text:
Does Sutured Ghoul count cards exiled by other effects, such as suspended creatures?
As Sutured Ghoul says

As Sutured Ghoul enters the battlefield, exile any number of creature cards from your graveyard.
Sutured Ghoul's power is equal to the total power of the exiled cards and its toughness is equal to their total toughness.

The text says the exiled cards, so does only count on cards that are exiled by himself, or does every exiled creature counts?
The oracle does not mention any reference to this:

22/09/2011    If any of the creature cards you exile has a characteristic-defining ability that defines its power and/or toughness, that ability will apply. For example, if Dungrove Elder is exiled this way, its power and toughness while it’s in exile are equal to the number of Forests you control, and Sutured Ghoul’s power and toughness will change as the number of Forests you control changes. If the characteristic-defining ability can’t be applied (for instance, it relies on a choice made as the card enters the battlefield), then use 0.
22/09/2011    In zones other than the battlefield, Sutured Ghoul’s power and toughness are each 0.
22/09/2011    You can’t have Sutured Ghoul exile itself, even if it’s entering the battlefield from your graveyard.

It only counts cards exiled by the first ability, because they are Linked Abilities.

Linked Abilities

607.1. An object may have two abilities printed on it such that one of them causes actions to be taken or objects or players to be affected and the other one directly refers to those actions, objects, or players. If so, these two abilities are linked: the second refers only to actions that were taken or objects or players that were affected by the first, and not by any other ability.
607.2a If an object has an activated or triggered ability printed on it that instructs a player to exile one or more cards and an ability printed on it that refers either to “the exiled cards” or to cards “exiled with [this object],” these abilities are linked. The second ability refers only to cards in the exile zone that were put there as a result of an instruction to exile them in the first ability.

Although the wording on the card might cause some misinterpretation, notice that it says "the exiled cards", instead of something like "your exiled cards" or "all exiled cards". This is because it's referencing the cards exiled with Sutured Ghoul's ability, not all cards in your exile zone.
I believe your confusion is due to the fact that newer cards have better (or maybe more explicit) wording on them. In the case of the Ghoul's ability, as Gendolkari and ikegami pointed out, it is worded as such because it's based on CR 607, quoted in Gendolkari's answer.

If I may hijack this discussion of MTG for a discussion of grammar: the word "exiled" can either be an adjective, or a past participle, which is a form of a verb. As an adjective, it would mean that all cards that have the property of being exiled counts. If it's a past participle, then it's a passive voice construction, with "cards" being the recipient of the action "exile", and the implied subject would be "you". The wording strongly implies the latter interpretation, as the definite article "the" implies a level of specificity, rather than including all cards that have been exiled. The rules further support this interpretation; the phrase "you exile" is now in the active voice, clearly a verb, and in the present tense. If it were "you have exiled", or "that have been exiled", that would support the other interpretation, while "that are exiled" would be ambiguous.
A further clue is that including all exiled cards would be rather OP.


text:
Solemnity + chronozoa = Infinte Loop = Draw?
I'm building a Solemnity deck. What will happen if, with solemnity in play, I cast a Chronozoa?

Vanishing 3 (This creature enters the battlefield with three time counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter from it. When the last is removed, sacrifice it.)
When Chronozoa dies, if it had no time counters on it, create two tokens that are copies of it.

Is the game a draw?

When you have a question about a keyword ability, always start by checking the actual definition of the keyword ability in the rules. The reminder text is sufficiently clear in this particular case, but that's not always the case.

You could use such an engine to get infinite creatures if you used something like Ashnod's Altar for a sacrifice outlet, killing off the original and all the tokens to make more until you have enough, but since there are no counters to remove, the last counter never gets removed, so the delayed sacrifice of vanishing never happens.

The exact rule for vanishing, very similar to what's in the reminder text, says:

When the last time counter is removed from this permanent, sacrifice it.

If you have a Solemnity in play, no time counters are ever put on Chronozoa. You don't put some on then remove them, you just never put any on. So you never trigger that ability.
If you wanted to create an infinite loop here, you just need to add a way to repeatedly destroy/sacrifice the Chronozoas. If you wanted a voluntary loop that you could stop at any time, so that you can just make a zillion Chronozoas without forcing a draw, any free sacrifice outlet would work. If you for some reason want the game to be a draw, you'd need something forced, like a few copies of Curse of Death's Hold or Heartless Summoning so that your Chronozoas are 0/0 and die immediately.

I just started playing Magic, so correct me if I am wrong, but the vanishing ability does not apply to the "create copies" text does it? So then the ability was not triggered and the infinite loop is then avoided, but as soon as the creature dies it comes back with a copy and each are then ready to die and create more endlessly... Yes? Each turn that one or more of the creatures dies you would create more and more to replace it...

@odin1806 What do you think would cause the creatures to die?

just someone or something killing them. I don't mean they repeatedly die in the same turn, just as the game progresses. Assuming your first creature was not countered there would be no end to the copies that are made... correct? As the game continues and more of those creatures dies you would gain more and more of those creatures that are all ready to create more of themselves...

@Odin1806 Ah ok. But the vanishing ability would be copied; it's an ability just its other triggered ability.

But as @Jefromi states in his answer, since there was never any counters able to be placed on the card the Vanishing ability would never trigger. That is my question. The "create copies" ability is not dependent upon the vanishing ability having been executed first to work correct?

@Odin1806 Yes, Vanishing is a separate ability from the "When Chronozoa dies..." triggered ability. Seems clear enough from the wording (it doesn't connect the two in any way) but just in case, rule 112.2c says "...each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability."

that's what i thought, but i wanted confirmation. thank you

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Civilization A New Dawn: How may additional control tokens be placed when resolving the Civil Service focus card
I recently played Civilization A New Dawn for the first time, and during play the question arose as to how Control Tokens purchased using Trade Tokens on the Civil Service card should be allocated, as the card provides two methods of placement. The text on the Civil Service card reads the following:

Place 2 control tokens on spaces matching this slot's terrain or lower that are adjacent to friendly cities.
Then, place 1 control token on a space matching this slot's terrain or lower that is adjacent to a friendly space.

The Trade Tokens section under Additional Rules in the rule book does not specify any constraints on how the additional control tokens must be placed. The general rule in the culture section under Focus Cards does say the following:

the player takes one of his or her unused control tokens and places it on a space adjacent to a friendly city

But it makes no mention of any exceptions existing to this rule, of which the Civil Service card is.
My gut feeling is that the additional tokens should be placed adjacent friendly cities, but I can see room for arguing more freedom in the placement of control tokens. Is there anything close to an official statement on how this should play out?

The FAQ's got your back:

Civil Service: Trade tokens spent with this card allow the player to place additional control tokens following the usual rules for placing control tokens, not the special rule for Civil Service’s secondary effect.

Source: Official FAQ (as of 03-JUL-2018)

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

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


text:
Interaction between Graveyard Busybody and Over My Dead Bodies
If a player controls Graveyard Busybody and there is an Over My Dead Bodies in play, what happens due to a creature being in both player's graveyards. In particular, could a creature with vigilance attacking it's owner from it's owner's graveyard still be used by that owner to block, could it block itself?

Graveyard Busybody: All graveyards are also your graveyards.
Over My Dead Bodies: Creature cards in graveyards can attack and block as though they were on the battlefield

Quoting from the FAQ:

What does it mean that "all graveyards are also your graveyards"?
It means each graveyard is no longer under the control of other players. They're your graveyards now, you control them.

Since you are the only controller of all graveyards, the owner does not get to use the creature to block.

I was confused by the word also, read it as yours as well as the original owner, not yours in addition to your own. We're talking an un set here too, so a creature being able to block itself wouldn't be that crazy, relatively speaking.


text:
Catan - Rules Lawyering the behavior of the "Commercial Harbor" Progress Card
Before explaining what happened, here's the literal text of the "Commercial Harbor" card, as a reference:
Card Text:

You may offer each Opponent a resource card from your hand. In exchange, each player must give you a commodity card of his choice. If he has none, your resource card is returned.

Additional Text in the rulebook:

You may force each of the other players to make a special trade. You may offer each opponent any 1 resource card from your hand. He must exchange it for any 1 commodity card of his choice from his hand, if he has any.
You may use this ability at any point during the turn you play the card. However, you may only force each player to make this trade with you once that turn. Your opponent chooses which commodity card to give you if he has more than one. If you offer a resource to a player who has no commodity cards, then you take your card back and the trade is void. You do not have to give this player the resource card.

So this was the scenario that took place:

Four player game, players A, B, C, and D.
Player A played the "Commercial Harbor" card.
Player A approached Player B, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player B truthfully answered that they did not.
Player A approached Player C, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player C truthfully answered that they did not.
Player A approached Player D, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player D falsely claimed they did not have a Commodity Card
The turn resolved with the card being disposed and Player A receiving no Commodity Cards
Player D revealed after the conclusion of the turn that they had lied about their claim of not having a Commodity Card
Players B & C immediately concluded that Player D violated the rules, arguing that Player A's approach constituted the necessary contract fulfillment to "make an offer", per the text of the card.
Player D concluded that they obeyed the letter of the rules, pointing out that Player A did not physically show the card they intended to trade to them, and thus wasn't required to answer truthfully.
Played D offered that in an earlier turn in the game, they had played the card exactly as they felt it should be played, but this behavior was not consciously observed by players A, B, or C.

Now, in the context of our specific play session, we concluded that this was a violation of the rules, but this determination was made via majority vote (Players B & C agreed that this was a violation, Player D disagreed, Player A abstained due to being a novice and being unsure of the rules). So I'm curious what the determination would be in a tournament setting, or at least what the usual resolution of this kind of act would be in your sessions.
I personally determined the following:

That this was a violation of the rules, because I don't consider the text of the card to establish a distinction where only the literal act of showing a card is sufficient to establish an attempt to make an offer.
That the rules as written in the rulebook are intended to offer a form of "Mercy Play", i.e. "Let's not screw over a player who's already behind", and is not intended to produce ambiguity on what kind of actions are intended to constitute a valid offer.

What do you make of these rules? Do you feel that Player D obeyed both the letter and spirit of the rules as written, or that it was correct to determine that their actions were in violation of the rules?

I wouldn't really consider Player D "rules lawyering", more cheating and then trying to justify themselves after the fact. This is compounded by the fact you say Player A is a new and less confident player.

@Malco That's what all "Rules Lawyering" is though: justifying why what you specifically did wasn't against the rules. =D

seems legit to me, Player A didn't play the card correctly.  If this was a "friendly" game, D should of said, "That's not how you play that, you need to make an offer"

Your friend needs to watch The Big Lebowski.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjibEkDoXQc&t=20s (And to be clear, Player D would be Walter here)

@Glen_b That was a typo, I've since fixed it.

If it was clear that player A had definitely played the card, D should have pointed out the correct way to play the card (as per the answer).  However, it's possible D thought A was just asking for information, and would rescind the play if everyone said they didn't have a commodity, and didn't want to give away information about what was in their hand.

I'm unfamiliar with this expansion - is the number of commodity cards a player has public information?  If it is, that makes the answer easy.

@ArcanistLupus Commodities are kept in the same hand as Resources, and have the same cardback. So unless players rigorously count cards, they can only speculate based on how large a player's hand is how many Commodities they have.

sounds like a great way to discourage new players from joining your game... hell, I play a lot of Catan and wouldn't want "Player D" to join my game!

In a tournament, player D may get away with it; but he definitely wouldn’t at my house, or during any games I’ve played with friends.
In a game that involves open negotiation and trade, intent is an important factor. When a player asks “anyone have a sheep” and anther responds “Sure. For a wheat?” Both players have to infer from the language that the other is offering a specific resource for trade. So it would be illegal to have the players pass a card to each other after that dialog, and for one to pass something other than what is expected.
Similar case here. When player A asked “do you have a commodity card” the player was obviously asking in reference to the commercial harbor card he just played; in order to take/trade the commodity. That should have been obvious to all people based on the language used.
The rules never clarify what specific language is allowed to be used to convey what specific actions. The play group must decide that, based on if the language was clear enough to convey the intent. In this case, that language combined with he playing of commercial harbor should be sufficient to convey the intent. Thus it’s as good as “I’ll give you this resource for a commodity that you have”.

If someone asked "Do you have any bricks?" and you said "No", even though you did, that's fine. If they play the monopoly card and ask if you have any bricks, it's a different matter and you have to tell the truth. I think in this case while technically the player is right for tournament rules (no resource card was offered for them to return.) I think it's against the spirit for friendly play! Technically players B and C should have seen 1 resource card from player A's hand, which they didn't.

@Nick, Re "Technically players B and C should have seen 1 resource card from player A's hand", That's not true. There's nothing about revealing the card. It just has to be offered. (And like Gendolkari points out, "do you have a commodity card?" should be considered an offer in context.)

@ikegami I was actually curious about that part... theoretically I could have 2 different commodities, and which one I give up might depend on what resource I’m getting in return. The rules don’t say either way, but I would have thought that “offer a resource card” includes the person being offered knowing which resource card it is.

@GendoIkari, So you think it's implied that you should announce the card to every player? I think that's a pretty radical departure from text of the card.

@ikegami I feel that it is a valid interpretation that “offering a card for trade” involves specifying what card you are trading. Due to the fact that 99% of the time that “a card is offered for trade” in Catan, it is done so by announcing the card you are trading. Though I think your interpretation is valid as well.

I did not play this particular variation of Catan, just regular Settlers of Catan, but it appears to be the rules are clear, that you have to give that card to an opponent, and if the opponent does not have a commodity card the card is returned. It appears, that Player D was not given the card, so he had no idea what resource card he has been offered. I would also have felt in this situation that I was being treated unfairly.

Well the easy way out was to say, "dude, show me the card", but it's hard to tell what social contracts are around this particular table, a player is under no obligation to correct other people's mistake, especially if there was any kind of history between the players. He might have tried to correct in the past and was told off, who knows

I don't know about you, but I NEVER reveal the card I trade, much less 99% of the time.

@AndrewSavinykh It appears, based on the official FAQ, that the card is implied to instruct the player to pass resource cards face-down, so there's no guarantee that the Commercial Harbor card is guaranteed to give information like that. Certainly one could house-rule it that way though.

@ikegami I’m confused. Surely before you make a trade, both players have said out loud what card it is that they are offering? Players sometime, but rarely, might say “just give me any other resource, I don’t care what.” But most of the time they say “I’ll give you a ___ for a ___”, naming the specific card.

Of course, but Commercial Harbor's exchange is not up for negotiation, so why would I negotiate? It instructs you offer a card, not negotiate an exchange of resources

Ah ok; sounded like you were taking about trades in general; not just commercial harbor. Because I was talking about trades in general. But anyway, I don’t think your necessarily wrong; just that I could see it going either way. It would very rarely matter anyway.

@Gendolakri, I was talking general. I NEVER reveal the card I trade. To reveal a card has a well established meaning of showing the face of the card. (I think the rules explicitly forbid you from revealing your cards, but I could be mixing up games.) Commercial Harbor has you offer a card. It says thing about revealing it or announcing what type of resource that card provides.

@ikegami Fair enough; I was using "reveal" in a non-correct way to mean "name the card". The point being that in general, to "offer a trade" in Catan generally includes naming a specific card.

Yes, you normally have to negociate a trade first, but not with CH

TL;DR
I agree with player D's interpretation, but it's not clearly enough worded to be enforceable without prior agreement from other players. In a casual setting I would have agreed the interpretation, but allowed player A to re-do his go now that we'd agreed on the card's rules.
Interpretation of the rules

You may offer each Opponent a resource card from your hand.

On a quick scan of the Cities & Knights rules, I cannot find any definition for offer. This is problematic, as player D's behaviour hinges on what offer means. However, the base game rules have an example of an offer:

Example: It is Pete’s turn. He needs one brick to build a road. He
  has 2 lumber and 3 ore. Pete asks aloud, “Who will give me 1 brick
  for 1 ore?” Beth answers, “If you give me 3 ore, I’ll give you a brick.”
  Cooper interjects, “I’ll give you 1 brick if you give me 1 lumber and 1
  ore.” Pete accepts Cooper's offer and trades a lumber and an ore for
  a brick. Note Beth may not trade with Cooper, since it is Pete’s turn.

This would imply that an offer is a verbal statement of what card(s) you would like to give out and what card(s) you would like in return. However, the further information on the "Commercial Harbour" card, which doesn't tie up with this:

In exchange, each player must give you a commodity card of his choice. If he has none, your resource card is returned.

This is a clear implication that a resource card must be taken out of player A's hand and given to someone else. It can't be returned if it has always remained in player A's possession. In fact, I would hazard that in order to be returned it must temporarily be in someone else's possession, i.e. player D's possession. This means that player D must be allowed to look at the card, and (if he does have multiple commodity cards) use that information to decide which commodity card to give. With "normal" offers involving everyone around the table knowing what trade is being carried out, it is probable that other players should also know what resource is offered, and (when a commodity is actually traded back) should probably also know what commodity is traded.
So, although it is not clear, I agree with player D's interpretation of the rules.
Resolution of this kind of act in my sessions
Although I agree with player D's interpretation of the rules, he went about it in completely the wrong way. He made two mistakes:

It is only an interpretation of the rules; it's not clear. Not by a long chalk. Player D's only viable way to enforce this interpretation is to get agreement from other players before using it to his advantage.
Player A was clearly trying to use his Commercial Harbour, rather than just fishing for information

So, during player A's turn, player D could have said "I don't have to answer that question. If you want to use your Commercial Harbour on me, you need to give me a resource card in trade first". The discussion on the interpretation of the rules could have then happened. And player A would have almost certainly been happy to hand over the resource card before finding out whether D had a commodity.
So the only way any player could have practically used my interpretation to their advantage is if they didn't have any commodity cards and wanted to find out information about player A's resources.
The resolution would have been to force player D to give up his commodity to player A for a resource, and allow player A to carry out the rest of his turn as if he'd had the card.
I'd also have told D not to be such a {insert expletive}. I'm all for rules lawyering, but I'm also for cutting novices some slack, and allowing do-overs when someone has misunderstood a card.
Note that my sessions are played for fun with friends, not in tournaments.

This is the best answer, IMO.  Especially with A being a novice, D was being, well, a D.

While I typically hold out my resource card to each player when I play Commercial Harbor, this is not, in any sense, a normal "trade offer". Player D has no right of refusal, no matter what resource is offered by player A. Does player D have the right to see the resource card offered, so they can choose between two possible commodities? Probably, but he or she could ask that, not "no I don't have any commodities". Claiming "the offer wasn't extended properly" is not just rules lawyering, its cheating.

In general, depending on how well you pay attention to the game and the rolls of dice, you can know almost all cards a player has or at the very least get a good impression of it. Since commodity cards are an important resource, I usually keep track of who has how many of them at a given time. (This is made slightly more difficult by rolls of 7 or playing the knight card but what subsequently happens is usually sufficient to determine whether an interesting, rare or important card has been drawn or not.) Since I would likely have known that D had a commodity card, I would have called them out on the spot.
A second point that can be made would be a rehash of Gendolkari’s answer: a lot of the game is communication and the trust that is placed into it. From the sequence of events (first playing the commercial harbour, then asking each player in turn if they had a commodity card) it is very clear that player A is making an offer that D cannot refuse if they have such a card. Considering you explicitly note that player A was a novice, they might not have thought about exactly which card they were going to offer yet or something else would have held them back from openly showing one resource card (generally, you are supposed to keep those cards secret after all). If player D now answers with ‘no’ that is a definite statement, namely ‘don’t even bother, I don’t have what you desire.’
Of course, player D may choose to keep secrecy about their cards. They may want to see the actual offer. In this case, there is a simple way out: ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I’m not telling you’. This is not a lie, it is a non-information. It clearly presses for the full offer to be made, i.e. the card to be shown. Once the full information has been given, of course there is no longer a way out and the commodity card must be surrendered.
From this, I conclude player D clearly violated the spirit of the rules.
As I have already alluded above, I would not let this slide in a private setting. I have not taken part in tournaments so I don’t know what would be the case there.

What about the letter? Let’s take a look at the actual phrasings again:

You may offer each opponent a resource card from your hand. In exchange, each player must give you a commodity card of his choice. If he has none, your resource card is returned.
You may force each of the other players to make a special trade. You may offer each opponent any 1 resource card from your hand. He must exchange it for any 1 commodity card of his choice from his hand, if he has any.
You may use this ability at any point during the turn you play the card. However, you may only force each player to make this trade with you once that turn. Your opponent chooses which commodity card to give you if he has more than one. If you offer a resource to a player who has no commodity cards, then you take your card back and the trade is void. You do not have to give this player the resource card.

Nowhere in these rules do I read the word ‘show’. They all talk simply about ‘offering a card’. From the way this is written, it is enough to hold up a card with the resource side hidden from the other players saying something like ‘I offer this (resource) card, give me a commodity card’.
Thus, I conclude that player D has even violated the letter of the rules.

Commodity Harbor was misplayed
No prior exchange of information is needed or required. In each trade, both participants can give ANY appropriate card they want. Player A could ask me if I have any paper before the exchange, but I'm under no obligation to give her a paper, nor be truthful about whether I even have a paper. This is NOT a normal trade where you agree on the terms beforehand.
Discussion of resources/commodities desired, potentially mutually beneficial trades, or any other kind of agreement are totally allowed, but are not binding or particularly relevant (Well... if you agree to trade a stone for paper and don't, you might have a hard time convincing folks to trade with you later).
TL;DR: When you play Commodity Harbor the person giving the resource chooses which one to give, not the receiver.
Takeway However at best Player D is being a poor sport, in practice I'd say he violated the intent of the rules of the game, especially if Player A is a newbie. Player A is obviously trying to save time by asking if any players have commodities rather than handing a resource and getting it back when the other player doesn't.
Edit: It's been a while since I've played C&K and I forgot the distinction between Commodities and Resources

You seem to misunderstood a) the Commodity Harbor card and b) the question. a) - It can't end up with the same resource being traded, it's a resource for a commodity. b) - Player A didn't try to choose what type of "resource" they got, the card states they must get a commodity, and they asked if Player D had any commodities.


text:
King of Tokyo (2016 version): Psychic Probe
In the 2nd edition of King of Tokyo (2016 version), the Psychic Probe Power Card states:

Psychic Probe (Keep): You can reroll a die of your choice after the last Roll of each other Monster. If you reroll [heart dice symbol], discard this card.

There are also three Power Cards that let you change your own dice after the Roll Dice step:

Stretchy (Keep): Before resolving your dice, you can spend 2 [energy symbol] to change one of your dice to any result.
Plot Twist (Keep): Before resolving your dice, you may change one die to any result. Discard when used.
Herd Culler (Keep): You can change one of your dice to [1 dice symbol] each turn.

Does this mean that Psychic Probe must be used before Plot Twist, Stretchy, or Herd Culler?
For example, if a player uses Plot Twist, Stretchy, Herd Culler, or any combination thereof before another player with Psychic Probe has called out the reroll, does that then mean that the player with Psychic Probe has forfeited the ability to reroll that turn?

According to Richard Garfield the game's designer, the timing of Psychic Probe interacting with cards such as Plot Twist, Stretchy, or Herd Culler is reactive - one player must commit to the use of their card, then the other must decide to use their card - there is no specific order in which these cards will always resolve and if neither player opts to use their card then the existing roll stands.
The clarification for this can be found here in the comments on one of Richards podcasts.
Obviously based on the date and content of the podcast, this was intended as a clarification for first edition, but unless the rules have changed significantly on any of the cards (which as far as I can see, they haven't) it would still apply for second edition.

That feels very unfair. In a game with experienced players, Plot Twist, Stretchy, and Herd Culler become almost useless once Psychic Probe is in play. Can we not interpret the "last Roll" in the definition of Psychic Probe in such a way that the Psychic Probe must be played before Plot Twist, Stretchy, or Herd Culler. Once a player decides to use any of the latter, the player with Psychic Probe has forfeited his reroll?

I see very little difference in the level of fairness compared to a player choosing to use Psychic Probe on someone else, just to have the active player then use one of those listed cards to undo the change. If you really must have an order of process for the cards, use the suggestion Richard makes in that comment: the players must decide whether or not to use their cards in order around the table from the active player. You may still think it unfair, but at least it is consistently unfair.

Also remember that it still deters the player with the Psychic Probe if you change the die result with one of those cards to a heart.

Thanks! You are right. I guess I was still being salty from a previous game. "Also remember that it still deters the player with the Psychic Probe if you change the die result with one of those cards to a heart." Does this actually count as a rerolled heart? On the card it says, when YOU reroll a heart..

Ignore that bit, late night and misinterpreting the wording above. The exact wording for Psychic Probe that I know is: "If the reroll is [heart symbol] discard this card" which is much less ambiguous.


text:
Can I activate Vehicle abilities without Crewing them first?
Cultivator's Caravan is a vehicle with:

{T}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
Crew 3.

Can I tap Cultivator's Caravan for mana of any color without providing creatures to crew it?

Yes, that works perfectly fine.
What the Crew ability of a Vehicle does is turning the artifact into an artifact creature.

Crew N: Tap any number of untapped creatures you control with total power N or
  greater: This permanent becomes an artifact creature until end of
  turn.

As you see, it doesn't say anything about the abilities of the artifact. Cultivator's Caravan is an artifact with 2 abilities.

"{T}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool"
"Crew 3"

And you can use each of those abilities like you could use the ability of a normal artifact.
Do note however, that if you use the Crew ability to turn Cultivator's Caravan into a creature during the same turn during which you played it, then after the Crew ability resolves, the Vehicle is now affected by summoning sickness and cannot attack or activate its "{T}:"-abilities, including its "{T}: Add one mana to your mana pool". After the Vehicle ceases to be a creature at end of turn, you may use the ability again even if the Vehicle hasn't been under your control since your last upkeep.

302.6 A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap 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. ...

Thank you for the pro tip. I am definitely using Cultivator's Caravan as a mana generator and will only turn it into creature after it has been exhausted as mana generator in the turn.

Crewing a tapped vehicle doesn't seem like the best idea to me, but if you have a use for it, go ahead. :)


text:
Does the effect of an instant supersede first strike damage from a creature?
My opponent had no available blockers and I attacked my opponent with a 2/2 creature with first strike. They played an instant that would wipe out the attacking creature. Does my creature still deal 2 damage before it goes to the graveyard or does the instant destroy it before it is able to deal first strike damage?

Your opponent is able to destroy your creature before it deals damage. I wouldn't say the effects of the instant "supersede" the first strike damage, though; it's merely that your opponent can cast the instant (and it will resolve) before damage has a chance to be dealt.
The steps of the combat phase, when a creature with first strike (or double strike) is present are:

beginning of combat step
declare attackers step
declare blockers step
first combat damage step
second combat damage step (Skipped if no attacking or blocking creature had first strike or double strike at the start of the first CDS.)
end of combat step

In each of these steps, each player gets priority, i.e. gets a chance to cast spells and activate abilities.
In order to stop a creature from dealing damage, all your opponent has to do is destroy it before you reach the combat damage step.
They could choose to cast their instant in any of those first three steps: in the beginning of combat step before you even attack (though they won't know what's going to attack yet, and you can then decide with the knowledge that your creature is gone), during the declare attackers step after you've attacked but before blockers are declared, or during the declare blockers step after blockers are declared (or lack thereof - this step happens whether or not there are actually any blockers to declare). Note that this works whether or not first strike (or double strike) is involved. These steps are before combat damage of any sort.

Importantly, you get the declare blockers step, and the corresponding priority passing, regardless of if there exist blockers to assign.

There is a pretty decent illustration of this in another answer on the site.


text:
Identify similar Game to Achi
We in childhood played game called Bead 12 and a smaller version with 3 Beads. It is called in our local language Bara Tehni or Teen Tehni. A Bangladesh version of this game also called Baroguti and with 16 beads it is called Shologuti.
My main question is, Is there any variant of this game presented in literature? I know Achi is something similar to this game but Achi is more like tic tac toe, But in case of 3 Beads game main focus is to remove opponents bead from the board instead of making a row of our own beads. There is an Application on Google Playstore called Bead 12 which is the same game we use to play which says this game is played in South East Asia. So if other countries also play this game then what they call it? Why no information over internet? Am I missing the right keyword to search with?
Thanks

Can you reword your question? I am unsure what you are asking.

Some similar games to Bead 12 game. Or the right name of this game.

Predominantly games of this style fall under either the Alquerque or Zamma families.
There are a number of variants played globally, with the board shape and number of stones varying considerably depending on region.
Games typically grouped in the Zamma family tend to have larger boards and stone counts, where Alquerque variants tend towards the smaller.
Though the grouping into families for this style of game is relatively arbitrary, and is mostly dependent on which game the individual doing the grouping first came into contact with.
As far as I can ascertain the 3 bead variant was developed by the Gujaratis, but as with a lot of these games there's no clear literature as to when the variant came into favor, or even of it's actual origin.
For similar games, the closest I'm aware of  in terms of board size would be Four Field Kono from Korea, but that has a modified capturing mechanism.
There are a number with almost identical rule-sets, so just searching for Alquerque is probably a good option.

Perfect. Alquerque!... That's what I was looking for. Thanks

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


text:
Why does Dryad of the Ilysian Grove grant all basic land types even if it loses all abilities?
I got my Dryad of the Ilysian Grove turned into a fish (using Ichthyomorphosis) on an Arena draft. It's supposed to "lose all abilities", but I could see that the Dryad was still allowing me to get mana from any color. Isn't that considered a static ability? Same question for the "ability" that allows me to play an additional land.

Congrats, you've just run into the layering system, one of the most convoluted parts of MTG.

@libeforce, presumably, the "play an additional land" ability was not allowed in Arena?

@John: I don't know, couldn't keep two lands for the same turn after that point.

The layering system is actually really easy once you memorize fourteen paragraphs of text and never misapply any of the rules contained therein.

@John the "play an additional land" ability was properly removed by Arena, check my answer

@DenisS: Layers aren't that hard... Selvala + Panglacial wurm however....

Dryad of the Ilysian Grove applies a type changing effect to all of your lands at layer 4, which takes effect before the Ichthyomorphosis removes the abilities of the Dryad at layer 6.  The ability to play an additional land would go away due to Dryad losing it's abilities and the additional land rule only taking effect after the layers are applied.

The Layer System is one of the most convoluted parts of MTG and can seem confusing at times.

Layers are one of the more difficult parts of the Comprehensive Rules to learn (613). They are often a bane to both players and beginning judges, but why do we have them? What do they do?
Magic is a very complex game, with literally thousands of cards that have continuous effects. When these continuous effects start to pile up, we need to know how they interact. The rules for layers give us a structure to make sure that when the same three cards end up in play at a tournament in Japan, the result is the same as when it happens in Italy, the U.S., and Brazil.

The rules for applying continuous effects is described in section 613 of the comprehensive rules.

613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order.

The ability

Lands you control are every basic land type in addition to their other types.

is a type-changing effect.

Any effect which would add, change or remove types, subtypes or supertypes from the object you’re evaluating. These should be easy to spot, but they’re often thrown in as part of a larger ability.

This applies at Layer 4, whereas ability adding or removing effects applies at Layer 6.

Any effect which would add or remove abilities to an object you’re evaluating.

Because of how layers work, the type changing ability of the Dryad applies before the Dryad loses his abilities.

If a continuous effect (i.e. Dryad's land changing effect) has started applying in an earlier layer, it will continue to apply in later layers even if the ability that created that effect has been removed.

This means that your lands are still every basic land type, even though the Dryad doesn't have that ability anymore.

The ability

You may play an additional land on each of your turns.

is a modification of the game rules; specifically 305.2.

305.2. A player can normally play one land during their turn; however, continuous effects may increase this number.

This ability is applied after the regular layers are applied.  Since this is after the ability-removing effect, the ability disappears and doesn't do anything.  From the MTG Comprehensive Rules

613.10. Some continuous effects affect game rules rather than objects. For example, effects may modify a player’s maximum hand size, or say that a creature must attack this turn if able. These effects are applied after all other continuous effects have been applied.  Continuous effects that affect the costs of spells or abilities are applied according to the order specified in rule 601.2f. All other such effects are applied in timestamp order. See also the rules for timestamp order and dependency (rules 613.6 and 613.7)

The Ichthyomorphosis effect from Layer 6 is applied before the effect that modifies game rules to allow you to play an additional land on your turn.  This ability disappears and thus doesn't allow you to play an additional land.
So, ultimately, you have the following application of effects in your game.

613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.

All lands you control gain each of the subtypes: "Plains", "Island", "Forest", "Swamp", "Mountain" (from Dryad of the Ilysian Grove) and by extension of rule 305.6 gain the ability to tap for any color of mana (but not colorless, as "Wastes" is not a basic land type)
Dryad of the Ilysian Grove is a Fish and loses all other subtypes (from Ichthyomorphosis)

613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.

Dryad of the Ilysian Grove is Blue and loses all other colors (from Ichthyomorphosis)

613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.

Dryad of the Ilysian Grove loses all other abilities (from Ichthyomorphosis), note that this does not effect the sub-type changing effect from Layer 4 but does affect the additional land rule that would be applied after Layer 7

613.3b Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied.Effects that refer to the base power and/or toughness of a creature apply in this layer.

Dryad of the Ilysian Grove has it's P/T set to 0/1 (from Ichthyomorphosis)

After Layer 7

Normally, the additional land rule would effect the game here, but as it was removed in Layer 6, it does not have any effect.  You cannot play an additional land each turn.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.


text:
Does the opponent get to draw up to a full hand after being attacked with Pilebunker?
One of the abilities of the Jefferson DeGrey character is Pilebunker.
Screencapped from Tabletop Simulator

[Triggered when] You retreat from a dashing strike
If you're 4 spaces from that opponent after retreating, you may immediately attack (with 4s).

Now normally when somebody blocks they don't get to draw those cards back until their next turn, but this action is usually carried out during the opponents turn.  In this case, since the block is performed during their own turn, do players blocking a Pilebunker attack get to draw a full hand on their next turn?

The turn order is:

Do one of these: move, push, attack, or dashing strike.
If you did an attack or dashing strike, your opponent must respond or he loses the round.
Discard any cards played this turn.
Draw until you have 5 cards, then your turn ends.

Your opponent playing Pilebunker is part of step 2. You still get step 4 this turn (if you successfully blocked), so you still get to draw back up to a full hand of 5 cards.
Source: Rulebook


text:
Does drawing a card end your whole turn, or just prevent further movement?
Could you continue to use items or make rolls after drawing a card, since these don't involve movement? Based on the rulebook, I think the answer is no, but I'm not sure.
From the rulebook, page 3:

"You can perform actions (such as using an item or attacking) in the middle of your movement. However, whenever a game effect makes you draw a card, for any reason, you must stop moving for the rest of your turn.

At first I was latching on to the phrase, "you must stop moving," thinking that meant you couldn't enter more rooms, but you could still do other things. I think we even played that if we created a room that contained an item for our haunt, we could immediately take that item when we created the room. But now I see that it says you perform actions "in the middle of your movement," which makes it sound like you can't do anything after your movement ends. So if you created a room with a haunt-specific item tile in it, you wouldn't be able to pick it up in the same turn?
For another example, if you placed the vault room and drew a card, you couldn't immediately try to enter the vault on that same turn, correct?
If actions can only occur in the middle of movement, does that mean you can't do anything else after running out of movement?
In that case, it would follow that if you were to move as far as your speed could take you, you couldn't then attack or use items or make a roll when you got there, right? Because it wouldn't be in the middle of your movement.
That doesn't seem right to me. It seems like, for instance, if you had a speed of 3, and there was an item pile three rooms away, you should be able to get to the room and then pick up the items there. Or if you had to make a skill roll three rooms away, you should be able to go there and make that roll.
So I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding what it means by "the middle of your movement." Any insight is appreciated.
Can you roll for event cards immediately after you've drawn them, or would you have to wait a turn?
I'm specifically wondering about the closet door event card in this regard. That card says:

Put the closet token in the room.
Once during an explorer's turn, that explorer can roll two dice to open the closet...

So, with this card, do you simply place the closet and then end your turn, or can you roll for the closet items? This is similar to the scenario with the vault, but it's different since rolling for the closet could count as part of the card event.

Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange! If you have multiple questions, you should ask them separately.

I believe that the part questions were connected enough to justify being posted as a single question, and I've edited the question to better clarify the connection.

You've quoted the relevant part yourself: "you must stop moving for the rest of your turn". There wouldn't be a "rest of your turn" if that was supposed to end it!

For the closet: you could roll for it after you've placed it and again at the start of your next turn.

You can take any other action, even though you're not allowed to move anymore.
The keyword you are missing in the rules you quote is "can":

You can perform actions (such as using an item or attacking) in the middle of your movement.

This is simply clarifying that it is allowed to do actions in the middle of movement, it is not a restriction that they can only be done then. You can also do actions before or after movement.
See the rules that allow other actions, on page 4 of the rulebook:

ON YOUR TURN . . .
… you can do as many of the following actions as you want, in any order:

• You can move.
• You can discover a new room.
• You can attempt a die roll.
• You can use items or omen cards.
• You can attack (once during your turn after the haunt starts)

This means that with things like closet and vault, you can attempt to access them immediately. Same goes for attacking after moving as far as you can.
The only thing that drawing a card or running out of movement points prevents is moving.

I was playing this the other day and I'm pretty sure I saw a rule that explicitly stated that you could do things after your movement was done. It might be useful to cite that rule too.

The exception is that there are a few cards that force (e.g. Ghost in the Machine) or allow (e.g. Secret Passage) you to move as part of resolving the card.

Forced movement is not a move action

From the 2nd edition rulebook Drawing Event, Item, and Omen Cards section (pg. 10):

Even though your movement ends when you draw a card, you can still
  take other actions on that turn (such as using an item).


text:
Untapping a Creature that has "does not untap during its controller's untap step"
If I have a creature enchanted by Ice Over

Enchant artifact or creature
Enchanted permanent doesn't untap during its controller's untap step.

Can it be untapped with Initiate's Companion?

Whenever Initiate's Companion deals combat damage to a player, untap target creature or land.

If it can untap, does Ice Over go away?

If your question has been answered to your satisfaction, please check the mark next to the answer that you think best answers it. If not, please explain what you think is missing.

Can it be untaped with Initiate's Companion?

Yes. Ice Over only prevents the enchanted permanent from untapping during its controller's untap step. Players don't get priority during the Untap step, so this only prevents the normal untapping of permanents at the start of your turn. It doesn't prevent the permanent from being untapped at any other time (e.g. by Twiddle or Initiate's Companion).
If Ice Over's second ability was "Enchanted permanent can't be untapped", it would be a different story. I can't find such a card.

If it can untap, does Ice Over go away?

No. Ice Over can legally enchant untapped creatures.
In contrast, Entangling Vines has "Enchant tapped creature", so untapping the creature it enchants would cause it to fall off.[CR 303.4c]

303.4c If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Interesting that Entangling Vines costs twice as much as Ice Over, despite being so much pickier about targets.

@BJMyers; that's the color pie. Certain effects are cheaper within some colors than the same effects in other colors (direct damage is cheap in red; expensive in green. See Hornet Sting vs Shock).


text:
Is there a card similar to Lugia from Fates Collide that targets GXs instead of EXs?
I've dabbled in the Pokémon TCG on and off for a few years now - the main reason why I buy packs is not for the cards themselves, but for the collectible pins some of them come with. Recently, I stumbled back into it thanks to TCGO and some old boosters I'd scanned in, and I'm having a lot of fun with a water deck I cobbled together based around Altaria EX, Seaking, and cards that heal such as Rough Seas and Healing Scarf to survive longer and hit harder at the same time. Now, I've been using Lugia because it's good at surviving hits with 120 HP and Pressure and at killing EXs thanks to Intensifying Burn, which does 120 damage against EXs and 60 otherwise.

Is there a Pokémon with a move similar to Intensifying Burn that targets GX Pokémon instead of EX Pokémon? The main problem I have with the deck (besides my own lack of skill) is that it stalls against GX Pokémon because I don't have a good way to damage a 200 HP card before it collects enough energy to attack faster than I can heal it away. The knowledge that there's a card out there that can take out GX Pokémon in 2 turns, especially if it only gives up 1 prize card, would be very helpful even if I don't end up trading for it.

A very similar card named Golisopod (9/145) was released in Guardians Rising expansion (released 5th May 2017), later reprinted with the same text as a promo (SM52) in Crimson Invasion Single Pack Blisters.

     Resolute Claws     80+
  If your opponent's Active Pokémon is a Pokémon-GX or a Pokémon-EX, this attack does 70 more damage (before applying Weakness and Resistance).

The card has similar, but better ability than your Lugia (Golisopod takes 30 less damage instead of Lugia's 20 and also Golisopod's Ability works on Bench too). The attack requires , making it hard to use in water deck. The bonus effect of the attack works against both Pokémon-GX and Pokémon-EX, making it the card you are looking for. Both base and bonus damages are higher than Lugia's ones (60+60 vs 80+70).

There is currently no other card that makes bonus damage to Pokémon-GX.

Good to know! How does this tend to work in decks? Do you bring this in to clear other threats, or is its bulk and damage sufficient to make it your main powerhouse? How well does it do competitively? (not that that was a concern for my Altaria deck)

In addition to Golisopod, which is a commonly played card mostly for its GX but the "baby" is also often seen, you can also consider adding a Choice Band (Guardians Rising 121). That card is very common and grants you a +30 attach against GX pokémon.

Mawile from Celestial Storm, released August 3, 2018 has an attack that deals extra damage to Pokemon-GX:

 Bite Off 20+
If your opponent’s Active Pokemon is a Pokemon-GX or Pokemon-EX, this attack does 30 more damage (before applying Weakness and Resistance).

I did a quick Google search and Wikipedia search on this topic, and I did not find any Pokèmon cards with attacks like Lugia's Intensifying Burn that are targeted towards GXes. The Pokèmon website did come up with a Machamp GX that had an attack very much like Intensifying Burn, except that it was targeted towards evolutionary Pokèmon.


text:
Do you have to pay the mana cost for cards exiled with Muse Vessel?
Muse Vessel reads as follows:

{3}, {T}: Target player exiles a card from their hand. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
{1}: Choose a card exiled with Muse Vessel. You may play that card this turn.

If the card exiled is a nonland card, do I have to pay its mana cost?

Yes, you do.
From the comprehensive rules (emphasis mine):

701.13b To play a card means to play that card as a land or to cast that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.
701.4a To cast a spell is to take it from the zone it’s in (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

Muse Vessel lets you play the card, which equates to casting a spell, but does not change the requirement to pay the cost for the spell.

First of all, to play a card is to play the card as a land or cast it as a spell.[CR 701.13b]

The words "play" and "cast" are used in three different, yet confusingly similar ways.

"You may (play|cast) {something} {condition}."
For example,

A player may cast an instant spell any time they have priority.
A player may cast a noninstant spell during their main phase any time they have priority and the stack is empty.

These are found in the rules. These give you permission to play or cast a card (or copy thereof) at certain points in the game.
"You may (play|cast) {something} [{alternative cost}]."
This is an (optional) instruction to play or cast the card (or copy thereof) immediately.
The fact that you don't have priority and that the stack isn't empty is irrelevant.
These often provide an alternative cost (e.g. "without paying its mana cost") which replaces the mana cost of the card. Keep in mind that additional costs, cost increases and cost decreases are still applied when an alternative cost is used.
"You may (play|cast) {something} [{alternative cost}] ({duration}|from {zone})."
For example,

You may play that card this turn.
You may cast this card from your graveyard

These alter which cards (or copy thereof) can be played or cast when you have permission to play or cast a card.
They don't give you permission to play or cast a card.
They don't instruct you to play or cast a card.
They may alter the mana cost, but only if explicitly stated.

Muse Vessel's ability uses the third of the above template. It simply allows you to play the card from exile as if it was in your hand until the end of turn. That's it.

You still need to have priority to play it.
The stack must still be empty unless its an instant.
If it's cast as a spell, you must still pay its casting cost (including its mana cost, unless something provides an alternative cost).

Note that Wizards went away from the phrasing "you may play it as though it were in your hand" because many players confused it with "you may play as though it were in your hand", which is very different ("am I allowed to discard it?" being a common question). The current phrasing opens up the possibility of playing the card (which is usually only legal to do with cards in your hand) without adding too much confusion.


text:
Why Exert Trueheart Twins?
Why would anyone exert Trueheart Twins? It doesn't have an exert perk.

You may exert Trueheart Twins as it attacks. (It won't untap during
your next untap step.)
Whenever you exert a creature, creatures you control get +1/+0 until
end of turn.

To contrast it, here's Nef-Crop Entangler. Notice how this card says "when you do [exert], it gets..."

Trample
You may exert Nef-Crop Entangler as it attacks. When you do,
it gets +1/+2 until end of turn. (An exerted creature won't untap
during your next untap step.)

Here's a list of creatures with exert. Nearly all of them follow the latter format. (There are a couple, but not very many, that seem to have no exert perk)

"creatures you control get +1/+0 until end of turn" is most definitely a perk :)

It's seem obvious to me...

@ikegami not sure if this explains my thoughts or not, but basically, I was thinking there would always be multiple creatures with EXERT on the battlefield, thus making it a disadvantage to tap Trueheart Twins, since it would lock it for two turns, when its effect would still fire for tapping someone else with a direct exert ability.

one of my friends pointed out that if true heart twins is the only creature with exert on the bfield, it could still trigger the +1 / 0 indirectly. As soon as there are multiple creatures with exert, it would no longer benefit to exert true heart twins.

That makes absolutely no sense. Say you have a Trueheart Twins and two Nef-Crop Entangler on the 'field. If you only exert the NCE, TT will get +2/+0 and NCEs will get +3/+2. If you exert TT too, TT will get +3/+0, and the NCEs will get +4/+2. An extra +1/+0 per creature you control can add up to a large amount!

lol you're right. I get caught up with thinking an effect fires only once. I didn't realize that you'd get +X/0, where X is the number of exerted creatures. I used to do that for Prowess too.

I make the mistake of equating "Whenever you" with "If you".

@Goldentoa11 Wizards probably wouldn't print a card with a sentence starting "If you ~action~, ...", it will always be "Whenever you ~action~, ...". If is only used after you have a choice to do something: "You may ~action~, if you do, ~extra thing~"

True, they may not say verbatim "If you ...", but there are cards that I thought are functionally equivalent, like "once per turn".

Some abilities have no direct benefit.  They let you do something for a cost, but the result is ... nothing.
These abilities can still be useful if indirectly they benefit you.
Suppose you had a land that read "Tap: gain 0 mana".  Seemingly pointless; it has no direct benefit for paying the cost.
Now give it, or another card, the ability "Whenever you tap any land, you may lose 2 life to gain 1 black mana".  Now the ability to tap your land lets you trigger the "whenever you tap" ability.
Without the "Tap: gain 0 mana" ability, you wouldn't be able to trigger the other effect.
This is the same case here.  This creature can exert for no direct benefit.  This is seemingly useless, unless you have abilities that are triggered by creatures exerting (or you really don't want it untapped next turn).
It also has an ability that is triggered by itself exerting; namely, when any creature exerts, it also grants all of your creatures +1/+0.
Without the ability to exert for no direct benefit, it could not trigger its "whenever a creature exerts" ability itself.  Which would make it a worse card.

I think it's a little misleading/confusing to say that it can exert "for no reason" and then go on to say that it triggers its own ability that pumps your creatures when you exert it.

@murgatroid99 replaced "reason" with "direct benefit"; I had done this later in the answer, but missed an earlier use.

@Beofett The action of exerting provides no direct benefit.  The other feature of the card takes any exertion and adds an effect to it, but that is not directly part of the exertion ability of the card.  Hence, no direct benefit; like how a land that can be tapped to grant 0 mana grants no direct benefit from the tapping.

@Beofett I'm saying that the exertion ability itself provides no direct benefit.  It indirectly triggers another ability (on the same card) which provides the benefit.  I'm not sure what you think I'm justifying?  The "you can exert this creature" ability clearly is a different "kind" of ability than "you can exert this creature to get X", in that it is missing the "to get X"; I am describing that as an ability with "no direct benefit".  Do you have a suggestion for a better way to describe that kind of ability?

How about "triggering exert will also trigger the other ability"?

@Beofett That doesn't describe how this exert is different than other exerts, which is what I am trying to express with "no direct benefit", and is sort of core to the OP's confusion.

Look, I didn't downvote, but I think you're trying too hard to explain a simple concept.  You're welcome to disagree.  I'll leave it at that.

Yakk's explanation actually really clears it up for me. I appreciate the difference between direct / indirect benefits.

Because it will still trigger its second ability "Whenever you exert a creature, creatures you control get +1/+0 until end of turn.", and sometimes you want your team to get the extra +1/+0 until end of turn.

I hadn't thought about it possibly being the only creature with exert on the battlefield. As soon as 2 creatures with exert are on the bfield, it seems to be a bad move to exert both, rather than just the one with a direct effect, since the +1/0 provided by true heart twins doesn't require itself to be exerted (though that can fire it).

@Goldentoa11 If it is a good idea or not depends on a lot of things. If they extra +1/+0 wins you the game you don't really care if it is locked down next turn for example.

@Goldentoa11 In case diego didn't already make it clear, if you exert two creatures, the ability will trigger twice and everything will get +2/+0.

Trueheart Twins is a kinda exert lord, but it also benefits from the ability ("a creature" includes itself). So, every creature that exerts can give your team +1/+0 when it's on the battlefield, including itself.

What do you mean by "is a kinda exert lord"?

@Goldentoa11 Lords typically benefit a group (usually a creature type) but don't apply to themselves.  As this benefits itself, that's why I used "kinda"


text:
In Crisis Mode, what do you do with cards that involve villains in your deck?
In the instruction book for Crisis Mode it says:

When you buy or gain a villain from the Line-Up, destroy it.
When you defeat a Super-Villain, remove it from the game.

What do you when you have a card that involves villains in your deck? For example, "Canary Cry" from Heroes Unite:

You may put a Villain from your discard pile on top of your deck. If you choose not to, draw a card.
Defense: You may discard this card to avoid an Attack. If you do, you may put a Villain with cost 7 or less from your discard pile into your hand or draw a card.

What do you do with that?

I have not seen any FAQs or other rulings regarding cards that involve Villains while in Crisis Mode, so it looks like they do not behave any differently, aside from the fact that their Villain effects will never occur.
In the case of "Canary Cry", you are simply forced to always choose the option that does not involve a Villain card in your discard pile. If it helps, you can think of the card being rewritten like so:

Draw a card.
Defense: You may discard this card to avoid an Attack. If you do, draw a card.

Not nearly as powerful as the original form, but for what it's worth, there are other cards that are more powerful in Crisis Mode than in the regular game, so it balances out I suppose.


text:
Lore: Teferi's second staff and memory crystal?
My question is What happened to Teferi's second staff? (and is the crystal in it Memory Crystal?)
To clarify my question I will be using some card art. However, the answer to this question likely lies in the lore of MtG rather than the art.

Teferi is/was/is a planeswalker that has been featured on several cards throughout the year. Notably:
Older cards:
Teferi's Response,
Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir,
Teferi's Care,
Teferi's Moat
More recent cards:
Teferi's Timebender,
Teferi, Temporal Archmage,
Oath of Teferi,
Opt,
Teferi, Hero of Dominaria
I bring this up because it is relevant to have a light understanding of how Wizard's of the Coast gets art. Importantly, contracted artists receive a style guide which helps maintain a cohesive feel for certain creature types, individuals, artifacts, etc across sets and throughout the game's existence.
Thus despite the shift in artistic style from the "older" cards to the "more recent" cards, the main staff we see him hold in Teferi's Response is likely the same staff seen in Teferi, Temporal Archmage. Likewise, despite some recent cards (e.g. Oath of Teferi) depicting the staff made out of metal, most cards indicate that it is made of something wood-like (even the latest Mythic Edition).
So now that we are on the same page that Teferi has a "main" staff which has a beak-like / sickle-esque adornment on top:

we can talk about the Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Time Spiral art:

where Teferi has two staffs in hand.
Given the progression of how we have seen his "main" staff evolve from Teferi's Response to Teferi, Hero of Dominaria, I would like to make the assumption that the staff in his right hand (left side of image) is his "main" staff. Feel free to disagree.
However, this question is about his other staff (which I will refer to as his "second" staff).
From card art, I can find only two cards with art that feature Teferi wielding two staffs and - unlike pyromancer's goggles - I do not believe the staffs are featured on standalone artifact cards. These two cards are: Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Time Spiral, and Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Iconic Masters.
I just showed the former, and the latter we can not see the tops of the staffs (but they have a similar, shorter, more roundish wood-like handle style).
After having contacted some artists about the staffs, one recalled:

I know that when he is holding two it is because his staff was broken at some point. Beyond that I am not sure.

To me that statement is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean that when he is holding two, he is holding both his broken staff and his new staff? If so, did he get his new staff fashioned to be the same as the prior? Or, if he is only holding one, is because the second was broken?
Some may be of the opinion that the second staff of Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir Time Spiral is broken - as it does not look like the other. While I admit I can see how one could interpret the art that way (the gem atop it may seem fragmented) - as the artists of MtG are known for meticulous detail I lean towards the interpretation that the second staff is in that image not broken. Why? We have seen wonky, powerful gems before (e.g. Memory Crystal, Meek Stone), the gem appears to take up more space in the staff than the other sickle/beak adornment of his main staff, the handle seems to match the edges of the gem and are otherwise smooth at the edges.
Anyway, whether or not the second staff is broken in that image, based solely on the art, is up for debate - unless someone gets a statement from the artist. Of note, is that the previous statement is from an artist who drew Teferi, just not a card where he holds two staffs.
My question is, lore wise, where is his second staff? Did it break? if so, when and why does he not carry it any more? Why would only Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir (originally from Time Spiral and reprinted in Iconic Masters / From the Vault) be the card which features two staffs (i.e. why wouldn't we have seen his second staff in older cards like Teferi's Moat)?
In case it helps, here is a collage of some staff images:

There is one last thing I would like to emphasize from this collage. The core aesthetic features of Teferi's main staff appears consistent across cards that span years. This, to me, suggests that there is a style guide for that staff and while they might look different (e.g. the short staffs of Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir and the long one of Teferi, Temporal Archmage) they are meant to depict the same staff - with some artistic liberties taken.
Otherwise Teferi has gone to a staff maker and has had at least 4 different but similar looking staffs fashioned for him.
Maybe I am looking into this to much. There have only been a handful of named staffs that have appeared on cards e.g. Staff of the ages, Staff of Nin and Staff of Zegon but those tend to not receive new art. An exception, Thunderstaff does have new art with vastly different design from its inception...
However, like Jaya and her goggles, the design of which has remained very consistent, I attribute such consistency - perhaps falsely - to continuity of his main staff (although it is likely easier to get new goggles in the planes of MtG than a staff...).

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The WOTC article Legends -- Who's Got The Sauce indicates that Teferi Mage of Zhalfir's art depicts a broken staff:

Check out the broken staff - we've seen it intact on Teferi's Moat and on the cover of the Time Spiral novel. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call symbolism.

So this eliminates the possibility that he is holding two intact staffs. The remaining possibilities are:

He is holding the remnants of a broken staff in one hand, and one new & intact staff in the other.
a. ... And the broken staff is on our right.
  b. ... And the broken staff is on our left.
Both halves are from one staff, now snapped in half.

I don't believe 1a is possible, because Teferi's Moat and the Time Spiral cover art both depict the "bird beak" staff seen on other cards. The staff in Teferi's right hand does not resemble these. So it must be the staff on our left that's broken.
1b is also problematic, because the article implies that you can tell just from looking at the picture that the bird beak staff is broken. But the bottom of the staff is obscured by Teferi's body. You might argue that the staff is still evidently broken because it would otherwise be long enough to extend past Teferi's right side. But you could just as easily argue that the perspective could hide a complete staff, or the artist simply could have taken creative liberties and made it short. So there's no strong evidence either way. But the article makes it sound like it's obvious. It's as if the author is taking for granted the fact that we can tell the bird beak staff is broken, because the other half of it is in Teferi's other hand. This leads me to believe that #2 is the most likely possibility.
Assuming that the card depicts two broken halves of one staff, it becomes easy to determine what happened to the non-bird-beak half: by the time of the Dominaria block, the two halves have been rejoined into a complete single staff again, as depicted on Teferi, Hero of Dominaria.
This also nicely dovetails into the symbolism of the Mage of Zhalfir art: when Teferi loses his planeswalker's spark in Time Spiral, his card depicts a broken staff; when he regains his spark in Dominaria, the staff on his card is whole again.

interesting. Then, the bird-beak stone (sometimes metal) thing runs throughout the staff and that is what we see as the top of the second staff. In the reprinted art of Teferi, Mage of Z. (Vault & Iconic) we see the bottom halves of the staffs (w/ clearly tapered handles). If we assume the rag around the staff (in DOM depictions) is around where the staff was fused back together, then he had a temporary handle fashioned for the top half (as the top half would end in his hand in the TSP version). Otherwise it might be an artist mistake?

Nice find for the article, though.

Those were my thoughts exactly regarding the Iconic Masters art :-) either the beaky half was fitted with a temporary tapered end after Time Spiral and before Dominaria, or the artist simply neglected to draw a ragged end.

Weird though that the new Mythic Edition turns the bird stone thing into an outright sickle with a wooden staff, where DOM has all metal, TSP is wood, TSP reprint looks like metal, and everything before is wood. Think they could at least keep that consistent. I'll leave the question open for a bit for others to see your answer and have a chance to respond before accepting btw

So you are suggesting that the two staffs where combined into a new single staff?

Essentially, yes.


text:
In chess, how many times can a piece be attacked at once?
Sometimes a chess player concentrates many attacks on a single enemy piece (including pawns).

For example, on the diagram provided above the black pawn on d5 is attacked by ten white pieces. One of the two white bishops is obviously promoted from a pawn. So if it's white turn, they can capture the black pawn in 10 different ways.
But does anybody know what is the maximum number of chess pieces of the same color which can attack/threaten the same enemy piece simultaneously?

There are 16 ways a piece can be attacked in chess, 8 positions where a knight can attack from and 8 directions which all other pieces use to attack. However there is no way in chess to fill all of these spots, as the bishops are on opposite colors. The most I have been able to find to answer this is 15, using pawn promotion to get more knights:

UPDATE as corsiKa pointed out, En Passant does exist as a 17th way a piece can be attacked, though it is limited to pawns attacking pawns, when the pawn being attacked has made it's fist move two spaces to come beside the attacking pawn. This can be done here, however it still leaves a maximum of 15 attacks. That would look like this:

That last diagonal could be filled by a bishop or queen, but that would require removing one of the nights, since you only have 8 pawns, need to promote 6 to get 8 knights. Also those other two pawns could be bishops or queens to attack the same diagonals.

You could move the king over and replace one of the knights with a pawn on C5 with an en passant attack. Doesn't change the total, but does make it cooler!

@corsiKa En Passant can only happen between two pawns when the first pawn has made it's first move as 2 spaces, this could be possible in this set up but would actually reduce the number of attacks possible, as the pawn in position to en passant would block a rook's attack, not to mention the black pawn would have had the white king in check before the move was made if the king is moved over one square. The king could be where one of the white pawns is, a rook where the queen is, and the queen covering the 4th diagonal though to allow for en passant and still 15 attacks.

I only count 15 white pieces on the top board, not 16. 8 pawns to start minus two left on board makes 6 to promote. So you can either have 8 knights, or 7 knights and two light bishops.

@MaxW I did not include any pieces not involved in the attack, there is the possibility of another bishop, but that would be on the black spaces, useless for attacking a white space. As stated there are other ways to do this "That last diagonal could be filled by a bishop or queen, but that would require removing one of the knights"


text:
In chess, if a player ran out of time, how to determine if his/her opponent has the 'possibility of checkmating'?
From English Wikipedia, article 'Rules of chess':

If a player delivers a checkmate, the game is over and that player
wins, no matter what is subsequently noticed about the time on the
clock.
If player A calls attention to player B being out of time while
player A is not out of time and some sequence of legal moves leads to
B being checkmated then player A wins automatically.
If player A does not have the possibility of checkmating B then the game is a draw.

Can anyone provide a more detailed explanation what is 'possibility of checkmating' and who or what governs it? For example, I know that a king and a knight can checkmate a king with a rook.

However, I don't think a king and a knight can checkmate a king with a queen. I didn't find a single checkmate position for that case (for weakest side, of course).
So, after exactly one of players had run out of time, who or what determines if his or her opponent has the possibility of giving a checkmate? I think it's quite essential because it means difference between a win and a draw.

is this really rules for chess everywhere? or FIDE specifically? afaik USCF and FIDE have different rules

If in doubt of being able to by player B, player A now plays both sides towards a checkmate of his choice.
In your example, player A would be able to prove it if he comes to the said checkmate somehow.
I think checkmating against King-Queen with King-Knight is impossible. The shown position (with the rook being switched to a queen) is no checkmate because the queen can just capture the knight.

This sounds reasonable, but do you have any citation or other kinds of proof? When reading the question, I specifically wondered about whether "possible" meant "possible in any way", or "actually feasible", seeing as a player having only a Knight and King could feasibly win against an opponent with a full set of pieces only if that player suicided every single one (or placed them suboptimally). A player controlling both sides would mean "possible in any way", in which case it comes down to pretty much only the leftover pieces on the board in name, as well as the position of pawns, if any.

Just look at the "rewritten" part one paragraph above:
"and some sequence of legal moves leads to B being checkmated"

Also "possible" in a rules set means "possible in any legal way" and as far as I know never "feasible". Rules have to be precise and if "feasible" is needed to be expressed...why write "possible" if you could just write "feasible"?

is this really rules for chess everywhere? or FIDE specifically? afaik USCF and FIDE have different rules

The current USCF rules specifically state (section 14E) that the following combinations are an enforceable draw (if not already in a win position) even when time runs out for the opponent, because the player has "insufficient material to win on time":
Lone king;
King and bishop;
King and knight;
King and two knights

Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.


text:
Requirement and Restrictions for Declaring Attackers
This is a question I've had for some time. It involves rule 508.1 from the Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive rules. I feel the rules are a little ambiguous, and I wonder if someone can elucidate which of several interpretations is correct.
Consider the following situation. Entering my declare attackers step, I control a vanilla creature and an Ekundu Cyclops. Ekundu cyclops has the text

If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if
able.

The Ekundu Cyclops is enchanted by Pacifism, which has text

Enchanted creature can't attack or block.

My question: What are the legal declarations of attackers here?
The relevant part of the rules for resolving this question seems to be

508.1c The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a
creature can’t attack, or that it can’t attack unless some condition
is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of
attackers is illegal. Example: A player controls two creatures, each
with a restriction that states “[This creature] can’t attack alone.”
It’s legal to declare both as attackers.
508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements (effects that say a
creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is
met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer
than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed
without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is
illegal. If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, that
player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that
creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.
Example: A player controls two creatures: one that “attacks if able”
and one with no abilities. An effect states “No more than one creature
can attack each turn.” The only legal attack is for just the creature
that “attacks if able” to attack. It’s illegal to attack with the
other creature, attack with both, or attack with neither.

First of all, it is pretty clear that in no valid declaration of attackers can the Ekundu Cyclops attack. The rules are explicit that the effect of Pacifism constitutes a "restriction" on attacking that cannot be overridden by any "requirement". Since the Cyclops' effect is phrased without the word "can't", I interpret the Cyclops' ability as a requirement under the condition that another creature is attacking.
There are a few ways to interpret the bold section, in my mind. We could interpret it to say:

If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum
possible number of requirements that could be obeyed under any
possible declaration of attackers without disobeying any
restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

Under this interpretation, it would be illegal to attack with the vanilla creature, since if one attacks with the vanilla and not the Cyclops, then the Cyclops' requirement to attack is violated, while it would be obeyed if I had chosen not to attack with the vanilla. Under this interpretation of the rules, I also find it uncertain whether we consider the Ekundu's requirement "obeyed" if the conditional that another creature is attacking is not satisfied. Perhaps if neither creature attacks then there are no requirements obeyed. We could also say

If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum
possible number of requirements that could be obeyed if this creature were to attack without disobeying any
restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

In this case, we could attack with the vanilla, as attacking with that cyclops will never result in a legal attack.
Edit:
It seems pretty clear to me that people here interpret "could be obeyed" to refer to all possible configurations of attackers that do not violate restrictions. The ambiguity boils down to this: if a creature has an ability that says "This creature attacks if X" and X is not true, does that count as a satisfied requirement (since the clause in itself is true), or does it not count as a satisfied requirement (since the conditional is not met)?

I just wrote an article that goes into detail on how these sorts of conditional requirements are handled, here you go: https://outsidetheasylum.blog/declaring-attackers/

You are allowed to attack with your vanilla creature.
The Cyclops' ability becomes an attack requirement if and only if it is able to attack:

If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if able.

However, Pacifism makes it unable to attack under any circumstances, so it doesn't become a requirement that you would have to satisfy. Therefore, you are free to attack with your vanilla creature. Look at the example section of 508.1d to see an example of when the rule would apply.

This is a solution to the example given in the question, but it doesn't address the underlying question that the OP asks, which is how to resolve attacking with multiple conflicting requirements or conditions.

@Malco Not sure what you're suggesting. The best general answer to the question would be identical to the rules text. OP did ask about a specific situation, which is how all of StackExchange works.

Sorry, what I was trying to say was that your answer addresses the specific example, but doesn't clarify the rules text that the OP highlighted ("If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal."). I believe murgatroid99's answer and clarifying example makes it a bit clearer what OP's underlying question was.

It seems pretty clear to me that people interpret "could be obeyed" to refer to all possible configurations of attackers that do not violate restrictions. The ambiguity boils down to this: if a creature has an ability that says "This creature attacks if X" and X is not true, does that count as a satisfied requirement (since the clause in itself is true), or does it not count as a satisfied requirement (since the conditional is not met)?

@BoltonBailey That's a very good question. I think it wasn't clear (at least not to me) from your original question that that's what you were asking; maybe you could edit the question to clarify that?

@BoltonBailey no, since then it is not a requirement - requirements are things that have to be done. If X is not true, the creature doesn't have to attack - it is optional, not required -> not a requirement.

@BoltonBailey Your "if" statement can be written as "X implies this creature attacks". Look at the truth table for X implies Y on this page. When X is false, the outcome is always true. Therefore, the requirement is always satisfied. You don't just throw away the entire statement and say that it doesn't count when X is false.

Well, operating under that idea, if the Vanilla does not attack, then the if statement is satisfied, so the requirement would be met. Do we say that the vanilla can't attack? Or is the Cyclops requirement also satisfied if the vanilla attacks because we also say the "if able" on the cyclops is false? How do we define whether a creature is able to attack? If a creature being able to attack can affect the set of legal attacks, isn't that a circular definition?

@BoltonBailey I showed you the truth table for "X implies Y". Now we have a new problem to solve: X and Y implies Z. Turns out the page I linked also has the truth table for "and". You have all of the tools you need to solve this new problem. Don't get hung up on what "able to attack" means. Magic doesn't have a special definition for "able". "Able" in English means "having the power, skill, means, or opportunity to do something". A creature enchanted by Pacifism clearly does not have the means or the opportunity to attack.

The "if able" part of attack requirements is meant to be ignored. Trying to come up with an interpretation where requirements are satisfied if it's not "able" to attack leads to unintuitive results or circular reasoning, since there's no simple way to figure out what's "able" to attack without considering what requirements and restrictions must be followed. More detail here:
https://outsidetheasylum.blog/declaring-attackers/

I think that blog post makes a slightly narrower claim than you are saying: that the "if able" clause does not have any meaningful effect on the legality of a declaration of attackers. But that does not mean that it is completely meaningless. It communicates the information that is also provided in rule 508.1d that restrictions take precedence over requirements. In this particular situation, the obvious interpretation of that clause unambiguously matches the correct ruling: that Pacifism prevents the Cyclops from attacking, and the Cyclops's own ability does not override that.

You can attack with just the vanilla creature
The section of 508.1d that you highlighted says:

If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

In the scenario you describe, there are two different declarations of attackers that do not disobey any restrictions:

You attack with nothing. In this case, there are no requirements, so you are obeying 0 out of 0 requirements.
You attack with just the vanilla creature. In this case, the Cyclops has a requirement to attack, and you are not obeying it, so you are obeying 0 out of 1 requirements.

So, among the cases where the Cyclops is not required to attack, you can obey up to 0 of the 0 requirements, and among the cases where the Cyclops is required to attack, you can obey up to 0 of the 1 requirement. Therefore, both of those attack declarations obeys the maximum number of requirements, so they are both legal.

Variant Scenario
Compare with a slightly different scenario: you control an Ekundu Cyclops and a vanilla creature, and your opponent controls a Silent Arbiter instead of a Pacifism. This situation has a different attacking restriction because Silent Arbiter has the ability

No more than one creature can attack each combat.

In this case, there are three possible declarations of attackers that do not disobey any restrictions:

You attack with nothing. In this case, there are no requirements, so you are obeying 0 out of 0 requirements.
You attack with just the vanilla creature. In this case, the Cyclops has a requirement to attack, and you are not obeying it, so you are obeying 0 out of 1 requirements.
You attack with just the Cyclops. In this case, the Cyclops has a requirement to attack, and you are obeying it, so you are obeying 1 out of 1 requirement.

This case is different because you can obey a maximum of 1 requirement in the cases where the Cyclops is required to attack, so you can't choose to disobey that requirement and attack with just the vanilla creature.

"among the cases where the Cyclops is required to attack, you can obey up to 0 of the 1 requirement. Therefore, both of those attack declarations obeys the maximum number of requirements, so they are both legal." - this is incorrect, "0 out of 1" is not the maximum number of requirements ;)

@Syndic We're not after "the maximum". We're after "the maximum that can be obeyed".

@Rainbolt The maximum that can be obeyed is also 1. 1 requirement can be obeyed, and 1 is still greater than 0.

No, the whole point here is that there is no attack declaration that conforms to all applicable restrictions and obeys the 1 requirement present. So the maximum number of requirements that can be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions is 0.

You can attack with the vanilla creature, but I have a different justification than the existing answers.
There is exactly one restriction in effect:

Ekundu Cyclops can't attack or block.

There is exactly one requirement in effect:

If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if able.

First, we must satisfy all restrictions. This is easy: don't attack with Ekundu Cyclops.
Next, we must satisfy as many requirements as possible. This particular requirement contains two "if" conditions, and one of them is always false.

If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if able.
  If a creature you control attacks, Ekundu Cyclops also attacks if false.

It makes no difference whether a creature you control attacks, because the other "if" always evaluates to "false".

I think that it's good to use the "if able" clause here, but I also think that becomes more difficult to evaluate when you have more complex restrictions, such as ones that allow the Cyclops to attack or not depending on which other creatures are attacking.

Hackworth's answer is correct and Ekundu Cyclops only has to attacks if another creature attacks and if able.
But in addition, and as general rule of thumb (since I can't find the correct number of the rule):
Effect's that say you "can't", are "prohibited", are "not allowed to" have precedence in comparing effects. So your Ekundu Cyclops HAS to attack, but it also CAN'T attack, so the effect tha says it can't do something is considered the one that counts.
Similarly if your opponent plays Silence and you have a Isochron Scepter into play. If Silence has already resolved you can't use (or rather it will have no effect) Isochron Scepter's activated ability since it makes you cast a spell (a copy is made and you can cast it) but Silence does not allow you to cast spells till end of turn.
The part you were worried was "If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal" but since there is a restriction (something that says it can't attack) the requirement goes against a restriction and so does not have to be taken into account. That way attacking only with your vannila is perfectly legal.