text:
Multiple delayed triggers from Massacre Girl interaction
Recently on my usual EDH playgroup, we had an interaction of which we couldn't tell the outcome for sure.
I had a Massacre Girl out on the battlefield, enchanted with Kaya's Ghostform. I then cast an Altar's Reap, sacrificing Massacre Girl as the additional cost. After resolving the relevant triggered abilities, I had now a Massacre Girl on the battlefield and a delayed trigger that's been created by Massacre Girl's ability.
My turn then proceeds uneventfully until my end step, during which I use the ability from my Conjurer's Closet to 'blink' my Massacre Girl.
Assuming a creature died from the Massacre Girl's latest ETB trigger, both delayed triggers will trigger at the same time: the one created now, and the one created earlier this turn.
Both triggers read:

Whenever a creature dies this turn, each creature other than Massacre Girl gets -1/-1 until end of turn.

My question then is: Will the delayed trigger created earlier in the turn also give -1/-1 to my current Massacre Girl, since it's considered a new object? And which are the relevant rulings for this interaction?

How would the trigger be handled if your opponent also controlled a copy of the card or you had a card that let you get a copy of it so you had two of them on the battle field?

Whenever a creature dies after the second Massacre Girl's ability resolved, the second MG will get -1/-1, while all other creatures get -2/-2.
As you noted, the two Massacre Girls are different objects even though they were represented by the same card.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

The triggered ability of MG creates two one-shot effects. The first of those effects gives every other creature -1/-1 until EOT. The second creates a delayed triggered ability that exists independently of the MG that created it and triggers whenever a creature, including the MG, dies.

603.7. An effect may create a delayed triggered ability that can do something at a later time. A delayed triggered ability will contain “when,” “whenever,” or “at,” although that word won’t usually begin the ability.

The DTA created by both MGs only refer to the MG that created them, respectively.

201.4. Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

When the second MG returns from exile through Conjurer's Closet, it creates another DTA that is identical to the first except it refers to the second MG. Both DTAs are active because the turn hasn't ended yet. So when a creature dies after the creation of the second DTA, both DTAs will trigger and do what they say, namely give -1/-1 to every other creature. The first MG is no longer exists so it can't get -1/-1, but the second MG exists and will get -1/-1 from the first DTA. All other creatures get two instances of -1/-1 until EOT.

Yes, the Massacre Girl on the battlefield will be affected by the delayed triggered ability created earlier in the turn because it is a different object.
Rule 400.7 says

An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are nine exceptions to this rule:

The exceptions are to the part about having no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. Objects always become new objects when moving between zones. In this case, the Massacre Girl moved to exile then back to the graveyard, so it is a different object from the previous Massacre Girl on the battlefield.
The other relevant rule is rule 201.4:

Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

The "other than Massacre Girl" clause specifically refers to the object that triggered ability was on and not any other object named "Massacre Girl", even one represented by the same card.


text:
Can Robots push when moving sideways?
With "Boink" and "Crab Legs" robots can move sideways. Can they push other robots then when not facing them?

As you can see from page 6 of the rules:

Pushing Other Robots
When robots collide, one will push the other. Robots can be pushed
  anywhere on the board (or off the side!), even into a pit or onto a
  conveyor belt. A robot can’t be pushed through a wall, though, so the
  movement of a pushing robot will simply stop if the pushed robot runs
  into a wall. Robots can run into walls all day long without taking any
  damage from it, so they don’t accumulate Damage tokens this way.

You always push robots, unless a wall prevents them from moving. So there is no mention of direction. As long as they collide they are moved.
This also works recursively. If robot A pushes robot B and robot B collides with robot C, then robot C is moved too (as long as there is no wall preventing movement of either robot.

That is not the relevant rule book.. The 2016 wording is: If a robot enters a space occupied by another robot, the robot in motion will push the robot in the direction the pushing robot is moving until it ends is move.

That still leads to the same conclusion.

Robots always push when moving into other robots.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to carry wood logs in the Legends-of-Andor?
Playing the legends of Andor, we are asked to transport wood logs to reconstruct villages.
The rules state [my translation from french]:

The logs are placed on the hero board, on the cells left of the cube indicating the hero strength.
"Les Rondins sont placés sur la fiche du Héros, sur les cases situées à gauche du cube indiquant le nombre de ses Points de Force."
Example: to carry a second log, the hero need at least 3 of strength.

If I have 3 of strength, so the cube on the "3", how could 2 logs be put there?

To me, either we would need force 5 (so there are 4 spaces to place the logs, because each of them have the size of 2 stength cells).
or
We would need force 4, by placing the logs on top.
I don't understand how placing the logs left, we could place 2 logs having 3 of strength.

I saw that part in the French rulebook too, and I assume it's actually a translation mistake.
If you look at the same passage in the English rulebook:

The logs are placed on the hero board’s strength point track — fitting to the left of the cube that indicates the strength points. Example: To be able to carry a “2” log, the hero needs at least 3 strength points.

So it should not be read as "to be able to carry a second log", but instead as "to be able to carry a log of size 2".

All right, that makes sense. Thank you

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


text:
Monopoly Deal - Can you switch your cards after charging rent on them?
If you have one property and another wild card, can you put them together as a set and charge rent on them, and then place the wild card separately, all on your turn? (to save your set from a deal breaker card)

The original rules state that

[y]ou can move a wild card around between sets on any turn. This does NOT count as one of the 3 cards you can play per turn (as it's already on the table).

and

[i]f you replace a wild card with a property card of the right colour and can't use it as part of another set leave it in your property area - you might need it later!

The rules appear to presume that all properties of the same colour are always placed together.
The first rule allows you to move the wild card (double or rainbow) between two sets, presumably only if in legal positions.
The second implies that if you can put a wild card into a set, you must put it into a set.
While you can move a wild card out of a complete set to an incomplete set, you cannot move the wild card from any set to be alone.

Great answer. This was my understanding too. If you have another incomplete set that stays incomplete if you add the wildcard, then you can do what you suggest and your entire move would be valid

I agree that moving a (rainbow) wild into its own pile doesn't seem legal, but I'm not convinced that's true for 2-color wilds. For example, if I have Boardwalk plus a B/G wild, can't I flip it to blue to charge full rent, then flip it to Green to leave a single Green and single Blue to end the turn?

If you're not putting it into another set, you're not moving it between sets so you can't separate it off, and if you had a single blue, you can use it as part of another set so you need to put them together. The quoted section above seems pretty clear that wilds are wilds and have the same rules, the only difference between any particular wilds is what colours they can join. @BradC

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

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


text:
Omen Machine and no library
So Omen Machine is on the field and an opponent just used Jace, the Mind Sculptor's ultimate to exile my library and I have no cards in hand, so no library left.  When it is my turn, do I lose?  Opponent think so, but since I am not drawing due to Omen Machine, I believe I survive and the exile command fizzles.  We couldn't find any specific rules to address the situation so called a draw (I still think I'm right though).
Anyone able to clarify this ruling?

Wow Omen Machine totally changes the power level of Jace's +0!!!

You would not lose the game from being unable to draw a card.
This is because the rule that causes you to lose the game states (empahasis mine):

104.3c: If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

and Omen Machine says (emphasis mine):

Players can't draw cards.
  At the beginning of each player's draw step, that player exiles the top card of his or her library. If it's a land card, the player puts it onto the battlefield. Otherwise, the player casts it without paying its mana cost if able.

So what happens is:

Omen Machine attempts to exile the top card of your library.
You don't have a top card to your library, so the following steps don't do anything.
You continue onto your First Main as normal, having not drawn a card and not exiled a card.

This is further supported in the Gatherer Rulings of a similar card, Maralen of the Mornsong which states:

While Maralen is on the battlefield, no player can lose the game due to being instructed to draw a card with an empty library.

The "Maralen of the Mornsong" link is broken.  I don't know why; it all looks spelled right.

@Brilliand It's because there's a "Maralen of the Mornsong Avatar" for vanguard. Gatherer fails to find a card when its name has multiple words and those words are also inside another card's name. That makes no sense and impacts many other cards. I've documented it in the third paragraph of this meta question, which is also a request to use another search engine than Gatherer since we keep running into nonsense like this.

You won't lose. The game continues.
Losing a game due to drawing is very specific to only drawing. See the rules on drawing a card:

120.4 A player who attempts to draw a card from a library with no cards in it loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

If something says you're not drawing, you don't, and you can't lose the game this way without drawing.
Omen Machine would try to exile a card and find none to exile. (It won't fizzle, it just won't do anything.)
You continue play with no cards in your hand or library. You've got only whatever is on your battlefield and in your graveyard. Your opponent has whatever it is they have. You'll probably lose, but they'll have to find another way to make you lose — such as by removing your Omen Machine.


text:
Question regarding when a player gains Ascend
Opponent has 9 permanents in play and it's opponents turn.
Opponent plays Storm Fleet Swashbuckler (has Ascend: "If you control ten or more permanents, you get the city's blessing for the rest of the game.").
I want to respond with Moment of Craving (Target creature gets -2/-2 until end of turn. You gain 2 life).
Questions (both options assume opponent has no further response):

Can I target Storm Fleet Swashbuckler with Moment of Craving (thus killing it)?

If I can, does the opponent get Ascend?

If, while Storm Fleet Swashbuckler is on the stack, I target another creature that has 2 or less toughness with Moment of Craving (which would kill it), does my opponent gain Ascend after everything resolves?

I'm new to magic, but my interpretation tells me that I could theoretically do either option 1 or 2 and my opponent would not gain Ascend.  Is this right?

You can respond to spells with Ascend on the stack, but once a permanent with Ascend is on the battlefield, its controller will immediately gain the city's blessing, as a continuous effect that doesn't use the stack, the moment the condition (controlling ten permanents) applies.
This is a bit confusing if you just go by what's on the cards, but it's spelled out in several secondary sources.
The detailed rules
Your intuition is good, but it's a little off this time — mostly because the actual mechanics don't quite match the reminder text.
If you look at the rulings text for Storm Fleet Swashbuckler, you'll see:

1/19/2018 Ascend on a permanent isn’t a triggered ability and doesn’t use the stack. Players can respond to a spell that will give you your tenth permanent, but they can’t respond to getting the city’s blessing once you control that tenth permanent. This means that if your tenth permanent is a land you play, players can’t respond before you get the city’s blessing.

To understand why, take a look at the way the MTG comprehensive rules define Ascend:

702.130a Ascend on an instant or sorcery spell represents a spell ability. It means “If you control ten or more permanents and you don’t have the city’s blessing, you get the city’s blessing for the rest of the game.”
702.130b Ascend on a permanent represents a static ability. It means “Any time you control ten or more permanents and you don’t have the city’s blessing, you get the city’s blessing for the rest of the game.”

So, based on the wording in the comp rules, it's a continuous effect and not a triggered ability. And that "if" in the card's reminder text is just misleading, pretty much.
The Rivals of Ixalan set FAQ spells out exactly what this means for play:

If you cast a spell with ascend, you don't get the city's blessing until it resolves. Players may respond to that spell by trying to change whether you get the city's blessing.

Ascend on a permanent isn't a triggered ability and doesn't use the stack. Players can respond to a spell that will give you your tenth permanent, but they can't respond to getting the city's blessing once you control that tenth permanent. This means that if your tenth permanent is a land you play, players can't respond before you get the city's blessing.

If you control ten permanents but don't control a permanent or resolving spell with ascend, you don't get the city's blessing. For example, if you control ten permanents, lose control of one, then cast Golden Demise, you won't have the city's blessing and the spell will affect creatures you control.

If your tenth permanent enters the battlefield and then a permanent leaves the battlefield immediately afterward (most likely due to the "Legend Rule" or due to being a creature with 0 toughness), you get the city's blessing before it leaves the battlefield.

Your example
To understand what happens, let's start with what happens if you do nothing:

Alex's main phase. Alex has nine permanents in play (assume one is a small creature, like a Swab Goblin). Alex casts Storm Fleet Swashbuckler.
Priority passes to Jens. Jens passes.
Once priority passes back to Alex and nothing is above Storm Fleet Swashbuckler on the stack, it will resolve.
Alex will gain the city's blessing as soon as Storm Fleet Swashbuckler resolves, before any triggers from that event are put on the stack.

Here's how you can use Moment of Craving to block Ascend by removing another creature:

Alex's main phase. Alex has nine permanents in play (assume one is a small creature, like a Swab Goblin). Alex casts Storm Fleet Swashbuckler.
Priority passes to Jens. Jens casts Moment of Craving targeting the Swab Goblin.
Alex passes, Moment of Craving resolves.
Jens passes, Storm Fleet Swashbuckler resolves. Alex now has only nine permanents, so Ascend does nothing until Alex somehow gains a tenth permanent.

Using Moment of Craving to kill the Swashbuckler will not stop Ascend:

Alex's main phase. Alex has nine permanents in play (assume one is a small creature, like a Swab Goblin). Alex casts Storm Fleet Swashbuckler.
Priority passes to Jens. Jens passes.
Once priority passes back to Alex and nothing is above Storm Fleet Swashbuckler on the stack, it will resolve.
Alex will gain the city's blessing as soon as Storm Fleet Swashbuckler resolves, even before any triggers from that event are put on the stack.
After Alex passes priority, Jens casts Moment of Craving targeting the Swashbuckler.
The Swashbuckler dies, but Alex retains the city's blessing.

Thank you.  The one rule that was not explicit to me is that I can't take action on a creature until it has resolved. So once my opponent casts a creature, I can immediately target other creatures he controls, but I cannot target the summoned creature until after it resolves. Once it resolves my opponent will immediately gain ascend and then I can remove the creature, but ascend will clearly remain.

@JensBodal Anything that says it targets a creature means a creature in play, unless it refers to a creature 'spell' which would mean while still on the stack, or specifies the zone (search your library for a creature, player reveals their hand you choose a creature) and even those don't actually target.

It doesn't seem like a state based action by the description, that means that if you had a card "gain 1 treasure. Sacrifice a creature" and that treasure would be the 10th permanent, the player would get the blessing. If that were a SBA, the player wouldn't.

@Alistra You're right,it's not even an SBA. Correcting.


text:
Canasta Going Out
Am I missing something? It has come up that my partner and I only have one card left in our hand and we haven't make a Canasta so we can't go out. So we end up picking up and discarding in an endless loop. Is there any recourse other than hoping either me and my partner will pick up a 6th or 7th card to make a Canasta and go out?  In the meantime our opponents are racking up points left and right.

Possible duplicate of Frozen prize pile in canasta when all but one player has only 1 card in hand?

While the linked question is not about team play; nothing changes there; except that it's much rarer in team play as it requires both partners to make the same fatal mistake.

@GendoIkari That question is not a duplicate since it is talking specially about freezing the discard pile and this question is talking about 1 team only have a single card while the other team has multiple cards. In this situation everyone can still draw from the discard pile since it is not frozen just that it is easier to prevent someone from drawing when they only have one card in hand.

@JoeW If the discard pile isn't frozen, it is indeed a different situation... but it's also not nearly as much of a problem; so I guess I assumed that the discard pile was frozen in this case.

@GendoIkari there is no mention of the discard pile being frozen so assuming it is would be a bad assumption.

@JoeW You're right.

@JoeW however I just realized that any competent opponent would freeze the discard pile in this case; so it would be very strange for it to be not frozen.

@GendoIkari Why freeze it if I can guarantee that every discard I make won't be playable for them? If they only have 1 card in hand and limited melds on the table that should be easy to do. Also looks to be from new players so that may not be something that occurs to them.

@JoeW I guess it depends on how many cards they have melded already... it's quite possible that freezing is the only way to discard safely; all the other cards in your hand may be matches to things that they already have. Freezing means that they literally can never pick up the pile no matter what; so you just continually draw out and score the entire deck contents.

Assuming that the discard pile is not frozen; then you can continue to score points if your opponents ever discard something that you can play. This will also limit what your opponents can do to score points; they wouldn't be able to just run through the whole deck and score. However, you are still in a bad position; both you and your partner made a major mistake by going down to only one card in hand wihtout having a Canasta yet.
If your opponents are smart, they will take advantage of thisby keeping the discard pile continually frozen; and then they can discard any card safely no matter what; and they will be able to pick up the entire discard pile by using cards in their hand when you discard something they have (which you'll be forced to do every few plays). This way, your opponents can literally score every card in the deck that you haven't already scored. This could even end the entire game in one hand.
There's no rules thing you are missing here; you simply made an error; and it was worsened by the fact that your opponent made the same error. Even though having more cards in hand when your opponents go out is a bad thing; in general having more cards in hand is a good thing. The more cards you have in hand, the more likely it is that you will be able to pick up the discard pile and score more points. If you are worried that your opponent is going to go out soon; you can play your higher-scoring cards to get them out of your hand, while still keeping a few lower scoring cards in hand as to not get stuck.
This also depends on how close you are to a Canasta. If you have a six card set already; then you may be able to go down to one card and hope that you draw the seventh card. This is still risky though. If you have nothing larger than a 5 card set; then you have literally made it so that you can never make a Canasta or go out; because you can't ever add 2 cards to it at the same time.

Yes, you missed the fact that getting down to one card, or just a low number of cards, is bad and will limit what you can do. Because of this you where not able to score points and your opponents where able to score a lot of points. I would also guess that because of the situation you had to discard a lot of cards that would help them out in scoring many more points while they could avoid discarding ones that would help you.

Ok- I get it. However there is a sweet spot where if opponent goes out you don't want to be stuck with cards in your hand .  But OK best not to get low. While I have you...hahaha..  We are newbie players. Can you tell me the difference between the rules for picking up discard pile during regular play and when the pile is frozen. In first case you can pick up if the top card can be used to make a meld from your hand OR just adding the top card to a meld on the table? In frozen pile you HAVE to apply to cards in your hand. You can't add that top card to meld on the table only?

@SusanS Please ask a separate question for that one. This already-existing question might help; though it's not an actual duplicate.

@SusanS Getting down to 1 card for both players on a team is much worse then getting stuck with cards in your hand. I have played games where the team that doesn't go out get stuck with a bunch of cards in their hands but still scores more points because they have more cards on the table.


text:
Canasta- using the top card of a non frozen pile to a canasta meld
OK- so I understand when the pile if NOT frozen you can take the discard pile if you can use the top to make a meld from your hand OR take the top card and add it to a meld on the table. The question is- can you take the top card and also add it to a canasta (meld) that you previously made that also is the table?

Yes, a Canasta is not diffferent than any normal meld when it comes out adding more cards to it. You can add another card to your Canasta whether that extra card comes from your hand, or if it is the top of the discard pile.
From Bicycle cards:

A completed canasta is squared up with a red card on top to indicate a natural one and a black card on top to indicate a mixed canasta. Additional cards may be added to a canasta to score their point values, but these do not affect the bonus - except that a wild card added to a natural canasta reduces it to a mixed canasta (and a black card replaces the red card that was previously on top).

There are some variants of Canasta where there is a limit on the number of cards in a meld, if this is the case and the limit is reached, I'm guessing one would not be able to add more. It all depends on which flavour of rules is used.


text:
which has precedence when they conflict
On a creature card is says when creature dies return it to the owners hand and the enchantment says when a creature you do not control dies return it to the battlefield under your control and put a +1/+1 counter on it.
Does the creature go to the hand and then to the battlefield under my control?

Related to https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/8599/what-happens-when-a-creature-with-persist-and-undying-dies-return-to-battlefi?rq=1, possible duplicate?

Closer related to https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7355/what-order-do-triggered-abilities-happen-in-if-multiple-things-trigger-at-the-sa

And..  https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/25048/order-of-triggered-abilties

When the creature dies, both abilities go on the stack.  They are placed on the stack in "Active Player, Non-active Player" (APNAP) order.  This means that the player whose turn it is places all of their abilities that triggered on the stack, and then the other player will place all of their abilities that triggered on the stack, above the active player's abilities.  If both abilities belong to the same player, that player chooses the order.  Then the top ability on the stack resolves, moving the creature.  When a card changes zones it becomes an entirely new object, and the only ability that can track it to the new zone is the ability that caused it to move.  So when the second ability tries to resolve it won't be able to do anything because it can't find the creature it is trying to target.
This means that the exact result depends on who controls the effects, and whose turn it is.
If you control Endless Cockroaches that you enchanted with False Demise, then when the cockroaches die you choose which order the effects go on the stack.  If you order them so the cockroaches' ability is on top it will return to you hand.  If you order them so the False Demise ability is on top, it will return to the battlefield.
If you control Endless Cockroaches, and your opponent enchanted it with False Demise and the Cockroaches die on your turn then the Cockroaches ability will be placed on the stack first, and then False Demise will be placed on top of it.  False Demise will resolve first, and your opponent will get your Cockroaches.
If instead it was your opponent's turn, then the False Demise trigger will be placed first and the Cockroach trigger will be placed on top, meaning that the Cockroach trigger will resolve first and the roaches will be returned to you hand.

From the description, it sounds like the enchantment in question is Grave Betrayal.  If that is the case, then the roaches will always go back to their owners hand.  That's because Grave Betrayal reads

Whenever a creature you don't control dies, return it to the battlefield under your control with an additional +1/+1 counter on it at the beginning of the next end step. That creature is a black Zombie in addition to its other colors and types.

Grave Betrayal's ability triggers and goes on the stack the same way I described above.  But even if it resolves first, it doesn't try and move the creature until the beginning of the end step.  That means that when the Cockroaches' ability resolves, it will still be able to find the Cockroaches and will always move the roaches to their owner's hand, and when the Grave Betrayal trigger tries to move the roaches at the beginning of the end step they won't be able to find them.


text:
Does splicing change the target of a spell
I cast an instant and my opponent casts a counter and I splice an additional spell to my original instant does this prevent the counter.

The title and the body ask two seemingly different questions. Does splicing change the target of a spell? If I splice onto a spell, does that prevent the spell from being countered? I would update your post to focus on one or the other.

@Rainbolt I am guessing that the user misused the phrase “target of a spell”, meaning to say “change it into a new object that will no longer be targeted by the counterspell”.

Well, first of all, you cannot do that.
These are the rules for Splicing:

702.46a Splice is a static ability that functions while a card is in your hand. “Splice onto [subtype] [cost]” means “You may reveal this card from your hand as you cast a [subtype] spell. If you do, copy this card’s text box onto that spell and pay [cost] as an additional cost to cast that spell.”
  Paying a card’s splice cost follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.

This means that you need to splice the spell as you cast whatever you're splicing onto.
Also, as @ikegami pointed out, Splicing onto a spell will not create a new object. Even if you could splice a spell onto another spell that had already been cast, the target for the counterspell wouldn't be changed.

No to both of your questions, but you seem to misunderstand how splicing works. Splicing is part of the uninterruptible steps of casting a spell. If you intend to splice onto your spell you do it as you cast, you announce the spell, put it onto the stack, add any splices, add up the total cost and pay it, all before your opponent even gets the chance to cast a spell in response. You don't get to know your opponent is not going to counter the spell before you decide to splice, and they do get to know everything you have spliced onto it before they decide if they are going to counter.


text:
Does a permanent with multiple types count in all cases as all types
Spell is cast which says choose one of each '  Creature, Artifact, Enchantment' sacrifice the rest.  If you have a creature which is also an artifact, or creature who turns into an enchantment as a result of the sacrifice. If you choose a permanent with more than one type does it count as more than one type in this case.

It's always a good idea to mention the specific card in question (or an example of a card if it's not specific), because sometimes specific wording can make all the difference.

A permanent counts as each of the types it is. So an Artifact Creature (like Darksteel Colossus would be both an artifact and a creature.
For a spell like Cataclysm, you could choose an artifact creature as the choice for the artifact, or for the creature, or choose it for both if you want (which would cause you to sacrifice more permanents than you have to). If you had 2 artifact creatures, you could choose one of them as your artifact to keep, and one as your creature to keep; thus keeping them both.
See the Gatherer Rulings on Cataclysm

If you control a permanent with more than one type, you can choose that same permanent for more than one of the choices if you want to. This makes it possible to select an artifact creature as both your artifact and creature, and then select a land and thereby keep only two cards.

and

If you control a permanent with more than one type, you can choose that permanent to be the representative of either type. This makes it possible to have more than one creature (or other permanent type) on the battlefield. For example, if you select a creature for your creature and an artifact creature for your artifact, you get to keep both of these creatures.

From the comprehensive rules:

205.2b Some objects have more than one card type (for example, an artifact creature). Such objects satisfy the criteria for any effect that applies to any of their card types.

Specifically the enchantment creature that changes as a result of the sacrifice (presumably a God from the Theros block), it's still a creature before the sacrifice, and only becomes not a creature when the ability resolves. So you can choose it as the creature, an artifact creature as the artifact, and another enchantment creature as the enchantment. Or choose the God as the enchantment because it's always the enchantment. Or any number of different scenarios.
Long story short, if you have permanents that are multiple types, you get to choose how they are defined so that you get the most benefit.


text:
Card Tragic Slip
does the -1/-1 placed on a creature trigger the effect on 'Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons'.  The section of the card which states 'When you put one or more -1/-1 counterson a creature'.

No.
A counter is a specific thing; which has no relationship to a creature gaining or losing power and toughness because of effects like Tragic Slip's.


text:
Aura vs enchantment
Are Auras also an enchantment.  When reading a card's text can you substitute Aura for enchantment.  For example Aura Barbs uses both words and is confusing as to what exactly it means.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares; all buses are automobiles, but not all automobiles are buses. In similar fashion, all Auras are enchantments, but not all enchantments are Auras.

Aura and Enchantment are not synonyms. If you look at any Aura card, such as Rancor, you will see that the type line says "Enchantment - Aura", which means the type is Enchantment, and the subtype is Aura.
This means that Auras are always Enchantments, while Enchantments are not always Auras.
While posting the complete rules regarding Auras would be a bit much, here's the leading paragraph to give you an idea:

303.4. Some enchantments have the subtype "Aura." An Aura enters the battlefield attached to an object or player. What an Aura can be attached to is defined by its enchant keyword ability (...). Other effects can limit what a permanent can be enchanted by.

Loosely phrased, an enchantment is a permanent that exists on its own, while an Aura is a permanent that will be attached (and only remains on the battlefield while attached) to another permanent. This "attachment" is what the phrase "enchanting a permanent" refers to.

Aura Barbs's first effect says ""Each Enchantment deals 2 Damage to its controller". This will count all Enchantments (including Auras) that each player controls, respectively.
The second effect says "Each Aura attached to a creature deals 2 damage to the creature it's attached to". This only counts Enchantments with the Aura subtype, as only those can enchant a creature in the first place.
Note that the printed text of this card and the oracle text are different, likely to prevent misunderstandings such as this one.

Adding to your final paragraph: The printed and oracle text of Aura Barbs are different because the Aura subtype had not yet been introduced when that card was printed.  The Aura subtype was introduced in Ninth Edition, which came out 5 months after Betrayers of Kamigawa.  You can read Wizards' reasoning for the change in this article

@MilesBudnek Ha, of course! I hadn't even noticed :D


text:
Action selection in a hidden movement game that may require more information to be complete
I want to have simultaneous action selection, but the action selected may need some additional information, like the space on the board that it is of relevance to, additional equipment that you choose to use or have to use, etc. How can I have all players select their cards without giving away that they selected a certain type that would require additional cards or information, or even how many additional cards are needed? I want to prevent the players from being able to alter their selected action in any way by/after getting additional information.
Feel free to replace "card" with any other token.

Most games that let you select a variable number of something in secret, will either give you small tokens that you hold in your hand, or by giving you a screen to hide items behind. Some also give you duds that you can place instead of something useful, to bluff about what you're doing.
For example, Shogun lets each player pick an action for each province they have. Each action can only be picked once. What they do is give the player a card for each province they own, and they put their province face-down below the icon for the desired action.
When you want to expand this mechanic so that you can select additional options, you could for example slide additional cards under that action, then give each player a few blank cards that they can use to bluff about where they are taking serious actions.
Alternatively, if the players take one action at a time, it's easy enough to just give them a screen. They put all the stuff that is used in the action on one side, and everything else on the other. That lets them completely hide what they are doing from everyone.
Some games also do the same thing, except they use a bag. This works really well with tokens; you put all the tokens you want to use in the bag and the rest you keep behind your screen. Or you can use a dial for selecting amounts (used by many games).

Take a look at Waving Hands, found in a comment on the RPG SE. Two (or more?) players are dueling wizards, using hand motions to weave spells and/or stab each other. Each turn, each player writes down on a piece of paper their moves for the turn, then they reveal their actions and everything happens simultaneously.
It might be as simple as having pen and paper on hand, or erasable writing space on cards, to write down the target of whatever item you're using.
It's not simultaneous, but you might be able to find some more ideas from looking at Escape From the Aliens in Outer Space.

One more good example of simultaneous selection with additional information is the combat system in Scythe.  Players use a numbered, cardboard wheel to indicate their base combat level, and can (optionally) include one or more cards to increase their combat number.  Players have no way of knowing if you are playing cards, or how many, as they are blocked from view by the cardboard wheel.


text:
Draughts: King required?
Can one be compelled to use his king when there are alternative moves? Especially if that move will end up having the king killed. My opponent saud I was obligated to use the king.

No. You are never obliged directly to use a specific piece to move.
The only exception is trivial: a game played under forced capture rules where there is exactly one piece able to make a capturing move.
Even then, if that piece has a choice of captures, the player may choose which capture to make.
It is likely your opponent has either confused this rule with another, has played in environments with this uncommon variant rule, or the king had a capture available and no other pieces did.

There's a second variation where you are required to make the best capturing move.

You are not obligated to use a king because it is a king. There are however rules variants for checkers/draughts that obligate you too make captures when possible. there are two versions of this:

If you have a piece that can capture, you must use a piece to capture, and must continue to capture until that piece no longer has a legal capturing move.
If you have a piece or pieces that can capture, you must take the most captures you can with one of those pieces.

The second rule is harder to enforce, and harder to work with, but it does exist as a variant. It means you need to evaluate the best possible move when you have two choices of where to take before doing anything. If that king was the only piece that could make a capture, your opponent may be correct, though it would depend on the rules variant.


text:
Carcassonne builder and bazaars
Here is a scenario that happened to my friend and I last night: we were playing Carcassonne with extensions 2 (builder & cie) and 8 (bazaar & cie). My friend was adding tiles to a castle he owned. His builder was in his castle as well. At some point, he picked a tile (let's call it tile A) which had a bazaar on it and he added it to his castle. Then we made the bid with two tiles and he was left with a tile (tile B) which he added to its castle with a builder.
The rule state that for tile A, one must wait after the bid related tiles have been placed to pick the builder bonus tile. However, the rules state nothing for tile B.
Should my friend have picked yet another builder bonus tile for tile B?

What is "& cie"? Googling gives me "and company" or "& Co", neither of which makes sense in a board game context.

tl:dr-  No, I don't think they should take another bonus tile.
Firstly I'm going to assume that by 'castle' you mean 'city'.  The castle in Bazzars refer to a specific token which the builder can not be placed on and your example seems to mean the player extended a city with a builder to.
I think a key word in the rules is 'immediately' in Traders and Builders.  Using the rules reference here it says as follows:-

If you place a Land tile that continues the road or city your builder occupies,
  you may immediately draw and place another Land tile. You place this tile
  following all the normal rules

then later it says :-

You may place a meeple on both the first and second tile.

The rules for the Bazaars taken from here

The placement of a bazaar triggers a bid for Land tiles.

Now in luie of anything better to go on I'm would do the rules saying 'immediately' before trigger.
The final semantic note to is that the Bazaar rules refer the whole process of auctioning and placing tiles as the 'Bazaar round'  it does not use the term 'turn'.  Turn is used in the Builder rules.  Both rules are very strict that no chain reactions can occur to trigger multiple auctions or builder actions in the same turn.
So my interpretation of your example would be as follows:-
1) Player A starts turn and draws tile with bazaar and adds it to city/road they have with a builder.
2) Player A then optionally takes another tile and optionally adds meeples (or other pieces depending on expansion to those tiles.
3) The game is the interrupted for an Bazaar round.
4) Player A add that tile to extend city/road with builder.  However as they are not allowed chain reactions they do not get another tile this turn but may still optionally add a meeple/other token to tile just placed.
5) Player A's turn ends.

So if I understand you correctly, step 2 is a result of the first tile being added to the city. Step 4 is the result of the bazaar not allowing chain reactions?

Chain reaction not being allowed are specified in both rules.  You can not indefinitely add to builder for extra tiles.  You can not indefinitely have auctions for tiles.  my argument is that as the bazaar triggers a 'round' during a 'turn' that the player wouldn't be able to keep adding to there builder for extra tiles.


text:
Difference between a knight and a meeple
What is the difference between a knight and a meeple in carcassonne? What about the big Meeple? Can he count as a knight?

The meeples are any of the roles in the game. Knight, thief, farmer or monk. The big one counts as two.

Ok, this makes sense. But two questions to clarify: 1) is the wagon a meeple (it can fill almost all roles); 2) Do you have a link where this is clearly explained? In the rules we have here, this is not so clearly described...

This seems to be explained here (French): https://lecoindujeu.com/jeu-de-societe/carcassonne/

A meeple is a humanoid-shaped physical object.

You will find in the box 40 regular meeples, including 8 meeples in each of these colors: yellow, red, green, blue, and black.

They were called "followers" in earlier versions of the game/rules.

"Knight" is one of the roles the meeple can occupy. A meeple in a city is called a knight.

Placing a meeple as a knight
Then, you see if there is already a meeple as a knight in the city. Here, there isn’t, so you can place one of your meeples as a knight in this city.

Other roles include highwayman (on a road), monk (in a monastary) and farmer (in a field).


text:
What kind of damage do you deal when successfully defending with Chalk?
The Chalk item allows the explorer who has it to defend with Knowledge instead of Might.  If they successfully win the roll--that is, roll higher than their opponent--do they inflict mental or physical damage?
We were playing a haunt the other night with monsters that were immune to physical damage, but attacked with Might.  Would a defender with Chalk stun them or not if it won the combat roll?  (We played it as yes, but I have no idea if that was correct.)

Not an answer, but helpful: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1678823/defending-separate-trait-attacker

You will still inflict or take physical damage.
The rule that allows you to deal mental damage with attacking refers specifically to attacking with that trait, not defending with that trait:

When a card or a haunt lets you attack with Sanity or Knowledge, then you inflict mental damage. You and your opponent move down your Sanity and/or Knowledge traits.

Also note that if the monster doesn't have a knowledge trait (which most do not), then you cannot inflict knowledge damage in the first place:

You can’t use a trait to attack an opponent who doesn’t have that trait. For instance, if a monster doesn’t have Sanity, you can’t make a Sanity attack against it.

So if Chalk did allow you to deal damage as if it were mental; you wouldn't be allowed to use it against most monsters. However, Chalk simply changes the way you defend; it is still a normal might-based combat.
Finally, note the wording on the item Ring:

[...] (Your opponent then defends with Sanity, and damage is mental instead of physical.)

Ring calls out specifically that damage is mental; while Chalk does not.


text:
How do you resolve "nearest" when it is tied in Betrayal at House on the Hill?
If a game effect is supposed to happen to something which is nearest to something else, and more than one qualifying thing is equally near, and the specific effect does not designate a tie-breaker, how is the tie resolved?  Is it the choice of the person resolving the effect?  Or, if it is possible (as in the case of the card that prompted this question, Footsteps, which has as it's best result "You and the nearest explorer gain 1 Might.") does it happen to all potential targets?
(In the game I was playing where it came up, there were two explorers who were each 3 rooms away from the explorer who drew the card.  The question then became, does the explorer who drew the card choose one of them or did it happen to both of them.  No support for either case could be found in rulebook, FAQ, or this site.  So the question has now been posed here.)
I would prefer a general answer, rather than one more specifically about Footsteps, as knowing the appropriate way to resolve the general situation is far more important than any specific ruling about the individual card.  However, if there is any sort of official rulling/clarification/errata/etc. about this aspect of Footsteps that my web search failed to uncover, feel free to site it, as it would have bearing on the more general situation of which it is an example.

Could you add in which specific card was pulled?

@Howdy_McGee  It was actually already mentioned twice in the question: The card was Footsteps.  However, as I said, I'm far more interested in the general principal than the specific instance.

I don't know of an official ruling on how to break that tie, but I would go with the official way to break ties for traitor, when the traitor is the one with the highest/lowest stat, and that is to use the closest player involved in the tie to the left of the player that triggered the haunt. So you would in this case break the tie by hitting the closest player who's explorer is involved in the tie going around the table to your left.
I don't have the rules on hand right now so I can't quote the book for that. Note this is the method for the original betrayal and I believe Betrayal at Baulders Gate. Betrayal Legacy uses a different mechanic to break ties, randomly drawing from the family crests of those players involved in the tie.


text:
Any ideas on how to get a 'sudden attack effect' in a board game?
Imagine a table top like game, where you have a map/battlefield you play on with your units moving turn based. Can you think about a way to make an illusion of a sudden attack? Sure, you could do something like your opponent has to leave the room while your turn or close his eyes but this is not a good solution.
For further explanation an example: player one is setting up an ambush. Player two would never walk into it with his units because he knows the players position.
The only way i see is moving your opponents attention to another point but easier said than done.

Put tokens all over the place. Whenever your opponent moves into a space with a token in it, reveal the token. Most are decoys, but some are attacks.

I disgree with the close votes. It's a specific problem with a short answer (not too broad), and answers can be fairly objectively ranked (not primarily opinion-based).

Is it acceptable that once per turn all unit positions are public knowledge, or would secrecy need to be kept for multiple rounds?

@TheChaz2.0 Tokens are still a visible element. Its actually a good idea to control/trick your opponent but it's not the intention of my question.

@KenHerbert For clarification: Everyone knows the common tactic to sudden attack enemies from above when they walk through a ravine. I want to have the same effect on your opponent. So even if he knows once your position he will not move through the ravine, he will probably shoot upwards .

Just to get a better idea of your units - do they have varying attributes that would lend themselves to this sort of action? For instance, a unit may have a strength attribute, hitpoints attribute, and a size attribute - this would lead me to suggest a system that allows the lower end of the size-scale to move freely through certain terrain. Maybe even special units which are large and strong and perhaps rare have a blend or camouflage attribute allowing them to pass through open areas without the need of woodland cover. This isn't an answer, just clarification on how you're handling units.

How you should look at these tabletop wargames
You need to remove the idea that "what you see is what really is" to do this. Right now, you seem to base your idea on the game that if a unit is in a certain location on your map, that's really where it is, at that moment. Instead, you might want to consider that this is just where your opponent thinks it is.
Remember that your players are the generals in the battle, giving orders to their soldiers. They are relying on the information being passed along by scouts and signals. So basically, your players are each looking at the battle like this:

Of course, in your game they are both looking at the same map because that makes the game far more manageable, but in the real situation your game simulates, your players would each be looking at their own map, based on their own intelligence of what the actual battlefield looks like.
That means that when your opponent looks at the map (the same map you are looking at) and he sees the ravine, and he sees none of your units there, that's because he thinks that's the current situation. When one of your units suddenly "teleports" halfway across the map to the top of the ravine, that isn't because it has some kind of weird technology, it's because you knew those units were there all along, but your opponent didn't, and now he is in a tough spot. The map isn't a perfect representation of reality, it's a representation of what both sides know and what both sides have convinced the other side is true; that might change at any time when it comes to hidden maneauvers.
Some ways to implement this
The hardest part is implementing these rules in a fair way, because obviously you don't have actual soldiers in some far away area fighting and it won't be fun if each player can just claim their guys did something. Here's some mechanical ideas for how you can include ambushes, bluffs and tricks in a tabletop war game in a fair and fun way.
The 'stealthy' property
Some units might have a property or attribute that makes them 'stealthy'. What this means, rule-wise, is that when no enemy unit has line of sight to them, you mark them on the map as 'hidden' with some kind of marker. Every turn, instead of assigning them an order, you just add another 'hidden' marker. This signifies that the enemy player doesn't know where they are, just where they last spotted them.
During your turn, you can decide to reveal where your ambush units are, by immediately moving them to any place they could have reached over the course of the number of turns they've been hidden from sight and removing their 'hidden' markers.
A possible downside is that hidden units are essentialy everywhere within their range; the commanding player doesn't have to pick where they are while they are hidden. This gives them a big advantage. This advantage can be reduced by using markers that have an arrow on the bottom that shows where the unit went, which requires the player to decide each turn, just not show. Downside to this is that it's a bit more finicky to execute.
The hidden reserve
At the start of the game, you might have some units that have the ability to be left outside the battlefield. Essentially, your opponent doesn't yet know they are even involved (or just doesn't know where they are yet, depending on whether you need to reveal your army before the game). During your turn, you can decide to move these units from the edge of your field all the way to any location they could reach given the turn-number, as long as they don't move through any enemy unit's vision.
Like the stealthy property, this gives you the option to suddenly be at the top of a ravine, and it just resembles that the unit has been stealthily making its way there the whole battle. Again, you could mark direction markers on them during the game if you want to force the player to chose early.
bait and switch
You might give units the option to not have their current location be entirely accurate. They are on the map in a certain spot, but have an ability that when the enemy gains line of sight to them, they can immediately move to a different location, or switch places with one another, or take some other order. This will simulate the unit trying to bait the enemy into making a bad move, based on wrong information on their part. They were always in the other spot, but the enemy didn't realize.
(You can also have special counter-units that suppress this ability, so that when they spot a unit that is trying to bait the enemy, it actually gets pinned stuck in its bad positioning. This can signify a unit that's superior at baiting compared to the original unit, and has actually outmaneauvered them.)
decoys
Based on the bait and switch option, decoy units might allow you to deploy things that look and act just like ordinary units until your opponent gains direct line of sight. Then, they might vanish or be replaced with different units. You can mark a decoy on the bottom of the figure, for example, so that your opponent thinks units are attemping a move, only to find out upon acting that it's not a real unit. Or a different one. You might have fielded soldiers wearing different uniforms, or clever use of black smoke and logs might have fooled enemy scouts into thinking you have heavy cannons somewhere.
The arbiter
This last one requires a third player; but if you have a way to communicate moves to an impartial arbiter, you could write down moves in secret that deviate from updates done on the actual map. The arbiter would make sure that the rules keep working while your opponent doesn't know exactly what is going on. Although
how feasible this is, depends on the game you are building, as the arbiter will need to maintain a bunch of hidden state.
TL;DR
Let go of the idea that what you see on the map is reality. Treat it instead like what the commanders think the field is like. Then introduce clever mechanics that let players change the field in unexpected ways.

That's it! I got some pretty good ideas out of that thanks.

It's hard to answer this without understanding the core mechanisms of the game you're talking about.
However for reference maybe you could try playing Star Wars: Rebellion.
In that game you have the Empire vs the Rebels and the Rebels pick a planet to be the rebel base.  The base is one of the planets on the map but also has a separate space on the board to represent units stationed at the secret location.
The game is card driven, each turn you play missions from cards, as well as move / attack with units.  Some of those cards are things like launching surprise attacks which come in 2 forms:

Units from the rebel base can appear on a planet suddenly, if the Empire is present they resolve a combat.
Units can be deployed from reserves on a chosen planet and resolve a combat if the Empire is present.

This system works in a game which is card driven, or has some kind of ability system as well as one where units can be deployed to the battlefield during a mission.
That being said you could adapt something similar by having units teleport to a location as a surprise attack, the rationale could be something like their armies had bad intelligence on your army, perhaps you could have it so only a small number of units could ambush at once.
You would need to decide if your game was one of perfect information, ie the current state of play is known to all players at once, I'm sure you could come up with some clever form of trap in a system of perfect information but its going to be a lot harder than something like this.

I get your point. The game im creating is a tabletop like game. So you have your units on the battlefield. The century is changing and it is a realistic -
historically correct setting. So as long as you are not in the future you cannot teleport.
Actually, now that i think about it. It's fitting for an assassin like character. There has to be some kind of rule that allows the assassin to suddenly appear next to another unit and attack it.
But my problem still remains with setting up an ambush with a lot of units.
Do you have a better understanding now about what im trying to accomplish?

Battletech did this with an extra player to be the game master, and it was probably called "fog of war" or "double blind". Players could see the board, but units would be hidden until they had line of sight (which is a formula in BT, so no random "player 1, make a perception roll" nonsense). Players would write moves and pass them to the game master, who would then compare locations and determine line of sight, and allow attacks and whatnot.
If you only require one player to have hidden units, they could keep track on paper where their units were, and when it is time to reveal, show the other player their move history. This requires the other player to validate the moves though.


text:
Can I make a space marine army and then have them ally with the tau?
I already had tau that my relative gave to me and I wanted to know if I could employ them as allies to the custom space marine chapter I'm making.

If you mean can you use them in the same army, no, you can't.
Your army needs to share a keyword, your space marine army's keywords would be the name of the chapter, "Adeptus Astartes" and "Imperial". None of these keywords are on any tau units, so they cannot be included in the same army.
8th edition did away with the allies matrix, keywords are all that matter now, and they do not share any keywords.

This is certainly true in Matched/Tournament play. In a casual or Narrative game all you need is your opponent's permission.

@aslum Well if you're going to casually house rule anything in, you can change just about anything you want, you could play by 7th rules still in a casual game if you wish.

While that's technically true, you could also just as easily play by 2nd ed rules, or whatever you want to do. That said convincing your opponent to allow you to bring an allied detachment hews much closer to the rules than some of these other suggestions. Ultimately do whatever you want as long as your opponent is cool with it. Hell, play with 40k 'Warscrolls' in Age of Sigmar if you want and your opponent is cool with it.


text:
What are the rules for a space marine commander?
I was searching the space marines section at a local warhammer shop when I saw a miniature called the space marine commander, I looked for it in my index but his rules weren't in it. What are the rules for a space marine commander? Do they follow the same rules as the captain? Please let me know so I can decide whether to get him or not.

Was this Space Marine Commander the miniature you saw?
If so, at least according to the description on the website, it appears you'd be treating this as a Captain for rules purposes:

Space Marine Commander
A Captain leads each of the ten Companies of a Space Marine Chapter. They are second in experience only to the Chapter Master and each is a warrior so deadly that he will rarely meet his match. Each Captain is an inspirational and determined leader, able to coordinate the Space Marines under his command whatever the opposition.


text:
Can I use the Farsight enclave eight separately?
Can I use the members of the eight separately or do they have to be on the battlefield together? Like can I just have subcommander Torchstar and commander Brightsword in an army but no other members of the eight?


text:
Miniature wise what is the size comparison between a centurion and a crisis battlesuit?
Size wise how different is the height of the tau crisis battle suit and the imperium centurions?

They are fairly similar in height, however several factors make it hard to give a single canonical answer.
First off there are several versions of Crisis Suit (CS from here on)... If we ignore "specialty" CS such as Commander/Coldstar/etc there are still two different versions. Add to that the fact that CS come w/ a flying stand and are fairly dynamically poseable which can change the height fairly drastically.

Is there any in-universe technical data available on the two? Perhaps there's a 'fluff' book that calls out the physical height of a centurion and/or a crisis suit, which would give an objective source instead of trying to physically compare models where scale is already not overly consistent.

@DavidCEllis for fluff data you might be better off asking on the SciFi&Fantasy stack


text:
Can I get help identifying these models?

These models were for sale on a site and I was wondering if anyone could help me identify what these models actually are before I decided to buy them.

"I was wondering if anyone could help me identify what these models actually are" Very poorly painted.

Looks like two Space Marine Commander. That box can be used as either a Captain or a Lieutenant.

This box set contains one multi-part plastic Space Marine Commander, including nine different weapon options, three variant heads and additional parts to further customise your model.

Left is a Captain with a combi-plasma and a power fist; Right is a Lieutenant with two power swords.

I'd guess they are ultramarines, as the most common blue and gold colored chapter, though the colors are a little dark for that chapter, more like Dark Hunters or Death Strike, though those use silver not gold for the accent. Could be Rainbow Warriors (though the shoulders wouldn't be outlined) or Imperial Paladins.

Probably Crimson Fists, given the dark blue armor and maroon power fist.

FWIW they could always be repainted, and the models are generic space marine, so you could turn them into your favorite faction w/ a little effort. And in fact, with the mediocre paint job on them, you probably would want to strip and repaint them.


text:
Question regarding the new custom chapter rules
So recently this year, games workshop has added the addition of custom chapters to Warhammer, and while building my army I realised that I was going with a space wolves kind of army. However while painting and lore building I was making the chapter a salamanders successor.
So what I was gonna ask is, how do custom chapter rules work regarding chapter specific units, could I say that they're a successor chapter to the salamanders and use some data sheets specific to the space wolves like thunderwolf cavalry and fenrisian wolves, while abandoning salamander specific data sheets.
Do I have to use salamander units specifically now that I've made them salamanders in paint scheme and lore.
Or can custom chapters just flat out not use chapter specific units. (I don't know too much on the custom chapter rules so I apologize if I'm being dumb)

You have three options for a battle-forged army.
Firstly, you can have a Space Wolves successor chapter that is painted green and fiery. You can take datasheets that have the SPACE WOLVES keyword (such as thunderwolf cavalry and fenrisian wolves), and pick two successor chapter tactics (or Inheritors of the Primarch for Hunters Unleashed). You could use Space Wolves stratagems, your Warlord could take a Space Wolves warlord trait, and/or take Relics of the Fang. Your "super doctrine" would be Savage Fury.
Secondly, you can have a Salamanders successor. You can't take thunderwolf cavalry and fenrisian wolves, but you can take a pair of successor chapter tactics (or Forged in Battle). Then you can use Salamanders stratagems, warlord trait and relics. Your "super doctrine" would be Promethean Cult.
Thirdly, you take the SPACE WOLVES (successor) units that you want in one detachment, and SALAMANDERS (successor) units in another detachment. Each detachment gets it's own chapter tactic. You don't get either Savage Fury nor Promethean Cult, as those require your whole army be SPACE WOLVES or SALAMANDERS respectively.


text:
What to do with multiple invulnerable saves?
My friend has built a dire avenger exarch with a shimmer shield which gives it a 5+ invulnerable save. However it has the ability Battle fortune which gives the exarch a 4+ invulnerable save.
How does this work? Is the shimmer shield just a waste on the exarch?

The shimmershield gives all the other dire avengers the invulnerable save, it isn't totally redundant.

(Note: I am assuming you are playing 9th edition here since it is the latest ruleset)
The Shimmer Shield is definitely redundant on the Exarch.
From the rules (page 19 under Invulnerable Saves):

If a model has more than one invulnerable save, it can only use one of them – choose which it will use.

So the player would never have a reason to choose the Shimmer Shield unless the player (for some reason) wanted the Exarch to have a higher chance of dying.


text:
Dark angels legion praetor in cataphractii size
I know that some heresy models are smaller than the 40k models, so I was wondering for a friend building a dark angels company.
How big is the dark angels legion praetor in cataphractii armour? Is he around the right size around 40k models or would he be laughably too small?

They are about the same as normal terminators, a bit buffier because cataphractii is supposed to be. With the release of intercessors, imo termies are a bit to small in comparison. (Just my taste, I know its fluff) But you can easily fix this visually by putting them on an elevation on its base.


text:
Carcassone Hills & Sheeps - how do the sheep rules make sense?
We were playing a game of Carcassone last weekend. We've a pretty large setup with a lot of expansions. One of them was "hills & sheeps".
The day after the game-night I wondered how the rules of the sheep part even make sense. As I understood them correctly it goes like this:

place a card with a field-section on it
place a shepherd on it
immediately draw a sheep-token
if it shows sheep good for you, if it is a wolf everything is "undone"

This is the only process to get the sheep-thingy up and running as far as I understood.
What you've gained is a new ability. Every time you add a field card to the field occupied by the shepherd, you are able to draw a sheep token. Same rules apply: displaying sheep good, displaying wolf bad.
This is the first option. But you are also able to just score your sheep. You get your shepherd back, the tokens are removed and you get a point for each sheep.
My issue with these rules is why on earth I would even consider to draw a new sheep/wolf-token? It adds risk while giving no benefits.
Example:
Lucky Guy

Adding card with field
Placing shepherd on it
Drawing a token displaying 3 sheep
Adding card with field
Drawing a token displaying 2 sheep
Adding card with field
Scoring the sheep (granting 5 points to the player)

Unlucky Guy

Adding card with field
Placing shepherd on it
Drawing a token displaying 3 sheep
Adding card with field
Drawing a token displaying wolf
Everything gets reset

Clever Guy

Adding card with field
Placing shepherd on it
Drawing a token displaying 3 sheep
Adding card with field
Scoring the sheep (granting 3 points to the player)
Adding card with field
Placing shepherd on it
Drawing a token displaying 2 sheep
Adding card with field
Scoring the sheep (granting 2 points to the player)

The clever guy example reduces the risk significantly:

You have less chance that the shepherd is not going to get rated (when the game is over, the shepherd doesn't give any points any more)
It's less likely to get points eaten by the wolf. In the clever guy example you secure three points by immediately rating them.

My statement is: it's always more efficient to just rate your shepherd as soon as possible.
Is this true? Am I missing something?

Most people are not lucky enough to always get the 3 sheep token on the first go.

@bowlturner that's irrelevant. It's just an example. Replace it with any number of sheeps.

It's really just a press your luck mechanism.  Once you have a Shepard out, is it worth cashing in the next time, and then using a turn to put him out there again?  or is it worth trying for more and putting a different meeple out next?  a 1 sheep vs 3 sheep points can make a difference in the equation.

Yes,  you are missing something.
'Lucky guy' in your example gains the same benefit as 'clever guy', despite playing fewer field tiles.
Each time you place a tile and cash in the accumulated points for that field you are foregoing a chance to (maybe) increase those points. The optimal number of points accumulated before cashing in depends strongly of the distribution of tiles.

Can the player also place a meeple on another feature when drawing a sheep/wolf token?

frodoskywalker's answer is correct but not comprehensive.  Here are other aspects to consider.

The rules for Hills & Sheep say, "When a player places a tile featuring a field, she may decide to place a shepherd on that field instead of placing a follower..."  So you can not ever place a shepherd AND a follower on the same turn. Often, you would be able to benefit from placing a follower during that turn, yet the strategy of your "clever guy" means that he will miss opportunities to score with sheep if he had kept the shepherd active instead of recalling it each turn possible.
The risk/rewards odds on whether to try growing vs gathering your flock when you play a field can be easily estimated by looking at how many sheep and sheep tokens are already in play (thus not in the draw bag) and knowing there are always 2 wolf tokens in the bag.  So the more sheep are already in fields, the riskier it is to draw again.
It happens less often, but you can also use shepherds cleverly to score from anothers' large flock or to intentionally sabotage another shepherd. That's because the rules allow, "...fields that were once separate may be joined, resulting in a field occupied by two or more shepherds. All sheep in a field are shared by all shepherds in the same field, regardless of which added them. When one player decides to gather the flock, all shepherds in the field score full points... Likewise, should any player add a wolf, all sheep in that field are returned [unscored]."


text:
Can the Collapsed Room land you in the Mystic Elevator?
During a play-through this weekend, we stumbled on the odd happenstance of the Collapsed Room falling into the Mystic Elevator when drawn from the pile.
Is there any rules related to this situation that would somehow invalidate this?  I'm of the opinion that it would be fine and you could magically fall through the floor up into the roof where the elevator could currently be placed.

Why do you think there might be an issue?

If I understand right, the issue is that Collapsed Room asks for a basement tile, and you're unsure whether the Mystic Elevator counts as a basement tile if it could not actually currently be placed as one?

To answer my own question: Because one normally marks into which room the Collapsed Room drops characters, and the elevator could move away from the basement.

This actually happened in the very first game I played. It led to an epic Haunt where people wound up fighting in the elevator, periodically getting kicked out of it, and then running back to the Collapsed Room to jump back into the fight.

It's completely acceptable, in a haunted house, to go through a secret tunnel into a moving elevator, to step out of that elevator and fall through a pit in front of you, and to fall back into the elevator. It's a haunted house!

From my copy of the rulebook:

If an effect of another tile or card leads to the Mystic Elevator (such as the Collapsed Room or Secret Passage), the token placed by that effect stays on the Mystic Elevator tile even if it moves.

Emphasis mine.
It doesn't explicitly say that the token remains functional, but that clearly seems to be the intent.
I've also been able to find a reference to an FAQ clarification that says much the same thing, although I have been unable to find the FAQ itself.

Mystic Elevator -- If the Collapsed Room, Secret Passage, Secret Stairs, or Revolving Wall lead to the Mystic Elevator, does the counter stay there even when the elevator moves?
Yes. It's Mystic, after all.

First edition FAQ that includes that rule can be found on BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/12137/betrayal-faq-bookletpdf

There are no special rules regarding the Mystic Elevator as a newly discovered room. So yes, Mystic Elevator is just like any other room and can be discovered from the Collapsed Room (or any other rooms that require you to draw new rooms).
If the issue is that thematically, an elevator isn't something you should be able to fall into from above; remember that the elevator doesn't really work thematically at all... it is treated like a room as opposed to a tunnel between multiple rooms. So don't think of the elevator as an elevator at all. Think of it as a regular room that happens to teleport around.

So... in the future, whenever someone falls through the floor in the collapsed room, the elevator teleports underneath to catch them, then immediately teleports back to wherever it was?

I've always described Betrayal as "Scooby Doo - The Board Game." Think of the Mystic Elevator as the "Door Gag," where everyone runs in one door, then out an entirely different one, sometimes on the opposite side of the hallway. In that case, the house, by design, does not make geometric sense. To support this actual answer though, the FAQ for the game on WOTC's website does not call out any problem with the scenario described here, so Rules As Written, it still works, even if the Mystic Elevator ends up above the Collapsed Room. It's still the same room, regardless where it ends up.

@Cascabel: Exactly!  That's what makes it Mystic!

@Cascabel The elevator is already underneath the collapsed room. As the elevator teleports around, the geometry of the house adjusts to keep it so.

Betrayal at House on the Hill is kind of notorious for the rules not quite covering every situation clearly.
I think a strict reading of the rules says that you can fall in, and it gets marked as "beneath" the Collapsed Room so you can fall in later too, simply because there are no special rules for this situation.
That said, there are several non-game-breaking options for if/how you can fall into the elevator, and I think you can honestly just pick what you think is the most fun:

Allow falling into it, and place it somewhere it can actually connect. (Pretend you fell in, then the elevator activated and moved.)
Allow falling into it, and if there's not already a basement, find an actual basement tile to connect it to.
Allow falling into it, but if it can't connect, the player has to actually activate and move the elevator to get out.
Ignore all this and find a "real" basement room.

And then you have options for what happens after the elevator moves, and someone falls through the Collapsed Room again:

They still somehow end up in the elevator, even if it means falling up.
They draw a new basement tile, and that one is under the Collapsed Room now. (This is consistent with how the elevator works with doors: if you go through a door and the elevator is there, then it moves away, then someone goes through that same door later, they find a new room to put there, they don't magically end up in the elevator.)

The two first options are the strict rule reading mentioned above.
But it could also be more fun and flavorful to pick a different option, like 2 or 3 for the first choice (either connect to a new basement tile, or have to move the elevator) and 2 for the second (find a new room to put beneath once the elevator moves).
Given the frequent vagueness of the rules, and the fact that none of this is really going to break the game, I'd say go with whatever suits you.


text:
Is there a standard notation for poker games?
Is there a standard notation, like there is for chess, for describing Texas Hold 'Em, poker, or other poker-like card games?
I think there was a standard for Bridge because I remember they would print games/hands in the newspapers.

Yes there is a standard for notating poker games, though it's not so widely used. One of the reasons for this is doing it as a player in game is cheating, writing down the cards that have come out would be counting cards.
The card values are: 2-9,T,J,Q,K,A in standard notation.
Suits can be noted, with the symbol of the suit (♠♣♥♦) or the first letter of the suit name (SCHD), though usually this is not bothered with as suits only matter in poker for the three flush type hands. Often is it just noted if a players hole cards are suited (s) or offsuit(o) - ATo would be an ace and a ten with different suits.
For community cards they are grouped and ordered as they would be on the table - 3 in the flop, 1 in the river then one for the turn.
Beyond that, notation for the players are BB(Big Blind), SB(Small Blind), BTN(button, the dealer), UTG (Under the Gun, to the left of BB and the first to bet) and CO(cut off, to the right of the button). Players if any between UTG and CO are notated by their distance from the closest of these, like  UTG+1 or CO-2.
Bets are noted by the dollar value of the bet, or by how many times it is the big blind (2.5x)

These are all interesting, but how would one string them together to describe an example hand? How would the log output of a hand look when combining these notations?

I think it'd be worth noting that in high-stakes games (such as the WSOP) the values of the bets aren't tied to money, but to the relative value of the chips. That's to say that a $100,000 bet doesn't necessarily mean the bet is worth USD100,000 (and it usually isn't).

There're no "CO-2" or similar noted positions with negative values. Check my answer. Moreover, there's no need to "write down cards" in THE, community cards is an information always available to anyone, and the deck is fully reshuffled before a new hand begins.

@J.Sallé True, but it's a bit of a distinction without a difference there, the chips themselves have no dollar value in WSOP games, but part of the reason for those high value chips is to give the illusion of there being alot of money on the table, and artificially increase excitement.

@Galandil In THE specifically you are correct, but I didn't refer only to hold em, draw and stud versions of poker can be played with multiple decks, which are usually not reshuffled every hand, the question is about poker in general, though while much of the rest of the answer only applies to THE.

@Andrew Position naming is used across all variants of poker, even the ones without blinds and only ante (this occurence though is almost non-existent). To what variants are you referring when talking about multiple, non-reshuffled decks? Casino games of some sort with a dealer?

@Andrew no, high value chips are used in nosebleed tables too (where there's a 1:1 correspondence between facevalue:$), but usually in MTT with a lot of players (think of the WSOP main event, and how many blind increases there are).

@Galandil yes I am referring to casino games with a dealer dealing from a shoe of multiple decks, though I will admit this is less common for poker than for other games like blackjack. As for your second comment, that doesn't change what I said, as I was specifically referring to chips with a number that does not match dollar value. Unless I am very much mistaken there is no 1 chip at said main event, so having the lowest chip being in the hundreds is just to inflate the numbers, and make them sound higher.

@Andrew no, there're no 1 value chips in the main event because the entry fee is $10k, and that fee is converted to chips of 10000 total face value. Since that value must be exactly 100bb, the starting blinds level is 50-100, thus there's no practical need for 1-value chips.

@Galandil So effectively the starting SB could be 1, the starting BB could be 2 and all other chips adjusted accordingly and the numbers would be smaller but still represent the same relationship between chip values. While I accept your point that they use the buy in value as the total chip value, that really serves no purpose other than making them sound higher, since they aren't actually worth that at the end of the tournament.

Regarding the casino games, I never include them in the poker family, poker is a game (with all its variants) without a central dealer like blackjack. Please don't compare a great, strategic skill game to some pesky stupid games with the edge already estabilished and assigned. :D

@Andrew, yeah I see your point, but at least in some big bucks events like the WSOP it makes sense to make a starting ratio of 1:1 between chips:$. If you go to any cash table, chips represent the exact money face value.

Counting cards does not apply in poker.  The deck is shuffled each hand.

@Paparazzi While you and Galandil may not like to call it poker, casino table games which are considered poker, do get dealt from a shoe of multiple decks, these games have a 5 of a kind hand added and do not get reshuffled every hand.

@Andrew I have never seen a game like that.

Yes, there's a notation used in all discussions and software poker related.
Face value of the cards: 2-9, T, J, Q, K, A
Suits of the cards: s, h, d, c
So King of spades is Ks, 5 of clubs is 5c etc.
When talking about hole cards, you can write them using the suits, i.e. AsTh, or, when the suit doesn't matter (usually preflop), just note if they're suited, i.e.: AJs, or off-suited, i.e. KQo.
Same goes for the flop: you can note the suit of every card, i.e. AsTh5h, or group only the face value and the fact that the flop is rainbow (i.e. all cards have different suits), suited (two cards of the same suit) or monotone (all cards of the same suit), like this: AKTr, T73s, QJ2m.
Positions are noted this way:
Dealer is called Button, notation BTN or BU.
Small Blind is SB, Big Blind is BB.
The player before BTN is called the Cut-off, notation CO.
Then, depending on the number of players, the other positions are grouped as Under The Gun (UTG) or Middle Position (MP).
UTG is the first player to talk during preflop, thus is the one sitting after the BB. If the table has 6 players, the player between UTG and CO is the MP.
If the table is a 10 players table, you have UTG, UTG+1, UTG+2, MP, MP+1, MP+2, CO, BTN, SB, BB. A very seldom used notation for the player before the CO is Hijack, or HJ. Regarding heads-up game, the only positions are SB (=BTN) and BB.
Answering your question in the comments, usually online rooms log the result just by using the standard notation, i.e.:
Player 1 - AsAc
Player 2 - KsQh
Board - Ts,Js,2d,7d,9c

There're too some less used notations, for example when describing a board at the turn which is double suited (2 cards of a suit and the other 2 of another one), like AT75ss, but these are mostly used in analysis/discussions.
Edit: I forgot to add the notation for the players' actions.
Check - X
Bet - B
Call - C
Raise - R
Fold - F

So, if a player for example check-raises, it's noted as a X/R.

Please don't use codeblock for anything that is not code. Emphasis and strong emphasis should be applied instead.

And welcome to the site!

@Nij Strongly disagree, ideally ofc there would be a way to create <pre> tags.

There is no a universal standard that I know of.  But they read similar. It would be nice to have an XML standard.
You can get hand history from many sites and applications. They typically don't include hole cards of the players that did not have to show.
Hand history is not widely released as it is more valuable to bots than people.  A bot can look up when they did X what was the range they were holding.
Internally most sites keep a history to spot cheats.  It could be real people colluding or bots.
As stated in other answer cards are 2-9, T, J, Q, K. The suits are c, s, d, h and usually in lower case (e.g. Td).  Positions have names and pretty standard abbreviations.  You typically get seat number and where the button is like the example below.
Hero is you and your hole cards are known.
Sample hand from PokerStars
Hand #156605842579: Tournament #1618015625, $2.00+$2.00+$0.40 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XVIII (300/600) - 2016/07/29 23:25:05 MSK [2016/07/29 16:25:05 ET]
Table '1618015625 40' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: nossoff (22844 in chips)
Seat 2: Gr0z3LB (27895 in chips)
Seat 3: yarikkkkk (7005 in chips)
Seat 4: sigis1313 (18222 in chips)
Seat 5: S21berlin (25318 in chips)
Seat 6: Hero (8240 in chips)
Seat 7: tommesk (8185 in chips)
Seat 8: gergelyt3 (17912 in chips)
Seat 9: endreooo (50289 in chips)
nossoff: posts the ante 90
Gr0z3LB: posts the ante 90
yarikkkkk: posts the ante 90
sigis1313: posts the ante 90
S21berlin: posts the ante 90
Hero: posts the ante 90
tommesk: posts the ante 90
gergelyt3: posts the ante 90
endreooo: posts the ante 90
gergelyt3: posts small blind 300
endreooo: posts big blind 600
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Jd Ac]
nossoff: raises 600 to 1200
Gr0z3LB: folds
yarikkkkk: folds
sigis1313: folds
S21berlin: folds
Hero: raises 6950 to 8150 and is all-in
tommesk: folds
gergelyt3: folds
endreooo: folds
nossoff: calls 6950
*** FLOP *** [7h 2h 5s]
*** TURN *** [7h 2h 5s] [5d]
*** RIVER *** [7h 2h 5s 5d] [4d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
nossoff: shows [Qd Ah] (a pair of Fives)
Hero: shows [Jd Ac] (a pair of Fives - lower kicker)
nossoff collected 18010 from pot
nossoff wins $1 for eliminating Hero and their own bounty increases by $1 to $6
Hero finished the tournament in 5028th place
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 18010 | Rake 0
Board [7h 2h 5s 5d 4d]
Seat 1: nossoff showed [Qd Ah] and won (18010) with a pair of Fives
Seat 2: Gr0z3LB folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: yarikkkkk folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: sigis1313 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: S21berlin folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Hero showed [Jd Ac] and lost with a pair of Fives
Seat 7: tommesk (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: gergelyt3 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 9: endreooo (big blind) folded before Flop

At a live table you are typically not allowed to take or refer to notes during the hand if you are in the hand.  People that track have their own notation and do it between hands.


text:
How to use get out of jail free card
Scenario, at the start of my turn I roll the dice and land on “Go to jail”.
If I have a “get out of jail free” card, can I play that immediately so my piece does not move, or do I go to jail and must wait for the start of my next turn to play the card.

Logically, one can't really "get OUT of jail" if he's not already IN jail.

You move your piece to Jail and must wait until the next turn to play the card.
The official rules only talk about using "Get Out of Jail Free" in one place:

You get out of Jail by... (1) throwing doubles on any of your next
  three turns; if you succeed in doing this you immediately move
  forward the number of spaces shown by your doubles throw; even
  though you had thrown doubles, you do not take another turn;
  (2) using the “Get Out of Jail Free” card if you have it; (3) purchasing
  the “Get Out of Jail Free” card from another player and playing it;
  (4) paying a fine of $50 before you roll the dice on either of your next
  two turns.

There is nothing in the rules that suggests you can use this card to avoid going to Jail.


text:
probably antique French game - asking for identification
This is on the back of a board for French Chequers called Jeu de Dames. I have found out that it is  possibly from the mid 19th century!
qq

Chinesenspiel
The game Chinesenspiel is a 19th century German game of the Pachisi family.
Note. Obviously, because of the mention «MODÈLE DÉPOSÉ», the one in the question is a French or Swiss production.

It is a random luck game. Each player has a single piece of a unique colour. A six-sided die is used, with the four colours on the board each represented by a coloured square on one of the die faces. The 2 unused die faces are white.
Start of game.
Each player places their piece on one of the 4 coloured corner squares (not the black ones).
Gameplay.
Pieces move around the board on the outside track in a counter-clockwise direction. A piece must go all the way around the board and finally go up the diagonal of the player's assigned colour in order to reach the center. The first player whose piece reaches the centre, wins.
Movement.
A player rolls the die. If the die displays the player's assigned colour, the player's piece advances one square and the player rolls again.
If the die then displays a white face, the player's piece does not move and the player rolls again. If the die then displays another colour, then the next player gets to roll the die.
When a piece reaches a square occupied by another player's piece, the active player's piece moves ahead to the first free square.
Reference : Roughly translated from the French
«Dictionnaire des jeux de société», Lhôte, Jean-Marie, Flammarion, 1996, p. 123, ISBN : 2-08-0100140-4
Also, https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/35769/chinesenspiel

Welcome, Robert. For an answer to a question like this to be "valuable" to the asker you really need to expand on why you think this. What are the similarities & differences to the modern form of the game or any of its variants that make you think this is Parcheesi? Otherwise an answer saying you think this is what it is, without any supporting material, would be better left as a comment than an answer.

My apologies. I have seen many vintage Parcheesi boards and several of them use diagonal tracks like this one, but I see your point. I should also have mentioned that the 10 X 10 checkerboard clearly makes it French. I have learned...

I have completely revised my original answer and attempted to take into account your recommendations.

That phrase translates into DEPOSITED MODEL so I don't think it has anything to to with the game itself

No, it doesn't have anything to do with the game. In France, the term «Modèle déposé» is about the same as a copyright. It gives the owner of the designed object exclusive rights of manufacture and distribution of it in France. The owner then has 6 months to protect his design on the international market.That is why I say the particular version of the game shown is probably of french origin. The game itself was designed in Germany in the 19th century.