text:
What game is this with colored tokens, a dice, and what looks like a spoon?
I bought it secondhand and it came with one red die with a devil, a woman, a man, a club, a fan, and a wooden paddle, and each side is numbered. It also came with 6 red chips, 5 yellow chips, and 4 blue chips. Finally it came with what looks like a little metal flat spoon. All of these things came in a small box labeled "Couple Dice".
Does anyone know what this game is called and/or the rules?

Looks like it could be some variation of Tiddlywinks.

The drawings look Japanese. I tried searching plausible translations of "couple dice" in Japanese, but came up with nothing. How do these things fit into the box. Could there be parts missing, for example, if the top section holds dice, then there could be 3 dice missing.

It was bought in at a Japanese flea market!

This might be a variant of a Japanese game known as Ohajiki. My understanding is that it was traditionally played with flatten marbles and is similar to tiddlywinks. The spoon and die suggest is might be some variation on the game.

Welcome to the site! Do you have images or links to the game to show pieces or it being played? It would help improve your answer.


text:
How does Puncturing Light work against a creature buffed in size?
Puncturing light is an instant that has:

Destroy target attacking or blocking creature with power 3 or less.

If a creature has a buff on it until end of turn that makes it a 4/4 for example, would puncturing light still be able to kill this creature? In a stack what would happen to the puncturing light if the buff were applied after puncturing light was played.

Related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/35199/interaction-with-with-power-2-or-less

Answers so far haven't mentioned that the game evaluates targets for a spell both when it's placed on the stack (e.g. by casting) and as it resolves. If a spell's mandatory conditions are not met -- such as having no targets matching the criteria -- it has no effect (fizzles).

@Anon234_4521 Are we reading the same answers?

They described the symptoms and not the cause. For a more complete picture, I stated the rule that the spell is evaluated twice; once when placed on the stack, and again during resolution.

@Anon234_4521: That is precisely what ikegami explains in their answer, where the first paragraph handles the check done while declaring targets during the process of casting the spell, and the second handling what's happening when the target becomes illegal before the spell would resolve. It seems completely covered to me, although it could benefit from rules quotes. That said, the answer (the way I read it) only asks for the first case anyway.

If its power is greater than 3 (whether its power has been increased by a "buff" or not), then it can't be targeted by Puncturing Light, so you are unable to cast Puncturing Light targeting it.
If the power of a creature targeted by Puncturing Light increases so that the creature's power is greater than 3 when Puncturing Light would resolve, Puncturing Light will be countered by the game rules (for having only illegal targets) instead of resolving.

haha, just beat me to it....

It depends on the order that Puncturing Light and the buff spell resolve from the stack.
If the creature has a power of 3 or less when Puncturing Light resolves the creature will be destroyed.
If it is has a power of 4 when Puncturing Light resolves, Puncturing Light will have no valid targets and instead be countered so the creature will survive.

Note that the creature needs to be already attacking when both the buff and the Light get cast on it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I counter or Nix an aura swap?
I am playing magic with my friends and we have a problem with the ability Aura Swap on a card called Arcanum Wings.
Does it count as casting when you activate Aura Swap and put new aura on the battlefield with Arcanum Wings? If a player uses the Aura swap ability, can I counter the new aura with Nix?

Aura swap says to "exchange this permanent with an Aura in your hand". The new Aura is not cast, it's simply put onto the battlefield. Since it's not cast, and is put on the battlefield during resolution of the effect, it cannot be countered by spells or abilities. There's never a time when the new Aura exists on the stack - the Aura swap ability goes on the stack with the new Aura in your hand, and upon resolution, the new Aura goes on the battlefield.
You could get around this by countering the Aura swap ability itself (e.g. Stifle), or by removing the permanent that has Aura swap (perhaps by bouncing the creature it's attached to). In either of these cases, though, your opponent will still have the new Aura in his hand afterwards.

Aura swap was attached to Invisible stalker so dealing with the carrier was little bit hard ;) . Is there any easy rules when something is going on the stack because i have always believed that everything goes to stack...

Generally, you put things on the stack when you pay a cost (mana to cast a spell, tap to activate an ability) or when things trigger (when enters battlefield, when you gain life). Here, the ability "exchange this permanent with an Aura from your hand" goes on the stack. Imagine it as if you'd written the instruction on a piece of paper and put it in a "stack pile". When you pull the top piece of paper, you do whatever it says all a once. In this case, the instruction doesn't put anything on the stack. If it had said "cast an Aura", then the instruction would put something else on the stack.

@Quut, Spells and Abilities are the only 2 things that can go on the stack. Bringing the new Aura into play is not an ability, it is an effect generated by the resolution of an ability. See this question for details on effects vs abilities: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/35405/what-is-the-difference-between-an-effect-and-an-ability-and-how-do-you-iden

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


text:
If the last surviving human mutates to an alien, do they win with the aliens?
In Escape From Aliens in Outer Space, one of the item cards is the Mutate card, which turns a human into an alien. The rules say that the human then plays as an alien from then on. However, if the last surviving human plays that card and mutates into an alien, does the game immediately end with an alien victory, with that converted alien winning as well? We had that happen in our game today, and it felt like an unsatisfactory ending.

As written in the rules book, humans loses only when killed by aliens. Therefore it seems logical that a mutated human wins with aliens even if he is the last one.
Said this, I agree with you, this is definitely an unsatisfactory winning. To avoid it, I suggest you to set as "house rule" that the Mutate card cannot be played by the last human. This will make the human to fight for his life!

I am not sure if I would agree with that house rule as having this situation come up is not something that would happen easily as not only does the player have to be lucky enough to draw the item but also be the sole surviving human in the game. I think in situations like that it is okay for that person to share in the win and with that shortened time it might be possible to get in another round of this or a new game.

Force them to fight? To me, this is just another way to introduce strategy. Do you think you're highly likely to be killed? If so, you may want to switch sides in order to win! And if you're the aliens, then why wouldn't you want the last human to become an alien? Win-win! I'm against that proposed house rule for those reasons.

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


text:
Easy Search for Renamed Units
I am just now getting started with Warhammer: Age of Sigmar and I have found something that is confusing and difficult to remedy. In the free Warscroll pdfs for The Empire army, it lists several units named with 'Empire' (Empire Greatswords, Empire Pistoliers, etc.), but in the General's Handbook and Skirmish books, it appears those same units have had their names changed to use 'Freeguild' instead (Freeguils Greatswords, Freeguild Pisoliers, etc.). Now, I wouldn't think it is such a big deal, but I cannot find anything that, for lack of a better why to describe it, a simple changelog of units that have been updated with new names, and in some cases new keywords and rules. Is ther any sort of log that exists? If so, where do I need to look?

As of '8-25-17', coinciding with Games Workshop's "General's Handbook 2017," Warhammer Community has released updated FAQs for the Grand Alliances, as well as updated the legacy Compendiums for the old armies (Bretonnia, Beastmen, Tomb Kings, etc). In these Compendiums, at the very end, there are list of units with Substitute Warscrolls, as was stated by user 'aslum' on '7-31-17' that now includes not just Named and out-of-production models, but also models that have had their unit's name changed for the Age of Sigmar lore (Empire Greatsword -> Freeguild Greatsword for example) and updated Pitched Battle profiles for legacy units. Here is a direct link to them.

On the Games-Workshop site, under Age of Sigmar Rules at the end of The Empire rules there's a list of Substitute Warscrolls. I've included it below in case GW takes down or moves the rules. I basically just C&Ped it; it could be formatted better.
Unit   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Warscroll
Ar-Ulric .................................. Warrior Priest
Arch Lector ............................... Warrior Priest
Arch Lector on War Altar of Sigmar ......... War Altar of Sigmar
Battle Wizard Lord ........................ Battle Wizard
Battle Wizard Lord on Pegasus .............. Balthasar Gelt
Captain .................................. Empire General
Felix ..................................... Militia  Leader
                            (see Empire Free Company Militia warscroll)
General of the Empire on Pegasus ........... Empire General on Warhorse
                                             (the model can fly)
Huntsmen ................................ Empire Archers
Imperial Halfling Hot Pot .................. Empire Mortar
Karl Franz on foot ......................... Empire General
Karl Franz on Warhorse .................... Empire General on Warhorse
Karl Franz on Imperial Pegasus ............. Empire General on Warhorse
                                            (the model can fly)
Karl Franz on the Imperial Dragon .......... Karl Franz on Deathclaw
Master Engineer on Warhorse ............... Master Engineer on Mechanical Steed
Teutogen Guard ........................... Greatswords
Warrior Priest on Warhorse ................ Luthor Huss

I have this list. This list is for models that don't have a their own warscroll associated with them. The problem I have is that some models (and there associated warscrolls) have been completely renamed with no list detailing these changes.


text:
How do I play out a Vassal hitting a Throne Room?
If I play a Vassal and it hits a Throne Room, do I get to choose an action from my hand?

Vassal - discard the top card of your deck.  If it's an action card
you may play it.
Throne Room -  You may play an action card from your hand twice.

Playing an action card via Vassal is exactly the same as if you had played it from your hand: you follow the text of that card, top to bottom, doing as much as possible.
In the case of Throne Room yes, you choose an action card from your hand to play twice because that's what Throne Room instructs you to do.

It's worth noting that the vassal that you just played is no longer in your hand, so you are not able to apply the throne room to it.

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


text:
Do effects that remove abilities also remove counters?
I have a creature in play that has several +1/+1 counters on it. My opponent plays a card that has "remove all abilities from target creature".
Does this also remove the counters? What's the rule that clarifies this?

@doppelgreener Thanks for the edit. That's what I was trying to say!

Abilities and counters are different things. Effects that remove abilities do not remove counters, and effects that remove counters do not remove abilities.
Abilities are defined in rule 112:

112.1a An ability is a characteristic an object has that lets it affect the game. An object’s abilities are defined by its rules text or by the effect that created it. Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that do so use the words “has,” “have,” “gains,” or “gain.”) Abilities generate effects. (See rule 609, “Effects.”)

and counters are defined in rule 121:

121.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. Counters are not objects and have no characteristics. Notably, a counter is not a token, and a token is not a counter. Counters with the same name or description are interchangeable.


text:
How does Energy Field interact with effects that say you lose life?
How does Hissing Miasma affect a player protected by Energy Field if their creatures are attacking?
Additionally, how does Tainted Remedy affect Energy Field if same player does something to gain life?

In both cases Energy Field does nothing because both Hissing Miasma and Tainted Remedy cause loss of life and not damage, so Energy Field can't prevent it.
Damage to players causes them to lose life (assuming the source doesn't have infect), but loss of life isn't always damage.

118.2. Damage dealt to a player normally causes that player to lose that much life. See rule 119.3.
118.3. If an effect causes a player to gain life or lose life, that player’s life total is adjusted accordingly.

Hissing Miasma will continue to make the attacking player lose 1 life.  Losing life is not the same as damage. Since it's losing life and not damage, Energy Field doesn't come into play here.

Energy Field has no interesting interaction with either Hissing Miasma or Tainted Remedy. Energy Field only prevents damage, while the effects of Hissing Miasma and Tainted Remedy both directly cause life loss.
Damage causes life loss, but not all life loss is damage.


text:
Is there value to my misprinted Magic card?
I have a magic card with a unique misprint. The Red Mana symbol in the card text is in grey-scale print, but the rest of the card is in full, correct color, including the Red Mana symbol in the card's cost.
I looked for misprint values, and there is a market for it, but I couldn't find anything on this type of misprint.
Is this a valuable card, and where should I look at for selling it?

Could you confirm the name of the card that you believe is misprinted?

Is the card from a set in the 8th Edition - Fifth Dawn range? If yes then this is not a misprint.
(if no, then that is an interesting find indeed...)
This was when the Magic card frame was changed and it was decided to print "mana symbols in running text in black-and-white instead of color" for a number of reasons. This decision has since been reversed.
This question was asked and answered on Ask Wizards in May of 2003. See the May 20, 2003 question from Philip, answered by Randy Buehler.

May 20, 2003
Q: "I saw one of the Two-Headed Dragon promo cards that was given away
at E3 last week. What's up with the red mana symbol in the text box?
It looks black or gray instead of red."
--Philip R
A: From Randy Buehler, Director of Magic R&D:
"You're right -- the red
mana symbol that appears in the 'firebreathing' ability in the text
box on Two-Headed Dragon is black text, and it will be the same on the
actual Eighth Edition cards. "We looked at all aspects of our printing
process when we were putting together the new card frames and it
turned out to be much simpler if we did the mana symbols in running
text in black-and-white instead of color. We've had problems with them
in the past, especially on foil cards, and by changing them to black
text we will be able to minimize these mistakes. R&D was initially
concerned that they would be harder to read and gameplay would be
affected by this change, so we had some playtest cards printed up and
tested with them in our Future Future League. After playing with them,
we realized that you never really notice the difference. In fact,
since the text box itself is colored, it tricks your eye into seeing
the symbol as colored too. Based on this playtesting, we concluded
that the advantages of making our printing process more efficient and
subject to fewer errors outweighed the drawback of making the cards
slightly less pretty and so we made the change. (Note that only mana
symbols that appear in text in text boxes are affected by this change
-- mana costs in the upper right and basic lands will stay the same.)"

Picture of the card referenced by the quoted passage. The OP could similarly look up their card on magiccard.info to determine if it's actually a misprint or not.


text:
Can proliferate be applied to loyalty counters?
I am curious, can proliferate be applied to planes-walkers with loyalty counters on them?
proliferate text states:

You choose any number of permanents and/or players with counters on them, then give each another counter of a kind already there.

And planeswalkers are both players AND permanents, So I see no reason that it shouldn't work. Are there rules against it?

Yes you can proliferate loyalty counters on planeswalkers because they are permanents.
Planeswalkers are not players however, the only time they sort-of act like players is "If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead." And really that is just a rule so that cards like Lightning Bolt will be effective against them without needing errata.

110.4. There are five permanent types: artifact, creature, enchantment, land, and planeswalker.

So... In theory, could I use ral zarek (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ral+zarek) with some inexorable tides (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=397762)  to possibly gain infinite turns via quick, plentiful, cheap spells?

@tuskiomi You can, though there are significantly easier (and more reliable) ways to get infinite turns

...go on... I want to hear

@tuskiomi That isn't really what comments are for, but if you join us in [chat] we could answer that question for you.

Quickly just for anyone looking in from the outside, the big one everyone knows about for infinite turn combos would be the Time vault - Voltaic Key combo, often simplified to Volt(Vault)-Key.


text:
Acrobatic manuever and blocking
If I block a 5/5 attacked with a 2/3 during my blocking step, could I then bounce my blocker with Acrobatic Maneuver and prevent it from being killed, while also having the 5/5 blocked? If so, why?

When a creature becomes blocked, it stays blocked and blocked creatures do not (normally) do damage to the player.

509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.

Lore-wise, think of the blocker as having delayed/distracted the attacking creature long enough for it to not reach you.


text:
What happens when I blink a Manic Scribe multiple times?
If I have a Manic Scribe and 2 Momentary Blinks, is it possible to use Momentary Blink on Manic Scribe multiple times, and if so, does his ability trigger again?

Welcome to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange! Could you please take a few moments to improve the grammar and spelling of your post? Right now, it's a bit unclear what you are asking.

What you are describing is possible, but I will go over various interpretations of what you described. We will assume that you already have a Manic Scribe on the battlefield.
The most likely way you will accomplish what you're trying to do is by casting Momentary Blink on the scribe, letting the spell resolve so it can come back and trigger its "enters the battlefield" ability, and then casting your second Momentary Blink on it. This will cause it to leave and re-enter twice, triggering its ability twice, and overall making each opponent put 6 cards in their graveyard.
You could also cast Momentary Blink on it, then hold priority and cast the second Momentary Blink on it before the first one resolves. This is a Bad Idea, because after one of them resolves, the other will not have a valid target and be countered (fizzle) on resolution (as the scribe left the battlefield and came back, so is a new object). Then, you wasted one of your blinks! Your opponent will only put 3 cards into their graveyard, because Manic Scribe only entered the battlefield once.
Manic Scribe has a triggered ability that triggers on your opponent's upkeep (if you have Delirium) in addition to the one that triggers when it enters the battlefield, however you cannot cause this trigger to repeat in the same way. Your opponent's upkeep happens and the trigger is put on the stack. At this point, if you blink the scribe, it will leave and re-enter, and the "enters the battlefield" trigger will go on the stack too, but there is no way to get a second "beginning of upkeep" trigger to occur.

You can cast any amount of momentary blinks on your scribe, after the blink brings it back onto the battlefield both  you and your opponent  can target the scribe again as normal. Each time the scribe comes back its "enters the battlefield" ability will trigger again.

One thing to watch out for is to make sure each blink resolves before casting the next one. If you cast two in a row, the second one to resolve will fizzle because the returning scribe is actually a new instance, and not the same one you targeted when you cast the spell!

Thank you. I am working on a deck that reactivates annoying effects. Creatures such as reflector mage, manic scribe, subjegator angel, and a few others, because I can't afford $70 mythic kill all cards

I know its a strange style of play, but I think if I do it right, the results could be impressive.


text:
MTG Android App for Cataloging
I recently began using tappedout.net to keep track of my cards and I couldn't help but wonder if there was an Android app that fulfilled the same purpose. Might you assist me in my search?

Despite the fact product recommendations are ordinarily not facilitated here, I'm keen on keeping this one around: MTG card cataloguing is a critical issue for MTG users that often has no good answer, and the actual set of products available is extremely small.

@doppelgreener While this is an important issue, it's not within a scope of our format, as far as I know.

Yes, there is. I was looking into how I could catalogue my own collection at a decent pace, and manually typing in card names just wasn't going to cut it. I have a Windows + Android device, so I went searching too.
Since you're using TappedOut, it would be remiss of me to not mention that TappedOut has its own Android app: the TappedOut MTG Companion which includes a "visual collection updater": in theory, it lets you lay out your cards nice and neatly, photograph several of them at once, then add them to a collection. I say "in theory" because I've not yet been able to use it successfully — I've just gotten an error when I try.
The app I went with to scan my own collection was Delver Lens. Out of every Android app, it is the only one that scans cards and lets me output the list to TappedOut. (In fact, it's even got a custom export format prepared just for TappedOut!) It does one-by-one card scanning, and it's a little finnicky but easy enough to get the hang of. Overall I was able to catalogue ~140 cards in a few minutes using this, then export them to my TappedOut inventory just fine.
All Windows and other Android applications I'd found didn't give me an exportable list, or only existed to check market prices. Accordingly, I have zero other apps to mention that perform this purpose.

I have no affiliation with any of the products I've mentioned beyond being a ordinary user, and I do not gain anything from recommending them.


text:
What does "Wakanda" actually do?
Wakanda, from the Marvel Munchkin DC expansion pack Mystic Mayhem, states that no monster can enter combat (via wandering monster, ect.). What exactly does this mean?
Can you use a replicate card, which states another monster appears, to add another monster to combat? Does it just mean you cannot play an actual monster card?

The full text from the card would make it easier to answer... I assume that Wakanda is a monster card, but answering based on guesswork often doesn't turn out well.

As Replicate is just the Marvel Munchkin version of the Mate card, if you take a look at the FAQ (search for 'is Mate an enhancement card') you'll see that it works like a Wandering Monster card and adds an additional monster.
This means that the Wakanda dungeon prevents players from playing either a  Wandering Monster or Replicate (or Mate if you're playing with non-marvel as well).


text:
Is the Chancellor + Harbinger combo a viable Dominion strategy?
From what I can see, the Chancellor (base set; allows you to immediately move your deck into your discard pile) coupled with an extra action and the Harbinger (Dominion Update Pack; allows you to take any card from the discard pile and put it into your hand) could make a pretty fantastic combo, giving you any card from your deck (as well as giving any reason to use the Chancellor). Is this a viable strategy?

Hi, and welcome to the site. Please check out our [tour] to see how we work. Your question is missing a question, other than a discussion prompt of "has anyone tried this", but we don't do discussion here since there are forums for that (see our [help/dont-ask]). What problem do you need solved exactly?

I apologize. I' a noob. I'm looking for a combo that would work with the Harbinger in Dominion. It seems that my two ideas are pretty poor.

This doesn't work as you are thinking:

Harbinger has you draw a card before you look through your discard pile. This means that when you play Harbinger, the first thing you do is draw a card, which requires you shuffle your discard pile and make a new draw deck. So having played Chancellor first actually makes Harbinger worthless!
Harbinger doesn't put the card into your hand like you said, it puts it on top of your deck.
Because Chancellor is a terminal action, and would need to be played before Harbinger, this requires that you first play a Village or another action that gives +2 Actions.
Even if it did work as you were thinking; the end result would be the 1 best card in your deck gets to get played sooner in the shuffle rather than later; or maybe played multiple times within 1 shuffle. This same thing is accomplished with both Scheme and Scavenger by themselves; instead of requiring a multiple card combo.
A minor point, but as Chancellor was removed from the second edition of Dominion, which is where Harbinger comes from; these 2 cards don't both exist in the same "Dominion world". Of course in casual play they are still both available; but it's likely that online play and tournaments won't have them both.

Spot-on. Playing Harbinger immediately after Chancellor will result immediately in a reshuffle; thus the Harbinger devolves into a mere cantip.

That's right... I've been using the Sentry to move a card into the discard pile, then get it back with a Harbinger. I was trying to think of a way to have more control or access to what cards are in the discard pile to make the Harbinger more powerful. Any thoughts?

Sentry doesn't make much sense as a combo either... if you don't discard the card with Sentry, it would just be on top of your deck anyway. So discarding it, then putting it on top of your deck with Harbinger, doesn't add any value.

Village + Scavenger + Harbinger works, since Scavenger has you put a card back on your deck, but you still need to have a card worth scrounging through your discard pile for.

@Deo Chancellor puts your entire deck in the discard pile. When you play Harbinger, you resolve the card top to bottom. That means, first you draw one card and then you resolve the ability. Since your whole deck is now in the discard pile and there is nothing to draw, you have to reshuffle. Therefore, the discard pile will be empty and Harbinger won't do anything.

@Adama. Right. I somehow missed "+1 card" part.

The Chancellor + Harbinger combo is useless because of the + 1 card effect of the Harbinger, but if you're looking for a very similar effect, try using the Scavenger from the Dark Ages expansion. With it "you may put your deck into the discard pile. Look through your discard pile and put one card from it on top of your deck." - Also + 2 money.


text:
Sorceries in Combat phase
Can I cast sorceries in combat phase, or only instants? For example, could I cast Press into service after blockers are declared to take control of a declared blocker?

Although you may only cast sorceries on your turn during a main phase when the stack is empty, there are ways to circumvent that: Quicken

You may only cast sorceries when it is your turn, during one of your main phases, while the stack is empty. So no you cannot cast them during combat.

307.1. A player who has priority may cast a sorcery card from his or her hand during a main phase of his or her turn when the stack is empty. Casting a sorcery as a spell uses the stack.

Sorceries can't be cast during combat.

307.1. A player who has priority may cast a sorcery card from his or her hand during a main phase of his or her turn when the stack is empty. Casting a sorcery as a spell uses the stack. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”)


text:
Can you have more than one god card in a deck?
I was wondering if you can have more than one god card in your deck. Can I? Can they be different colors?

Could you clarify why you might think you couldn't? It would help if we could address that.

"God" is a creature type just like any other, e.g. "Elf". No rule limits the amount of creatures of the same type you can have in your deck, and no rule limits you to only one color god.
The only limit regarding "N cards of a certain quality" care about the card name, where most formats limit you to 4 cards of the same name, unless they're restricted/banned. None of the cards with the creature type "God" are, though.
All Gods are also (currently, not generally) legendary creatures, which means you may only control one god of each name on the battlefield at the same time (e.g. you can control an Erebos and a Nylea, but not two Ereboses). That's because of the legendary rule, which means if you ever control two Legendary cards with the same name at the same time, you have to put all but one of them into your graveyard. This is what I suppose makes you ask this question.


text:
Does Erebos lose indestructible when he becomes a creature?
Erebos, God of the Dead is indestructible. Someone tould me that if i have more than five for my devotion that the indestructible comes off. Is that true?

Erebos remains indestructible, even as a creature.  Indestructible can apply to any permanents.


text:
Does a melded creature remain melded when it leaves the battlefield?
If a melded creature like Brisela, Voice of Nightmares dies, does it go to the graveyard as a single, melded creature, or does it split apart?
Can the whole creature be brought back to the battlefield (or to my hand), or just 1 of the 2 parts?
Do both halves of Brisela have to be regenerated separately?

"Resurrected" in what sense? Are you talking about regenerating the creature (while it's still on the battlefield), or effects that bring it from the graveyard to the battlefield, or something else?

Just to be clear, there's no mechanic called "resurrecting" -- but it is a slang term for a batch of effects that effectively put creatures from the graveyard on the battlefield. Is that what you mean?

Yes, sorry. Sorta new to the game. Regeneration.  From graveyard to battle field, first of all- secondly from graveyard to hand. Just need to know whether or not those 2 parts of the oversize card creature will have to be regenerated seperately, or if they were sent to the graveyard as a single creature, if that means they can be brought back as the same creature.

A Melded Creature can only be a creature (and thus a Melded Creature) when it is on the battlefield. Anywhere else (graveyard, exile, hand, etc.) they are just separate creature cards.

Regeneration is expressly not an effect that returns anything from the graveyard to the battlefield. Regeneration in fact prevents it from going to the graveyard in the first place. See the description of it on Ancient Silverback for example. So do you mean regeneration, or returning from graveyard to hand/battlefield?

I think the section in the Eldritch Moon release notes on meld might help you out a lot, whatever specific questions you may have.

@KevinDublanko Welcome to the site! The best way to respond to requests for clarification is to edit your post. I went ahead and edited yours to include the information you provided in the comments. In your case this means that the post now contains two unrelated questions: one about melded creatures dying, and another one about regenerating a melded creature. In general, you want to keep your questions separate, but in this case I think it's okay because you are not aware that your questions are unrelated.

My understanding of the comment was that the OP was accidentally using "regeneration" to refer to returning from graveyard to battlefield or hand, not realizing it was actually a term with specific meaning.

@Jefromi that might be the case; it's probably best handling both of them I guess

From the Eldritch Moon release notes:

While a meld card is anywhere other than the battlefield ... it has only the characteristics of its front face.

So once a melded creature is in the graveyard, the two parts have their front-face identities only and do not "remember" that they had been melded. Anything trying to move the cards back to hand or battlefield will have to interact with them separately.
However, a creature that is rescued from death with regeneration never actually leaves the battlefield at all, so regeneration works just fine on a melded creature. Regeneration does not mean to return the creature from the graveyard to the battlefield - rather it (roughly) means "the next time this creature would die, instead it doesn't."
Here's part of the Comprehensive Rules on regenerate:

701.12a If the effect of a resolving spell or ability regenerates a permanent, it creates a replacement
  effect that protects the permanent the next time it would be destroyed this turn. In this case,
  “Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn,
  instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature,
  remove it from combat.”

While the melded creature is on the battlefield it counts as just one creature, so a single regeneration effect can save it (you don't have to regenerate both halves).


text:
What is the colored part of a mana cost called?
Suppose I wanted to author a homebrew spell that would require paying just the colored portion of another card's mana cost as an additional cost. Is there a "proper" way to format that with the rules as written?
For example, imagine a creature with the following ability:

{T}, Reveal a creature card from your hand and pay the colored part of its mana cost: Put the revealed card into play under your control.

Using this ability should give me a Terastodon for {G}{G}, or a Blightsteel Colossus for free.
I know there are cards that refer to the number of colored mana symbols of permanents (devotion), but I don't know any that refer to them while they are cards or spells.

For an effect like this, I would suggest borrowing from Brain in a Jar's template for something like "{Cost}: You may cast a creature card from your hand for the colored part of its mana cost". It avoids some weirdness with the fact that players can respond between activation and response, and that the card wouldn't stay revealed during that interval.

Should it give you Kozilek, the Great Distortion for {C}{C} or free? (Do you mean "colored" or "non-generic"?)

Might want to bear in mind there are cards with no mana cost like Ancestral Vision (which is meant to be cast with its Suspend ability instead); different wordings will either let you cast it straight away for free or prohibit casting them at all.

The rules don't directly define a term for this part of the cost, but they do use a relevant term in one of the rules describing cost reductions, 117.7a:

Effects that reduce a cost by an amount of generic mana affect only the generic mana component of that cost. They can’t affect the colored or colorless mana components of that cost.

So, "colored mana component of the cost" is a reasonable term to use for the colored part of the mana cost.
You could also get a functionally equivalent effect by borrowing the wording of the Emerge ability:

{T}, Reveal a creature card from your hand and pay its mana cost reduced by its converted mana cost: ...

The rules for cost reductions (117.7) also say "generic mana component," "colored mana component," and "colorless mana component."

"mana cost reduced by its converted mana cost" is not functionally identical, as it will reduce increases in costs imposed by other sources, which isn't intended the way I read the original question.

The way it's written in the question and in my suggestion, cost increases are never applied in the first place. So it doesn't matter that they're reduced.

We can accomplish your goal without using any unusual terminology:

{T}, Reveal a creature card from your hand and pay its mana cost reduced by {X}: Put the revealed card into play under your control.

How does this work?
When you begin to activate the ability, you reveal a creature card and you also choose a value for {X}.

107.3a If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability. [...]

Then, you pay the cost of creature card reduced by the value chosen for {X}. This only affects the generic part of the cost, and not the colored part.

117.7a Effects that reduce a cost by an amount of generic mana affect only the generic mana component of that cost. They can’t affect the colored or colorless mana components of that cost.

You are left paying the non-generic part of the cost. This will usually* be the colored part of the cost. Also, you could technically choose a small enough value for X that you end up paying part of the generic cost.
*A small handful of cards have actual colorless mana in the cost. The colorless part of the cost would not be reduced.

@doppelgreener This wording doesn't really help {X} cost spells since the {X} in the cost of the ability and the {X} in the cost of the spell are unrelated to each other. So if you pick 100 as X for your 0/0 hydra that costs {X}{G} it will reduce the cost to {G} but it will still die immediately on entering the battlefield

@Rainbolt Do you mean the "reduced by {X}" to indicate it should be an actual {X} value (which is effectively the same as just casting the spell in the first place), or do you mean that an author should replace that "reduced by {X}" with something like "reduced by {8}"?

@diego My mistake, misread the effect.

@doppelgreener By the time you get to the point where you pay costs, you must have already chosen a value for {X}. So at that point, {X} is just whatever you chose. If you chose {X} = 8, then you pay the mana cost of the creature card reduced by {8}.

The term would be 'colored mana cost'
Although there is no specific definition of such a term because no card uses it, rule 601.2b mentions the term "colored mana cost" in the context of Phyrexian mana symbols:

601.2b [..] If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes Phyrexian mana symbols, the player announces whether he or she intends to pay 2 life or the corresponding colored mana cost for each of those symbols. [..]

The wording on your card could be:

{T}: You may pay the colored mana cost of a creature card in your hand. If you do, put that card onto the battlefield.

Revealing the card would be omitted as a step because you would put the card onto the battlefield anyway, where everyone can see it and check that the appropriate amount of mana has been paid.

That quotation shows that the "colored mana cost" of a symbol is the mana value of that particular symbol, but it seems like a bit of a leap to conclude that the "colored mana cost" of an entire cost would be only part of that cost.


text:
Why does this ability have its mana cost written twice?
Korozda Monitor reads:

Scavenge {5}{G}{G} ({5}{G}{G}, Exile this card from your graveyard: Put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to this card's power on target creature. Scavenge only as a sorcery.)

I would like to know why the 5(G)(G) is listed twice, outside of the parentheses and inside. I've seen this format on other cards too.

It's written like that because that's what the ability means; "Scavenge [cost]" means "[Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to this card's power on target creature. Scavenge only as a sorcery.". The italic text in parentheses is called reminder text, and it's there in this case to tell you what scavenge does.

Note that reminder text is not the actual definition of the term; that's in the comprehensive rules. In this case they're essentially the same, though, just a more explicit, correct phrasing in the full rules.

Ahhh there we go! Very well explained, thank you. The redundancy was confusing, but this makes perfect sense.

@Jefromi I'll work on my formatting, sorry!

"Scavenge {5}{G}{G}" is a keyword ability. A keyword ability is a shortcut that represents one or more other abilities. The parenthesized, italicized text is a reminder of the gist of the ability for which the keyword stands.
Specifically, the keyword ability "Scavenge [cost]" means "[Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to this card's power on target creature. Scavenge only as a sorcery.".


text:
Are manaburn and damage-on-the-stack used in Pre-Modern?
There is a format called Premodern which uses sets from 4th Edition until Scourge. Modern Magic lacks such rules as mana burn and combat damage on the stack. What Magic rules flavour should I be using when playing Premodern?

Gah! Now I feel old! I last played... sometime before graduating the university, which was in 2007. I never even noticed that manaburn isn't a thing anymore... and hasn't been for over 10 years!

The site you link to suggests the use of contemporary magic rules, and also gives a list of reasons why:

The contemporary rules are better

It’s confusing to use different rules in different formats

Contemporary rules enables digital and sanctioned play

There is no natural set of old rules

Using a mix of contemporary and old rules sets is inelegant

There have been so many changes to the rules that they are more of a continuum than a set of clearly defined points, and the choice of which rules to include is essentially arbitrary.
The most clearly recognizable landmark change was the 6th edition overhaul that introduced the stack among many other changes. Before then, the game was sufficiently different as to be a different game, which means you should expect a significant learning curve if you want to play faithfully by the older rules, and you can't expect too much outside support in case rules questions do arise.


text:
Why can Faceless Haven and other changelings attack if they're Walls?
Faceless Haven has "all creature types" after paying ❄❄❄. So it is also a "Wall". Walls can't attack. So, why can Faceless Haven and all Shapshifters from Kaldheim attack at all?

Shapeshifter is a creature type like every other. The "changeling"-keyword gives a creature all creature types. A shapeshifter w/o abilities wouldn't be a wall. Just tiny nitpicking =)

@Erik they said "shapeshifters from Kaldheim", all of which have changeling. And because of the way layers work, even if you removed the changeling ability they would still have all creature types.

Walls not being able to attack was an old, original rule. In Champions of Kamigawa, the Wall type was decoupled from gameplay into the "Defender" keyword. Wizard's rule change
All old walls were errata'd to have Defender, and all new "natural" walls are printed with Defender.

This was an old rule that the wall creature type couldn't attack. It was changed in the major CR update in 2004. Walls can now attack and a new keyword ability, defender, was created and added to existing walls as errata. This opened up the ability to create the changeling keyword a few years later in the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block. (Faceless Haven honestly should have had changeling rather than the more complicated granting text)
Now they even include a special entry in the Glossary of the Comprehensive rules to cover this change:

Wall: A creature type with no particular rules meaning. Older cards with the Wall creature type but without defender had an unwritten ability that precluded them from attacking. Those cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to have defender. Some older cards that referenced the Wall creature type have also received errata. See Defender.

I think this answer is mostly the same as JonTheMon's. By I will mark as "accepted" theirs because it was earlier. Thanks for the help anyway.

@DenisGladkiy yeah they're similar, I wanted to reference the CR glossary and link in defender in addition to just talking about the kamigawa era rules updates

RE: using "changeling" rather than ability text: according to the fan wiki, adding a (keyword) ability such as changeling would happen after changing types, so using "with changeling" wouldn't actually give the Faceless Haven all types (the only type-changing affect in the ability text would be "becomes a creature"). (In the rules, section 613 states adding types is layer 4, and adding abilities is layer 6.) Note other cards use "gains all creature types" rather than "gains changeling".

@outis that's true, though I said I think it should have changeling, not gain changeling. I can see the concern both ways, with having a non-creature with creature types (not that it hasn't happened before) though it might have needed the Tribal type too then (as much as MaRo hates the type).


text:
Can I reap (or do something other than "fight") with the Gauntlet of Command?
Consider the situation: I have a single creature and my opponent does not have any. I want to use the Gauntlet of Command on my creature: "Ready and fight with a friendly creature". But there is nothing to fight with. So can I ready my creature and reap (or do some other action) with it?

Yes, you can reap with a creature after readying it with Gauntlet of Command if there are no enemy creatures available to fight with.
Keyforge has a general rule to "Resolve As Much As You Can". So in this case, activating Gauntlet of Command tries to:

Ready the chosen creature (If the creature is already ready, this fails to happen but the ability still continues resolving),
then forces the chosen creature to fight (If there are no targets available, the fight fails and the creature remains in a Ready state).

You may then do whatever you can normally do with a Ready creature.

You're right, but maybe important to note that if the creature is not from your chosen house, you can't use it. For example: if you chose Brobnar you could use the Gauntlet on a Logos creature to ready it and fight with it when there is a target, but if there is no target, the Logos creature is ready, but can't reap or use its action.

I considered mentioning it, but decided to just go for the blanket statement in the last paragraph. That should also cover not just reaping, but also any special creature actions available or board-wide effects etc...


text:
Triggers with two mutually exclusive actions
Say I have a creature with two "On destroyed" triggers that appear to have mutually exclusive instructions: "archive that card" and "put that card on the top of your deck". Which one will be resolved on this creature's destruction?

Active Player (AP) chooses.
Whenever there are multiple effects to resolve, the AP (whose turn it is at the moment; this may or may not be the owner of the card/effect) chooses the order to resolve the effects.
In the example scenario, whichever effect the AP chooses to resolve first will be the final result. I.e. AP chooses to resolve "Destroyed: Archive" first > the card is now archived > "Destroyed: Place on top of deck" never happens because the card is no longer on the field.
The above actually means that if a card has the lines "Destroyed: Archive" & "Destroyed: Steal 1 Amber", AP can actually decide if the steal happens depending on whether they resolve Archive first or second.

Are you able to give a link to the official rules where this is stated?

@PhilipKendall I'll try to scrounge something up later. I just checked through the v13 rulebook and the interaction in the final paragraph isn't stated anywhere. This is what I remember from hours of scouring various forums previously, so I'll need to do the research again.

Under the "Ability" glossary in the rulebook states "...Abilities on a creature, artifact, or upgrade are only active (and can only be triggered) while that card is in play, unless the ability explicitly references being used from an out-of-play area.", but v13 adds "Once an ability on a card has been triggered, that ability will finish resolving even if the card leaves play." But nowhere in the rulebook does it state whether abilities trigger simultaneously, and then resolve in order of choosing OR if abilities trigger and resolve individually before the next.

This community wiki page corroborates the example I gave above, although I'm not sure how official this source is, or if it is up to date with any rule changes.

This reddit comment had the same confusion I'm having, but the general community consensus is that abilities don't trigger&resolve if the card has left play.

I think your answer is probably right (and I've upvoted it); it is just slightly surprising to me as an MtG player where there are literally Comprehensive Rules that the same doesn't exist for Keyforge. Maybe things will get better now they're rebooting the game.

Yeah, the rules in Keyforge definitely leaves a lot to be desired once the interactions get a bit more complicated.


text:
Should I get $200 for passing "Go" if I then get a card that says "don't collect $200"?
Take this scenario: Someone rolled the dice and landed on Community Chest, passing "Go" in the process. They picked up the card and it read 'Go to jail. Don't collect $200'.
They argued that they should still receive $200 because they already passed "Go".

I believe the wording on the card is more precise. "Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200." This is talking specifically about the movement from the space where they are now to the "Jail" space. I.e. you do not move around the board to reach the Jail, you are transported directly to it. Example card

italian version of Monopoly does not have this issue "Go Immeditaly to the jail, you do not pass GO in doing this". That means that if you draw the card after passing GO, you take $200 because you already drawn the card.

Yes, they would still gain $200 from passing GO then landing on a square that makes them draw a card like this.
You collect $200 immediately when you land on or pass GO, then the player would continue their move and land on Chance/Community Chest, then draw that card.
The text on the card specifies that you cannot collect $200 if you pass GO (again) in the process of moving around the board from a Chance/Community Chest square to the Jail square.

Hmm. Is a roll like this possible? Assuming you were on Boardwalk (as close to GO as you could possibly start your turn), you would need to roll an 18 to land on the first Community Chest that is beyond Jail.

@nasukkin: When you said that "you would need to roll an 18", did you typo that and actually mean 3? https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81oC5pYhh2L.SX425.jpg

@Ellesedil No, because if you rolled a three and interpreted the subsequent Go-To-Jail movement as actually advancing across the board, you would reach Jail before you passed GO (again).

Ah, I see what you were trying to say now.

@nasukkin  but community chest is space 2 assuming GO is space 0 so yes the roll is possible.  I'm not sure where 18 is coming from.  Maybe the 2nd one?

@xQbert You would have to start on the Boardwalk side of the board, pass Go, pass Jail, and then land on the Chance / Community Chest in order for you to possibly pass Go a second time on your way to jail. So yes, the one immediately past Go doesn't work for this scenario.

@xQbert GalacticCowboy gets it :)

@GalacticCowboy I see.  I thought we were talking about the $200 from passing go on the 1st pass which you obviously keep as the pay action occurs before you reach Community Chest.  I quite agree it would be impossible on community chest or chance to pass go twice on 1 roll (not turn)

@nasukkin You misunderstood the question. The question is asking whether you collect $200 for passing Go before drawing the card. Put another way, does the card's restriction from collecting $200 apply to the whole turn or only the act of moving to Jail? This answer firmly indicates the latter, as does the card itself.

Yes, the player collects $200.
To understand this, let's step through each action the player takes.

First, the player passes GO during normal movement of his/her token. The GO square reads:

Collect $200.00 salary as you pass GO

Read plainly, this means the player collects the $200 the moment the player's token reaches GO while moving around the board. See: If you pass GO, do you collect 200 at the end of the turn or as you pass GO?
The official rules support this:

"GO"… Each time a player’s token lands on or passes over GO, whether by throwing the dice or drawing a card, the Banker pays him/her a $200 salary.

The card subsequently drawn from Community Chest reads:

GO TO JAIL
Go Directly to Jail
DO NOT PASS GO
  DO NOT COLLECT $200

The "do not pass GO, do not collect $200" is simply to distingish it from cards that state "Advance to <location>", which usually clarify that "if you pass GO, collect $200". In the case of the "Go to Jail" card, the player is sent straight to Jail without moving around the board (and potentially passing GO).
The "collect $200" effect for passing GO has already resolved, and the text of the card only refers to the direct movement to Jail and not anything that happened before the card was drawn. As such, the player does not forfeit the $200 already collected.

Technically, the player should have collected $200 before even landing on Community Chest. The text on the space says that you collect the money "as you pass Go", so the money goes to players passing Go as soon as they reach the space. If we really want to get pedantic, they shouldn't even continue moving (if the die roll indicates that they should move further) until they have the money.
In practice, it's unlikely that anyone actually picks up the money at the moment they land on the space, but the fact that they should collect it then still matters. They passed Go before the card came up, so they still get the money, because at the time they should have gotten it, there was no reason for them not to get it. The "Do not collect $200" on the card only matters if the character would pass Go after picking up the card, but before landing in Jail.


text:
Why didn't Crawling Barrens grow larger when mutated with my Gemrazer?
My turn on M:tG Arena. I've got my Crawling Barrens as a 12/12 creature due to twelve 1/1 counters. Then I mutated a Gemrazer over it (aka "above"). The Crawling Barrens stayed 12/12. After my turn end, the Crawling Barrens+Gemrazer stayed on the table as a creature but became 16/16.
Why this happened? Why mutated Crawling Barrens did not become 16/16 immediately after mutation?
Text of relevant cards:

Gemrazer: Mutate 1GG (If you cast this spell for its mutate cost, put
it over or under target non-Human creature you own. They mutate into
the creature on top plus all abilities from under it.). Reach.
Trample. Whenever this creature mutates, destroy target artifact or
enchantment an opponent controls.

Crawling Barrens: 4: Put two +1/+1 counters on Crawling Barrens. Then
you may have it become a 0/0 Elemental creature until end of turn.
It's still a land.

Mutation isn't a power/toughness setting effect
A creature's power and toughness are governed by the layer system, which is fairly complicated but usually fairly intuitive. This happens to be one of the few times when it isn't.
Crawling Barrens has a power/toughness setting effect.  That comes in at layer 7b.  When multiple power/toughness setting effects apply to the same creature then they are applied in timestamp order.  That means that the last one played will set the power.
But Gemrazer does not have a power/toughness setting effect.  Mutate comes in at Layer 1, effects that modify copiable values.  And that's at the bottom of the layers system, and is overwritten by the Barren's p/t setting effect, even though it was played later.  So Barrens/Gemrazer stays as a 12/12 until the p/t setting effect wears off at end of turn.
(Incidentally, the +1/+1 counters are applied in layer 7c)
Relevant Rules:

613. Interaction of Continuous Effects
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:

613.1a Layer 1: Rules and effects that modify copiable values are applied.
613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.
613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”
613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.

613.2. Within layer 1, apply effects in a series of sublayers in the order described below. Within each sublayer, apply effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.7). Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a sublayer. (See rule 613.8.)
613.2a Layer 1a: Copiable effects are applied. This includes copy effects (see rule 706, “Copying Objects”) and changes to an object’s base characteristics determined by merging an object with a permanent (see rule 721, “Merging with Permanents”). “As . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities generate copiable effects if they set power and toughness, even if they also define other characteristics.
...
613.4. Within layer 7, apply effects in a series of sublayers in the order described below. Within each sublayer, apply effects in timestamp order. (See rule 613.7.) Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a sublayer. (See rule 613.8.)

613.4a Layer 7a: Effects from characteristic-defining abilities that define power and/or toughness are applied. See rule 604.3.
613.4b 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.
613.4c Layer 7c: Effects and counters that modify power and/or toughness (but don’t set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value) are applied.
613.4d Layer 7d: Effects that switch a creature’s power and toughness are applied. Such effects take the value of power and apply it to the creature’s toughness, and take the value of toughness and apply it to the creature’s power.

I can confirm this.  I set up this scenario in Arena, and @ArcanistLupus answered while I was setting it up.  If after you have your 16/16 Mutated Gemrazer/Barrens, you activate the Barrens ability again, it changes to a 14/14 until end of turn, at which point, it becomes an 18/18.

How is a question there without an answer for 2 full hours, and then 3 minutes before I finish typing my answer, you get to it? Yours is more comprehensive anyway.

"A creature's power and toughness (as well as any other characteristics of any permanents) are governed by the layer system"

@GendoIkari Unfortunately, upvotes are applied in timestamp order. Your answer is more concise and arguably makes the main issue (that there is a p/t setting effect) more prominent, though.

@John that actually shouldn't always happen, because the Barrens says you "may" have it become a 0/0 creature, you should be able to leave it the base gemrazer and just add the counters, if it forces the mutated land down to 0/0 plus counters that is a bug in the game.

This is because until the end of your turn, the effect “become a 0/0 Elemental creature until end of turn” still applies to the newly mutated creature. Even though the new creature has a base power and toughness of 4/4, that is being overridden by that effect.
At the end of turn, it reverts to a 4/4 creature with 12 +1/+1 counters.


text:
Why would one want more than 40 cards in their deck?

Assemble your favorite cards into a Deck that follows these rules:

The Deck must be 40 to 60 cards.
You can only have up to 3 copies of the same card in your Deck,
  Extra Deck and Side Deck combined.

Also, some cards are...

Yugioh Rulebook, Pg2 , emphasis mine.
In YGO, I (and most people) normally have 40 cards in their decks. This is because I'd have more chances of drawing the card they want on their next turn. Therefore, why would I want any more?

Is there a reason you mention 60 specifically, instead of just "more than 40"? Is that related to the Yu-Gi-Oh rules?

Related (though I would expect completely different answers): https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/179/why-would-you-want-to-play-with-a-deck-bigger-than-60-cards-in-mtg

@GendoIkari , definitely not a duplicate, and also, good point. Lemme change that now

@GendoIkari If I am not mistaken YGH has a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 60 deck size wise, so they mention the upper limit.

@Andrew, we know that. The question is why.

@VortexYT You know that, Gendo might not, since he asked why you were talking about 60 in the question title and 40 in the body. Particularly when he then asked if it was "related to the YGH rules"

I've updated the title to ask "more than 40" since that appears to be correctively descriptive of the question body.

@Andrew , why YGH and also, if he doesn't know, he should research it. Additionally, he shouldn't give advice on a topic he is not confidnt with anyway. as such, he was only asking

@VortexYT An accident there, YGO I should have said, and yes he was asking, and I was answering his question that you then questioned me answering.

@Andrew I apologise, because you was pinging Gendo, but I received a notification. Sorry if I seemed well... Accusatory

Sounds like it's all cleared up... but yes; Andrew answered the question that I was asking; I didn't know if Yu-Gi-Oh had an maximum card limit. But either way, it does make sense to ask about the more broad "more than 40" than just 60 specifically.

@VortexYT Yes The poster gets notice on every comment on their post even though this was directed at someone else.

@GendoIkari it becomes kind of a why bother with a max rule when no one plays more than 40, but i understand your point

@GendoIkari Yu-Gi-Oh! originally had an unlimited deck size (see Why did Yu-Gi-Oh! change from an unlimited deck size to a 60 card maximum deck size?). The story goes that somebody brought a deck to a tournament with around 2000 cards and as many cards as possible that caused reshuffling. Since they weren't doing anything illegal, Konami instituted a maximum deck size to prevent repeats of this.

@Thunderforge , 2222 I believe? It's pathetic tho

Decks relying on "That Grass Looks Greener" want much more than 40 cards
One deck archetype that wants to have more than 40 cards are "lawnmower" decks, named after the key card That Grass Looks Greener.

If you have more cards in your Deck than your opponent does: Send cards from the top of your Deck to the Graveyard so you have the same number of cards in the Deck as your opponent.

So if you have a 60 card deck and you play against an opponent that has a 40 card deck, you can expect to send around 20 cards to the graveyard. If your deck relies on archetypes that benefit from having cards in your graveyard (e.g. Zombie, Lightsworn, Infernoid), then that can put you at a huge advantage.
According to this Reddit post, decks based around "That Grass Looks Greener" (and decks designed to counter it by having 60 cards) were popular from February to May 2017 to the point where a number of top-level decks were 60 cards. Konami made the card Limited in the TCG to discourage this (although it's still Unlimited in the OCG). However, a lot of people seem to view it as a fad deck that would have lost its appeal over time even without a ban.

The only thing I can think of potentially wanting more cards, off the top of my head, is lightsworn. Since that archetype is a self mill, more cards in deck lessens the chance of decking yourself out. I don't think this is a really good reason personally, the idea of the deck is high speed for the high potential cost, and more cards will slow it down, but it is the only thing I can think of that would make you want such a big deck.

Some people run more than 40 simply for fun. Casual players may not mind more cards in their decks or sometimes because it's more difficult to play with more cards, some players actually do it for the challege.

I think the other answer have valid points; I would like to condense those with my point of view.

Therefore, why would I want any more?

If you are playing competitively, you don't. That is, if you are planning to participate on tournaments or other form of official competition having 40 cards is the best you can have. This is because, as you already noticed, you have higher chances of pulling out the cards you need.
We can see that 1/40 = 0.025, while 1/60 = 0.01666, so definitely you have better chances if you keep your deck as lean as possible. And beyond the fact that you have higher chances of pulling any card, you also have higher chances of pulling the card you actually need the moment you need it (like that Mystical Space Typhoon to destroy that nasty Vanity's Emptiness). Having more than 40 cards only reduces the chances of pulling the one needed, and can make your deck run much slower... well, unless you believe in the Heart of Cards like the Pharaoh did, lol.
Evidence that back this up is the fact that most competitive decks focus on a 40-card build (and if they could use less I am sure they would). It is true that some competitive decks have used more cards; there are cases where some decks ran on a aprox. 42-card build.
There was even one case of a Mermail build that had 53 cards (and even won a YCS), and it worked mainly because of the hability to search themselves that Mermail decks have (mostly because Atlantean Dragoons). But still, this was in 2013 where the rulings and format was way different (slower), and even though it won a YCS I think it was not a brilliant idea to include 53 cards in it (I mean, it's not like we are playing Commander in MTG).

So, it seems clear that it is better to have 40 cards in your deck whenever possible. I would like to complement this with another trend that happened in YGO a while ago.
Meet Upstart Goblin:

Draw 1 card, then your opponent gains 1000 Life Points.

I am sure we have all seen this card at some point, and wondered "Whoa, why would I give my Opponent 1000 LP just for one card"... Well we think this now because LP have become more than just a metric in the game, and have become a resource (several cards require LP as cost for activation, like Soul Charge, and others).
So with this in mind 1000 LP for one card means 1000 extra LP your opponent can spend for an extra monster with Soul Charge... not so great bargain now isn't it?
However, in the past, when LP were not as resourceful as they are now, one could see the benefit on giving "just" 1000 LP to your opponent for a card that could well make him lose more than 1000 LP. This is sometimes referred as the Upstart Theory.
This goes beyond the fact that LP's were not as useful as they are now. If we do our math again, if we include 3 copies of Upstart Goblin we are technically making our deck a 37-card build. Again, 1/37 = 0.027027 which gives us greater chances than before of pulling the card we seek. In competitive games, a simple 0.002 difference can be the decisive factor between winning and losing.
We can see the tactical power Upstart Goblin can have in a deck. That was one of the main reasons why the card got limited to 1 copy. If we go a bit further, we can understand also why cards like Pot of Greed and Graceful Charity are forbidden, as they drastically changed the probability ratios of deck builds.

tl;dr: You don't want more than 40 cards in your deck if you plan to play competitively. If it were possible to have less than 40 cards it would be even more recommended.
Now, if you don't mind about competitive play, feel free to include as many cards as you want up to 60, but expect a slower gameplay and more dead-draws.

38 card; those three copies simply condense into 1, they don't just vanish. Also, it is again that you have a brilliant answer, but the only problem is, you've gone into parts which doesn't answer my question. Note the "So, it seems clear that it is better to have 4..." part

@VortexYT No he's right at 37, the cards have a 0 card count value to the deck since they immediately replace themselves. Even if you draw all three in a row turn draws first, first draws the second, second draws the third, third draws a real card, meaning 4 cards were removed from the deck.

@Andrew that would be 36?

And also, the point is having three copies of a card in the deck boosts chances of drawing it. Very useful in FTKs

@VortexYT The three copies of upstart are not counted, the card that replaces the upstarts are. in the example it's upstart, upstart, upstart, card, your draw for turn is effectively the last card, with the three upstarts being non cards as far as deck size is concerned.

Graceful Charity has the added factor that it also performs graveyard setup, which can for some decks be more efficient than keeping cards in hand.  In some decks, this can effectively mean that a single copy gives a bonus -1 or -2 to effective deck size, even before looking at the effects of the card itself on effective size. ;P

@JustinTime is Graceful Charity non-forbidden now days? whoa, I recall it was banned for good

Pretty sure it's still banned, I'm just looking at the effects it could have on effective deck size because you mentioned the card. ;P

Usually you want to play 40 cards, but there are exceptions where playing more than 40 can actually boost how consistent and powerful your deck is
Contrary to popular theory, there are cases where it makes sense to run more than 40 cards in your deck in competitive Yu-Gi-Oh, even outside of decks utilizing That Grass Looks Greener, as a previous answer brought up. Perhaps the best example in recent memory is Orcust utilizing the card Knightmare Mermaid (which is now banned).
Knightmare Mermaid can be made using Knightmare Pheonix (as well as other "Knightmare" monster), which is a Link monster that requires any two monsters with different names to summon. The notorious "Full Orcust combo" ended on vicious boards that could disrupt your opponent, but also beat them in the long game by recurring it's own resources. Orcust was incredibly successful in 2019, achieving solid tier 1 status in multiple formats of tournament play.
Getting back to the question, why play more than 40 cards? Well, in something like Orcust with Knightmare Mermaid, you can perform your entire combo with any 2 monsters on field. With such a generic starting card that you don't have to draw, you can afford to flood your deck with staple cards to combat other good decks and cards that special summon themselves to the field to perform and extend the combo.
Having more than 40 cards reduces the chance you draw crucial cards you need in deck to do your combo, like Orcust Knightmare, which usually should be special summoned from deck by Knightmare Mermaid. Drawing it is no good and might stop your combo, so playing 50 or more cards was very common for this strategy at different points. This is especially true if you played other cards that "you don't want to draw", like certain "Phantom Knights" and "Phantom Knights" support cards, which were used in Orcust and were search targets for The Phantom Knights of Rusty Bardiche (also now banned).
Here is a sample Orcust decklist from May of 2019 that finished 1st at the National Championship in Argentina. I'm sure many other examples can be found; I used to play against this deck in local tournaments constantly during that summer.

TL,DR: It can be good to play more than 40 in a combo deck that has numerous cards you don't want to draw, and a relatively generic extradeck monster that starts your combo.

Some decks may want more than 40 because it relies on special summoning from the deck or searching the deck for specific cards.  I play a Noble Knight deck and I put in 60 cards because it doesn't matter what the chance of getting specific cards is when I can just search for the card I want.  I also play a level deck for fun and it is hard to fit all the things needed for such a thing in 40 cards, so instead I play 60.

I don't know the archetype, how do you search your deck for the card you want? I would guess you need to get specific cards first to enable your searching engine, and less cards would get you that engine more reliably, wouldn't it?

Ah, I should explain.  The Noble Knights send many cards from the deck to the grave (especially the noble arms).  After they are then in the grave, effects are used to bring them back.  There are also a few search cards.  Cards that do as I described include the Noble Knights of the Round Table, Isolde Two tales of the Noble Knights, Noble Knight Bedwyr, Heritage of the Chalice, and Glory of the Noble Knights.

I always build 60 card decks when I have 3 copies of everything and all of it is powerful. If the deck has consistency, that's all that really matters. My friends and I build cheater decks where we disobey the card limits/bans and put like 3 Harpie's Feather Dusters in it and stuff like that. We make those 60 card decks. Personally, for competitive purposes, I don't judge the deck on the number of cards, I judge it in it's ability to bend the laws of probability with card effects.

The "ability to bend the laws of probability with card effects" depends pretty heavily on the existing probability you start with - and that comes pretty directly out of the size of the deck. Assuming 3 of every card (except one) in a deck you have a starting 3/40 or ~8% chance of each draw being a copy that card, in 60 cards that's now 3/60 or a 5% chance.

In most cases you want 40-45 cards in the main deck but a select few decks are strongest if they have 60 cards a good example Noble/infernoble knights are best when you have 60 cards rather than 40 because most their spells are equips, and most of them have abilities that summon more noble knights from the deck, it so easy to get the monsters you want and the spell and traps you want when you run noble knights. Decks like that are best with 60 than 40


text:
A game with coloured animal tiles & figurines of Chinese men
I once found some tiles that each have an animal on them, and some small statuettes of old Chinese men. Like this:

Can anybody identify what this is for?

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3147/mandarin
Its Mandarin, a Chinese Zodiac game by Mattel.

Thanks, though I found it last night while looking through the conservatory...


text:
Can I use level/rank changing effects on Xyz monsters?
I believe that there is Xyz monsters that consist of ranks and Monsters with levels. There are some cards out there that state that you can change the level of a monster on the field (such as raise the level of a monster by n). Can I do this on Xyz monsters?

An Xyz Monster's Rank is not its Level; Xyz Monsters do not have a Level. Consequently, Xyz Monsters cannot be used for Synchro, Ritual, or Xyz Summons (unless specifically permitted); and any effects that would refer to the Level of a monster, such as those of "Gravity Bind", "Level Limit - Area B" and "Burden of the Mighty", cannot be applied to an Xyz Monster. Since Xyz Monsters do not have Levels, cards such as "Star Changer", "Scanner" and "Give and Take" cannot be used on them at all. Cards that modify Levels such as "Harmonic Waves", "Feedback Warrior", "Synchro Boost" and "Demotion" also cannot be used on Xyz Monsters.

Note: this is also the same for Link monsters, which have a Rating instead of a Level or Rank.

You can only use effects that change Level on monsters with a Level, and you can only use effects that change Rank on monsters with a Rank; you can't use ones that require a Rank on monsters with a Level (or vice versa), and you can't use either on monsters with a Link Number.
Xiangsheng Magician is an example of a card that can change a monster's Rank; she targets an Xyz Monster and a Lv.5+ monster, both on your side of the field, and makes the Xyz Monster's Rank become equal to the other monster's Level.  As of now (May 24, 2017), she's the only TCG/OCG card that can change a monster's Rank.  [If playing by anime rules, she instead changes a monster's level, and her counterpart Xiangke Magician gives Xyz Monsters a Level equal to their rank.  Needless to say, TCG/OCG Xiangke Magician has a nerfed version of this effect; he only gives Xyz Monsters a Level when used as a material for an Xyz Summon.  Other cards that give Xyz Monsters Levels can be found here.]


text:
Can the initial Rummikub meld build on other player's tiles?
When playing the initial 30 points, can I use a tile from an existing meld on the board to complete my meld without using the points from that tile? For instance, I have a red 9, 11, and 12 in my rack, which is 32 points, but I need the red 10 on the board to play them. Is this a legal move?

From the rules (emphasis added):

After players have made their initial plays, they can also build on other sets on the table...

I think this implies that while you are making your initial meld, you cannot use the existing melds.

My rules state: "the first set or sets must add up to a minimum of 30, you are not allowed to build upon, or manipulate any sets until you have laid down and entered the game". By you using another tile you are manipulating them.  Not a legal move sorry.

Sounds like there are multiple versions of the rules and they are in agreement (though some are written more clearly than others).

You must have 30 points on your board only. You cannot use another player's tiles to make your 30 points for your 1st meld.


text:
Why are "Egyptian God" cards so significant?
Recently, I was browsing through the questions on B&CG SE  (particularly in the [yu-gi-oh] tag) and I see quite a bit of Egyptian God. I was duelling someone from my school, and he said

"Egyptian God Cards cannot be targeted by any card effect or be destroyed by battle"!

Obviously we dismissed this as another pathetic blurt of words from him, because he makes up so many rules, and cheats,so we told him unless it's on the rule book or the card, it's false, but he dismissed it, so I forfeited in order to maintain my sanity, but this in particular made me wonder:
What's so special about the Egyptian God Cards? Why are these cards more significant than other cards?
I understand that in Yugi's (?) season of the anime l, the Egyptian Gods were established (?). They were a group of really powerful monsters, that could destroy the world if control were lost over them in a duel.
So, does what this person from my school said have any origins from the anime?

They were represented in the anime as being incredibly powerful, and you never saw them defeated by traditional means. In the card game they act as normal cards and have no special "you can't destroy me or target me" abilities I'm aware of (I'll admit it's been a while since I played Yu-Gi-Oh as I moved over to Magic, but I played quite a bit)
Your friend sounds like he's putting a more flavourful edge to things as it makes sense when you look at the anime, but it's not how the game actually works.
Also, if your friend continues to make up rules and cheat, I'd look to find a way to "punish" him in order to correct his behaviour. Stop playing games with him when he does it for example. If he really wants to play the game he'll learn to play correctly if you just show him that cheating doesn't pay off.

Well yes, thanks! I've stopped playing with cheats altogether now (meaning that I've stopped playing with most people) but it's worth it, for I get time, satisfaction (sometimes off losing), and other benefits as well you don't get from playing with cheats.

If you want to play a game where you get a lot less cheats, try Magic, it's (in my opinion) a better game and the community is generally pretty welcoming and helpful. I am a little biased as I play a LOT of Magic

If you have seen yugioh before god cards can be prevented from being summoned if you have the exchange card you can take that go card you can also make sure the don't have three tributes to sacrifice in order to summon a god card i have all three gods in my deck including the three blue eyes white dragons and blue eyes ultimate dragon but watch out for ra's abilates if he is put in the graveyard you can use monster reborn to bring   him back for one turn if you tribute 1000 life point's you can wipe out all your opponents monsters then he returns to the graveyard there is also the god pheonix

Welcome to board and card games. Can you please edit your answer and add some punctuation. It is hard to read right now.


text:
If I can cast "target instant card" from my graveyard can I cast a card that has Flash?
Let's say I have a creature with Flash (You may play this card any time you could cast an instant) in the graveyard, and I cast something like Goblin Dark-Dwellers, or Torrential Gearhulk, which allow me to cast an instant from the graveyard without paying costs, is the creature with Flash a legal target?

A creature with Flash is not a legal target for an effect that targets an Instant
Phrases like "any time you could cast a Sorcery" or "any time you could cast an Instant" are just shortcuts for timing rules, meaning when you're allowed to cast a card or activate an ability.

304.5. If text states that a player may do something “any time he or she could cast an instant,” it means only that the player must have priority. (...)

Both the cards you mentioned have you target an Instant card in your graveyard, meaning the targetted card needs to be an Instant itself.
It's possible that cards get types that aren't originally printed on the them (most commonly for animated Lands or Artifacts), but that's not what Flash does.
In general, no Magic card or effect grants the Instant or Sorcery types.

No, it is not. "Instant" is a card type, which appears in the type line between the art and the text box. When cards like Goblin Dark-Dwellers or Torrential Gearhulk refer to "Instant cards", they are specifically referring to cards with "Instant" printed in their type line.
The ability Flash changes when you are allowed to play a card, but it does not change what type that card is.


text:
What's this round token depicting a knight?
I found this token while cleaning up.

The size and shape looks like it's from Small World, but I looked through my game and expansions and didn't see anything missing or any descriptions of a token matching it.
Any ideas?

This is a token from Small World: Realms. You can see it listed on page three of the Realms rules (PDF) in the top left. They're listed as: “1 Rusted Throne & 7 Miscellaneous Tokens to use in Scenarios of your own creation”. I'm not sure whether you ought to have multiple or just the one Knight token in Realms.


text:
Does Precursor Golem let me target all golems in the graveyard?
Assuming I had Precursor Golem (and many other golems) in my graveyard, if I use Refurbish on Precursor Golem, would it return all my golems from the graveyard to the battlefield?

No, that wouldn't work.
Unless a permanent's ability specifically states otherwise (e.g. Carrionette), or the ability would only make sense when activated in another zone (e.g. Bloodsoaked Champion), abilities only work while that permanent is on the battlefield.

112.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:
112.6b An ability that states which zones it functions in functions only from those zones.

Also, when Precursor Golem says "Golem" without further qualifiers, as for example in "a single Golem", then the wording is shorthand for "Golem permanent", an object on the battlefield with the Golem subtype.

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.


text:
Can Gearseeker Serpent's cost be reduced below two mana if exiled by Gonti, Lord of Luxury?
I see in the wizards rules explanation for Gearseeker Serpent that it says the cost cannot be reduced below {U}{U}. However, isn't this considered an alternative cost (because of Gonti, Lord of Luxury) and with any mana allowed to cast it, can now be reduced below two if I have more than 5 artifacts in play?
Could you help me understand how this works out?

The Serpent will cost at least {2} to cast
The effect of Gonti does not make anything an alternative cost. An example of a card that grants alternative costs would be Fist of Suns.

117.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.

All Gonti does is that it allows you to pay the non-generic part of the card's mana cost with any type of mana.

117.7a Effects that reduce a cost by an amount of generic mana affect only the generic mana component of that cost. They can’t affect the colored or colorless mana components of that cost.

Therefore, the Serpent's ability (which is equivalent to "Affinity for artifacts") reduces the amount of mana you have to pay for it to {U}{U}, and Gonti makes it so you can pay {2} instead. The mana cost of the Serpent remains {5}{U}{U}, and can never change, because it's a characteristic of the card. Gonti does not change the mana symbols on the card it exiled, only how you may pay for them.
The steps involved in casting a spell that are relevant here are cost reduction, followed by paying the cost:

601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If multiple cost reductions apply, the player may apply them in any order. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can’t be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, any effects that directly affect the total cost are applied. Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.
601.2h The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.

601.2h is where Gonti's ability takes effect, whereas the Serpent's ability affects 601.2f