text:
In Axis and Allies, Can Infantry Building Lead to a "Stalemate" in the Early Going?
Most has been made of the so-called infantry push mechanism. Specifically, infantry are awfully useful for shielding heavier pieces (tanks, planes) from losses. But could they be too much of a good thing, at least in the early going? Some examples:
Russia: Buys 8 infantry from at least 4-5 turns. With the possible exception of conquering Norway-Finland, and "strafing" the Ukraine, plays a strict defensive during that time.
Germany: Spends IPCs matching Russia's infantry build up in Europe. Except for sending 2 infantry each turn across the Med to Africa (which basically represents Germany's excess IPCs over Russia).
UK Build factory in South Africa in turn 1, 5 infantry in UK withe remaining IPCs. Turn 2, two tanks in SA, two transports. Turn 3, more tanks in SA, one transport in UK, remainder infantry, bound for Africa.
Japan: Build 8 infantry turns 1-2. Ferry 4 to China each turn using two transports, hold the rest for defense of homeland. Maybe on turn 3, build a third transport, ferry two more units to China (plus basic four).
U.S.: Move battleship and transport from Pacific to Caribbean first turn. Build factory in Sinkiang, 7 infantry. Turn 2, build tanks in Sinkiang, another transport off East Coast.  remainder infantry. Caribbean transport picks up two infantry from east coast, back to Caribbean. Turn 3, Caribbean transport takes infantry to protect Brazil, second transport takes infantry to West Indies and Panama, rest of infantry "dribbles" (from California) into Mexico and British Columbia.
Is this a static, defensive construct? Or are there dynamics that I'm missing?

If all sides build infantry in the early game that's not called a stalemate, that's called the Allies winning handily. The Allies have a combined economic might and can outspend the Axis. To counter this, the Axis - especially Japan - needs to expand its territory holdings quickly intelligently.

@scott: So Allies should pretty much play defense, and refrain from "Kwabang" and Manchurian attacks and stupid things like that in the early going right? Basically, they win if they don't "lose?"

Yes, I think so. Early game, my Ally objectives are clear and are in this order: get things in place to start shuck-shuck; hold the Russian front against Germany; take out German navy in the Mediterranean Sea; secure Africa.

Yes IPM can stalemate a game, but No, not in the beginning
Yes, the infantry push mechanic (IPM) can lead to stalemated games, but not in the early going. Rather, the game is dynamic and the board ever-changing en route to a stalemate after 5-7 turns. I've had this happen numerous times via two different playouts:

Traditional shuck-shuck

Both the Axis and Allies follow a basic IPM strategy.
Germany's objectives are to take and hold Africa as long as possible, maintain a solid front in Eastern Europe while occasionally trading the Ukraine with Russia and fending off a large-scale invasion of France.
The US and UK set up the shuck-shuck and try and take back Africa, plow infantry into Russia via Finland, and set up for an invasion of France.
Russia builds a fortress on their western front and slows Japan's inevitable advance as much as possible.
Japan goes full-bore in Asia: advancing as quickly as possible to Moscow to take the pressure off Germany.

If both players execute their strategies well this game can reach a stalemate in terms of it taking a very long time to decide the game; however, this should not be confused with the game being static. Germany steadily loses territory and Japan steadily gains it so the map is fluid; it's simply that no side can gain a edge.
If Germany can hold Africa for a reasonable amount of time, and if Japan expands quickly enough, the Axis will have IPC parity with the Allies. If this happens, both sides can stack up their infantry equally fast, which makes it difficult for either side to launch a successful attack because A&A combat is biased towards the defender.
Eventually the Allies will capture Germany, but a large enough stack of infantry and clever counter-attacking can make this very slow going for the allies. If timed right, Germany can give Japan enough time to capture Moscow just before Germany is eliminated. If this happens, Japan can sometimes expand so quickly into Europe that they alone are close to IPC parity with the US and UK. Japan is now effectively playing a Russian strategy in Karelia and German one in Africa and trying to keep it's IPC count high. If the US and UK can  get a solid enough foothold in Europe to start pumping out tanks from the German and Italian factories they will eventually win, but as long as Japan is able to counter and occasionally re-capture Italy (and/or harass the US in the Pacific) the game can keep plowing along with neither side gaining an advantage.
I've never seen Japan win if Germany falls, but I've seen it take 6 or 7 turns after Germany's fall before it was clear that they weren't going to pull it out, and I have seen the Axis win if Japan gets to Eastern Europe in time to reinforce the Fatherland.
Asia double factories.

The US builds a factory in Sinkiang and the UK in India so they can pump out five armor a turn.
Russian aids in the north with infantry
All three allies provide Asian air support

This three-pronged attack can effectively stop the Japanese advance in Asia. (I've even pushed Japan on the continent before using this strategy--although it didn't stick.) However, it obviously takes the pressure off Germany quite a bit and significantly delays both the start of and the magnitude of the shuck-shuck (two tanks per turn in Sinkiang is 3 less infantry in Europe; the UK has less income and one more tank to buy).
This game can stalemate with Japan unable to get a solid foothold in Asia and Germany able to keep and hold Africa (making up for Japan's failure) but unable to crack the Russian nut in Karelia (the US does reach 7 infantry a turn steady-state after all).

Both methods can reach stalemate if the IPCs are near parity because it is near impossible to attack large stacks of infantry without opening yourself up to a vicious counter-attack. Thus neither side attacks, the IPC balance doesn't swing, and the stacks of infantry get higher and higher.
Typically stalemates end with a victory in a secondary theater (e.g. Africa, South Pacific), which results in a small IPC advantage that builds slowly in time. It can also end with a clumsy move by one of the players, some exceedingly good (or bad) dice rolls, or by mutual agreement to end the game in a draw if everyone is too tired to continue.

The purpose of infantry in A&A has both offensive and defensive properties.
Offensively, they provide fodder to protect your more expensive units, and with a 16.6% chance of a hit, they are a nominal threat.
Defensively, they are an inexpensive unit that provides a 33% chance of a hit, and will also block tanks from blitzing.  With such a skill, they will give the attacker a moment of pause to consider how many units he should throw at your stack of four infantry.  In this way, infantry of similar numbers are decidedly more defensive than offensive.
If the attacker has an open door to blitz, he will zip through without concern.  If there is a single infantry in the second territory, he will, if wise, halt his advance, unless he wants to gamble on trading a tank for an infantry.  Two bucks is two bucks.  In addition, he might actually lose the battle (33% to 50%), so that gives the defender an extra turn to circle the wagons.
Knowing this about the infantry, an early push with infantry can bog things down due to hesitancy on the part of the Axis, but if he can also bring a number of infantry to absorb hits while his tanks and planes get their shots in, I think the Axis will have a decided advantage.  Also, if the Allies do not produce units with an effective punch, the Axis player will have no concerns about a viable counter-attack from the Allies.
A stack of infantry simply doesn't strike fear as an offensive weapon.

Adam's and Scott's comments here are very sound, and both follow the logic of OPTIMAL allied play. I'm interested to hear from either of you if you've ever played against OPTIMAL Axis play as I define it (the reason is my group of friends have never successfully implemented optimal shuck-shuck and I always win as axis):
Rd.1
Germany builds 10 infantry.  COMBAT: successfully takes out all Russia/British navy including the transport in Eastern Canada and only loses 1 fighter, sometimes 0.  FREE MOVE: moves 2 infantry to Africa setting up to take Egypt in Rd. 2 (attacking Rd.1 is 50/50 and the downside is too great if you lose). Move infantry to collect in Eastern Europe, with 4 fighters on Western Europe you only need 2-3 infantry as defense until Allies have re-filled their transports).
2) Japan builds 2 transports, 3 infantry.  COMBAT: take Pearl, take Manchuria (if Russia attacked), take Eastern China (leave all 4 remaining fighters on Kwangtung, don't send a fighter into Pearl Harbor, use the Bomber).  With 3-4 transports around Japan and +5 infantry on Japan and surrounding islands this allows Japan to build an IC unit in round 2 while still building Infantry for those remaining transports.  Thereafter Japan's IPC spend moves towards tanks and the second mainland IC, and then tanks therafter as the transports finish sending whatever infantry are left from the initial purchases.
3) GERMANY LONG TERM SUCESS: This is what my strategy sets up for.. by Germany's round 3, they will need to suicide their entire airforce to destroy whatever navy the Allies have built to establish shuck-shuck.  Most often I see US or UK building an Aircraft carrier supported by lots of transports, thus by Germany's Round 3 there are 4-5 transports and 1 AC w/2 fighters in the UK. IT IS IMPERITIVE IF GERMANY SEES THIS HAPPENING THEY BUILD 1-2 FIGHTERS in Rd. 2.  If Germany attacks this force with 6 fighters and 1 bomber Axis will win and typically have 1 fighter remaining maybe 2 if lucky.  CONCLUSION: After this suicide the Axis can no longer afford to replace their airforce (said differently, UK easily builds another AC knowing it would take Germany to build 3 fighters to be worth it, thus forcing Germany to instead go defensive and concede to shuck-shuck).  This allows shuck-shuck to begin with troops attacking by Round 4 (transports need to be produced after Germany's suicide in their attacking round 3).  PROVIDED Germany has only built Infantry and no tanks aside from the fighter(s), they can now hold Eastern and Western for another 2-3 turns.
4) NOW, as Japan, knowing you have 6 turns to take over India, have 2 IC's setup and steady production of 6 tanks and some extra savings each turn... if you play Japan well this is more than enough time to be knocking on Russia's door.  As a result... yes Shuck-Shuck is operational (and Germany's Luftwaffe is essentially gone), but Germany can replace whatever infantry are destroyed by the initial UK/US shuck-shuck battles beginning round 5-6 while Russia CAN NO LONGER attack - they must build Infantry to stay in Russia. This is the key US/UK forces are not great enough to make a dent.
5) Bottom line, OPTIMAL AXIS play is for Germany to build infantry day 1 and perhaps 1/2 fighters for an eventual suicide to delay shuck-shuck.  Knowing this strategy gives Japan 5-6 turns, allows Japan to take their time building 2 transports, 3 infantry round 1 vs. rushing to build the IC.  While this means Japan is knocking on Russia's door at Rd.5 instead of rd.4 - Japan is doing it with a much more meaningful force supported by more infantry on the ground vs. a rushed play (and Germany bought you this extra round with their Luftwaffe suicide). Well supported pressure from Japan w/infantry ensures Russia gives due attention back to Russia.  I have always won with this play but I have also won knowing I'm playing competition that hasn't set up an optimal allied response knowing I'm going to suicide my fighters.

Welcome to the site. An upvote for a good answer.


text:
When should I pay to invade a neutral country in Axis and Allies
What factors should be considered when deciding whether to invade a minor country and pay the 3+ IPC's?

At a basic level, I weigh the 3 IPC payment and the opportunity cost of the units I used to invade it against the benefit to be gained. That's pretty generic so some examples might help:

As Japan, I often find myself invading Panama in the mid- to late-game because my navy has nothing else useful to do. If America doesn't have any tanks in Western US, chooses not to use them, or if I have enough extra transports that I was able to land a blocking infantry in Mexico, then America will be unable to kill any units that landed in Panama. In this case, I'll typically invade Venezuela on the next turn and then take Brazil. The 3 IPCs from Brazil are an equal trade for the 3 I lose for invading a neutral, the value from really throwing a monkey wrench into America's plans is high, and the opportunity cost was low, since the navy wasn't busy anyway.
As the Allies I've landed in Spain before just to open up another front for Germany to defend. It can be very difficult to stage a successful amphibious invasion because of the lame attacking power of infantry, the one tank per transport limit, and the ability to lose your entire air force because of the no retreat rule. So to prevent having to attack, I've invaded Spain as the UK and dumped a full load of infantry followed by the US on their turn. Now Germany either has to counter attack (with only the infantry in France and without any tanks in EEU or further East) or give me a foothold in Europe I'll likely never give back.
I've also played with a house rule before where land units could cross the Bosporus if Turkey was occupied. So I tried invading Turkey as Germany to help me ferry troops into Africa. This didn't work that well as it's still a long way from the Fatherland.

It's always too expensive.  Been playing a&a for 20 years and have never paid to invade a neutral.

Never.  It is strategically unsound and hideously expensive. You must always factor in the cost of the units invading, and the resultant loss of combat power where it could do some good somewhere else.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can you sacrifice a permanent you don't control when explicitly allowed?
I use Price of Loyalty to gain control of a creature with an attached Spare Dagger.
This means, the creature I control has

Whenever this creature attacks, you may sacrifice Spare Dagger. When you do, this creature deals 1 damage to any target.

even though I don't control the Spare Dagger.
May I actually sacrifice the Spare Dagger to get the effect?
I had this situation in Arena, and I did not get the option to sacrifice. I am wondering if this is correct and why so.

"Arena" = "Magic: The Gathering Arena" (?)

@PeterMortensen Yes

You may not sacrifice the dagger. Although Spare Dagger's ability would ordinarily allow you to sacrifice it, the rules prevent you from actually doing so: only a permanent's controller can sacrifice that permanent. If you're somehow given the opportunity to sacrifice something you don't control ... you just can't, because you're not its controller.
That's baked into the rules for Sacrifice:

701.17a. To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner's graveyard. A player can't sacrifice [...] a permanent they don't control.

Arena didn't give you the opportunity to try to sacrifice the dagger because you wouldn't be able to. The actual controller may not sacrifice it either, because it is you that's offered the opportunity to sacrifice it.

Note this would be different for some other equipment. This answer applies to Spare Dagger specifically because it grants the sacrifice ability to the attacking creature, which you control. If this were Throwing Knife, instead the ability would trigger for the controller, and the controller would get the opportunity to sacrifice the equipment they still control and choose the targets for the damage.

So with Throwing Knife, my opponent could control a creature equipped with Throwing Knife controlled by me, and if they decided to attack with the creature, I (controlling the Knife) could decide to throw the Knife at them (controlling and attacking with the creature)? That would be kinda hilarious. Also, I wonder if it would be possible for Spare Dagger to give an ability that says to destroy the Dagger, instead of sacrificing it, thus circumventing the sacrifice restriction. Or if that's just something never done.

I think that's pretty funny too. I suspect the surprising nature of that interaction is the reason Spare Dagger is the way it is, in fact!

An opportunity to pay a cost does not grant the ability to pay it.

608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 121.3). ...

Example: A spell’s instruction reads, “You may sacrifice a creature. If you don’t, you lose 4 life.” A player who controls no creatures can’t choose the sacrifice option.

This is why Spare Dagger's text does not trump rule 701.17a via the 'Golden Rule' 101.1

101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).

608.2d's example is very similar to Spare Dagger's text.  It could be read as allowing you to sacrifice an opponent's creatures if you had none yourself, but the rules say unequivocally that this is not how effects that provide opportunities to pay costs work.

Although this answer is 99% fine, the heading doesn't seem to fit. For example, this scenario doesn't involve paying a cost—your entire answer and the scenario talk about taking an optional action. Plus, the opportunity to pay a cost often does grant the ability to pay it: I can't sacrifice a creature just anytime, but when a cost or action offers the option to sacrifice a creature, I'm granted the ability to do so. Maybe use a heading like "You can't take impossible actions, even when offered the opportunity"? Or use a paragraph rather than heading to give yourself space to introduce nuance.

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


text:
What is Devoid and what is special about it?
What is so special about the ability Devoid-This card has no color?
What advantage does that give the Creature?
Why does all the Devoid set around a creature type called "Eldrazi"?
What difference is it when it doesn't have a color?
These are new cards that I have ordered a few days ago, and I don't know a single thing about most of the abilities. They are all new to me.
Unnatural Aggression
Ulamog's Reclaimer
Silent Skimmer
Hand of Emrakul

Normally a card’s color is defined by the types of mana required to cast it. Devoid changes this default so that a card can cost colored mana while still being colorless.
This has a number of benefits when combined with various other cards. For example, Eldrazi Temple produces 2 mana, but it can only be used to cast colorless Eldrazi cards or activate abilities of colorless Eldrazi.
Herald of Kozilek has Devoid itself, and also makes other colorless spells cheaper.
Devoid also makes it so that  from things with protection from certain colors don’t work. For example Goblin Piledriver has protection from blue. Without Devoid, Ulamog's Reclaimer wouldn’t be able to block the Piledriver.
Eldrazi by theme are colorless; but giving them colored mana in the cost makes them harder to cast, and makes it so that they don’t all fit in all the same decks. Devoid allows these cards to be colorless while still having those restrictions.
Note that it’s not only an advantage. It can hurt you as well; cards such as Honor of the Pure will not work with your Devoid creatures, even if they cost white mana to cast.
See this article about the development of the mechanic, which goes into more detail about the decisions they made.

Honor of the Pure wouldn't work, but Light from Within would!

Lets look at each question one at a time.

What's special about devoid? - Devoid actually has a lot of things special about it. Devoid is what's known as a characteristic defining ability, an ability that sets something about the card differently from the way it is normally set, like how the ability Changeling sets creature types. Characteristic defining abilities are in effect everywhere, on the field, in the hand, in the grave and in the deck, this means that you can find a Devoid card using Eye of Ugin or Ancient Stirrings!
What advantages does it give? - One of the biggest advantages devoid gives is it counters most of the protections in the game. Protection from (color) is the most common form of protection in Magic, Blinding Drone isn't blue because of devoid, so protection from blue doesn't stop it from damaging, blocking or targeting.
Why is it tied to the Eldrazi creature type? - This is a bit of a lore thing, the Eldrazi are destroyers of worlds, they pretty much drain mana from the planes in the multiverse, leaving lifeless worlds behind. The big ones were always colorless, though with the return to Zendikar and the introduction of Devoid, the color has been drained from the smaller ones now too.
What does not having a color mean? - The color of a card is set based on the colors needed to cast that card, so without Devoid, Unnatural Aggression would be green and Ulamog's Reclaimer would be blue. Most of the benefits of being colorless are covered in the other parts, but there are downsides too. Green Sun's Zenith can't find Catacomb Sifter because it isn't green, and Bearer of Silence can be killed by Doom Blade because it isn't black. And of course just needing this Devoid ability is a downside for the colorless Eldrazi, if it has Devoid that means you need to spend colored mana to cast it, other than Devoid (or sunburst or converge), anything that was colorless doesn't care about the colors of mana spent on it, and that means they can go in any deck no matter what colors the rest of the deck uses.

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


text:
How does this ability resolve?
Mizzix of the Izmagnus has an ability that gives you an experience counter as long as you cast an instant or sorcery that is of a higher cost. If I have 5 copies of him and 4 experience counters, and I play an instant that has a converted mana cost of 5, will I get 5 experience counters as they all trigger at the same time?

Just wondering how you can get 5 copies of the card since it is a legendary creature.

@JoeW [mtg:Mirror Gallery]

@JoeW [mtg:Helm of the Host]

You get 5 experience counters, because the "with converted mana cost greater than the number of experience counters you have" is checked only when determining if the ability triggers. It is not checked when the ability resolves.

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose.

Note that this would work differently if the ability were worded

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, if its converted mana cost is greater than the number of experience counters you have, you get an experience counter.

In that situation, the ability has an "intervening 'if' clause", which would cause the "if" condition to be checked again when the ability resolves, and the "if" would only be true for the first trigger to resolve; it would fail for the rest.

603.4. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn’t true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. (The word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.)

Only mentioning this to point out that Mizzix does not have an intervening "if" clause, and thus it doesn't matter how many experience counters you have when each ability resolves.

You do get 5 experience counters.
They trigger at the same time, and all go on the stack, and resolve one at a time.

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


text:
What happens if I mutate on top of a creature that I control until the end of a turn?
This constellation actually happened when I (PLAYER A) drafted Ikoria on MTG:Arena yesterday, but I was unsure whether it would work in my favor. And therefore I didn't try.
PLAYER B has a Cavern Whisperer on the battlefield.
PLAYER A has a Lore Drakkis and Tentative Connection in hand.

PLAYER A casts the Tentative Connection targeting the Cavern Whisperer.
PLAYER A gains control of the Cavern Whisperer until end
of turn.
PLAYER A mutates Lore Drakkis on top of the Cavern Whisperer.

Who will have control of the mutated creature at the end of a turn?
I'm looking for the specific rulings regarding this topic. All I could find were the following rulings on the MTG Wiki.

The resulting merged creature has all of the characteristics of the topmost card or token, and it also has all abilities from its other cards and tokens.

The merged creature is the same creature it was before the merge, so any Auras or counters that were on it remain on it, it remains tapped if it was tapped, it's still attacking if it was attacking, and so on. If it's been under its controller's control since their most recent turn began, it can attack and {T}.

In this case, Cavern Whisperer won't be a valid target for mutation, because you are not the owner of Cavern Whisperer. This is per CR:

702.140a Mutate appears on some creature cards. It represents a static ability that functions while the spell with mutate is on the stack. “Mutate [cost]” means “You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. If you do, it becomes a mutating creature spell and targets a non-Human creature with the same owner as this spell.”  (...)

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in their deck. (...)

Nice.  I never noticed that it said owner.  So I guess that this means that you can mutate a creature that someone has taken from you too?

While this specific scenario is invalid, as piotrek's answer explains, it is possible to alter it to make a valid scenario that preserves the main point of the question. Specifically:

PLAYER B has a Cavern Whisperer on the battlefield.
PLAYER A has a Lore Drakkis in exile stolen from PLAYER B by Thief
of
Sanity,
and Tentative Connection in hand.

A casts the Tentative Connection targeting the Cavern Whisperer.
A gains control of the Cavern Whisperer until end of turn.
A mutates Lore Drakkis on top of the Cavern Whisperer.

There are plenty of other cards that can allow you to cast a card owned by the opponent, Thief of Sanity is just the first example that came to mind.
With this change, the owner of the Lore Drakkis is also the owner of the Cavern Whisperer, so mutating them together is valid. The question, then, is whether the combined mutated creature will return to PLAYER B at end of turn.
The relevant rules for this are:

702.140c As a mutating creature spell resolves, if its target is legal, it doesn’t enter the battlefield. Rather, it merges with the target creature and becomes one object represented by more than one card or token (see rule 723, “Merging with Permanents”). The spell’s controller chooses whether the spell is put on top of the creature or on the bottom. The resulting permanent is a mutated permanent.

723.2c Because a merged permanent is the same object that it was before, it hasn’t just come under a player’s control, any continuous effects that affected it continue to do so, and so on.

Rule 702.140c says it becomes a merged permanent and refers to rule 723 for how merged permanents work. Rule 723.2c then says it's considered still the same object, and that therefore any continuous effects still apply.
The Cavern Whisperer was a creature originally controlled by PLAYER B with a temporary control-changing effect. After the mutation, it is still "the same" creature, originally controlled by PLAYER B with a temporary control-changing effect. It will return to PLAYER B's control when Tentative Connection's effect expires at end of turn.

I think that if you steal a mutate creature card from your opponent and cast it for its mutate cost, it'd still only be able to target creatures you own, because you're the one casting it, and not your opponent.

The mutate rules just specify that the owner of the mutate spell needs to be the same as the owner of the target creature. They don't say anything about the spell's controller.

@nick012000 The mutate rules specifically state that the owner of the mutate spell and the owner of the target creature must be the same. Unless you're playing for ante, which is practically unheard of, there is literally nothing in the game that can change the owner of a card. The reminder text says "you" in place of "the owner of the mutate spell", but this is one case where reminder text is factually incorrect about a corner case for the sake of brevity.

Another similar example: Sally steals a creature from Juan using a non-expiring spell like Lullmage's Domination, Juan takes it back using an "until end of turn" spell like Claim the Firstborn, then mutates on it. The mutate is legal, but Sally still get the (now mutated) creature back at the end of Juan's turn.


text:
Why don’t you capture more territory in Go?
If you have large areas like here in the white upper left corner,

why can't black just put a stone in upper left corner? Then white would lose one point. Or white would have to capture it and get a point instead, but then there would be three white stones within the area and that would mean again for white to lose three points.
So is it just convention to end the game here, when black won't be able to create a living group within the area?

If black chooses to play anywhere in the upper left corner, white only needs to play the 1-2 point on the left, or answer 1-2 with 2-2. That will destroy any possibility for black to make two eyes and live.

Some beginners may think that if black plays a single stone into that empty corner, white would be obliged to capture it. That is not the rule. Consider the similar situation on the right side. Black has no obligation to capture that single white stone. It has no chance of survival. In that open top left corner white would defend only when they judge that black is actually threatening to make a living group (assuming Japanese rules).

This question is a great example of why Area Scoring is superior to Territory Scoring

Suppose there is a black stone in the corner but it is impossible for black to survive, no matter how well played.
By convention, both sides recognize this and the black stone is counted as a prisoner.
If either side doesn't accept the convention, both sides will alternately play until the situation is resolved (in favour of white).
At that point, black and white will have played the same number of stones each.
White loses a point for each one it played (loss of territory), and white gains a point for each one that black played (taken as prisoner).
There is no net change in the score as compared with accepting the initial situation and neither side playing any more.

Note that the above is based on territory scoring rules, where points are given only for unoccupied territory (and prisoners).
Under area rules the non-prisoner stones on the board are also counted as part of the territory, so any stones played by white into its own territory would not cost white anything.

@Allure, given a large area surrounded by white, with possibly a small number of black stones in it, the obvious default is that it all belongs to white unless black can do something to protect its few stones. It's up to black to decide whether to concede the territory or to play the next stone. Once black passes, white would pass too, with both of them understanding that it all belongs to white.

This depends on the rules used.

In rules using area scoring (Chinese style), a player's points include both the empty intersections they surround, and their stones. In this case, any extra moves made inside a player's own territory do not cost points, unless there are dame left, since the move could have been used to take one and with area scoring that would be worth points.

In some rules (AGA), a player passing must give their opponent a stone (a pass stone) which counts as a captured stone, and is worth one point if territory scoring is used. Therefore, for every move White makes to capture the Black stones inside White's territory, Black must also make a move (either inside their own territory, losing a point; or inside White's territory, eventually to be captured for a point) or pass (losing a point).
Note that AGA rules also allow for area scoring, in which case pass stones are not necessary.
See:

AGA Concise Rules of Go
AGA Rules on the Sensei's Library wiki

In traditional Japanese rules (which use territory scoring causing extra moves inside a player's own territory to cost points) there is a special confirmation phase after the game has (provisionally) ended. During this confirmation phase, a particular situation can be played out to determine if the contested stones are alive or dead, but the confirmation play is taken to take place "virtually", and does not actually modify the board. The phase of confirmation play also has special ko rules with somewhat odd results, like the infamous case of a bent-four in a corner being dead as a rule.
See:

The Japanese Rules of Go
Japanese Rules on the Sensei's Library wiki
"Bent four in the corner is dead" on the Sensei's Library wiki

If Black plays in that area, White could ignore it or pass and gain a point - the black stone would be agreed as dead, and White still gets the point it's sitting on. Black can only force White to surround and capture the stone if they're threatening to capture some of White's stones - for example if they cut off part of the wall, and it creates a capturing race. If Black keeps playing in that area, White has to decide when to start answering - if they wait too long, Black will make a living group.

I'll note that this is specific to Japanese scoring.  In other scoring systems, spurious moves in your own territory do not affect the final score.  In high level play the distinction is typically moot (i.e., high-level players typically don't make spurious moves in their own territory).  That said, it did lead to one game being judged as "White won by 1 or 2 points" because the judge wasn't sure how to score it.

"If Black plays in that area, White could ignore it or pass and gain a point - the black stone would be agreed as dead, and White still gets the point it's sitting on." This statement is confusing. If Black plays in that area, it's most likely because Black doesn't agree that their stone is dead.

@Stef: Not at all. All such Black stones without two eyes (or alive in seki) are presumed dead, regardless of location on the board, It is Black's responsibility to play so as to make that clear - or abandon the stones.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: Whether stones are presumed dead or must be proven dead also depends on the ruleset.  As ikkachu mentions, "bent four in the corner" is a pathological example of this: the choice of ruleset may impact whether it is considered live or dead.

Dear @ForgetIwaseverhere, could you please include some reference for that claim? I have never encountered a ruleset where a player had to "prove that their stones were alive". It's always the responsibility of the player who wants them dead to prove that they are dead. In the 1949 Japanese rules, stones used to be declared dead or alive "by shape", in which case it was no player's responsibility, but this is no longer the case in the 1989 Japanese rules, and has never been the case in other rules.

why can't black just put a stone in upper left corner? Then white would lose one point.

It does not work this way. In territory scoring, the captured stone counts for a point (which offsets the point for a stone played in one's own territory), and then the intersection is freed up (undoing the supposed damage to territory of placing it). In area scoring (which I strongly recommend for beginners - it's also faster to count on 9x9) it's simply obvious: the borders of the area haven't changed, therefore the covered area of the group hasn't changed.
Territory scoring (and counting) is in essence used as a shortcut. The idea is that territory represents points where you could later put a stone at your leisure and count it towards your area, but your opponent cannot - because such a stone is doomed to eventual capture. These facts are inherent to the definition of territory; if you can't put the stone there, or your opponent can, it is not your territory. (Notwithstanding, of course, the last two open spaces required to prevent a group from dying to self-atari. Some historical variants of go did not count points for that; this is called a "group tax". And yes, board positions involving a seki do make this more complicated, but not irreconcilable.)
So, in territory counting, you count a point for each intersection of your territory, because it represents potential area that can't be taken away from you. (In area counting, the players just fill it in during the counting phase.) You also count a point for each capture, because it represents area that your opponent had, but you then removed. (If you kill a group, for example, that changes the points involved from "will be covered by the opponent at the end" to "will be covered by you at the end"; so it effectively counts double.) By doing this, you get essentially the same result as with the area rules.
In some rare situations it can cause a point or so of difference in the overall score, but it does not create the kind of difference that beginners commonly imagine. AGA rules, with the use of "pass stones", are designed to ensure that territory counting gives the same result that the area scoring rule dictates.

Or white would have to capture it and get a point instead, but then there would be three white stones within the area and that would mean again for white to lose three points.

It does not work this way either. The idea is that the players are taking turns; while the opponent is capturing your stone, you would be filling your own territory. Or, more shrewdly, passing - but that is exactly why the AGA rules use pass stones: so that it costs you a point either way.
In beginner games, it's common that the players aren't sure whether some invasion could live. Please feel free to play it out. As you and your opponents get stronger, increasingly more complex situations will become increasingly more clear. You can worry about whether you are insulting your opponents by trying nonsense, when you reach a level where you know (and expect your opponents to know) that it's nonsense.
In some rare situations called semedori, it can happen that playing inside opponent's territory (especially at a cutting point) can end up being worth a point (or more) - because there is some tactical threat that eventually requires multiple plays inside the territory (while opponent applies pressure from outside). For this to make a difference, the initial play needs to force at least three eventual inside moves: one to balance out the thrown-in stone that will be captured, one to balance out the move that was already owed to protect against the semedori threat, and a third to make net profit above that breaking-even.

Your final line has the correct question more or less answered. It is convention to end the game because black would not be able to create a living group. What is important is that both players agree to this. A lesser-skilled player (black) may not be convinced and request to play it out.
As the board sits, without visible captured (removed) stones, white wins by 0.5 komi (or higher) and would not want to play one extra stone. TimK's answer about waiting too long would apply and could turn the result.
It's extremely challenging (or impossible) to create life in a small corner as presented, hence the reference to the lesser-skilled player.

Simple answer:
If black did play in the upper-left, white does not necessarily have to capture that piece, as it's dead and captures no territory. So really, we are trying to capture as much territory, but that in-turn also means we don't waste pieces.


text:
Does moving counters "put" counters on destination?
I'm particularly trying to figure what interaction there is between Shalai and Hallar and Forgotten Ancient.
Specifically, Forgotten Ancient says during my upkeep I may move counters to another creature.  Moving doesn't require targeting, so I wanted to make sure that it won't run afoul of other situations too.  If I move counters from Forgotten Ancient to another creature, will that count as putting the counters on the second creature and thus trigger the damage ability of Shalai and Hallar?
Similarly, I assume Branching Evolution would see it the same way and would let me double the number of moved counters and then do the damage, correct?
I presume so, but I want to make sure of that.

Yes, moving counters puts counters on an object.
This is stated in rule 122.5:

If an effect says to “move” a counter, it means to remove that counter from the object it’s currently on and put it onto a second object. [...]

This means that it will trigger any effect that checks for counters being put on objects such as Shalai and Hallar, and any ability that modifies counters being put on an object will modify that event, such as Branching Evolution.

Yes, they will count as being put onto their new object.
Moving counters is covered in the Comprehensive Rules under 122.5, which reads as follows:

122.5. If an effect says to “move” a counter, it means to remove that counter from the object it’s currently on and put it onto a second object. If either of these actions isn’t possible, it’s not possible to move a counter, and no counter is removed from or put onto anything. This may occur if the first and second objects are the same object; if the first object doesn’t have the appropriate kind of counter on it; if the second object can’t have counters put onto it; or if either object is no longer in the correct zone.


text:
How does Celestial Dawn affect non-basic lands' abilities?
The part that affects lands on Celestial Dawn says

Lands you control are Plains

In my head, this takes away any other type and abilities those lands have, but the only thing I can find in the rulings for Celestial Dawn is the 29-Sep-2017 ruling that says if the land has an ability that would cause it to enter tapped it doesn't.
So, do my non-basics still get their other abilities, such as Lotus Field tapping for three mana or Serra's Sanctum, adding one white mana for each enchantment I control?

No, they don't get other abilities than tapping for one white mana. A similar card is Blood Moon, which states "Nonbasic lands are Mountains.", and its rulings say

Nonbasic lands will lose any other land types and abilities they had. They will gain the land type Mountain and gain the ability “Tap: Add Red.”

Your initial thought is correct. Quoting Comprehensive Rule 305.7:

If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copiable effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type.

The thing to remember here is that the rulings in Gatherer are just explanations of how the Comprehensive Rules apply to a particular situation; they do not aim to cover every possible interaction that a card may have.


text:
How does Selesnya Guildgate work?
I'm still learning the basics of Magic the Gathering; I was able to get some used cards in order to build my first deck, and I am thinking about building a green/white deck. One of the cards I got was Selesnya Guildgate, and had the following description:

Selesnya Guildgate enters the battlefied tapped.
(tap) Add [green] or [white] to your mana pool.

I have a couple of questions on how to use it properly given the following scenario:
Let's say I have three cards in my hand, Gladecover Scout, Champion of the Parish and Selesnya Guildgate, and it is my turn. I know in the card of Selesnya says is a land. The question is:

Is it a colorless land? It doesn't have any specific color at the right top
If I use Selesnya, can I cast either Gladecover Scout or Champion of the Parish at that moment since they only required one mana?
Since Selesnya enters tapped, the ability will be triggered to add either a green or white mana. Does that mean I can search for a land from my library and then add it to my mana pool? Or does it mean that if I would have another land in my hand (given this example, I don't have one), would I have added to my mana pool? I think I've seen ability cards saying "search for a land from your library" or similar... but for Selesnya, it doesn't specify.

https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/45595/what-is-the-difference-between-lands-and-mana/45596#45596

I don’t think it’s a duplicate, but you should read through that answer. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about how lands and mana work in general.

Very worth reading are the Basic Rules. I'd also recommend installing MtG: Arena and running through the tutorial, which is entirely free and walks you through the basics of the game.

@PhilipKendall, though the Basic Rules do a really lousy job at explaining how the game actually works. Like they don't really even tell you what mana is. Or what lands are. Just that "To cast a spell, you must pay its mana cost by tapping lands to make the amount and Game Actions type of mana which that spell requires.". But it doesn't say what those types might be, etc. (It doesn't help the formatting is broken.) Oh and the only place it says you get to play only one land per turn is in a sentence phrased as a reminder. It's never mentioned for the first time.

(At least the Basic Rules do imply that lands != mana, in that they say you must pay mana costs by tapping lands. But given the usefulness of the text in general, I'm not surprised people are confused about how the game actually works, sigh.)

@ilkkachu If they fixed the broken images in their document it would be fine, since the example would show the mana cost symbols, but unfortunately the basic rules page seems to have been left alone for far too long.

@Andrew, that would help, but it still wouldn't be fine as the text doesn't explain the rules adequately either, it reads like it's by someone who can't remember what it is not to know the rules. So in practice the reader needs to also know how things work to understand it.

There are several different things you have incorrect about the rules. First off, lands and mana are different things, see What is the difference between lands and mana? for more on that.
You also seem to be mixing up triggered abilities and activated abilities. From the basic rulebook:

Each triggered ability starts with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” You don’t activate a triggered ability. It automatically triggers whenever the first part of the ability happens.

An activated ability is an ability that you can activate whenever you want, as long as you can pay the cost. For example, Blood Bairn is a creature with the ability “Sacrifice another creature: Blood Bairn gets +2/+2 until end of turn.”
Each activated ability has a cost, then a colon (“:”), then an effect.

From this, you should see that Selesnya Guildgate has an activated ability, not a triggered ability. So it entering tapped will not cause its ability to do anything. Rather, if you want to use its ability, you have to pay the cost, which is tapping it. You cannot pay that cost if it is already tapped, so the fact that it entered tapped means that you can’t use it on the turn that you play it. That is the drawback that balances out the advantage of getting to choose from two different colors of mana; unlike a Forest which would only be able to produce one color (green).
So if you have an untapped Selsnya Guldgate, then you could use that to cast either Gladecover Scout or Champion of the Parish. But if it is already tapped, like it is when you first play it, then you can’t use it to add mana this turn.

I see, I clearly got it wrong, I will deeply read the links provided,thank you Gendolkari. Just to confirm this one, everytime I manually tap Selesnya Guildgate, I will be able to add either 1 green or 1 white land to my mana pool, right? seems like a powerful card to me given this activated ability

No, you still have lands and mana mixed up. Selesnya itself is a land, but it does not give you any additional lands. When you tap it, you add mana to your mana pool; you do not get a new land. Land can never be in your mana pool.

So the mana added to the mana pool is intangible, is not a land card... conceptually speaking, I added a mana to my mana pool... right? if so, that mana I've just added will be always there? next time can I consider having that mana in my mana pool?

@Andres2142 You are mostly correct, but mana will empty from your pool at the end of steps and phases. It's also worth noting that basic lands (Forest, Plains, etc.) have the intrinsic ability (not printed) to tap for their respective colour, eg. Forest has "(↷): Add ()"

@Andres2142 Mana is energy that you use to cast spells or activate abilities. Lands are sources of mana energy. Untapped lands are charged up and ready to produce mana, while tapped lands need to recharge (by untapping, usually when your next turn starts). Mana, once it is produced, is a use it or lose it resource. At the end of each step or phase of a turn, all mana in your mana pool disappears.


text:
How many meeples should I have according to the expansions that I'm currently using?
Like many of you, I start playing carcassonne base game with 72 tiles and 7 meeples, but I start adding expansions, and now I have more that 150 tiles in game
With just 9 meeples by player (counting the phantom and big one) I think I have a meeple deficit, how many meeples should I have for each player?

That sounds about right. Apart from the first expansion and the ghost, no expansion adds meeples I think. The question would be easier to answer if you listed the expansions you own.

Ok, now I'm playing with. Base game, Inns and cathedrals, count king and baron (with river II), river, traders and builders, QG#11, bridges castles and bazaars & phantom

(adding to Kristo's answer because this is a bit too long for a comment)
We regularly play "SuperUltraMega Carcassone" because we have most of the expansions and two copies of the basic game and we are, frankly, silly. It can take a couple of hours to play that way, but it's kind of fun and means we only have to clean up once. Plus there's the challenge of getting everything on the table, which in the later stages further restricts the moves available. Note that we're playing this for fun rather than competitively.
We've tried adding extra meeples but it doesn't really change the game dynamic in a useful way. With the effectively smaller number of meeples during the game farming becomes a less useful strategy and getting a meeple trapped becomes more of a problem. But those are changes rather than major flaws in my experience.
Having the complete double set of extra meeples causes a different problem - people go back to farming, but there's a real tendency to get into meeple wars over desirable bits of farmland. And those can get quite bitter, and lead to people building their whole game around a make-or-break block of farmland. Which makes the game less fun.
My feeling is that you could perhaps add one or two extra meeples if you're playing with two copies of the base set, but not more than that. Given how playable it is without that I would be reluctant to do it. I'm more likely to suggest taking out one of the sets. The game is well balanced enough that we don't see runaway victories, I think largely because once someone gets 50 points ahead of the rest everyone else gangs up on them. It's very hard to stay ahead when that happens.

The list of expansions that add pieces for each player are as follows:
Base game

7 meeples, plus one for scoring.

Inns & Cathedrals

Adds the Big Meeple.

Traders & Builders

Adds the Builder and the Pig.

Abbey & Mayor

Adds the Mayor, the Barn, and the Wagon.

Bridges, Castles, and Bazaars

Adds 2-3 bridges and 2-3 castles, depending on the number of players.

The Phantom

Adds the Phantom.

Of the new pieces, only the Big Meeple, Mayor, Wagon, and Phantom are truly meeples.  The rest of them change the rules but can't be placed on their own.  In the games you listed, you're right, you should have 9 meeples.

Yup, that's right and this is my problem, sometimes some players haven't enough meeples to play, and you forgive the pig... The wagon doesn't worth like a standard meeple?

You're right on both counts - I've updated my answer.  It sounds like you want to get the Abbey & Mayor expansion then.  But I have to ask, what are you guys doing that 9 meeples isn't enough?

What are we doing? Playing with more than 150 tiles.

What I meant is "how many scoring features do you have active at once?"  I think you could play with 300 tiles and 9 meeples would still be plenty.  You're supposed to feel like you don't have enough.  Managing your meeples efficiently is a big part of this game.

We are using all the scoring features (road, city, farm, shrine, farm with pig, castle & feud, castle at the end, king, rober baron) and you're right, managing the resources is a key feature of the game, by the moment I'm going to try adding 1 extra meeple by player, anyways the expansion abbey and mayor is waiting to be added at the game, thanks for all the answers.

I have to agree. Adding more meeples is like adding more money to monopoly. When I talk to my wife about it, she says "it sucks to not have money to buy things" - I try to remind her that deciding what to buy and what to pass on is what makes the game dynamic as opposed to just rolling the dice.

When you say "Big Meeple" do you mean the "Abbot"?


text:
+1/+1 counter, where does it go when my adversary bolts it's target?
Vastwood Hydra is on the field, 7/7 atm (7 x +1/+1 counters). My adversary blocks it for combined strength of 7, all creatures in combat die when the damage resolves.
When Vastwood Hydra dies I get to distribute all it's +1/+1 counters among my creatures.
I designate my Kioras follower (2/2) as a recipient of a counter. My opponent decides to shock it for 2 damage (instant).
What I want to know is, what happens? What comes first, the counter or the shock? If the shock comes first and my 2/2 goes to graveyard, does the counter "fizzle" lacking a target, or do I still have a +1/+1 counter to distribute?

Your Vastwood Hydra comes first if your opponent waits for the ability to resolve.
You distribute the counters upon resolution of the ability. This means that your opponent must choose to Shock your followers, before the Hydra ability resolves. The Hydra's ability doesn't use the word "Target", so you need not declare which creatures get the counters until the resolution of the Hydra's ability. From the cards rulings.

The ability that triggers when Vastwood Hydra dies doesn’t target any of the creatures. You can choose to put counters on a creature with protection from green, for example.

You choose how the counters will be distributed when the ability resolves.

Essentially, your opponent must choose what creature to target with Shock while the "distribute Vastwood Hydra's" ability is on the stack. If you have multiple 2/2s, your opponent can only Shock one and you can distribute the counters on the other.

Nice card. The answer would be completely different if it read "among any number of target creatures you control." Both the creatures (601.2c) and the distribution (601.2d) would be picked upon stacking in that case.


text:
How does Spirit of the Labyrinth interact with Chains of Mephistopheles?
If I have Spirit of the Labyrinth and Chains of Mephistopheles in play.  And then on my opponent's main phase (after they have drawn a card) I play Blue Sun Zenith for 8 mana and target my opponent.
What will happen?  My guess is that they will have to discard 5 cards.  But I am not sure, so I am asking...

From the gatherer rulings on Spirit of the Labyrinth:

You can draw a maximum of one card on each player’s turn. Subsequent card draws are ignored.
If a replacement effect would try to replace a card that you can’t draw, that effect can’t apply.

Spirit of the Labyrinth completely shuts off Chains of Mephistopheles. So in your specific scenario, Blue Sun's Zenith is shuffled into your library and nothing else happens.

BrianS pointed out a big hole in my original explanation below. Given the exact situation in the OP, the above is correct. It works differently if it's your turn or before your opponent's draw step.
If your opponent has cards in hand, the first attempted draw gets replaced by Chains. In that situation, your opponent will draw one card, then discard a card. At that point, the opponent will have drawn a card that turn and Spirit of the Labyrinth will do nothing. From Chains' gatherer page:

If a spell or ability would cause a player to draw multiple cards, this is treated as a number of individual "draw one card" actions. Apply the effect of Chains of Mephistopheles to each one.

If the opponent has no hand and has drawn no cards this turn, then Chains can have the full effect. This is because while the opponent has multiple draws replaced, they never actually draw any cards:

Here's what happens when Chains of Mephistopheles replaces a player's draw: -- If that player has at least one card in his or her hand, he or she discards a card and then draws a card. -- If that player's hand is empty, he or she puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard. The player doesn't draw a card at all.

So, the lesson here is that if you have both Chains and Spirit in play at the same time, you should try to catch your opponent with an empty hand.

Since the OP is targeting his opponent with USZ, if it is not the opponent's turn, or if it is during the opponent's upkeep step, Chains would still operate, but casting USZ for X=5 would be no different from X=1. Opponent would discard 1 then draw 1, or if he has no cards in hand, opponent would mill 1 and not draw.


text:
Does the starting world dictate your strategy in Race for the Galaxy?
Our board games club recently purchased Race for the Galaxy and we've played around a dozen games so far, plus some research using Keldon's AI (which is excellent).
In the base set with one world, when you draw a starting planet that confers a specific bonus, eg +2 Military does that force you down the Military path? As for a Produce/Consume strategy you are behind a player who drew a Mining world for example.

I usually base my strategy on the first high-power 6-cost development I draw

@Jonathan I feel like this question is sufficiently narrow.  It isn't asking for strategies for the whole game, it is asking specifically whether you need to base your strategy off your starting world.

@bwarner It is now - the question got changed completely a few hours ago, after I left my comment. ;)

Yes - my intention originally was to get general tips/strategies for Race for the Galaxy as I'm new to the game, but I updated it to ask a more focussed question.

The short answer is that the start world is able to give you a jumpstart toward one or more specific strategies (the military world is probably the best example), but you can still play a very successful strategy that does not revolve around (get it?) that world.
I often make the decision about whether to commit to the start world pretty early on. A very common strategy, I'm sure you've noticed, is to play Explore on the first round. Between my starting four cards and my first explore draw, I will try to find a strategy that will get me ~50% of the way through my tableau (not necessarily from the cards in hand, but from the powers and phase plays I expect to focus on). If there's one that the start world helps, that's usually weighted pretty heavily.
If a strategy coalesces in my hand that the start world does little to help, I'll usually still go for it.

Thanks! Glad I found this SE - it's also nice to get positive feedback on a first answer ;)

It's a common beginner's mistake to pick a strategy too soon, and to stick to it, come hell or high water.  Having New Sparta helps start a military strategy, but if playable military cards don't come your way early, you will have to take a different path.
So no, it doesn't determine your path.  It gives you a jump on one path, but you determine your strategy based on all the cards you see, not just your starting homeworld.

Yes, it is important to your strategy what start world you get, but it doesn't dictate it. For example, if you get Old Earth, it makes it easier to start a Trade or Production strategy, but depending on what cards you get, you can do something that isn't connected to your start world at all.

There are many degrees of "shift" in Race as well...
Using your New Sparta example, starting off with a military world of 2 or less defense can jump start your card flow.  That could be it, but now you can build non-military worlds for more cards and devs for other powers
Or, you get more military worlds of 2 or less defense.  Build some of those too!
You get further military strength, which lets you build even higher defense worlds.
At various points in the game, you may decide to get off the "military bandwagon", or may even find yourself jumping back on!


text:
Could B-17 bombers identify individual ships in Midway?
This is a reference to the Avalon HIll Board game.
One of the possibilities offered to the American player in the game is one or two B-17 attacks a day. A die roll of five inflicts three hits on a target ship and a die roll of six inflicts five hits. (This possibility did not play a role in the historical version of the battle.)
I'm going to begin by assuming that the B-17s could identify the main Japanese ship types - battleship, aircraft carrier and cruiser - and that they would target the carriers. Even so, there were two types of heavy carriers on the first day, the two larger ones (the Akagi and the Kaga) that required five hits to sink, and the two smaller ones (Hiryu and Soryu) that required three hits to sink.
Given the opportunity, an aggressive player might target the two heavier carriers and hope to roll sixes, while a conservative player might target the two smaller ones, succeeding with either a 5 or 6.
The Q &A of the (1960) rules of the game state that ship ID from search planes (and by implication B-17s) was not sufficiently accurate in 1942 for a long range bomber to make this kind of identification, "even identification of ship types was often erroneous. " But planes attacking at close range could (usually) identify individual ships. Which is why the defending player places his ships face up.
Should the rules allow the targeting described in the previous paragraph, as they seem to?
Or does it make sense to institute a rule change/house rule so that the Japanese player would turn over his four carrier counters face down and force the American player to choose his targets at random when using B-17s? Would such a rule change reconcile the game play with the Q&A text?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about real life tactical information and sensor systems. It's inspired by a board game, but the question isn't about the board game.

This question is better asked on a site such as history or aviation and once you have the needed information about the planes and technology at the time then you might be able to ask for the rule help here. As it stands users of this site are very unlikely to know that information without researching it which is not our job.

But that is not the focus of this site which makes this question off topic. .

I am having trouble finding the rules online so can you provide some information about how combat works in this game?

The question I have is how are casualties normally decided? Is it the attacker? The defender? Or some other mechanic? Outside of the Q&A which doesn't seem to give rule changes does it say anything different about how they pick targets?

In Battle of the Bismark Sea, B-17's attacked at an altitude of only 7,000 ft. This clearly allows some targeting, but is nothing like a dive bomber or torpedo bomber.  The process of attacking in a defendable box formation further constrains the attack. I would perhaps double-weight the most desired targets, and increase hits by the square-root of the total vessels (effectively proportional to the diameter of the target formation, approximating time over target..

@JoeW: Under "normal" bombing, the defender puts his ships face up, defense factors visible, so that the attacker can allocate his attack factors most advantageously. But B-17s operate at longer range than normal bombers and can't ID individual ships, only ship types. At its core, the revised question is, does it make sense allow the defender to deploy ships "face down" to force the B-17 bombers to choose their targets randomly (from say, aircraft carriers, not "all" ships) before combat resolution, even though the official rules don't provide for this? Thanks for all your interest and help.

Seeing this for the first time after it's been bumped. It seems like it could still use more editing, or else migration to history. If it asked do the rules allow X, then that'd be a board games question, and if it asked about the consequences in terms of game balance of allowing X, that's probably fine, but it asks should the game allow X, based on historical reasons, which seems well out of our purview. And... you're not getting answers here, while you probably would on history. I'd think you'd want to ask there?

Attacking B-17s would have a better view than reconnaissance planes and would be able to id a carrier by class...
Dedicated reconnaissance aircraft (as opposed to fighter patrols) would fly at very high altitudes and typically would avoid overflying large formations of enemy ships. First it was dangerous and second, they did not want the enemy ships to know they had been spotted. At high altitude and at oblique angles, identifying a carrier by its class while maintaining a specified distance might well have been impossible in some circumstances, even with binoculars.
B-17 bombers also flew and attacked at high altitudes, but by necessity they would have to directly overfly any ships they wanted to bomb, and the bombardier would be looking at the vessels through a bombsight providing some magnification. It is likely that the B-17s crew, especially the bombardier, would be able to identify a Japanese carrier by class.
That being said, other factors such as ship positioning, ship maneuvering, and defensive fire could make it difficult for the planes to launch an attack against the carrier of choice. The one B-17 attack that I know occurred against a carrier at Midway was against the Hiryu (you can see a photo of the bomb pattern on the Battle of Midway Wikipedia page. It shows you the resolution the bombardier would have had, which was easily enough to id the carrier by class). Whether that B-17 was after the Hiryu or would have preferred one of the larger carriers, I do not know.
In short, the game's mechanic for B-17 and reconnaissance plane identification and B-17 choice of attack isn't that unrealistic.
...but B-17s were poor in the naval attack role in 1942
The problem that the Army and Navy encountered was that although B-17s could bomb from altitudes at which many Japanese fighters could not even reach them, they were woefully inaccurate from the high altitudes that doctrine dictated they fly at high altitudes (c. 25,000 feet) while bombing and without the Norden bombsights they would have later in the war. The early estimates for the B-17 in a naval attack role was that about 1% of their bombs hit. This is due in large part to the difficulty of dropping bombs from 25,000 feet at a target that is both moving and maneuvering. The B-17s at Midway were completely ineffective. You'll note that the previously mentioned photo on Wikipedia shows a miss by more than the length of the ship.
Later in the war, with better bombsights and a change in doctrine to allow lower altitude bombing runs, B-17s were more effective in the Pacific, though they were never deployed to that theater in very large numbers.
So as far as B-17 attack rules go (which I realize is getting beyond the scope of the question), any game mechanic that assigns them a decent chance of hitting a ship in 1942 is not realistic, and if the mechanics give the B-17 an equal or close-to equal chance to hit as a dive bomber or torpedo bomber, then the rules are wildly unrealistic.

Your answer suggest that the B-17 crew would be able to identify the ship that they are bombing after they have committed to bombing that target, which is quite different from them being able to identify before committing. "doctrine dictated they fly while bombing" Yes, B-17s generally did fly while bombing :)

Yes, thanks. Corrected that to add "at high altitude." I don't see how my answer suggests they would be able to id a ship only after they committed to bombing it. The bombardier would see the target in his sight before dropping the bombs... that's how bombing with a bombsight works. I would have thought that wouldn't need to be explained.


text:
Pandemic Legacy, February, and Epidemics
In Pandemic Legacy, February gives you

 Quarantine tokens. During the infect phase, if a city card is pulled and there's a quarantine token on that city, you remove the token instead of placing a disease cube.

But what happens if you have an epidemic outbreak on a such a city?  That is, when you draw a card from the bottom of the deck to infect,

 You normally place 3 cubes in that city.  But what if the city has a quarantine token in it?

What happens?

 Does the epidemic take effect as normal? Do you place 1 fewer cube per quarantine token? Does the epidemic simply not take effect and remove the quarantine token instead?

Remove the marker.  That is the only effect.

 The Quarantine rules state (2nd paragraph) - When a player is instructed to add any amount of disease markers to the city (or any color), remove the quarantine marker instead of adding disease markers.

Of course,

 If the Quarantine Specialist is in the city, do not remove the token!


text:
Axis and Allies 1941: Who, when and to where can you retreat?
Official rules only, not house rules.
How and when are you allowed to retreat, both in an amphibious landing and a land battle?
The rules say that you can't retreat in an amphibious battle.  What happens if the battle ends with both sides taking one casualty? Does the attacking force fall back to the transport from once it came and the defender stays put?
In a land battle, can the defender choose to have all (land and air) units retreat to an adjacent friendly/unoccupied territory? Or is the option to retreat restricted only to the attacker?

Please break limit yourself to one question per post as it will be easier to answer them.

TLDR

Retreats are possible for the attacker.
Retreats are not possible for the defender, ever.
Land and Sea units retreat as expected. They all withdraw to a friendly adjacent space. They only possible unexpected point is that even if they came from different spaces, they all retreat to the same space that at one of the "units" attacked from initially.
Air units retreat after the noncombat movement phase as if they had a successful attack. I assume this gives your opponent a chance to destroy it prior to a successful retreat.
The only attacking units that can not retreat are the units that landed during an amphibious assault.

So I downloaded a copy of the rules from the axis and allies website. First thing I came across regarding your question is this on page 14

...If no seaborne land units survived the sea combat, or if the attacking sea units retreated from the sea combat,...

So yes, retreats are possible. Then I came across the actual retreat section:

Retreats: Keep the attacking overland and seaborne land units separated on the battle strip. Attacking seaborne units cannot
  retreat. Attacking overland units and aircraft can retreat as normal at the end of any round of combat (see “Step 6: Press Attack
  or Retreat” on page 17). All attacking overland units must retreat together as a group, at the same time and to the same place.
  They can retreat only to where at least one of those units moved from. Attacking air units, whether involved in the sea combat or the attack on the territory, can retreat as normal. Air units and
  overland units (if any) must retreat at the same time. However, the air units do not land until the Noncombat Move phase.

I do not know for sure but I assume that the reason the seaborne attack could not retreat is because in real life the transport would get off the beach for the next transport to unload and/or to not get destroyed by enemy fire for no reason.
The section on page 17 regarding retreating says as follows:

Condition B—Attacker Retreats
  The attacker (never the defender) can retreat during this step.
  Land and Sea Units: Move all attacking land and sea units in that combat that are along the battle strip to a single adjacent
  friendly space from which at least one of the attacking land or sea units moved. In the case of sea units, that space must have
  been friendly at the start of the turn. All such units must retreat together to the same space, regardless of where they came
  from.
  Air Units: Retreating air units remain in the contested space temporarily. They complete their retreat movement during the
  Noncombat Move phase using the same rules as air units involved in a successful battle.


text:
Exiled Players/Betrayer Dead of Winter TLN
If you have a player that is voted into exile, must that player immediately reveal to the rest of the group whether they are actually the betrayer?

Yes.
When the players vote in favor of exiling a player, the exiled player must immediately draw 1 exiled secret objective card. This text of that card follows the following template:

If you are not the betrayer: Reveal your secret objective to all players and remove it from the game. Your new secret objective is now the following: [...]

If you are the betrayer: The 1st goal on your secret objective has changed to the following: [...]

So you must implicitly reveal that you are the betrayer by keeping your original secret objective card.

Awesome! Thanks for the info. It seems silly that I didn't know that, based on the fact that it is printed on the cards. We just bought last night and my boyfriend and I played a game to get the hang of it to help explain to our friends. Since there were only 2 of us we played co-op and we didn't need/want to read the betrayer or exiled objectives so that when we do play with a larger group we could be just as surprised by the objectives as our friends and not have the upper hand of having read all the cards beforehand.

@Holly Also note that "If at any time there are 2 exiled players and neither had a
betrayal secret objective, morale immediately drops to 0. "


text:
Martial Law vs Zacama, Primal Calamity
It's my turn I have priority I control a Martial Law ... I detain my opponents Zacama, Primal Calamity ... My spell goes into the stack then I pass priority to my opponent. He uses Zacama's ability to destroy target enchantment in this case my Martial Law. His spell goes into the stack over mine he then passes priority back to me I have nothing else to do and the spells resolves. If both spell resolves this means my enchantments gets destroyed and his Zacama is detained? Or my enchantment survives because he can't active his activated abilities? Sorry still trying to understand the stack! I know his spell resolves first does that means he destroys my enchantment and is not detained?

I want to point out that there are no spells involved here. You have Martial Law's triggered ability, and Zacama's activated ability.

Your enchantment will be destroyed, then their creature will be detained.
That happens because, as you guessed, their creature only becomes detained after Martial Law's trigger resolves. Since it's been placed on the stack, and your opponent had priority before it resolved, they can use Zacama's abilities normally. That goes into the stack, and resolves before your triggered ability. Your enchantment will be destroyed, and then its trigger will resolve normally and detain their creature until your next turn.

I see. Doesn't matter if my "detain target creature" is on top of the stack resolving first? The same thing will happen?

It doesn't matter, because the Detain keyword prevents the creature's abilities from being activated. When they're already on the stack, they've already been activated, so whether the creature is detained or not is not relevant.

A quick example. I have an Arrest (Same thing as detain but it's an aura spell). I cast Arrest at the beginning of my turn targeting zacama. My opponent has priority he uses zacamas ability destroy target enchantment. When both spell resolves my enchantment gets destroyed? And his zacama is never Arrested? Sorry I just want to make sure been playing magic wrong for sooo long!

Now that's a different situation. Arrest is a permanent spell, and only becomes a permanent after it resolves. If your opponent activates Zacama's ability in response to you casting Arrest, they'll be able to target any artifact or enchantment that's already on the battlefield, but not Arrest, since it hasn't resolved yet. Logically, they won't be able to activate Zacama's ability after Arrest resolves.

@Chris, you seem to be confusing a "stack" with a "queue."  The first thing into a stack, is the last thing to leave a stack.  The last element to enter a stack, is the first thing to leave a stack.  Where as, in a Queue, the first thing to enter a queue, is the first thing to leave a queue.


text:
What happens to a spell that is cast with flashback when it gets countered by a Remand?
I know if a spell that has been cast with flashback is countered with a regular counter it is still exiled, but what about cards that return the card to the hand like Venser or Remand or even a counter that returns the card to the top of the library like  Memory Lapse?
Where does the flash-backed spell go then?

Did you read the pages you linked to? Near the bottom of the Remand one, it says "If you Remand a card with Flashback, the card will still be exiled.".

A spell that was cast using Flashback will always be exiled, no matter how it left the stack

702.33. Flashback
702.33a Flashback appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents two static abilities: one that functions while the card is in a player’s graveyard and another that functions while the card is on the stack. “Flashback [cost]” means “You may cast this card from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “If the flashback cost was paid, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack.” Casting a spell using its flashback ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.


text:
What happens if the permanent enchanted by Song of the Dryads gets copied?
If your Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur get turned into a tree by a Song of the Dryads and the subsequent tree gets copied by a Vesuva or a Thespian's Stage, what exactly happens?

The copy will be a copy of Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur's original text.
Song of the Dryads changes a permanent's characteristics, but not its copyable attributes. The changed attributes make it a valid choice for Vesuva's ability and a valid target for Thespian Stage's ability, but those effects still copy the permanent's copyable attributes.
Rule 702.2 describes how copyable attributes work:

When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The copiable values are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, counters, and stickers are not copied.

I like to summarize the way copy effects work as copying "the card, the whole card, and nothing but the card." The few exceptions to that generally seem to be obviously necessary to avoid some kind of nonsensical ambiguous or undefined game state.

A friend of mine once described copy effects to me like this, and it works (paraphrased):

Take the card, and imagine scanning it with a photocopier.  Take whatever comes out of the other side of the photocopier, and that's what your copy is.

That's the easiest way to resolve any copy questions.  If you copy a Jin Gitaxias, then put the Jin Gitaxias through the photocopier.  In the act of taking the Jin Gitaxias off the table and bringing it to the photocopy machine, you lose any counters, local enchantments, tapped/untapped status, phased in/out status, additional added/changed text (e.g. Magical Hack, Riding the Dilu Horse), etc.  When you photocopy it, the photocopy doesn't have any of those things.  That's what you get when you copy something.


text:
If I sacrifice a Forsaken Miner to the card Eaten Alive do I get the miner back?
If I sacrifice a Forsaken Miner to a Eaten Alive do I get to pay a black to get the miner back? I'm targeting my opponents creature with Eaten Alive.

I refer you to your own comment.

Yes, that combo works.
You commit a crime when you successfully target something. For a spell, that happens when the spell has been successfully cast, i.e. after all its costs have been paid. Sacrificing the Miner is a cost of Eaten Alive, so the Miner will be in the graveyard when the crime event happens and its ability will trigger, allowing you to return it to the battlefield.

601.2h The player pays the total cost. [..]
601.2i Once the steps described in 601.2a–h are completed, effects that modify the characteristics of the spell as it’s cast are applied, then the spell becomes cast.

700.13. Some cards refer to committing a crime. A player commits a crime as that player casts a spell, activates an ability, or puts a triggered ability on the stack and that spell or ability targets at least one opponent;

This is confirmed by Forsaken Miner's first Gatherer ruling.


text:
Can the Treasure token from Collectors Vault be used to pay for Madness cost?
If I tap Collector's Vault and discard a Fiery Temper, can I use the mana from the treasure token that Collector's Vault produces, to pay for the madness cost of Fiery Temper?

Yes, you can do this.
The ability of Madness that lets you actually cast it is a triggered ability. It will only go on the stack the next time a player would gain priority, which is after the Collector’s Vault finishes resolving.
So first you fully resolve Collector’s Vault, though you exile Fiery Temper instead of discarding it. Then the Madness trigger is put on the stack. Then that trigger resolves, and when it does you can pay the mana to cast Fiery Temper.
Now if “discard a card” were part of the activation cost rather than part of the effect, (Peace of Mind), then you wouldn’t be able to do this.  You would have to deal with the madness trigger before the activated ability resolved.

702.35. Madness

702.35a Madness is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with madness is in a player’s hand. The second is a triggered ability that functions when the first ability is applied. “Madness [cost]” means “If a player would discard this card, that player discards it, but exiles it instead of putting it into their graveyard” and “When this card is exiled this way, its owner may cast it by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If that player doesn’t, they put this card into their graveyard.”

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.”

117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.


text:
Floodtide Serpent and Can't Attack Enchantments
I control Krasis Incubation enchanting my Floodtide Serpent. My mana pool is empty and I have no way to gain more mana this turn. The only enchantment I control is Krasis Incubation. Floodtide Serpent does not have summoning sickness.
Can I attack with Floodtide Serpent by returning Incubation Krasis to my hand?
Here is what I have found so far, to help you guys answer my question.
Rule 508 describes the declare attackers step in depth. 508.1 is broken down into a few steps. Here are the parts I found to be relevant.

508.1c
The game checks for restrictions. Floodtide Serpent has a restriction that I am disobeying. Krasis Incubation has a restriction that I am disobeying.
508.1d
The game checks for requirements. I have none.
508.1g-i
I determine my total cost for attacking. I bounce Krasis Incubation to pay this cost.

If the game backs up at 508.1c, then Floodtide Serpent cannot attack. However, if this is the case, it would appear that Floodtide Serpent could never be allowed to attack, because his cost can never be paid prior to reaching 508.1g-i.
If the answer is that he cannot attack with Krasis Incubation, then I couldn't describe any situation in which he could attack.

Note that you are incorrect in your description of 508.1g-i: Krasis Incubation would not be sacrificed but instead returned to your hand

I think you are incorrect in describing Floodtide Serpent as a restriction. From general context (i.e. clearly it is meant that Floodtide Serpent can attack when not enchanted by Krasis intubation) and from the reminder text ("The cost is paid..."), the intention is clearly that the text on Floodtide Serpent represents a cost that is handled by 508g-i.

@tengfred A restriction is defined in 508.1c as effects that say a creature can't attack, or that it can't attack unless some condition is met. Clearly Floodtide Serpent has such a restriction.

@John, I disagree. A restriction needs a condition, which is a (true or false) statement about the game state. Floodtide Serpent has "unless [action]" which must be interpreted as a cost for the rules to make sense. So "unless [condition]" is a restriction, but "unless [cost]" is a cost.

Obviously Krasis Incubation is also a restriction, it says so explictly in 508.1c ("effects that say a creature can't attack, or that it can't attack unless some condition is met")...

In this situation, the Floodtide Serpent cannot attack.
For this situation, the most important quote (from 508.1) is

If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration.

The rest of 508.1c says

If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

So once you got to the point that you are disobeying the restriction from Incubation Krasis, the attack is illegal and the game returns to the moment before declaration.
If Incubation Krasis was instead enchanting a different creature and you try to attack with, then when we get to 508.1c, it is not restricting Floodtide Serpent's ability to attack. Then when we get to 508.1g, you determine that the cost of attacking is returning one enchantment you control to its owner's hand. Then when you get to 508.1i, you pay that cost by returning Incubation Krasis to your hand. Then Floodtide Serpent becomes an attacking creature.
Note that the text on Floodtide Serpent is not a restriction, it is a cost. The difference is that restrictions have the form "This creature can't attack" or "This creature can't attack unless [some true/false statement about game state]", while attack costs have the form "This creature can't attack unless [you do something]". It wouldn't make sense to count those costs as restrictions because then every attack with an additional cost would have already failed at 508.1c. That would make cards like Propaganda nonsensical.

I figured as much. I was unsure because of something that I read on Wizards own website. I didn't post it though, because I wanted to avoid biased answers.

Can you link to that thing you read? It probably should be in the question, since it gives motivation. Bias shouldn't matter; an answer about MTG is either right or wrong.

My only problem with this answer is that if it were correct, then it would seem Floodtide Serpent simply can't ever be declared as an attacker in any situation. That said, I still think this answer is the most correct answer, and I think Floodtide Serpent is somehow broken.

I don't see how this makes Floodtide Serpent broken. The only reason it can't attack in this case is because Incubation Krasis says it can't. In most other cases, if you control an enchantment you can attack with the Serpent.

Because you can't pay the cost for the Serpent until 508.1g. You fail the check at 508.1c. Are you saying that we can pay the cost and THEN check restrictions?

Does my most recent edit (the last paragraph) clear things up?

@John 508.1g is when you pay the costs, not when you choose what costs to pay. You choose to pay the cost for Floodtide Serpent at 508.1c (and that choice is enough to satisfy that restriction), but you don't actually pay it until 508.1g.

@Pablo 508.1g is clearly when you determine your total cost. 508.1c is when you check for restrictions. 508.1c says nothing about determining cost.

Accepting this hesistantly as "508.1c can be passed if is is a conditional restriction." It still doesn't sit right with me.

@John, I can definitely see the confusion, but I think the best answer is that "Can't attack unless" isn't really a restriction like "Can't attack" is.

@John I added another paragraph to try to explain the distinction.

@John The rest of it says "unless a condition is met". Costs are not conditions because they cannot be decided until after this step. If you ask "Has this cost been paid?", the only answer is "We can't know yet, wait until 508.1i to see".

@murgatroid99 Wow, after I read your last paragraph and then read 508.1c 5 more times, it finally hit me that a cost is not a condition. I can be thick sometimes. Also, notice I deleted my last comment before you replied to it, so now your latest response doesn't make a lot of sense. Thanks for helping me understand this fully.

This is a cool, really technical interaction and I love it. Thank you for sharing this scenario.
The way it works is this: for Floodtide Serpent to bounce an enchantment (in this case, the intended target would be Krasis Incubation), it would have to be declared as an attacker and the cost would then be paid by bouncing the enchantment before attackers are finalized.
However, for it to be able to be declared as an attacker, Krasis Incubation would have to be removed in some way at or before the "begin combat" phase. You have no way to do this, so Floodtide Serpent can't be declared as an attacker for it to bounce the enchantment.


text:
When should a judge intervene in a match?
I started judging at Regular last week, and one thing that made me uncomfortable was watching players break rules. Sometimes the opponent would look at me like, "Are you really going to let this happen?" I tried my best to educate the players without providing an unfair advantage or being a pesky judge who intervenes every thirty seconds, but I'd rather have a set of official rules that I can follow so that I know when to intervene.
For example, one player declared an attacker, the opponent declared a blocker, then the first player declared another attacker, and then the opponent looked to me for intervention. Not sure if I should intervene, I decided to ask the player, "Do you have a question?" He took the bait, and I was able to correct the situation and educate the players on how declaring attackers works.
When should I intervene in a match?

'Sometimes the opponent would look at me like, "Are you really going to let this happen?"'
If this is actually occurring, you should let players know that they should call a judge to fix errors in the game and that at Competitive REL, taking advantage of an opponent's errors (that aren't missing triggers) can be UC-Cheating.

@HaoYe Absolutely. I should have reminded players to speak up when they have a question. I'm a little crowd-shy, so I approached the problem by leaning in asking the players directly, "Do you have a question?" I think it worked well, but an announcement would have been better.

Do you have an example?  You should never allow an actual violation of game rules to go uncorrected.  Two matches later they try it again and say "Well last time the judge was looking right at it and didn't say anything" and now both they and their opponent think that's how the game is played.  The amount of "Sloppy Play" that ultimately leads to legal game states that is tolerated at Regular is maybe more flexible.

The Magic: the Gathering Tournament Rules (MTR) makes it clear that a judge should not intervene before a rule has been broken, but should intervene after a rule has been broken. In other words, a judge should be reactive, not proactive.

Judges do not intervene in a game to prevent illegal actions, but do intervene as soon as a rule has been broken or to prevent a situation from escalating.

The Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG) states basically the same thing. Keep in mind that, as made clear by a recent rules update, the IPG is only meant to be used at Competitive and Professional REL.

A judge shouldn’t intervene in a game unless he or she believes a rules violation has occurred, a player with a concern or question requests assistance, or the judge wishes to prevent a situation from escalating. Judges don’t stop play errors from occurring, but instead deal with errors that have occurred, penalize those who violate rules or policy, and promote fair play and sporting conduct by example and diplomacy. Judges may intervene to prevent or preempt errors occurring outside of a game

Judging at Regular (JAR) covers Regular REL. At Regular, the judge is allowed (but not required) to intervene for missed triggers. Again, this is optional, and you should intervene at your discretion.

You should intervene if you see something illegal happen in a match, but beyond this you can exercise your discretion. For example, whether you step in when you see a player miss a trigger should be determined by the tone you want to strike for your event – it may be appropriate to provide this extra help in a more causal environment, but less so if your play group is more competitive.