized to other languages and exported to non-russian speaking countries.

I think you are thinking about Dark World (1991) and/or its two expansions:
Dark World: Village of Fear (1993)
Dark World: Dragon's Gate (1993)
Grim Reaper:

Green Arch-villain:

more images here

thank you for the tip. I am afraid this is not it. I remember the board looking kind of D&D: the same palette, but no such variety -- just greyish pastel colors and simple pathways, like corridors (although the board itself was much bigger). The figurines were smaller, fatter and single-color.


text:
In UNO, do you have to choose a color before setting a rule when using a customizable wild card?
If you use one of the new custom rule wild cards, do you have to choose the color before setting the rule?

It is unclear what you mean by “setting your rule”, but you don’t choose a rule when you play the card. You are supposed to write rules on the cards before you play a game. Then, when you play the card, the rule is followed. In general, the rule wouldn’t be something that matters whether you choose your new color before or after it happens (like it is with the normal wild card draw 4 card). If it is something where it actually matters, that could be specified as part of the rule itself. From the rules:

Wild Customizable card – Use a #2 pencil to write any house rule you wish on a card. The only limit is your imagination (and the consent of the other players). Before the game begins, decide how many of these cards to include. You may use only 1 or all 3, it’s up to you. This is a wild card so you may play it on your turn even if you have another playable card in your hand. Also, you choose the color that resumes play. If this card is turned up at the beginning of play, the person to the left of the dealer chooses the color that begins play. NOTE: the cards are erasable, so you may write a new rule each time you play!


text:
Othello Vs Checkers -- are there any complexity and skill comparisons?
Which game is harder to play at a high skill level, Othello or Checkers?  I realize this is a highly subjective question.  I have been playing Othello for 35 years or so, and I'm pretty good Othello player at FlyOrDie. I recently tried Checkers which I hadn't played for more than 40 years, and I get wiped out pretty bad.  I would guess Othello is conceptually more complicated and Checkers is more about avoiding pitfalls, but I'd like to hear other opinions.

Othello and Checkers are quite different games; one involves building patterns on the board while the other involves movement on the board.  The required skills aren't very transferable between them, so comparing would be difficult. It would be better to compare Othello to Go, and Checkers to Chess, where skill in one can help in the other.

From AI point of view, or at least from a Search-intensive approach, Othello is harder.
Checkers has been weakly solved at 2007. Othello has not been solved yet.
From the paper Checkers Is Solved:

Search-intensive approaches to AI will play an
increasingly important role in the evolution of the field.
With checkers done, the obvious question is whether
chess is solvable. Checkers has roughly the square root of the number of positions in chess (somewhere in the 10^40 - 10^50 range). Given the effort required to solve checkers,
chess will remain unsolved for a long time, barring the
invention of new technology. The disk-flipping game of
Othello is the next popular game that is likely to be solved,
but it will require considerably more resources than were
needed to solve checkers.

I doubt that chess will ever be solved, now that we have an AI that can reliably win every time ... or rather, that can reliably steamroll the opponent every time.


text:
Redesign Checkers board to an odd size
Can Checkers/Draughts be played on a board with odd size?
Such as 5×5, 7×7, 9×9, 11×11 etc.

Sure anything is possible but it would impact gameplay

There are checkers-games that are played on an odd size of board, for example:
Alquerque which is considered to be the parent of draughts and is played on a 5×5 board, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alquerque  another example is Fanorona which can be played on 3×3, a 5×5 or a 9×5 boards, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanorona

I don't think this question is opinion based since there are games in the checkers family that are played on an odd-size board, thus the answer is: Yes, Checkers can be played on a board with odd size.

@Cohensius Someone could have easily provided an answer that said it was possible even if there had been no variants created. The fact that someone has done it doesn't change the quality of the question.

There are drastic and multiple asymmetries introduced by having a board size that is an odd length on each side; including the possibility of the two sides having a different number of pieces. It is difficult for me to imagine the game actually being playable under such circumstances. The strategies would be different for the two colours, for just one example.
Note that I am not referring to different strategic choices being made by players = but rather to the actual options available to the players being very drastically different. The importance of the board having an even side length in standard layouts is that whatever one side can do on their own left, the other can do also on the other side of the board, now their own left. However on an odd side--length board, one side gets to perform that tactical advantage on both sides of the board, while the other side cannot perform it on either.

Technically yes, up to a point, however it have some pretty big impact on games. First it would add more pieces, making the game longer for every additional piece that needed to be taken. Making the board longer either adds more space between the pieces, which slows the opening of the game, or adds more rows pieces, which lengthens the game even more as stated.
That 5x5 may be too small however. It leaves only room for 1 rank of pieces with 3 between them, or two ranks of pieces with only one space between them.
Worth nothing one other big issue with specifically an odd number of squares: an even length board has 180 degree rotational symmetry, and odd one does not. A checker/chess board traditionally has a black square in the bottom right for both players and pieces are placed on black squares. For checkers this means there are 3 rows of 4 pieces each, 12 pieces per player, if the length were odd say 9x9, and we still used 3 rows, one player will have rows of 5-4-5 and the other will have 4-5-4 unbalancing the game. This can be managed slightly by only having even number of rows, a 5-4 will have the same number of pieces as 4-5 but one will still have a disadvantage, having more pieces in the back row while their opponent has more pieces in the front.


text:
Redesign Ludo with more than 4 players
Is it possible to design a Ludo game with more than 4 players?  If we want a 5/6/7/8 players' game does it require the board to be pentagon/hexagon/septagon/octagon respectively?

Sure anything is possible but it would have an impact on the gameplay.

Actually, it will not effect so much the game play, players will just have to wait longer between their turns and more players to eat / get eaten by each other.

@Cohensius Games will also take longer as well not only due to what you mention but from the board being larger as well.

@JoeW, This can be easily adjust: reduce the number of steps per section and/or the number of meeples per player.

Yes, it is possible.  For example, see this video by Ludo king from 2021


text:
Is it possible for an opponent to have zero deadwood when I gin?
While playing Gin on an app, I knocked with gin and my opponent showed zero deadwood. Given I had gin, my opponent was unable to play any cards on mine; so, is it possible for a player to have zero deadwood if the opponent knocks with gin?

Possible, but unlikely.  It means that your opponent chose to discard when he had Gin.  There is no good reason to do this.
Other explanations:

If both players are dealt a gin hand (very rare).
A misclick.
An opponent that do not know the rules.
A bad AI agent.
In games where the Undercut bonus is larger than the Gin bonus then in some rare cases it might be better to try undercutting instead of making a Gin.
The opponent run out of time, thus an auto-move was played.