text:
If I move X from one hand to another using his tap ability, when does he untap?
This is a question I've seen come up in several circles now, including a game I just played.
From the Unstable FAQ, we know that we can activate X's tap ability in anyone's hand to move him to anyone else's hand, from question 6 in X's section:

In multiplayer games, can I move X from one opponent's hand to another's?
Yes, you can. While X is in an opponent's hand, you can activate its middle ability. This is unusual, as normally tap abilities can't be activated from a player's hand. But X's first ability says you can, so you can.

So X is tapped and moved to someone else's hand.
When does he untap? Does he untap in the untap step of the person who owns X, or the person whose hand X is in?

The tap symbol in X has no significant meaning while X is in a player's hand.
This is based on the comprehensive rules dealing with "tapping":

701.19. Tap and Untap

701.19a To tap a permanent, turn it sideways from an upright position. Only untapped permanents can be tapped.
701.19b To untap a permanent, rotate it back to the upright position from a sideways position. Only tapped permanents can be untapped.

107.5. The tap symbol is {T}. The tap symbol in an activation cost means “Tap this permanent.” A permanent that’s already tapped can’t be tapped again to pay the cost. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. See rule 302.6.

A couple things here. Note that the idea of tapping as a general concept only applies to permanents. There is no reason to think from the comprehensive rules that a non-permanent can become tapped.
So how can you activate the ability? Well, you can still pay the cost of "tapping it", it's just that paying that cost will have no effect on its state; it won't become tapped. So tapping a permanent causes it to become tapped, but tapping a card in your hand doesn't.
Also, even if it did somehow become tapped; there's nothing in the rules from tapping it again to pay the cost... 107.5, which prevents you from paying the tap cost if its tapped, only refers to tapped permanents.
Since X in a player's hand is not a permanent, the regular rules regarding it being tapped or untapped simply don't apply.
Finally, if it somehow were tapped, there's no reason in the rules to think that it would ever untap (until it becomes a new object by changing zones, or some spell/ability untaps it). The only thing that causes untapping normally is this rule:

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.

As this rule only applies to permanents, the card in your hand wouldn't get untapped during the untap step.
Considering that these cards were creating primarily for the humor of seeing what silly things can be done, it would not surprise me if one of the reasons for having "tap" in the cost of the ability is simply to add to the silliness of the idea of taping a card in someone's hand. Though that is of course just speculation.

Un-rules allow a number of things which are normally forbidden (see the fact that X is in an opponent's hand).  I think that hand-tapping might be one of them.

@ArcanistLupus Regular MTG rules allow for card text to break any regular MTG rule, and having X be in an opponent's hand is spelled out on the card text. Tapping or uncapping a card in the hand is not part of the card text.

X enters a person's hand untapped, so we never actually have to worry about a "when" for untapping him. (This means, if you have the mana available, you can just pass him between peoples' hands repeatedly in quick succession.)
This is because X changes zones. When a card changes zones, the typical rule is 400.7 in the rules for Zones:

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

So when X enters a new hand, the fact it was tapped in a different hand doesn't matter anymore: it's now untapped, since that's the default state of cards in hands.
This is the same rule that lets us flicker a permanent and see it enter the battlefield untapped again.
(It's weird that when it comes down to it, I and others have forgotten about this rule. It seems X just does something so absolutely, fundamentally weird, we totally forget about zone-transition rules for a while in discussing this situation.)
In case of being stuck in the one hand...
Spells like Stifle and Disallow can counter abilities, which would leave X in the hand they were in — and if we follow the symbol, they're in that hand and tapped.
There's two primary approaches we can go with:

X untaps in the untap step of whomever's hand it is. This is just like how they'd untap all permanents they control, whether or not they own them — a permanent they stole or that was Donated to them untaps in their step, not the owner's.
X never untaps. The untap step doesn't instruct us to untap things in our hand, so we don't untap X ever. The owner will be limited to either (a) casting X out of that hand to put it in someone else's, or (b) only using X's second activated ability in that hand.

Since this is the silver-bordered world, and Maro advises us to prefer to do awesome things when we can, I suggest using the first of those options.

@murgatroid99 good point, I've added that. :)


text:
How can I ensure the Commander deck I'm creating is appropriate for my group's meta?
Our group's been playing Magic since mid-2013, and Commander 2013 since a while after that. A couple of us are keen on building our own commander decks now. We're aware the Commander format can easily be very powerful, and that different groups vary from decks that finish within a few turns to those that easily last 15-20 turns (like the C13 decks do). We're having some trouble working out how to gear our decks to be at a suitable power level for our table's current meta.
We can tell when a card's just going to outright break things and be un-fun. However, we encounter fairly powerful cards and we're not sure if they're too powerful, or OK because it's just what that deck does, or maybe it should be considered a bomb like Serra Avatar. Is Pontiff of Blight too powerful or just right in our C13-based environment (pay a few {W/B}, cause life loss and get 3-4 life for each mana spent this way because multiplayer) — how do we tell?
How do Commander groups usually work this out? Are there design standards available? Is there a well-defined tier list that can guide our deck construction? What do people go by to ensure they match their game's meta effectively without breaking it? Or is it just done by feel and experimentation and group moderation of "don't use that card, it won't be fun for us, use this one instead maybe"?

As a subjective question, this will be governed by the Stack's Good Subjective, Bad Subjective guidelines and the subjective questions guidance offered at the bottom of this help page.
This means answers need to adhere to the back it up principle: your solution must be accompanied by based on either something that happened to you personally, or something you can back up with a reference. In general that means cite direct experience (your own or someone else's) that demonstrates the effectiveness of solutions you provide. A solution that comes with no experience of its effectiveness is low quality.

I don't see a way to answer this objectively.

This is not an objective question. It's a subjective expertise-based question and will be governed by the Stack's good subjective, bad subjective guidelines. In particular, that means every answer needs to be backed up by references or personal experience. "I've heard about this method, maybe it'll work" makes for a poor answer, "I've used methods X Y and Z, and here's how they worked out, and A and B are also popular, here's how it is in others' experience, method Y seems to work best" makes for a useful GSBS answer.

For the record, Stack Exchange does not exclusively handle objectively answerable questions. Subjective questions are acceptable and even the norm for many sites. See our questions not to ask page - the bottom section (CTRL+F "some subjective questions") outlines our expectations for subjective questions and how they're handled.

I recognize the allowance for some (but not all) subjective questions, and I find that this one doesn't make the cut. The question is primarily opinion based. Every group is sure to have their own completely different way of doing things. This might be better suited to some discussion forums (like mtgsalvation).

@Rainbolt  I think as long as answers address how to determine the appropriate power level for your group (as opposed to trying to dictate the one correct level for all groups), they should be generally applicable.

@Rainbolt Each group has their own way of doing things - great! If you know any of them, and one of them actually works well, share it with us! If the methods that work tend to work similarly, or in certain similar bins, what are they? Do you know of a functioning tier system? Something that provides deck archetypes and limitations on what cards you can choose for what areas? Has anyone worked anything functional out that does anything like this yet? The reason this can be good subjective is because the solution has to actually work well. There isn't room for "in my opinion, do this."

Indeed: judge whether answers are good subjective answers. The question certainly allows and asks for such answers; there's no need to get rid of it because some people might not answer it well.

@doppelgreener If you know any of them, and one of them actually works well, share it with us!  That is exactly the problem with opinion-based questions and answers. It's like asking a group of 100+-year olds how they got that old, and every one of them has their own little secret. Evidently, there is an objective reason why those people got to 100+ years of age, but that doesn't mean their answer is right, let alone that it applies to you.

@Hackworth such a person would be failing to back up their statements sufficiently. You've just provided a model of a low quality subjective answer. If you see one like that, downvote it.

From the answers that are already posted, I am not sure how this can be answered with facts that are not just opinions and from the comments on the same answers it would appear it is already turning into a discussion.

@Pow-Ian As others have pointed out, answers are not meant to be totally objective facts, merely well-supported. I think the existing answers actually do a decent job of this (though perhaps future ones could do even better), and the discussion has died down. We want to avoid questions where essentially every answer generates huge discussions, but this doesn't really look that bad.

Short Answer:  I ran a weekly gathering for 3 years starting back with Revised, with 5-15 people showing up every week.  Participants ranged from neophytes to hardened tournament players.  I found that as long as the deck construction rules were clear, all participants were fine.  "Powerful" decks aren't so powerful when 9 people gang up on it even if the decks were mediocre.  Longer "real" answer if/when question gets reopened.

@John Try to avoid answering questions in the comments section. If you believe that the question meets site standards, and you have the privilege of voting to reopen a question, cast your vote and wait for the opportunity to post in the correct section.

I think this might be more an issue of too localized than too subjective. I think the answer is likely only useful to people in his particular playgroup.

@Gendolkari "This answer is the one that's useful to me" is the point of accepting an answer, so naturally I'm going to accept one that works for me and my playgroup. That one's also going to work for a lot of other people too, and at the current rate, it's going to be the top answer which is the across-the-board advice. I find it hard put to imagine how the most upvoted answer is going to fail to work for a lot of other people too. We no longer have the 'too localized' close reason for a reason, it got used badly constantly.

@Gendolkari I feel like in terms of "who really encounters this?", surely "Maintaining an Appropriate Commander Environment" is a lot more common than, for example "What is a good strategy for using the Doomsday card?"

@deworde I wouldn't use old questions to gauge the appropriateness of new ones. You can learn more about that here. The question may very well be appropriate, but not because it is more common than some five year old question.

@Rainbolt Sure, but it serves as a good example for contrast.

If there's one thing you can learn from Mark Rosewater's "Making Magic" articles (check out the section on "Empires"), it's that the best way to find out if a deck is unfair and/or miserable is to play it. This may seem like something you could shortcut, but card evaluation is really hard, and cards or decks that seem oppressive at first glance may turn out to be actually really fun and exciting; and vice versa.
The key thing here is to have a group happy to communicate that your deck is stopping them having fun, and to be able to tell which deck it is that's doing it. The best way to tell this is the same way you'd analyse anything; change one thing and see what happens.
For example, if everyone turns up with a new deck, and one can't compete, one's horrifically broken, and one just feels like it could be fair if the removal suite in the opposing decks were different, you change the broken one, and see how it fits. If you change all of them, suddenly you could get massive swings against the "could be fair" which you weren't expecting.
Also, be aware that if your deck is requiring people to significantly adapt their decks to deal with it, then even though it seems fair, it's actually warping.
Another issue is play skill; for example, Black Lotus is an entirely reasonable card as long as you're using it to ramp into Centaur Courser on turn 1. The deck may seem reasonable, and then suddenly stop being reasonable in the hands of a more experienced player. So it's worth agreeing that, just because a deck was fine originally, it could now be time to retire it as it starts to cause issues.

Don't suppose you found that link? I'd be very curious to read it.

@RobertWertz Done. I slightly misremembered, it's actually a very short segment of a much longer podcast acting as an introduction to Commander.

You missed a word among "actually ;" just before that video link! First paragraph, last sentence.

@doppelgreener Wow, this really was a rush job. Thanks!

I think group moderation is the way to go.  Build the deck you want to play.  If there are cards that look particularly brutal, maybe ask your group about them ahead of time.  Otherwise, just play, and if something happens that ruins the fun for everyone, then adjust as needed.
If you want to keep games from feeling "samey" every time, you could ban cards that let you search your deck for a specific card.  That way, even if someone has a bomb, they'll probably only see it in about 25% of games.  Also, keep in mind that Commander is intended to be multi-player.  If someone has a particularly powerful deck, they should expect the other players to all be targetting them.  It is difficult for even a strong deck to take on multiple players at once consistently.

In addition to the other suggestions here like getting feedback from your fellow players as you play, you can do a couple free-for-all games.  In my play group that is mostly what we do and it's pretty easy to see who has the best board position at any given time (we all usually start conspiring to hurt that player's board, he is getting constantly attacked, etc.).  If the deck you play is constantly garnering hate from the other players, your deck may be over-powered.
For example: one of my friends has a few EDH decks, including one that uses Gisela, Blade of Goldnight as his commander.  When that deck comes out, we all know that while the game may technically be a free-for-all, it is really everyone vs. him.
If people are constantly feeling threatened by you deck so much so that you constantly have a target on your head, you probably need to dial it back a bit.
Note: being in a good position is part of the game and key to winning.  It is when you are in a good or great position a disproportionate amount of the time that it becomes a problem.

Hmmm the problem I see with this is that in my experience a player makes a commander deck he enjoys, he doesn't change it according to the group or the group makes a deck which can match his, this would take a lot of fun out of the proces of owning your own commander deck of 100 cards.
That being said, there are buyable premade commander decks. In my experience they are neither good nor bad and  can be played against each other as long as they come from the same set. I've done this once with some friends, we all bought the new commander decks and played once with them so we could figure out the flaws and then we made changes we deemed necessary to make a deck which could actually fight.
Next to that there are commander staples cards. This forum topic gives a list of all commander staples. I would say that you can build a lot of decks with these cards and cards you deem necessary for a commander deck.
Also a commander deck is mostly build around it's commander. So how a deck is build mostly depends on the commander (although I know of cases where the commander is only used to provide colours).

Except 'staple cards' are generally some of the more powerful cards in the format...

Not per se, some mana stones and stuff like that are not per se powerful, granted the eldrazi and stuff like that are powerful, but mana dorks and utility cards are not that powerful, they can be expensive tho.

I'm not sure you understand what powerful means. Sol Ring is a much stronger card than the Eldrazi are.

Ow no in interpreted it wrong form what you said, i thought you meant power as in got a lot of power. I agree with you in that regard

Got it XD But yeah, would not suggest the staples, as a group starting to run a lot of staples causes the power level to scale quickly.

This feels like it's only marginally an answer to the OP's actual question; he's clearly willing to adjust his deck to avoid being too overpowered (so there's also not just one possible deck per commander), the group isn't just limited to premade commander decks, he's willing to adjust, and decks aren't entirely composed of staples so even if you use plenty of them, there's still a need to figure out how to adjust power.

This kind of answer, which actually appears perfectly valid since Wouter backs their opinion with experience as is recommended, is exactly the reason why I voted to close this question.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I cast Bloodrush from my hand?
Bloodrush is confusing my friends and I. Suppose I have a Ghor-Clan Rampager in my hand:

Can I cast Bloodrush from my hand (discarding Ghor-Clan Rampager straight from there), without first having summoned Ghor-Clan Rampager to the battlefield? If so:

Can it be cast from the had as an instant?
Why is this the case? Can activated abilities really be used from the hand, or is there just something special about Bloodrush?

We're having genuine trouble understanding definitively whether it can be used from the hand or not. I'd imagine that as an activated ability, the creature has to actually be summoned first, but then there's this quote from the Gatecrash mechanics feature on Wizards:

The warriors of the scattered Gruul Clans spend a lot of time fighting for territory, for loot, or simply for enjoyment. A creature with a bloodrush ability is so eager to get into the fight, it might not even wait for you to cast it.

It's hard to know whether this is flavoursome description for which our interpretation has gone awry, or an author writing about how a creature with Bloodrush actually doesn't have to be on the battlefield before you use its ability. Plus this answer about Bloodlust quotes rule 602.2a which talks about using abilities from hidden zones, but that might not be the hand. We're trying to stick to the Basic Rules though and not overcomplicate things, and I can't find what those have to say about this.

A more relevant quote from the Gatecrash mechanics page: "Bloodrush is an ability word that marks a particular kind of activated ability you can use when a creature card with bloodrush is in your hand."

Bloodrush is an activated ability that you can activate from your hand and only from your hand. You cannot use bloodrush if the card is already on the battlefield.
Most ability in Magic are only used from the battlefield, but abilities with costs that only apply in other zones, like "Discard this card," "Reveal this card from your hand," or "Exile this card from your graveyard," can only be activated from those other zones instead.

For an in-depth explanation, let's look at the text of Ghor-Clan Rampager:

Bloodrush — {R}{G}, Discard Ghor-Clan Rampager: Target attacking creature gets +4/+4 and gains trample until end of turn.

First off, note how Bloodrush is italicized on the card. That means it's reminder text, not rules text. Specifically, it's an "ability word" (207.2c in the comp rules). I'm only pointing this out because it means that, unlike trample or deathtouch, the word itself doesn't imply any extra rules. Everything about bloodrush is printed right on the card.
The ":" indicates that it's an activated ability — pay a cost, get an effect. However, how do you discard a creature that's on the battlefield?

701.7a To discard a card, move it from its owner’s hand to that player’s graveyard.

So, the answer is, you don't. You can only discard the card while it's in your hand. Which means...

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack.
  Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The
  exceptions are as follows:
...
112.6i An object’s activated ability that has a cost that can’t be paid while the object is on the
  battlefield functions from any zone in which its cost can be paid.

So, because the ability says "discard Ghor-Clan Rampager" as a cost, you can activate it from your hand, even though most abilities are only used from the battlefield.

Some other things to note about bloodrush, based on the text:

Using bloodrush is activating an ability, not casting a spell. It still goes on the stack but it doesn't trigger "When a spell is cast" triggers and can't be countered by cards that say "Counter target spell."
You can't activate the ability at all without an appropriate target (an attacking creature, in this case).

You can look at Faerie Macabre for an example of an Oracle ruling that matches the interpretation above.

Superb answer, except for one error. The following is incorrect: "You discard the card as part of the cost. So the card will go into the graveyard before you put the ability onto the stack." Putting the ability of the stack is the first step of activating it. Paying its cost is the sixth. Many choices including choosing targets happen first. [I have deleted the incorrect claim in your post.]

e.g. Faerie Macabre can't exile itself since it's not in the graveyard at the time targets are chosen.

Thank you for this excellent explanation. This has taught me a lot about how cards and abilities work.

Blood rush is an activated ability of a card. Therefore it is cast at instant speed like any other ability. The only time blood rush can be used is from your hand.
If the card with blood rush was on the battlefield as a creature, you could not 'discard' it and thus could not activate that ability.
Bloodrush is just like cycling. They are both abilities of a card, not a creature.
Normally activated abilities can not be used from the hand because they are part of the creature that a card becomes. Because Bloodrush and cycling depend on the card being discarded, they are an activated ability of the card not the creature and thus can only be used from the hand.

207.2c An ability word appears in italics at the beginning of some abilities. Ability words are similar to keywords in that they tie
  together cards that have similar functionality, but they have no
  special rules meaning and no individual entries in the Comprehensive
  Rules. The ability words are battalion, bloodrush, channel, chroma,
  domain, fateful hour, grandeur, hellbent, imprint, join forces,
  kinship, landfall, metalcraft, morbid, radiance, sweep, and threshold

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


text:
Starting a Skaven army: Pros and Cons?
After playing much Warhammer 40K and building some Space Marine and Orks, I've been looking into starting a Warhammer Fantasy army, more specifically Skaven, because of the cool-looking models and the challenge towards my painting skills to make them look beautiful.
Although I've looked into types of armies and lore, from a strictly-gameplay point of view, I know nothing.
What types of Skaven armies work or not, and which races are they good or weak against?

This is not from me, but I approve it :)
Skaven pros -

They have access to vast arrays of troops/troop types, and can get them in vast quantities.
The leadership rules they come with over-ride what would be a fatal
weakness and combined with the new re-roll of all leadership tests
allowed by the BSB and the general's leadership in a 24" diameter
bubble they have the same Ld as dwarfs, ie impregnable.
They have excellent magic capacity and at least one game ending
spell, which is now far easier to cast now in 8th irresistibly.
The new initiative strikes first regardless of charge now makes even
their weaker troops likely to inflict a credible ammount of damage on
all but the most heavily armoured foes.
The Storm Banner can, for a tiny cost eradicate their greatest
weakness - being squelched by template weapons and shot to death -
yes it affects their own troops to, but this is generally less
detrimental to them than it is against other armies such as DE, HE,
WE, Dwarfs, Empire, OK of which (generally) most of their opponents
will come from.

Cons -

Such a large quantity of troops on the table means the potential for
being bottlenecked against terrain, the newer terrain rules have
nearly removed this as a problem for skaven now.
The ability to be lose all their Ld bonuses by being flanked was a
great problem, but in 8th the most common flanking units, fast
cavalry have been hit by needing full ranks to break ranks. To give
the fast cav enough ranks to both survive getting to the flanks and
then (as ranks are counted after combat now) last long enough to be
able to break the ranks is an option. This falls under analysis though
as with 2.5k or 3k skaven can build a battle line that stretches from
table edge to table edge and presents no flanks to the enemy.
Overall I believe skaven have really been boosted a vast amount in
8th, but regardless of numbers they will die in droves in HtH against
any and all opponents, it's just a case of will they fail their
stubborn ld 10 re-rollable break tests over the course of the game?

Many forums indicate that Skaven are generally thought to be quite strong in the newest edition of Warhammer Fantasy due to their focus on large blocks of infantry that are difficult to break. They are strong in every phase of the game, and have some very powerful rare units.
Regarding the competitiveness of different types of armies, the extremely irreverent website http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer/Tactics/Skaven should provide some useful information to get you started.

Can you be more specific, and summarize the high points from that link in your answer? If that link goes dead, this answer will be empty. (Alas, links go dead pretty frequently, either due to the website changing its URL style or simply going dead. I know 1d4chan has been around for a while, but they might decide to change their wiki engine.)

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


text:
Number Wheel/0-9 Decagon gear for board game?
Is there a 0-9 number wheel / plastic decagon thing available for board game construction?
I previously asked a question about possible techniques for tracking multiple variables. Here I am asking specifically about the feasibility of making a board which has little rotating decagons (about 25-50 of them), each of which cover the values 0-9, just like this picture  or this one.
Is there anywhere I can buy tiny decagon plastic rings like the first picture, to implant into a board with a little depth, that can be then be turned?

possible duplicate of Keeping track of many independent variables on a physical board? , it doesn't seem like you need both of these questions that are basically asking the same thing.

@bwarner I'll explain my reasoning. In that question I am willing to accept any answer as to how I can track independent variables, for example I am considering the dice answer or some other mechanisms suggested. However in this question I specifically want to replicate the combination disks on a lock for a game board just like these http://www.trollandtoad.com/p921025.html

@bwarner I'll delete the answer if you think I should. Just wanted to see answers from a focus on that combination lock design.

@CodeCamper - In light of your intentions expressed in the comments, I've edited your question to be much more specific. These are now indeed two different questions.

You're looking for something like this? MTG Cammander's Arsenal 100hp Spindown
These are very expensive, not sure how you'd get them cheaper. I've done a little Googling and come up with nothing. Perhaps you could get them 3D printed by Shapeways
In any case, I'd be concerned about how expensive these are, if you want to implement them across a game you want to sell it will become very prohibitive, and even if you managed to fund the release the game would have to be so expensive it would be hard to sell.
I'd recomened considering other systems, such as counters or even pen and paper. With counters you could provide counters that have various numerical values (in Magic I use little gems I got from China as +1/+1 counters, white = 1, green = 5 and red = 10) and with pen and paper you could provide wipe clean cards.
EDIT
I'm concerned that even if you can make these work the board will be very chunky, making for bigger boxes and further logistical issues. Here's another idea I just had: 3 disks of varying sizes, made of cardboard, with numbers printed on them, that can be pinned flat to the tile:

This would take up less space and allow other things to be placed on the tile, as well as being vastly cheaper. The player would just turn the wheels to align with the arrow (perhaps better to have the arrow on the left hand side)

That picture you have provided is exactly what I am looking for. The only problem is I wanted to build it into the physical board. There will already be counters for other things because they will "move" but within each square there is a few numerical values which must be transparent to all players but increment/decrement. I have another question about this already, but this particular question is specifically how I could implement those spinning wheels and that picture you have provided is a start to what I am looking for. Of course at that price it'll cost me 1000$ a board + glue haha.

Heck if I can just find a place that sells plastic decagons I will draw the numbers on it myself and try to implement it into a board somehow. Sadly I can only find decagon rings made of metal meant for the human finger and not plastic made for the human board game.

I wonder how small I can make those spinning wheels and I'm trying to think how I can make them sturdy I would need at least 25 on the board in a 2 1/4*2 1/4" square each. Pretty awesome idea though. Any links to working versions of this wheel for sale? I think I will try to make one from scratch and see how it goes.

a 2" disc with 10 digits printed on it and a brad through the middle of the disc and a hole in the board... this would be pretty easy to do, and you could have 25 of them on a board easy enough.

Not having much luck finding examples @CodeCamper, but as Sparr say; they should be real easy to make. Make a large one out of thin card and a pin and then scale it down. As for strudiness You don't need to worry about that too much, they'll be flush with the board, and for now you only need to make a working version. Good luck, and if possible I'd love it if you could keep me in the loop about your game (you can reach me via http://oz.itsalocke.com)

The Mississippi Queen is a board game that does almost exactly what you're asking for: dials, oriented vertically, that can be rotated.
This image shows the dials in action: hexagonal disks that show a number from 0 to 5 along the edge. The dials can be taken out of the steamboats, and can also be rotated in place; if you're not specifically trying to rotate them, they hold their position just fine. There are two plastic pieces for each dial: the dial, and the place for it to sit. (The dials are just sitting loosely in a cup; there's no axle holding them in place.) In Mississippi Queen, of course, there are two dials per steamboat, but that's a minor detail.
Of course, this is a more expensive implementation than all of the other answers, and will drive up the cost of producing the game, but it's closest to your original image.

Thank you! This may be the closest thing to what I am talking about. Do you have any idea where I can get plastic pieces such as those? Or decagon shaped... Did they print plastic numbers on the outside?

The numbers on the outside are stickers. I'm not sure where you could get them, though; they're custom components for the game. You could try "making do" with whatever prototype components you can find while you're designing/testing the game, then having custom components made when you ship the "real thing" to real customers.


text:
What decides whether a card is exiled or returned as a player loses?
I came across this problem when writing this answer, and it's not addressed in this question, so I am left wondering here.
In the Comprehensive rules, 800.4a there are a few examples of what happens as a player leaves the game to permanents he / she controls but doesn't own. I am specifically interested in examples 2 and 3:

Example: Alex casts Act of Treason, which reads, in part, “Gain control of target creature until end of turn,” targeting Bianca’s Runeclaw Bears. If Alex leaves the game, Act of Treason’s change-of-control effect ends and Runeclaw Bears reverts to Bianca’s control.
Example: Alex casts Bribery, which reads, “Search target opponent’s library for a creature card and put that card onto the battlefield under your control. Then that player shuffles his or her library,” targeting Bianca. Alex puts Serra Angel onto the battlefield from Bianca’s library. If Bianca leaves the game, Serra Angel also leaves the game. If, instead, Alex leaves the game, Serra Angel is exiled.

So, clearly, we have two effects, both giving Alex control over creatures owned by Bianca. Then Alex loses, and the result is that Bianca gains control over the bears, while the angel is exiled. Clearly something is different between these two ways of gaining control over a creature.
Up until now I had thought that a permanent only tracks two players: its owner, and its controller. However, if this were the case, then both creatures would be creatures owned by Bianca, controlled by Alex, and they would both end up the same place after Alex loses. Clearly, this is not the case.
There are two differences between how these two permanents have come under Alex' control. The angel has been put directly into play by an effect owned by him, with permanent control, while the bears has been put into play by Bianca, and then Alex has taken control untilthe end of turn. So there are two differences that I can see:

The angel is subject to a permanent change of controller, while the bears are only temporarily under Alex' control
The angel was put into play by an effect controlled by Alex, while the bears were put into play by an effect controlled by Bianca

Both of these would require a permanent to not only remember who controls it and who owns it, but in addition either who put it into play or whether the control is temporary. Regardless of which one it is it goes against how I thought the game worked.
Which one is it? And why isn't it the other one?

whoo this is a doozy, let me see if I can get this in simple terms. Good question!

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4749/in-mtg-what-happens-when-a-player-loses-in-multiplayer

@Malco Thank you! And no need to hold back language on my account. I am a mathematician and a rules geek, so as long as it makes sense, I should be able to make sense of it.

@diego I linked to that in the first sentence of my question. This is really more a question about how control works than about what really happens when a player leaves. It's just that a player leaving happened to be the catalyst that made me realize that I clearly don't understand control.

There is a subtle difference between your two examples:

The Act of Treason'd Runeclaw Bear is under Alex's control because of a control changing continuous effect.
The Serra Angel is put into play under Alex's Control.

This is a subtle but important difference. Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, whoever controls it at the time is considered to be its controller. Usually this means that the person who owns the creature is also the controller but because of cards like Bribery that isn't always true. This is covered in the comprehensive rules:

110.2.: A permanent’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it’s a token; see rule 110.5a). A permanent’s controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller.
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.

This is different from an effect such as Act of Treason that causes a creature to change controllers. These effects are called continuous effects and are treated a bit differently.

611.1.: A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

So to bring this together lets have a look at what happens when a player loses the game:

800.4a: When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.

So in your first example you can see that the Runeclaw Bear is under Alex's control because of a effect which gave him control. When Alex leaves the game this effect ends, so the Bears revert to Binaca's control.
In your second example Serra Angel doesn't have any control changing effects applied to it, so those effects can not end (they never started). Instead it is just treated as any other permanent that is controlled by Alex and is removed from the game.

Additional Notes: One thing I figure I should mention is that not all control changing continuous effects are temporary like Act of Treason. Cards like Beguiler of Wills will give you permanent control of the creature, but will still be treated the same as Act of Treason when the player leaves the game.
Secondly, you are correct in that the game only knows the controller and owner of permanents. That is why in your second example Alex loses the Serra Angel when Bianca leaves the game, she owns the card so it will leave the game with her.

Yup, I was misunderstanding control. Apparently, rather than knowing who currently controls it, a creature remembers the player under whose control it was put into the battlefield (usually the owner, but there is no formal relationship between the two the way I thought), along with any and all control changing effects that are still in effect. It then, at any point in time, applies them in order of resolution from oldest to newest to figure out who is the current controller. I think I got it, thank you.

@Arthur Glad to help, I added a couple of additional points from your Q that I didn't address in the main part of the answer. Though it sounds like you got it now.

As for permanent change of controller, I loved Memnarch back in the day, and still do, to some extent. I have just realized he's not entirely as overpowered as I thought. At any rate, I was well aware that permanent effects existed, and even if it didn't, it's not something I would have trouble imagining. As to this mechanism for continuous effects, I have known for a long time that setting the power and toughness of a creature worked that way. I just for some reason hadn't generalized that to basically anything that can be changed about a permanent, like card type, colour and, yes, controller

Hmm, this suggests a followup question: what would happen if, after Alex had put Bianca's Serra Angel in play under his control with Bribery, Charlie were to use a control changing effect like Act of Treason to temporarily gain control of it, and Alex then left the game while it was controlled by Charlie? Would it still be exiled, or would it stay in play under Charlie's control? And if the latter, what would happen to it when Act of Treason's effect ended? And would it make any difference if the Act of Treason was played by Bianca instead of Charlie?

@IlmariKaronen I would say Charlie retains control of it until the continuous effect ends, when it tries to return to Alex it will be exiled instead. Same as with Bianca. Even though Bianca owns it she isn't its controller except temporarily.

Not entirely confident in that so might be worth a question. Would focus on "What happens when the person who played a creature they don't own leaves the game while that creature is under the control of another player?"

Ah, yes, I think you're right. I actually checked the comprehesive rules myself, and rule 800.4c addresses exactly this scenario.

Re "I have known for a long time that setting the power and toughness of a creature worked that way.", Yeah, many people think change of control is a one-shot effect (like effects that damage), but it's a continuous effect (like power-modifying effects).


text:
Is there a reason to have both of these rules in the comprehensive rulebook for Magic: the Gathering?
I have discovered a curious pair of rules in the comprehensive rulebook. Specifically:

400.8. If an object in the exile zone is exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
406.7. If an object in the exile zone becomes exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.

Section 400 is Zones - General, while 406 is Zones - Exile.
Now, I know that the same rule may be repeated multiple times throughout the comprehensive rulebook. See, for instance, 112.5, 209.2, 306.5d and 606.3 all stating that the loyalty ability of a permanent may only be activated if none of that permanent's loyalty abilities has been activated earlier this turn. However, apart from 606.3, they all say 'See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.”', and that's what I find typical for the comprehensive rules; the same rule may be listed several times where it is deemed appropriate, but there is always one "main instance" of the rule, and all other times it is mentioned, the reader is referred to that main instance.
Not so for the "exile an exiled card" rule. It is just stated, almost verbatim, in two different places with no references to one another. Is this a mistake? If so, is there any way (and point) to alert Wizards of the Coast of this? Would they appreciate said feedback?

I don't see this as significantly different from any of the other instances of repeated rules. 400 deals with zones in general, and moving between zones. 406 deals with all the rules about the exile zone specifically.

@GendoIkari The significant difference, as pointed out with the loyalty ability rule, is that neither of them refers to the other. It is, as far as I can see, an unintentional duplication. I was wondering whether other people agree with this, or whether there can be a deliberate reason behind it.

The referenced pair of rules fits as a first class rule in each of the two sections that it appears in. In section 400, it appears right after another rule describing how objects become new objects as a result of zone-change effects. And in section 406, it appears as a rule that is specific to the exile zone. I think it is reasonable to consider neither or both to be the "main instance" of the rule, so it makes sense for each one to not link the other.
In general, I have found that the best way to give feedback about the rules is to contact the rules manager directly on social media. The current rules manager is Eli Shiffrin, and he can be contacted on Twitter under the name @EliShffrn.

I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.

No, that rule is not an exception in that regard.
As you noted, the Comprehensive Rules (CR) duplicate a lot of rules for readability. Contrary to your assertion, there are other cases where rules do not refer to each other.
As an example, see the general rule about costs for casting spells and activating abilities:

Activating Activated Abilities

602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.

And the rules about paying for loyalty abilities:

606.4. The cost to activate a loyalty ability of a permanent is to put on or remove from that permanent a certain number of loyalty counters, as shown by the loyalty symbol in the ability’s cost.
606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can’t be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it.

If your assertion held true, then 606.5 should have a reference to 602.1a, because it's a special case of activated abilities. Since it doesn't, the rule you quoted is not unique in its lack of mutual reference.

I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."

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


text:
Does an ability that refers to the name of the ability’s card have to refer to that instance of the card?
The Question:
I believe I’m right here, but I wanted to get some consensus before I rely on it in a game: Can I apply the ability: "{U}: Untap Soliton" to a different Soliton than the one that activated the ability?
The Brief
I’ve been looking for an infinite mill combo using Soliton for a long time, and have been unable to find one, but I have come close. I now have a plan that will at least allow me to mill a player so much that it doesn’t matter that I can’t get the infinite mana needed to make the loop unending.
The Steup:

Soliton has the ability:

{U}: Untap Soliton

Stern Mentor has the ability to Soulbond, and if soulbonded has the ability:

{T}: Target player puts the top two cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard

If soulbonded to Stern Mentor, Soliton will also have the ability:

{T}: Target player puts the top two cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard

In a simple set up, of one Soliton soulbonded to one Stern Mentor, I can tap Stern Mentor and mill for two, then tap Soliton and mill for a further two, then pay one blue mana to untap Soliton, then tap Soliton to mill for two and so on… Assuming I have ten blue mana free this will allow me to mill for 24.
The Issue:
If I have two sets of Stern Mentor soulbonded to Soliton I can’t mill for any more than if I had just the one set because I am restricted by the amount of mana I have.
The Plan:
I also have several Illusionist’s Bracers. These have the ability:

Whenever an ability of equipped creature is activated, if it isn't a mana ability, copy that ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.

Now I had originally hoped to clone Soliton’s ability onto an island card and create an infinite mana combo, but then I realised that if I cloned the ability: "{U}: Untap Soliton" onto something else the ability would still be "{U}: Untap Soliton", and I couldn’t untap the same Soliton that had just been untapped.
I’m hoping that I can apply that ability to my other Soliton, that way, if I have two sets of Soliton equipped with Illusionist’s Bracers and soulbonded to Stern Mentor, I can tap one to mill, clone the mill ability inherited from Stern Mentor, do the same for the other set, then untap one Soliton and clone the ability across to the other.
This will allow two to be untapped for the price of one.
If we disregard cloning the ability inherited from the Stern Mentor this would up the mill to 44, but with the inheritance it would up the mill to 92. With 20 mana spare that we be upped to 184, that can be spread across as many players as I like.

The untap Soliton isn't a targeted effect; it only untaps the Soliton which used it. When a card's name is used it really means [THIS-CARD]. If it said U:Untap target creature named Soliton, then you could untap any Soliton, but it just says Untap Soliton, which translates as Untap ~this card~.
You will still clone the ability though, and one will resolve before the other allowing you to untap your Soliton, then tap it to mill 2 cards, clone the mill ability to mill 2 more cards, then untap it again, and mill 4 more cards! So you get 8 cards for 1 mana instead of 2 cards for 1 mana.
If you start with a tapped Soliton, it works like this:

U:Untap Soliton added to stack
Bracer's Fires, adding a second untap Soliton to the stack (Has to be the same card)
Let one untap resolve, stack still has 1 untap pending
tap soliton to add mill 2 cards to the stack
a second mill 2 cards added to the stack
4 cards are milled, then pending untap fires, soliton is untaped
tap soliton again, add mill 2 cards to stack
bracers add a second mill 2 cards
4 cards are then milled, stack empty.

Thanks @Nick, so I can use the ability within the stack, like using an intant? Why had that never occured to me?

Yes, all permanent abilities are usable whenever you could use an instant, unless it says otherwise. "Use this only when you could use a sorcery" is the normal wording I think.

Genius, I think I've done the clasic overcomplication thing http://xkcd.com/530/. Thanks again Nick

No problem, it's easy when you are trying to solve one part of the problem to get lost in the details and not notice the other options! :)


text:
Does Aligned Hedron Network exile creatures that enter after it does?
In conjunction to my previous question here, I created some confusion for myself. I want to know how this scenario would pan out:

My opponent casts 2-3 huge creatures (say Eldrazi Devastator, Ruin Processor, and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger)
On my next turn, I play Aligned Hedron Network, exiling these three creatures.
On my opponent's next turn, he is unable to destroy AHN.
I play Ulamog's Despoiler, and choose to send Ulamog and Eldrazi Devastator to the Graveyard from Exile.

After this process, if my AHN is still in play, will my Ulamog's Dispoiler be exiled? I think not, because of the text, "When Aligned Hedron Network enters the battlefield exile ...". However, the last bit threw me off "until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield."
Which of these interpretations is correct?

Until AHN leaves the battlefield, all creatures with power 5 or more are exiled whenever they enter the battlefield.
All creatures on the field with power 5 or more at the time that AHN enters are exiled until AHN is destroyed.

Network's ability is a triggered one, which triggers, as stated, when Network enters the battlefield. All creatures with power 5 or greater will be exiled when this ability resolves (unless something happens, like Network being destroyed before it resolves), and will stay exiled until Network leaves the battlefield. If the ability was worded, for example, "Whenever a creature with power 5 or greater enters the battlefield, exile it as long as X remains on the battlefield", then it would trigger every time a creature enters the battlefield.

Ah I see thanks yes that makes sense I thought it would be this way.

The second option is correct: the Aligned Hedron Network has a triggered ability, that exiles a set of creatures when it enters the battlefield. This exile effect lasts until the Network leaves the battlefield, at which time the creatures return to the battlefield. It does not continuously exile creatures that enter after it does.

First, the rules describing Triggered Abilities, specifically 603.1, say

Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and begin with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” They can also be expressed as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect].”

In the case of Aligned Hedron Network, the trigger condition is

When Aligned Hedron Network enters the battlefield

and the effect is

exile all creatures with power 5 or greater until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield

When the Aligned Hedron Network spell resolves, it enters the battlefield as a permanent and the ability triggers. That is the only time it happens, because it is the only time that the trigger condition is true.
Then, the effect has the "until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield" clause. The rules regarding One Shot Effects say

610.1 A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, putting a token onto the battlefield, and moving an object from one zone to another.

610.3 Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.

So, as soon as the Network leaves the battlefield, the objects it exiled return to the battlefield under their owners' control.

Nice thanks for the detail I think my chain of thought was that the power of the creatures were the trigger of AHN as opposed to "When AHN enters the battlefield"

Aligned Hedron Network will exile the creatures. Set those aside as they will come back when it leaves play. The wording on the card is key here as its effect only happens as Alligned Hedron Network comes into play. Therefore any cards that are played after are not effected.
For example: I play Aligned Hedron Network on one turn, exiling a fair amount of cards. The next turn I Play a Desolation Twin, because the Aligned Hedron Network is already in play Desolation Twin will come into play and summon the 10/10 token and remain there, leaving your opponent very vulnerable.

"Aligned Hedron Network will exile the creatures" is misleading because from the context of the question it sounds like "Aligned Hedon Network will exile the creatures that enter the battlefield after Aligned Hedron Network does"

That's true but the cards text explicitly states that the effect happens when it enters the battlefield and does not state while it is on the battlefield

@StanleyYork - correct, but Kevin's criticism is that "the creatures" in your answer would be interpreted (correctly) by most readers as referring to "creatures that enter after it does" from the question, which runs exactly opposite to the rest of the content of your answer. A clearer summary might be, "Aligned Hedron Network only exiles already-played Creatures, not ones played after it". I also think changing "leaving you opponent" to "probably leaving your opponent" would be an improvement, since there are of course odd situations where you lose in spite of the combo.


text:
Can you untap an attacking creature to use its ability at the end of declare blockers?
Looking at this question and this question, it seems like I can activate abilities after blockers are declared (and before damage is assigned).
So if I'm attacking with Scourge of Skola Vale, can I untap it (say with Kiora's Follower) then tap it and sacrifice a creature to pump it with +1/+1 counters, thus doing extra damage?
Would this also work if I'd given it vigilance before declaring the attack?

Yes.

Untapping it does not remove it from combat[CR 506.4, CR 506.4b]. Neither does tapping it to pay a cost.
You get the chance to use abilities at the end of the Declare Blockers Step[CR 509.5]. The game will only advance to the next step once all of these has resolved and noone want to activate any others[CR 116.4].
Damage is only calculated in a later step (the Combat Damage Step)[CR 510.2], so the +1/+1 counters added in the Declare Blockers Step will affect the damage dealt.

Yes you can.
The combat phase consists of five steps:

beginning of combat
declare attackers
declare blockers
combat damage
end of combat

In each of these steps players get priority and can cast instants or activate abilities. In the declare blockers step the first thing you do is declaring the blockers. It is after this that each player gets priority and can do stuff. And this is before the combat damage step


text:
Does a heroic trigger still resolve if the heroic creature is gone?
Having read When does Heroic trigger? I think the answer is yes, but I'd just like to double check:
I have Akroan Crusader and I cast Nyxborn Rollicker for its bestow cost so my stack looks like (LIFO):

heroic trigger (token creature)
Rollicker

My opponent then casts Disperse on my crusader:

Disperse targeting crusader
heroic trigger (token creature)
Rollicker

That's the final play, so after the stack resolves the creatures I should have are a 1/1 red soldier with haste (token) and a Nyxborn Rollicker. Is that correct?

Abilities on the stack exist independently of their source. If information about its source is required and the source no longer exists, use last known information (LKI).

Yes. Abilities still resolve if the creature that created them is gone*, or cards like Torch Fiend would be a little bit useless. This is because of the following rule:

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. [...]

So in this case: your Akroan Crusader gets targeted by a spell, and puts a triggered ability on the stack. Even if the Crusader goes away, the ability still resolves. Then your Nyxborn Rollicker enters the battlefield as a creature instead, since its target is gone.
* Other stuff can make it fail to resolve, such as if the ability has targets and all its targets are now illegal - see rule 608.2b. But the originating creature dying won't do anything to prevent the ability from resolving.

Good point about the Torch Fiend. I hadn't thought about it that way.

You might want to add that the ability still resolves if it still has legal targets. If it targets the creature it came from, for example, it would not resolve.

@murgatroid99 added, sound ok?

Looks good to me

I was like "Why should the Rollicker resolve? It will surely fizzle". Then I read up on the Bestow ability and was surprised that it actually works the way you describe. +1


text:
Can't understand the end of Game of Life
Game of Life

I can't really understand the ending of this game. How do I become Bankrupt or become a Millionaire?
Also, should I buy stock and insurance? Tragedies happens very infrequently and these cost a lot.

The rules make no mention of bankruptcy, but you can get loans from the bank and reduce your net wealth to $0 or less. You can choose to go to millionaire estates for the opportunity to take the 4 life tiles there (richest player), or choose the safer retirement.

Wait, this isn't about Conway's Game of Life?

@Joe: See the link from where I bought it.

@userØØ7 -- I know, Conway's Game of Life is something completely different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

For the 1977 version, basically you have two choices.

Try to win by having the most money. You move towards the Millionaire space.  Once everyone has reached one of the two end spaces, the person with the most money at the Millionaire space wins, UNLESS someone successfully completes choice 2.
Try to win by sheer dumb luck.  Pick a number between 1 and 10, then spin.  If you spin the number you chose, you immediately win and everyone else loses.  The game is over.  Otherwise, you lose.  Even if you end up having more money than anyone who goes to the Millionaire space, you have still lost if you tried for this option and didn't spin your number.

The rules for The Game of Life have changed over time. In the 1977 version the following happens when you reach the end (Day of Reckoning):

In the 1991 and 2000 versions the following happens when you reach the end (Retirement):

I don't know how but my game also have the  rule  in upper image(My game is bought just 5-6 months ago).Please explain what's it?

@userØØ7 it sounds like the rules in the upper image are exactly what @ bwarner describes in the other answer.

Doesn't the new version have the additional rule that you can't steal tiles from people in Countryside Acres?


text:
Dark Pact condition
Say I have a dark pact condition (however that was acquired) and have an encounter that gives me a choice of taking another dark pact.  The rules say that you cannot have more than one condition of the same type.  Does it mean my the patron from the first dark pact helps again -- thus you can chose the "accept" branch.  Does it mean that you cannot chose the "accept" branch?  Does it mean that you flip the dark pact card and resolve it if you chose the "accept" branch?
...  This is linked to the debt condition question.

The official ruling is that you can gain the benefit only once so any subsequent instances will automatically fail. Reference form Twitch_City's answer.

Correct, you can only have one dark pact so you cannot accept the "accept" branch again until you get rid of it (and damn, those are hard to get rid of and survive).

This is also a good reason to make sure the lead investigator does not have a dark pact, since there seems to be a lot of mythos cards that causes the lead investigator to draw one.


text:
Can Aesop's Pawnshop Remove Wyldside before the start-of-turn resolves?

Aesop's Pawnshop
When your turn begins, you may trash another of your installed cards to gain 3 [credits].

Wyldside
When your turn begins, draw 2 cards and lose [click] .

Questions:

If I wish to use Aesop's Pawnshop to trash Wyldside, which one happens first?
Could you stop Wyldside from activating it's start of turn action by Aesop's Pawnshop -ping it?

You choose the order they resolve.
If Wyldside resolves first:

Draw two cards, lose a click
Sell Wyldside with Aesop's: trash it and gain three credits

Or, if Aesop's resolve first:

Sell Wyldside for three credits
Wyldside does nothing because it's been trashed (so you keep all four clicks)

This specific scenario is actually covered in the rulebook (PDF) on page 22, under "Simultaneous Effect Example":

The Runner has Aesop’s Pawnshop and Wyldside installed and both have the same trigger condition of “When your turn begins.” The Runner begins his turn and can choose to trigger the optional conditional ability on Aesop’s Pawnshop first, gaining 3 [Credits] by trashing Wyldside. This stops Wyldside’s required conditional ability from triggering, keeping the Runner from losing [Click].

Ouch. I need to re-read the rule-book. I'm an old-school Netrunner... still have the old cards in my brain so I don't think to read the rule-book except for stuff that wasn't in the old system like influence and such.

@randomblink No worries! There are actually loads of timing-related questions like that around the game. Glad I could help and welcome to the site!

So... I'm new to stackexchange (ok, like 2-3 weeks new) and I'm madly in love. Why isn't there an android-netrunner.stackexchange.com? Is there an answer for that?

@randomblink: Because there aren't enough questions for it. We have Magic: The Gathering questions here (lots of them!), and even they don't have their own site. B&CG is still in "beta" status, after a few years, because we don't have enough activity to justify leaving beta. So keep asking Android: Netrunner questions, and answering when you can.


text:
Initial card house rule for Kingdom Builder
I noticed in Kingdom Builder that the later players have a noticeable disadvantage if they have a card for the same terrain, because there is usually only one good spot to start with (see the question on initial placements), and that will be taken.
Therefore I have suggested and played with this rule:

During the first round, if you draw a card with a terrain that one of the players before you has had already, you draw again.

I did not play it often enough for it to occur often enough to assess whether this helps, and whether later player still have a too-large disadvantage. Have you tried that or similar rules before, and how did it go?

This is what I would do if I wanted to avoid this:
At the start of the game, remove one card of each terrain type, shuffle and give each person a card.  Shuffle the remaining cards back into the deck.
This will guarantee everyone has a unique starting terrain.

My groups have enjoyed having players always have two terrains from which to choose.  When you play one draw to replace it.

Only in the first round, or throughout the game?
(Side remark: Just got Kingdom Builder for Christmas :-))

Throughout the game actually.  I've seen so many games where players end up with the same terrain over and over and they have little hope in that case.  The problem which your final player faces will face all players throughout the game.  The two card solution reduces the feeling of being screwed by luck.  Of course the downside is analysis paralysis.

At least with this variant, you know that (and when) you will have two of the same terrain type coming up, and can plan accordingly. Strongly recommend, and wish this were an option in the app.


text:
Can I pump my blocker after the attacker has chosen their order, before damage assignment?
The answer to this question about blockers and summoning sickness, reminded me of a seldom treaded area of the combat phase, which has caused confusion in a number of games.
When blockers are declared, the attacker chooses the order damage will be assigned to them. Then, they assign damage, assigning at least lethal damage to the first one in line, before moving on to the next, and so on.
Can spells be cast between the ordering of blockers by an attacker, and the damage being assigned?
for example, is blocking a  4/4 creature with 4 1/1 soldier tokens, and then casting Giant Growth on the "first in line" so the other 3 soldiers survive a legal play?

In response to the comment, it is true that combat damage no longer goes on the stack.  However, the fact that combat damage no longer goes on the stack does not affect the answer to your question.  Assigning the order of blockers is part of the Declare Blockers step:

509.2. Second, for each attacking creature that's become blocked, the active player announces that creature's damage assignment order, which
  consists of the creatures blocking it in an order of that player's
  choice. (During the combat damage step, an attacking creature can't
  assign combat damage to a creature that's blocking it unless each
  creature ahead of that blocking creature in its order is assigned
  lethal damage.) This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.

After that, you get priority, still during the Declare Blockers step:

509.5. Fifth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

So you can use Giant Growth to save all your soldier tokens.
(Unless the attacking creature has Deathtouch.  In that case, one damage is considered lethal, so a 4/4 can kill four blocking 4/4 creatures.)

the answer is probably correct, however point 3 implies first strike damage uses the stack

actually, there's no way this can be correct, it relies on damage using the stack (i.e. you pump with damage on the stack) which is no longer possible, since the magic 2010 rules update.

@Rawrgramming: You're right, I'll update the answer.

First strike damage does not use the stack however it does cause two combat damage steps and between the first and the second, players get priority. This means you can use a first strike 1/1 to damage a 4/4 in the first strike combat damage step and cast lightning bolt before the second combat damage step to kill it before your creature is killed.

Yes. The combat unrolls as follows:

...
[CR 509] Declare Blockers

[CR 509.1] Blockers are declared.
[CR 509.2] Damage Assignment order for attacking creatures is decided.
[CR 509.3] Damage Assignment order for blocking creatures is decided.
[CR 509.4-5] Players get priority.

[CR 510] Combat Damage Step

[CR 510.1] Attacker assigns damage.
[CR 510.1] Defender assigns damage.
[CR 510.2] Combat damage is dealt.
[CR 510.3-4] Players get priority.

...

You can cast Giant Growth at the end of the Delcare Blockers step, saving 3 of your four soldiers. Of course, you could have blocked with just one of the Soliders to begin with.
If it was a 4/7 instead of a 4/4, you'd still only lose one Solider and the attacker would still die.

the choice of example may be a bad one, but considering for example pumping a spider from spider spawning, blocking a large creature, and pumping the first spider with something like spidery grasp, being able to utilise this can be highly relevant.

Of course, I even gave an example where it is relevant.


text:
What happens if a transform trigger is copied?
Similarly to my previous question, what happens when a miracle trigger is copied?, Strionic Resonator, a new card printed in Magic 2014 could also be used to copy a transform trigger such as on Huntmaster of the fells.
What happens when this trigger is copied?

If multiple transform abilities are on the stack for the same object, it will simply transform back and forth on each resolved trigger.
This one is pretty straightforward. It's the same object, and a transform simply flips the switch, no matter which side is currently on top, because Transform is not specific to either side.
The only ruling on Bloodline Keeper fully applies here.


text:
Baahsto destroyed mid action
When using the The Enclave of Endlings environment deck how do you handle it when the Baahsto card is in play and is destroyed while it is being resolved. For example while a hero is resolving the effects of the card that was put in play it causes Baahsto to be destroyed due to chain AE damage happening. When this happens does the card still fully resolve and all hero's put the top card into play? Or does it stop at the point where it was destroyed? They way my group looks at the rule is the card needs to fully resolve and all hero's play the top card of the deck even if it was destroyed while it is happening.

Baahsto (7 HP)
"At the end of the environment turn, put the top card of the villain deck into play.
Then, put the top card of each hero deck into play in turn order. If a limted card already in play would be put into play, discard that card instead."

I have to assume that the core rules are not changed in some way by this expansion as I cannot find the rulebook online. The core rulebook has this to say on conflict resolution:

Over the course of a game, there are situations in which multiple effects would occur simultaneously or have competing effects. In all situations, card effects that happen simultaneously occur in the order in which the card entered play.

Since Baahsto entered play first you should play each hero's top card first from his effect. Once that has resolved you should go through the effects (if any) of the hero cards in the order they were played (turn order).
EDIT:
In short: I was wrong, there is now an errata.
Relevant passage:

Destroying a card before it’s finished
When a card is destroyed before it can finish its effect, any remaining effect is cancelled.
For example, Ra has his “Flame Barrier” out, and a villain target deals
  all hero targets damage. The players decide to target Ra first, and Ra
  immediately retaliates, dealing enough damage to destroy the
  attacker. With the attacking target gone, there is nothing to continue
  dealing damage to the rest of the hero targets.

So destroying Baahsto stops the remaining hero(es) from drawing a card from their deck.

I don't think this is the case, when I am playing using the offical ios app (and I think for computer and android as well) if I use an ae damage ability such as tempest and I damage something that returns damage then the ae ability is paused while the return damage happens. After the return damage is done the ae damage finishes up and is paused by any other effects triggered by it.

I've not used the app but that seems to contradict the rules in the original rulebook. Any printed rules that show this to be the case?

The app is made by the same people who make the physical game so I would assume it is following the rules correctly.

Can you test what Baahsto does in the App?

It is not currently in the app.  Currently it contains the base game, unity, ambescade, and the Mars environment.  I am not sure when that set will enter the app.

I'm currently unsure how to refactor my answer to this question. Personally I feel destroying Baahsto as the app seems to suggest would make the most sense in game (in general it is already stacked against players, I feel, and this improves tactical play). That being said that seems to completely go against the rules as written in the rulebook. Unless you can think of a technical way/errata that solves this?

If you can't test Baahsto directly you could substitute a similar test with Fanatic's Power.  If you can set up a way to get killed between the first and second damage types being done, that should be the same from a rules and timing perspective.

See edited answer above.


text:
Twilight Struggle: When are we allowed to do a Realignment Roll?
I know this sounds like a silly question, but the rules are kinda awkwardly worded and I've seen some videos of Twilight Struggle where this restriction is overlooked.
From the rules (section 6.2.1):

To attempt a Realignment roll, the acting player need not have any Influence in the target country or in any adjacent country — although this improves the chance of success greatly.

This sounds perfectly clear, except the added last bit which confuses me. However, the next section (6.2.2) says:

Each player modifies his die roll:
• +1 for each adjacent controlled country,
• +1 if they have more Influence in the target country than their opponent,
• +1 if your Superpower is adjacent to the target country.

Why claim it's "each player"? And then the following example says:

The US player targets North Korea for Realignment. There are 3 USSR Influence points in North Korea, while the US player has none. The US player has no modifiers—he does not ￼control any adjacent countries and has less Influence in North Korea then the Soviets.

Why mention it at all? Shouldn't the example say "the US player has no modifiers because as the acting player he may not have any influence in that country or adjacent countries"?
Section 6.2.2 is even more confusing by stating:

Each player rolls a die and the high roller may remove the difference between the rolls from their opponent’s Influence in the target country.

Shouldn't one of the players (the acting one) not have any influence at all in the first place?
Obviously the wording here is poor. But how should we play this?

It sounds like you are reading "need not have any influence" as "must have no influence". Rather, it means "the acting player may take the action whether or not he/she has any influence in the target country."
When Ops points are used towards realignment, in a single "Realignment roll", both players roll a die and add their relevant modifiers. The winner removes the opponent's influence, if any, from the target country. So if you have no influence in the target country, you have nothing to lose, but less of a chance of affecting your opponent. You make one such "Realignment roll" per point spent, and you may target a different country with each roll (or the same country more than once).

In fact, a friend of mine pointed this out to me just yesterday and I came by to answer this myself. This seems correct... Still, I believe its poor wording. Thanks! :)


text:
What if the boss or the profiteur connect to the gold?
I have this situation:
The boss has flipped the gold card with a path card. The path there was blocked by both a green and a blue card. We had one profiteur, a blue dwarf, a green dwarf, a sabotuer and a boss.
Who wins and how much gold?
I found this post with an answer to a different question by the creator of the game, where it states that the boss would get 4 points but I am still confused, I can't find it anywhere on the rules how the boss would get 4 points from this situation.
More than that, what if the profiteer flips the gold card, what happens then?
EDIT : I'm still confused. Rules say that if ONLY ONE dwarf wins, he wins 5 gold, if 2 dwarves win, then it's 4 gold each. Why does he win 4 gold? Does the profiteer also win if he is the one flipping the gold card? How much? Do they both get 4 gold each? 5 gold to boss and 3 to profiteer or what?
EDIT2 : So if I have a blue dwarf, a boss and a profiteer in the game, there's just 1 dwarf counted as winner, that's 5 gold for him, 4 for boss and 3 for profiteer. But if I have just a boss and a profiteer, if any of them flip the gold card, then it's 2 winners and they get 3 - boss and 2 - profiteer? In conclusion when there's no dwarves to get to the gold, boss and profiteer are both counted as winning dwarves regardless, but when there are colored dwarves, then these two are not included as winners? I don't even want to include geologists in these situation..
My opinion is that you can interpret these rules as you want and that's a huge slip from the creator. I for one, agree that if neither saboteurs or colored dwarves get to the gold, then noone gets anything (except geologists where it's clear what they get). This messy slip up can REALLY ruin friendships...

I think you're mistaken about "blue dwarf, boss and profiteer" counting as 1 winner - that's 3 winners, so 3 gold for the blue dwarf, 2 for the boss, 1 for the profiteer.  See the gold distribution example on the last page of the rulebook.  The number of winners is always simply the number of dwarves who are eligible for a share of the booty.

It's clear that the rules are a little badly worded.  They say:

The Boss builds tunnels for both the Green and the Blue Team and wins
  every time one of the teams wins.

However, the game's creator has made it clear that in the corner case, where the path is completed but both the Blue and Green teams are blocked by a door, the Boss wins anyway (even though it is not true that "one of the teams wins").
I think that the Profiteer wins in this situation too - the Profiteer ALWAYS wins, after all...
See this old question - in fact now I read that, I'm a bit worried that this question may count as a duplicate...
ETA: I think if one dwarf wins, they get 5 Gold.  If one dwarf wins and he's the Boss, he gets 4 Gold.  If two dwarves win, and they're the Boss and the Profiteer, they would get 4 gold each, minus their respective "job penalties": so 3 Gold for the boss and 2 Gold for the profiteer.  Seems like a reasonable interpretation of the creator's assertion that the Boss winning on his own gets 4 Gold (assuming he didn't just pluck that figure out of thin air...)
In short, I'd say that the "1 or 2 less than the other winners get" (for the boss and profiteer) is another sloppily worded piece of rules.  "1 or 2 less than they would otherwise get" would be a better way of putting it.  If the Profiteer won on his own, for example, he'd get 3 Gold (5-2).

Sorry, but this didn't answer my question at all, I added an edit.

@Andrei Edited to answer your edit!

Ok, your interpretation makes sense, but would that make the boss and profiteer cards a little too overpowered? One more thing, I made another edit, with a new situation, as your interpretation rises more questions.

@AndreiCristianProdan Your new edit does not change anything. If there is a blue and green door on the winning path, then the blue dwarf does NOT count as a winner, only the boss/profiteer do. If there was only a blue door on the path, then the blue dwarf would count as a winner, and the gold would be split between the 3 of them.

CASE: Players in the round are Profiteur, Blue dwarf, Green dwarf, a Saboteur and the Boss.
--> Boss and Profiteur will win. (Green and Blue are blocked by doors. Saboteur wins only if gold is not found. Boss wins if there is a connection to the gold. Profiteour wins always). Since there are two winners, it will mean 4 points for each. Boss will get one point less, and receives 3 points. Profiteur gets always two points less, and receives 2 points.

See also my answer to this question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/6928/what-happens-if-you-reach-an-end-card-with-both-doors


text:
Cause of abbreviations on Yu-gi-oh! cards
Why are certain Yu-gi-oh! cards abbreviated in unusual and inconsistent ways?
A number of Yu-gi-oh! cards have unusual, inconsistent abbreviations in their card names that stand out.
Perhaps the most notable is the Lord of D.:

This card abbreviates the word which is clearly supposed to represent "dragon" without apparent reason for doing so.  The word is definitely not too long to fit - other card names can testify to that.  The word itself is also not taboo - it appears in the names of other cards, as well as in it's own body text in describing a creature type (Dragon-Type, a core creature type).
Speaking of dragons, another example comes in the form of the Red Eyes B. Dragon.  Here, the word "black" has been abbreviated.  Again, proof that the name wouldn't have been too long otherwise can be seen by comparing it to the Blue Eyes White Dragon, which is slightly longer in its first word and identical in length in the third word in question.  The name "Red-Eyes Black Dragon" is also spoken aloud prominently in the show, as it is a trademark card held by main character Joey Wheeler.
Perhaps the most awkward is the card, "The A. Forces."  In this particular case, I can not even tell what this letter stands for despite analyzing the context (perhaps its the same word as the one found here?  Joking, of course, but that would actually give it a reason to be censored!)
What is the reasoning behind this haphazard abbreviating of seemingly random words on these cards?

That is sooooo weird.

Not familiar with Yu-Gi-Oh, but how do they determine what creature type a card is? On Magic cards, the type is clearly spelled out by "Creature - Dragon." If Yu-Gi-Oh bases it on the name of the card, this card helps your other Dragons, but is not actually a Dragon itself, because it doesn't (technically) have "Dragon" in it's name.

@Discord good guess, but that's not the case.  The creature type is the first thing listed in the bold brackets, i.e. "Spellcaster".

Are you sure it isn't supposed to be Lord of Darkness instead of ... Dragons? That would explain the censored D.

@ATS Quite certain.  All of the abbreviated names are spoken in their uncensored forms in the show - he is clearly called "The Lord of Dragons."  It is also the meaning of his untranslated name, and also relates to his card effect (which effects dragons).

@SQB Darkness appears unecensored in other card names, such as 'Allure of Darkness'.

@SQB it's clearly Lord of Dick

As strange as it sometimes comes through, Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards are commonly being censored for the western market, not only visually, but also in text. One prominent example is the renaming of "Magic Cards" to "Spell Cards" shortly after the release of the third set "Magic Ruler", which was released as "Spell Ruler" in Europe. This renaming is probably due to Wizards of the Coast complaining about the similarity to their own game's name ("Magic the Gathering") and possibly even threatening legal action.
Notably, Konami was very strict in removing sexual, cultural, religious and political references as much as possible, but also several cases of copyright driven censoring (like the Magic thing mentioned above). Examples include

Premature Burial, Injection Fairy Lily or The Cheerful Coffin (the originals had cross symbols in their pictures, religious reference),
Sangan (who was originally called "Critter", which was too close to the unrelated "Critters" franchise/brand),
Tragedy (the original showed a Guillotine, which refers to European and notably French history as a symbol of the cruelty during the French Revolution) as well as
countless girlish characters whose clothes and bodily features were "adjusted" (most well-known example for this is Dark Magician Girl).

There are many, many more examples.
As for your examples:

Lord of Dragons doesn't seem to be offensive, so it's either a copyright thing (there are several "Dragon Lord" brands in gaming and entertainment) or one of the few cases where the name was already abbreviated in the OCG for style reasons. @Discord's guess is actually not that far off, avoiding the reference to the Dragon-type might actually have been a reason so as not to confuse the children this game was targeted at.
Red-Eyes B. Dragon is interestingly the only one (well, the only family) where they did it by abbreviating, but the word Black was entirely stripped from Yu-Gi-Oh!. I have no idea why they did this, but up to this day, nearly every single instance of the word Black has been categorically censored. Dark Magician, Dark Hole, Dark Magician Girl, Dark Magician of Chaos and many more all had the Black instead of the Dark when they were first released in Japan. Some of Red-Eyes' cousins share the transition to "Dark" (Red-Eyes Darkness (Metal) Dragon), some don't (Red-Eyes B. Chick). As far as I know, the only exceptions to the Black censorship are all objects without soul (such as Pitch-Black Power Stone), which supports the theory that this censorship is intended to avoid references to skin colour (as pointed out by @SQB).
The A. Forces, as has been noted by @ire_and_curses, is a reference to the Allied Forces, which is a term used to describe Germany's enemies during World War II (specifically, the USA, the UK, France and Russia), who ended up winning the war and dividing Germany, leading to a long history of cultural, economical and political tension known as the Cold War. The term has also been used in other military contexts, but always in conjunction with war.

I just saw you opened a bounty while I was typing. Unfortunately, your "Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources." can't be fulfilled. For more or less obvious reasons, official sources tend to keep silent about censorship and their reasons. :-P

At least, I think this should be a pretty complete answer and you can use the examples I included to kind of confirm the credibility of my claims. Sorry I can't give you more than examples :/

That's ok, this is a very good answer.  And it does indeed cite some sources, so I think that comes close to being authoritative.

"I have no idea why they [stripped 'black' entirely from Yu-Gi-Oh!]." Actually, as you note that "the only exceptions the the Black censorship are all objects without soul", could it be that they wanted to avoid black as being thought of as referring to skin colour?

That's a very interesting theory. This might actually be the reason. Nice catch :)

...Black Luster Soldier.

@ThomasMarkov A very good point. Although arguably the "Black" in this case is referring to "Luster" (and thus, the armor), not to the soldier. Interestingly enough, this is a case of the word being added in the international release, the original Japanese name is simply "Chaos Soldier". Considering that "Chaos" came to refer to the combination of Dark and Light attributes, it's quite astonishing to see such an early reference to the concept in a translation, of all places.

Great question! Unfortunately, I don't have a complete answer. According to the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia:

Some cards have been released in the TCG with shortened or abbreviated
  names. A major reason for this was that the names were too long
  unabbreviated, and Upper Deck Entertainment had not yet figured out
  the smaller card name font for long names, but other reasons include
  stylistic choices and occasionally because the card name was also
  abbreviated in the OCG.

Not an entirely satisfactory explanation, particularly for card names such as Lord of D. which as you say, clearly fit on the card. I'm guessing in these cases it's just a somewhat bizarre stylistic choice (it is anime, after all...).
As a side note, "The A. Forces" is short for "The Allied Forces".

A decent find in terms of research, but I don't buy the explanation that they give.  The Blue-Eyes White Dragon is one of the oldest cards in the set - In fact, it's from the original set, fittingly titled "Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon".  Even then, they were using the compressed font to fit in long names, so that reason doesn't line up.  As for "style"... maybe?  That's hard to prove one way or the other.


text:
First-player advantage in Puzzle Strike?
Does Puzzle Strike favor the player who goes first?
Puzzle Strike takes a lot of cues from Dominion, and Dominion is well-known for having a distinct advantage for the first player, as discussed in various other places.  However, Puzzle Strike also has a very different victory condition and a lot of back-and-forth "combat" that eventually determines it.  Does this fix the first-player-problem with its peers, and by how much?

Puzzle Strike is related to Dominion in its buy-new-chips mechanics, but its attack and defense mechanics are more strongly tied to Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo, the video game without a prequel. Puzzle Fighter has much of the same dynamic as Puzzle Strike: the closer you are to losing, the more ammunition you're holding.
I don't have any hard numbers to back me up about any first-player advantage, but this article about slippery slope vs. perpetual comeback (written by someone involved in the creation of both Puzzle Strike and Puzzle Fighter) puts Puzzle Fighter firmly on the "perpetual comeback" side of the scale: being close to death is also being close to launching a huge attack on your opponent. Winning isn't about slowly wearing down your opponent and forcing them to jump on a slippery slope of "losing = less resources" (such as in an attack-heavy game of Dominion).  Instead, winning Puzzle Strike or Puzzle Fighter is about getting in the last, largest attack. Going first isn't quite irrelevant in that case, but winning is more about taking advantage of the current board state than buying cards one turn ahead of your opponents.


text:
Are copied Flashback cards cast from the graveyard?

Possible Duplicate:
Are copied spells cast from the graveyard?

If a card like Increasing Devotion is copied and its Flashback cost has been paid, does the copy count as being cast from a graveyard? So would you end up with double the tokens with your copied spell?

This is technically an exact duplicate of this, and covers the special case of cards that can be copied and cast from the graveyard using something like Spellweavers Volute.

No.
A copy of a spell isn't cast. Therefore, the "if Increasing Devotion was cast from a graveyard" clause won't trigger.
Rules reference:

706.10. To copy a spell or activated ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn't cast and a copy of an activated ability isn't activated. A copy of a spell or ability copies both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.") Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability. A copy of a spell is owned by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. A copy of an ability is itself an ability.

No. "Copy" and "cast" are two different Keyword Actions, and neither is defined in terms of the other. If a spell was copied, it wasn't cast.

706.10. To copy a spell or activated ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn’t cast and a copy of an activated ability isn’t activated. [...]

Note that some abilities (such as Isochron Scepter's) allow you to cast copies of cards, but that's not the case here since you're talking about a spell that was cast using flashback.


text:
Less treasure cards in Dungeon! board game
I was playing a game of Dungeon!. Sometimes when treasures are consumed by traps, there are no treasure cards but there are rooms with monsters(not yet revealed). How does that work? Does that mean there are some rooms where there are monsters but no treasure up for grabs?(That sounds a bit broken then :P )
For clarity, here are the texts from the traps:
Slide trap: Gain 1 Treasure and move to any chamber on Level 4
Cage trap: Gain 1 treasure and Roll a die. 1-3: Lose 1 turn, 4-6: Lose 2 turns
(This now goes further to my other question posted here.)
Is there a forum to post rules errata for the game?

I am not familiar with the game, but is it possible that some monsters have multiple treasures or some treasures do not get handed out?

@Jonathan Hobbs: Nopes, on the other hand, a "trap" will ensure you get a treasure, and monster cards anyway get shuffled back from the discard pile.

Is your title backwards?  You're seeing too many monsters and not enough treasure, right?  Are you aware that only rooms have treasure, not chambers?

@bwarner I think I got that wrong - updated it now. The monster cards will never run out because you will always shuffle back the monster cards.

The number of treasure cards is equal to the number of rooms that exist on each level.  You only get treasure when defeating a monster or triggering a trap in a room.  Therefore, it should never be possible to run out of treasure cards.  My guess is that you were mistakenly awarding treasure in chambers, which should not be the case.
From the rules:
"Monsters in Rooms have treasure; those in Chambers do not."

The rules of the games in the booklet supersede those on the trap cards. We also misplayed this until I deeply read the booklet, running into the same problem of running out of treasure.
When a trap is played as a monster in a room, you get a treasure. When a trap is sprung as a monster in a chamber, you still get the effects of the trap, but not a treasure card. Here's another way to think about it. The only place in the game where you get to DRAW a treasure card is inside a room. If you get treasure in a chamber, it should only be because it was dropped there earlier by another player who failed to defeat a monster there.