text:
How does Sundial of the Infinite help you avoid losing turns to Eater of Days?
This article on Wizards of the Coast website claims that Eater of Days "lose your next two turns" can be avoided by use of Sundial of the Infinite.  I can't figure that out.  There are no rulings on Eater of Days, and it is not an "end of turn" type of effect.  Is the author just wrong?  [seems unlikely]  Or maybe the rules have changed?

A ruling on Sundial of the Infinite says

Ending the turn this way means the following things happen in order: 1) All spells and abilities on the stack are exiled. This includes spells and abilities that can't be countered. 2) All attacking and blocking creatures are removed from combat. 3) State-based actions are checked. No player gets priority, and no triggered abilities are put onto the stack. 4) The current phase and/or step ends. The game skips straight to the cleanup step. The cleanup step happens in its entirety.

Eater of Days' ability is a triggered ability, so if you respond to it by activating Sundial of the Infinite, that triggered ability will be exiled and will never resolve. So, you don't have to skip any turns.

+1 Thanks for the pointer @murgatroid99.  That wasn't enough for me to "get" it, but it was enough for me to fill in the gaps!!

Yes, Sundial of the Infinite can be used to avoid skipping your next two turns. Here is what happens in more detail:

You have Sundial of the Infinite on the board.
You cast Eater of Days.
Eater of Days enters the battlefield, and its triggered ability, "When Eater of Days enters the battlefield, you skip your next two turns." is put on the stack.
Note: triggered abilities are defined in detail in comprehensive rule 603.
You activate Sundial of the Infinite's ability.
Everyone passes priority.  (i.e. it is possible for an opponent to respond to Sundial of the Infinite's activation)
Step (1) of of Sundial of the Infinite's ability exiles "you skip your next two turns" from the stack.
Note: The details of how to resolve Sundial of the Infinite's ability is covered in comprehensive rule 713.

At present, three cards can stop a turn.  Sundial of the Infinite, Time Stop and Obeka, Brute Chronologist.  The rulings on those cards are consistent, but different, and it's worth reading all of them to understand the implications.

You can always just ask the author of an answer for clarification.

yeah, I know, but I am trying to "learn how to fish" when it comes to mtg rules.  On this particular question I didn't even know where to start.  murgatroid99 got me on the right path, and since I came up with what to me was an essentially completely different answer, I figured I'd just supply it.

"a little more detail" as you said in the answer seems more accurate than "completely different answer" - it's the same reason, with an added explanation of what a triggered ability is. Personally my inclination in cases like that is to suggest adding the detail to the existing answer (all the better if you've figured out yourself what needs to be added), but this is a good answer too.

This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post.

@beam022 I am not following the point you are trying to make.

@John It means that he saw your question in the review queue and choose to recommend deletion, with the reason "This is commentary on another post, not an answer." That automatically adds the comment you see. He's saying that your answer is more like a comment on my answer than a standalone answer.

I think your opening sentence and first person point of view are confusing everyone. I'm going to rewrite your answer using second person point of view, and remove the opening sentence. Then it will just look like you are answering your own question, which is a completely fine thing to do. Feel free to roll it back.

@John Can you explain why you think this answer is different from mine. Both answers mention that Eater of Days' ability is a triggered ability, that you can respond to it by activating Sundial of the Infinite, and what part of Sundial's ability exiles Eater of Days' ability. I can't tell what your answer adds.

@murgatroid99 I think it's the fact that it explicitly says what the triggered ability is, and that it goes on the stack. But I'm not too confident, since your answer was awfully close to saying that too. (And I'm not too impressed with the idea of finding another answer to be missing detail and responding like this.)


text:
Clarification of rulings on Carrionette
It is my understanding that the individual card rulings on Gatherer are essentially clarifying comments.  i.e. they are "just" an application of the comprehensive rules to that specific card.
With that in mind, the rulings for Carrionette state:

A creature with Protection from Creatures can’t be targeted by this card’s ability.

But, when Carrionette is in the graveyard, it is not a creature.  My guess is that rule 112 covers this somehow, but I'm not seeing it.

'creature' is not only a permanent type, but also a card type. Rule 702.16a states:

702.16a Protection is a static ability, written “Protection from [quality].”
  ...
  If the quality is a card type, subtype, or supertype, the ability applies to sources that are permanents with that card type, subtype, or supertype and to any sources not on the battlefield that are of that card type, subtype, or supertype. This is an exception to rule 109.2.
109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

(emphasis mine)
so even though while a graveyarded Carrionette is not a creature by rule 109.2, it's still a card with type 'creature' which is sufficient for the protection ability.

It is not clear to me why 109.2 does not apply here. "Protection from creatures" is an ability that includes a card type and does not include the word "card". It sounds like 702.16a and 109.2 contradict each other.

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

Because the expanded definition of the ability explicitly states that it applies to non-permanent objects.

Ah, the rules quote just didn't go long enough; I see that 702.16a mentions this specifically!

@GendoIkari I don't know why they made an exception to rule 109.2, but they did.

I'm clear now. I just needed to see that last sentence on the rule!

I didn't know rule 109.2 was that well-known, so I thought I'd only quote the directly relevant part for clarity.

Well the issue here is that the OP saying "when Carrionette is in the graveyard, it is not a creature" is only true because of rule 109.2. So whether the exact rule was known or not, the question only makes sense if asked by someone who knows how that works normally.

The exception is necessary because of tribal spells and auras, I suppose. If there was no exception to 109.2 for protection, they could still target a creature with protection from e.g. merfolk, or auras, respectively.

@GendoIkari thanks for pointing that out, it's slightly more convoluted than I originally thought (but still covered by the rules...).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a damage phase in the final round of Steampunk Rally?
In Steampunk Rally - a player crossing the finish line triggers one more final round, and then the winner is determined by who finishes the furtherest along the track.
The question I have is - during this final round - is there still a damage phase - in which an invention may explode and be taken back to last place?

What makes you think there isn't?

Yes. There's nothing that indicates it should be skipped on the last round. Effectively, you can't just walk across the finish line; you need to have a machine to win.

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


text:
How to devolve traits in Plague Inc.: Board game?
What happens when you run out of traits slots in Plague Inc.: Board game? You can't evolve new traits anymore? Is there a way to devolve a trait when you want it?
Can't find anything about manual devolve of trait slots in the rules:
https://www.ultraboardgames.com/plague-inc/game-rules.php
P.S. If anyone can give me a link to better rules description I would appreciate it.

From these rules that was from the BGG link.

A player may choose to 'devolve' Trait Card(s) and remove them from
their Evolution Slide and anytime during their turn. This doesn't
cost anything or prevent any other action. You must discard the Trait
Card(s) you devolve.
Note: You do not get DNA Points back when devolving.

As the answer by @StartPlayer says, you can always "devolve" a trait by simply discarding it.
One exception is an event card which allows you to "devolve" a trait and get the DNA points back for it.
There's also "temporary mutation" event card which allows you to evolve a trait without paying DNA and without using a slot. This trait gets discarded at the end of the turn.
This can be very powerful at the endgame, for example, having a turn with lethality 6.

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


text:
Is there an equivalent of gatherer for Duels of the Planeswalkers?
Gatherer is a fantastic resource for finding cards in paper magic, but does not seem to me to contain any way of getting only Duels of the Planeswalkers cards. Neither the Expansion, Format or Block filters contain anything like Duels 2015 (although the expansion filter contains several Duels of planeswalker1 vs planeswalker2). Does some other searchable database exist that contains the Duels 2015 cards only?

**Edit/clarification**:
There is a [Duels of the Planeswalkers theme set][2]. To clarify: I am not interested in those cards, but instead the Duels of the Planeswalkers video game and specifically the 2015 version.

A searchable card list is available for the current version of the game, Magic Duels, at http://www.magicduelscardlist.com

I don't think there is a searchable database like Gatherer that lists DotP cards, because most places that allow you to search for cards either get their info from Gatherer or MagicCards.info (or a thrid party that gets their info from one of those sources like MtGJSON) and neither of those sites allow you to search for DotP cards. There are however places that list all, or most of the cards from each expansion.
DotP 2015 + Expansion
DotP 2014
DotP 2013 + Expansion
DotP 2012
DotP (2009)

There are card lists, but I am looking for something searchable. Also note that the 2015 link that you posted is not up to date: there have been several more booster-packs added such as Masters of Monsters (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/master-monsters-pack-2015-02-11) and Khans of Tarkir (http://steamcommunity.com/games/255420/announcements/detail/116307939440612706)

@Jonny Unfortunately that doesn't exist, lists are the best you are going to be able to do. Most 3rd party sites that allow for card searching seem to use either Gatherer or MagicCards.info (or something that gets its info from on of those sites like MtGJSON) So since neither of those sites has them it is very unlikely that you will find a site that does.

"It does not exist, but here is the next best thing." is a valid answer. +1 from me until someone proves otherwise.

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


text:
When does a player choose the creature benefiting from Amass?
Situation: My opponent has a Zombie Army with 3 +1/+1 counters, and also a another Zombie Army (say for example, Amoeboid Changeling). They cast a card with Amass (for example: Relentless Advance). I have a Jaya's Greeting in hand.
Question: Can I choose to respond to the Relentless Advance by destroying whichever creature will get the tokens? Or does my opponent choose after it resolves?

Amass doesn't target, so the creature will be chosen upon resolution, by which time it is too late to destroy it with Jaya's Greeting; the creature will receive the +1/+1 tokens before you get priority to cast a spell.

What would happen if you used Amoeboid Changeling to make the first Zombie Army not a zombie army for the  turn?

In the situation, Amoeboid Changeling is controlled by the opponent. In the odd case that they used it themselves, they have to add the counters to the Changeling (unless you blow it up first; in that case, they must create a new 0/0 token for the +1/+1 counters).

As the other answer, Amass doesn't target. You can preemptively kill the changeling or the token before the resolution. Remember that if you choose to destroy the token, then your opponent can only place the counters in the changeling(and vice-versa), if you destroy both creatures, he would then create a zombie army token as per Amass's text.

Amass N (Put N +1/+1 counters on an Army you control. If you don't
  control one, create a 0/0 black Zombie Army creature token

Look at the reminder text, it says put the counters on an army you control, not on target army you control. If it had the word "target" you would need to target on cast, as it doesn't, it amasses on resolution of the spell.


text:
Under which controller does a stolen permanent come into play after being exiled?
Here's what I did on MTG Arena:
Opponent exiles my The Immortal Sun with Hostage Taker, then plays it.
On my turn, I cast Ixalan's Binding targeting Immortal Sun, and then Demystify my own Ixalan's Binding. The Immortal Sun then entered the battlefield under my control.
Question 1: I thought it might work, that's why I tried it, but I don't understand why it worked. I read the rulings of Ixalan's Binding, and couldn't find something that could explain why it returned from exile under its owner's control, and not under the last controller's control. Can anyone explain the rulings behind this?
Question 2: Would flickering a stolen permanent work the same?

Most (possibly all?) flicker effects specify whose control the permanent enters under, and it's almost always the owner's control.

Immortal Sun enters the battlefield under your control because Ixalan's Binding creates a special one-shot effect that has its own rules treatment. When flickering an object as a regular one-shot effect, its subsequent controller depends on the card used to flicker; both "you", the controller of the effect, and "the permanent's owner" are possible, and are always specified by the card.
Ixalan's Binding doesn't specify under whose control the permanent returns to the battlefield, so by default it's the owner of the exiled permanent, namely you:

610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.
610.3b An object returned to the battlefield this way returns under its owner’s control unless otherwise specified.

For Flicker effects, it depends on the specific card/effect that does the flickering, both variants are possible: you, or the owner, who may or may not be you

610.3b is exactly what I was asking for, thank you :)

But Hostage Taker doesn't give control of the permanent to the controller of Hostage Taker, it allows the controller of Hostage Taker to cast a new instance of the permanent. Why is the OP the owner of the new object?

@Acccumulation That sounds different enough to be a new question.

The relevant rule here is this one:

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

So when your Immortal Sun get's exiled and comes back, it doesn't "remember" that it was ever controlled by your opponent.  And when something comes back into the game and doesn't have a controller, it's owner gains control of it.
Flicker and Cloudshift and the like will specify under whose control the permanant returns, so they are a little bit different.

Flicker effects always specify under whose control the permanent(s) return. Even the two flicker effects you named, Flicker and Cloudshift, work differently. Flicker returns the permanent to its owner's control, while Cloudshift returns it under your control.

@Hackworth You are right.  Guess I should have gone and read the cards rather than do it from memory.  Editing...

When a card enters the battlefield from exile, it is put under it's owner's control unless an effect says otherwise. When a card leaves the battlefield and returns, it is treated as a new object, the control changing effects on that card were on the old object, and cards enter the battlefield under their owner's control. Since you are the owner of Immoral Sun, it comes into play under your control when it returns from exile. This is stated by the comprehensive rules here:

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

The card has no memory of the control your opponent had, but it's owner is a characteristic of the card, something it never loses, so it returns to its owner.
Flickering would work the same for most flicker abilities, other than those that specify who's controller the card comes into play, like Ghostly Flicker or Cloudshift which say to return the cards to the battlefield under the caster's control. This was at one point used to make temporary control effects more permanent, since the card entering as a new object would no longer have the "until end of turn" control effect from cards like Act of Treason.

Question 2: Yes, when a permanent is exiled and then returned to the battlefield (flicker) it is a new permanent, not the same permanent (as per the rules) and will therefore enter under its owner's control
Question 1:
from ixalan's binding card:

exile target nonland permanent an opponent controls until Ixalan's
  Binding leaves the battlefield.

So first of all simply put, when you demystify ixalan's binding this part would resolve, so the Immortal Sun would return to the battlefield. I get the question might be why it comes back to you and not your opponent so...
Rule 108.3 states that the owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. The card would return to its owners control...it couldn't come back to its "controller" control because at that moment there was none.
You own Immortal Sun, your opponent casts it and gains control of the card, but not ownership, you exile and now the card is not controller by anyone anymore (after the trigger resolves, before it resolves it is under their control or else ixalan's binding wouldn't be able to target it) after it returns from exile it is now a new permanent that must enter under its owners control as there was no controller, it then becomes a permanent when it actually enters the battlefield and you become the controller.
Hope that sort of makes sense.


text:
Can the priestess counter cheating?
In Red Dragon Inn, the priestess has a counter card called "they might not know you're cheating but my goddess does" where they negate a cheating card only if they are still In the round of gambling.
The cheating card played was "what's that up your sleeve" by Zot the wizard and Pooky. This card takes control of then round of gambling and picks a player to force them to leave the round of gambling.
In this scenario Zot forced the priestess to leave and following that the priestess tried to counter it with the card mentioned above. An argument ensued about whether the priestess was allowed to do this or not. Does anyone know the official ruling of this? In my opinion since Zot played first and forced the priestess to leave she was no longer in the round of gambling and therefore not allowed to counter.

When someone is being forced out of a round of gambling everyone has a chance to counter, including the person being forced out. The actual card does not finish resolving until counters have been played.
From the official rules (page 3):

Forcing a Player to Leave a Round of Gambling
Some cards force a player to leave a Round of Gambling. When a player is forced out of the Round, each player, including the one being forced out, has a chance to respond (for example, with "Oh, I guess the Wench thought that was her tip...", "They might not know you're cheating, but my Goddess does!", or another anti-cheat card).

Thank you for the response. We found the ruling that says this. I feel like the priestess card is missleading based on what it says. Thank you

Easily misread, but the intent of it (and other cards with the same wording) are that you have to use it on a Cheat card that is directly affecting you.

@KenHerbert I don't agree with that. The intent is that you use it on a cheat card, and most often you'll want to use it to protect yourself, but there are all sorts of situations in gambling where you might want to use it on someone else or just to prevent the cheater using their card.

@Samthere Maybe I worded that comment a little off. By "directly affecting you" I meant that it affects you because you are still in the round of Gambling and it directly affects your chances of winning the gamble, I didn't mean it had to be a card that is only played directly on you.

The long and short of it is that whenever a card is played, all players have a chance to respond to it BEFORE the effect of the card occurs. When a cheat card is played that would force a player out, that player may respond to that card by using a counter-cheat card before they are removed by its effect. The only time they cannot is if they are prevented from negating the card (e.g. Kaylin (Red Dragon Inn 3), when Wulfric is Stalwart, prevents ALL other players from playing any card that would negate or ignore a card Kaylin played).


text:
Bridge hand with high card points between 1NT (15-17) and 2NT (20-21)
A few years ago, I submitted a question here about opening a balanced hand in the so-called "no man's land" of 18-19 HCP, ie. too strong to open 1NT and too weak to open 2NT. Many thanks to those who responded.
Since then, I have learned to open one club with such a hand, and my partner responds in one of the following two ways depending on her HCP. With less than 7p, she bids one diamond, which we both understand as a denial. With 7 points or more, she bids as she would normally, and I rebid with 2NT. That bid is forcing to game, as the sum of the partnership's HCP (18+7) is at least 25, the minimum required for a game. The rest of the bidding is fairly straightforward thereafter.
My question is what should I rebid if partner's first response is the one diamond denial mentioned above ?  Of course, any other thoughts about how to bid such a "no man's land" balanced hand of 18-19 HCP will be most welcome, especially within the restraints of Standard American.

Out of curiosity, what do you open if you have 13 points and five clubs?

It would depend what else I had in my hand, Tim. For example, if I had a 5-card major, being a well behaved Standard American player I would open one heart or spade.

I think it is tricky to stuff your artificial 1D response into the rest of SAYC.  When you consider the standard bidding structure over 1NT and 2NT, the pattern is that the weaker hand shows its shape as quickly as possible (via Stayman or transfers, for instance) and then either signs off, bids game, or invites to slam (giving the strong hand control in the latter two cases).  It is difficult to replicate this pattern after 1C - 1D because the opener would need to make another forcing bid in order to give the responder a chance to show his/her shape.  The best I can think of is to treat 1C - 1D - 1NT as an artificial force with systems on, but the usual systems over 1NT often terminate in 2NT or part-scores at the 3 level, both of which are too high if opener has a normal 1C hand and the responder is weak.
So I think you more or less have to pick one of the following two frameworks:

SAYC: The first two calls are normal, and a jump shift by opener (with cuebidding in competition) shows 18-19 points.  Responder can't pass with 7HCP, so you don't miss game, and s/he has some space to show features (like 4 card majors).  SAYC full provides two additional tools for handling some tricky edge cases.  The first is structured reverses for showing 5m/4M shapes; for instance, 1C - 1S - 2H is a game force with 5+C and 4+H.  The second is 4th suit forcing for finding difficult fits without wasting bidding space; for instance after 1C - 1H - 1S - 1NT, declarer can bid 2D to artificially force to game, giving responder the chance to show 5 hearts or other features.
Strong club: If you want to really pursue the reasoning behind your 1C agreement, you can choose one of several strong club systems (such as the precision club).  In these systems 1C is artificial and shows any hand with 16+ HCP, the thinking being that these are the hands where you want to have the most bidding space available.  This has all of the advantages of your approach, but since 1C can't be just 13 points you can use your usual systems without worrying about ending up too high.  It also allows you to use bids like 1NT and 2NT preemptively, which can make life quite hard for your opponents.  The downside of these sorts of systems is that they can get quite complicated and awkward in certain cases.

Nice answer - You have clearly played a good deal of bridge, with capable opponents and partners.

I like your "1C - 1D - 1NT" sequence for the "no man's land" balanced hand that was the basis for my question, Paul and Petqwe. Could I expect my 1NT rebid in that sequence to be answered by Stayman or a transfer by my partner? If so, would that require any additional notations on ACBL's "fat-free" convention card ? http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/general-information/convention-cards/

Before knowing how to bid with 18-19 balanced, you should first find out how you bid 12-14 balanced.
Under your supposingly forcing 1C opening scheme, positive hands bid 1H or above, while negative hands bid 1D or other preempts. When you have a 12-14 hand against 1M response, you have an easy 1NT rebid. But when your partner responds 1D, how do you bid your minimum balanced hand?
You should now realize that those weakish 12-14 hands should NOT rebid 1NT, but 'fake' a suit by bidding 1M. This is standard practice in Polish Clubs anyways.
It also follows your 1NT rebid upon receiving a negative response is 18-19.

Realize that your partner is very weak, with an "average" of 3-4 high card points, and possibly zero. Because you might not be able to go back and forth between the two hands, your 18-19 point hand is worth less than one with 14-15 points and your partner having the "extra" four points or so.
I would bid the lowest suit contract in which I had five cards (pass with five diamonds). If my distribution were 4-3-3-3 pr 4-4-3-2, or five weak ones in clubs, I would bid 1NT. Normally, this means 13-15 opposite partner's 7 hcp for a total of 20-22 in a seven trick contract. Because partner is so weak, you''ll probably get to 20-22 (combined) in a different way.

Your agreement to bid 1D in response to 1C on all hands with 7 HCP oir less is not standard in Standard American (SA). It leaves quite a few questions, which you need to settle before you can decide how to handle a 18-19 HCP balanced hand.
What does your partner do with 9-11 points and no major suit, say 5-card diamonds, 4-card clubs, and 2 in each major? In SA this would be a 1D bid. How about a 6-card diamond suit?
What does your partner do with KQJXX or even KQJXXX in a major, with no other honors? in SA this would be one of the major, even toguh it holds only 6 points.
In SA, the classic way to handle this is to open 1 of a suit (better minor or a major if you have a 5-card suit). Over a 1-level suit response, jump to 2NT. This shows your hand precisely, and responder becomes the captain to place the contract or learn more about your hand. Over a 2-level response, you can still bid 2NT, but it doesn't as fully show your strength, as you might do the same with a  14 HCP hand, no support for partner, and a suit you aren't comfortable rebidding, and a balanced or semi balanced hand.  Or you could jump to 3NT, although that uses up a lot of bidding room. This is something that should be discussed with partner. Over a 1NT response you could bid 2NT or 3NT, depending on suit texture and partnership agreement. 3 is a bit of a stretch if partner has a 6-point hand, especially with a bad 18. With a good 19, you have at least 25 between the two hands, and 3NT is attractive.

I have no experience with Standard American. However, looking at the options after 1D:

Pass; this isn't much of an option. You might have as few as 2 diamonds, partner bids diamonds as a convention. Also, you have about 20 points between you, so it's not a given that your opponents should be on the play.
1 hearts/spades; Partner has already given a denial and you continue bidding. This automatically puts you on a hand stronger than 15 HCP. You should be able to use the 2-level to find a fit or park it in 2NT. Game is unlikely.
1NT; This raises the bidding to 2-level for your opponents if they want to intervene, and it's very realistic if you and your partner have a balanced hand and 20 HCP.
2NT; for the same reasons as 1NT: shows pretty specifically the shape and strength of your hand, raises the level and is still very probably playable. This is a tad more aggressive.

As usual, this sort of thing comes down to preference, circumstances (did opponents make an intervening bid? Did they double? Who is vulnarable?) and establishing a clear agreement of the meaning of these bids.

Many thanks for your rapid response, Steenbergh.  I like your suggestions and will discuss them with my partner.

In response to your questions: neither side is vulnerable, opponents neither doubled nor intervened, and my opening bid of 1 club is forcing for one round.
Any further ideas ?

@Stefanovitch I didn't mean: "do this at vul none, this at vul NS..". I meant that you'd need to assess each situation to see if a more or less aggressive bid is appropriate here.


text:
What happens to a permanent I gained control over using Agent of Treachery, and I leave a multiplayer game?
Let's say Alice took control over Bob's Leyline of Abundance using Agent of Treachery, and then Alice leaves a multiplayer game. What happens with Leyline of Abundance? According to rule 800.4a

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

I thought the permanent would be exiled, but there is a ruling on Agent of Treachery that states

Agent of Treachery’s effect lasts indefinitely. It doesn’t wear off during the cleanup step, and it doesn’t expire if Agent of Treachery leaves the battlefield. In a multiplayer game, it does expire if you leave the game.

Which I assume means that the controlled permanent goes back to Bob. However, looking at a similar card Beguiler of Wills, which also takes control of a permanent (creature), there are no special rules that state "In a multiplayer game, it does expire if you leave the game.". Which means that the controlled creature will be exiled when Alice leaves the game (according to ruling 800.4a if I am not mistaken).
Here are some similar questions:

Do I lose control of a creature if the aura which granted me control of it is destroyed?
In MTG, what happens when a player loses in multiplayer?

See this question.

Somewhat related: See Why do creatures go back to a previous controller instead of their owner? and what does “you control enchanted creature” mean

When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game, any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end, and all spells and abilities controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist.

(emphasis mine)
So Alice's control of the Leyline ends, and Bob controls it again. The Leyline won't be affected by

Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled.

This sentence rarely matters, but as @Hackworth notes in the comments, Command the Dreadhorde is one of those situations. The Rulings under that card mention it as well:

In a multiplayer game, if a player leaves the game, all cards that player owns leave as well. If you leave the game, the creatures and planeswalkers you control from Command the Dreadhorde’s effect are exiled.

Regarding Beguiler of Wills, you can think of the Rulings in Gatherer as a sort of FAQ about the card. All Rulings can be traced back to the Comprehensive Rules; apparently Wizards didn't feel the need to add it. The situation is the same as with Agent of Treachery; the 'stolen' creature won't be exiled but will once again be controlled by its owner.

I thought maybe any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end did not apply to Agent of Treachery, because the effect of the Agent is a triggered ability to gain control over the permanent, and not a long lasting effect. If the Agent leaves the battlefield, Alice still controls the permanent gained control of. Unlike Mind Control, which is a lasting effect (while enchanted to a creature).

Nope, it's a continuous effect (rule 611). Control-changing effects may be rather tricky, cf. https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/44689/12315

Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This applies to objects that entered the battlefield under that player's control but are not owned by that player, for example from Command the Dreadhorde. Those objects do not have a control-changing effect on them, they are just naturally controlled by that player, even if that player doesn't own them.

@Hackworth I believe Bribery is the canonical example of this (it's mentioned in the CR 800.4a, example 3). But CtD works the same way.

Re "because the effect of the Agent is a triggered ability to gain control over the permanent, and not a long lasting effect", 1) Effects aren't abilities; abilities (of all kinds) have/create effects. 2) Change of control effects are always continuous ("lasting") effects. Note that "put", also known as "return", has a one-shot effect, so "put [a permanent] under [player's] control" doesn't create a change of control effect.


text:
In Shadowrift, can a player user more than one villager per round?
I've seen multiple mentions on forums and in YouTube videos that a player can only 'use' a single villager per round. However, I don't see anything about this in the rulebook.
All it says about using villagers is:

Seek Aid: You may move a
  Villager with the Aid term on its
  description from Town Square
  to the Town Discard to gain its
  effect.
Example: An attacking hero may
  pay 1 Coin and discard the Smith
  to add +1 damage to their attack.

The epic actions, which are only allowed once per round, are explicitly called out.

Yes, there is no restriction on how many times each hero can Seek Aid in the second edition of Shadowrift.
In this forum post on BGG, Jeremy Anderson (the game's creator) confirms that the following statement is correct.

...under the new rules ALL the villagers in the [Town Square] can now
  be asked for help and all of them could be asked by a single hero.

He goes on to explain:

So many of the effects are global or
  monster-targeting (such as the Baker and Priest, respectively) that it
  was actually pretty rare the rule would even matter other than
  requiring the players to do a little fiddly bookkeeping. I agree that
  I'm all for table-talk and interesting decisions, but this wasn't a
  consistent enough place to produce them and mostly just penalized
  smaller player counts (and sure, smaller player counts have an easier
  game so one could argue that's just a positive balancing element...).
  It also made little (if any) thematic sense. Limited capacity to
  perform actions makes sense. Limited capacity to receive help from
  others...a little less so.

From the ruleset on BGG, page 5, the definition of Seek Aid is this:

Seek Aid in Town: Each hero may seek aid from one Villager
  per round. This means gaining the effect stated on a Villager
  in Town. Each Villager may only aid one hero per round.
  Put any Villagers that aid into the Town discard.
  (Discarding Villagers to aid does not cause the heroes to lose.)

There's the once per turn restriction.

Clear. Thanks. The wording for the second edition (which I have) is different and seems to remove this restriction. This explains why I see some people refer to this rule.

In my opinion, because it says nothing in the rulebooks, this is a house rule. It is entirely up to you and the other players whether to play with this house rule. Advancing as many villagers as you want, is obviously good for you, but as I said, this up to you and the other players.
Another option is to contact the creators of Shadowrift. They may know the real answer to this question, instead of just my house rule opinion.


text:
Can you prep a spell outside your main phase in Aeon's End?
The Aeon's End rules say, that if you focus one of your breaches, you may prep a spell onto that breach. Are you also allowed to do that outside of your own main phase?
For example an ally might focus one of your breaches. Can you immediatly prep a spell onto that breach?
Or if you cast Jagged Lightning in your casting phase and choose to focus one of your breaches, does this allow you to prep one of your spells and even cast it in the same casting phase?

Focusing a breach and prepping a spell to a breach are separate actions.
Rules p. 3:

"The only time that spells can be prepped to a closed breach is during the player's turn in which that breach was focused."

So when an ally focuses your breach, that doesn't help your prepping, because the focus didn't happen on your turn. (But it does make future opening cheaper. And it did happen on their turn, so if they had the ability to prep a spell to your breach that could work.)
When a spell you cast focuses your breach, that did happen on your turn, so you can prep a spell to it that turn (in the main phase) without focusing it again.

That is not true, there are other abilities that allow you to focus and prep a spell out of turn. It was the ability of a single character in the game though unfortunately I no longer have access to a copy of the game to provide the text.


text:
What is the expected duration of a game of War?
In the card game War you deal a standard 52 card deck between two players. The players than flip cards with the higher card winning. In the case of ties (wars), each player plays N additional cards an the player with the highest Nth card wins all the cards (subsequent ties follow the same rules). The game can last a very long time and seems to never last a short time.
What is the expected number of "turns" until the game is completed?
I learned to play war with N equal to 3 (i.e., a total of 10 cards are played in a war: the original tie, 3 face down, and a final comparison card).
For completeness assume the game is over if a player has less than 5 cards and gets into a war (i.e., does not have a final card to flip).
Assume that upon playing your last card from your hand, you shuffle the winning cards into a random order and resume.
Assume the cards are in random order to start.

According to the Wikipedia article you linked, both players play two addition cards, not four. The winner then takes all four (2*2) cards.

Also, it would depend on how the captured cards are returned to the winner's deck. If they are just placed in bottom of the deck, then that might affect the answer to the question. Furthermore, if the 52 cards are divided perfectly into two identical piles, I would assume that the game ends in a tie? Would that count as the game being completed?

@Phil you are correct, not how I grew up playing and not how my son learned from friends, but okay. Will update.

@Phil does the edit cover everything?

I also have only ever heard of the 3 extra cards plus a 4th for a new comparison rule.

This might be a better question for the math forum, as they tend to be better at complicated probability questions.

War is actually not a game but an Automata, as players don't have any options.
Wimpy Programmer already made this simulation, he found that when shuffling the winning cards, the mean number of turns is 262, the mode is 84, and the max (on a sample of 100,000 trials) is 2,702 turns.  He also found that without shuffles of the winning cards, the game might be endless.
He used N=2 while you play with N=3, higher N shortens the game, however I don't think that it will make a big difference.

There must be a bug in this simulation, since it finds that 1 in 8 games lasts beyond 5,000 turns, possibly infinite. This has never been the case for me in reality, and I play without shuffling the cards I replace.

It might be a bug in the simulation (the code is in the link) however, i can think of other explanations: maybe you play with N !=2, maybe when playing in reality there is some unintended shuffling.

I also made a war simulation without knowing this existed! https://github.com/sambecker/rustwar Curiously, I consistently averaged 233 turns with shuffling and 560–570 turns without shuffling (excluding 8% or so of games that never finish). Would love to compare these two approaches, see where differences/edge cases might exist in the logic. cc @Cohensius

@sambecker, that would be nice, feel free to add any relevant info from the comparison. You can try contact Drew the WimpyProgrammer with a DM at https://twitter.com/wimpyprogrammer

As a math problem, this is a case of a random walk ("walking" N cards at a step from your opponent's deck to your deck, where N is usually one, but can be 4 or 7 or whatever depending on ties.) It is often framed as the "gamblers ruin" problem. Ignoring the issue of ties and treating each throw of cards as an independent trial, the average number of turns is 26*26 = 676 turns.
Factoring in ties would reduce it quite a bit based on N -- allowing for bigger steps occasionally. The average number of turns when the step size is 5 (i.e., every turn is a war that is resolved on its first tiebreak) is equivalent to playing with 6 cards each (26/5, rounded up). And 6*6 = 36 turns.
So then it's just a matter of figuring out the probability of big steps. Ties can be expected about 3/51 of the time (when you play a card, there are 3 cards that can tie it out of the 51 other cards). 48/51 = step size 1, 3/51 * 46/49 = step size 5, 3/51 * 3/49 * 44/47 = step size 9, and so on. This makes an average step size of about 1.25. A game played with all steps equal to 1.25 would be expected to last about 21*21 = 441 turns (26/1.25 = 21 cards each equiv). And then reduce that some more to factor in the chance for sudden death when one of the ties occurs when a player is low on cards. (Sorry I don't have the details on how to do that exactly.)
EDIT: I should also emphasize that this approach assumes the trials are independent trials. That's basically the difference between dice and cards. Each throw of a die is independent. But each draw is not -- it depends on what else has been drawn / what else remains. And in the case of War, winning a trial in general improves your odds on the Kth following draw (when you draw that card again). It's a very mild (IMO) runaway leader effect (mitigated by also receiving the losing card, but I still think the net is a gain). And it will multiply the advantage, if any, bestowed to one player over the other in the initial deal. That is, any slight deviation toward the higher-numbered cards in the initial deal will be amplified each successive trip through the deck.
Further reading:
Simple Random Walk: http://www2.math.uu.se/~sea/kurser/stokprocmn1/slumpvandring_eng.pdf
First Passage of a One-Dimensional Random Walker
https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~tracy/courses/math135A/UsefullCourseMaterial/firstPassage.pdf

Well, from that same link you shared, on the summary table on the right reads:

Playing time 10–40 min.

Which directly says the average duration of a game.
Now, turns on this game, as per my experience, are quite fast. They can last a few seconds (reveal cards, someone wins, cards are taken, end of turn), or in case of a tie some extra few seconds.
So, assuming a turn lasts in average 10 seconds, we can transform that average duration from time units to turns. Best case (10 mins) it will take 60 turns to complete, worst case (40 mins) it will take 240 turns.

Perhaps the OP can clarify, but I interpreted the question as asking about probability and statistics; what is the average expected number of turns given the factors we know.

@GendoIkari yes that is what I meant. It seems like a more accurate answer than starting with an estimated time and trying to infer turns.

@GendoIkari Although my approach was not so rigorous, it is probabilistic. We have the average duration of these games. We also can obtain an average turn duration, based on the dynamics involved (which are quite few, drawing cards, showing it, someone wins, or tie) and from domain knowledge (having played the game several times myself)... but yes, this could be more rigorous. Perhaps making a small program simulating the game will yield a better estimate :)

Just a quick answer here, war actually is a game, because how players pick up the cards, affects the outcome.  You can choose to pick up the cards in different orders after each round.  But it is very difficult to play strategically.
As for the question at hand, I built my own simulation, and for 5 trials, with shuffling, I got:
58, 144, 354, 428, 189
This comes to an average of 234 rounds.  Obviously, you can do more trials, to get a more accurate number, but it's definitely a long game to play!
My source code is

    <textarea id='editor' wrap='off' style="display:none;" readonly="true"></textarea>

The effect of how you pick up cards is extremely minimal when shuffling is added into the game, it's only significant when cards are placed in the order they are picked up onto the bottom of the current deck.\

From what I remember when playing war the cards always got shuffled when your play deck ran out.

If you have a running code, please run it 10K times to produce an accurate average.  5 samples are almost worthless.


text:
Unpreventable damage to Gideon, the Oathsworn
Gideon, the Oathsworn has a +2 loyalty ability that reads:

+2: Until end of turn, Gideon, the Oathsworn becomes a 5/5 white Soldier creature that's still a planeswalker. Prevent all damage that would be dealt to him this turn. (He can't attack if he was cast this turn.)

In the card rulings, it states:

If damage that can’t be prevented is dealt to Gideon after his first loyalty ability has resolved, that damage will have all applicable results: specifically, the damage is marked on Gideon (since he’s a creature) and that damage causes that many loyalty counters to be removed from him (since he’s a planeswalker). Even though he’s also a creature, if Gideon has no loyalty counters on him, he’s put into his owner’s graveyard.

What is a scenario that could cause non-preventable damage after this ability has resolved, which states that it will "prevent all damage"?

Essentially, all cards that mention that "damage can't be prevented", though the sorceries will require additional cards to be cast during Gideon's owner's turn.
Those cards do what they say on the tin; damage can't be prevented, neither by activated abilities like Circle of Protection nor by static abilities like Gideon's.

Nitpick; the sorceries can be a relevant example even without something else allowing them to be cast, because they could by cast by Gideon's controller.

Rre "Those cards do what they say on the tin", True, but it would be nice to know why do those cards do what they say on the tin, and Gideon doesn't.

Yep, I was going to look for that reference when I got home but I see you already found it :)

What’s “the tin?”

@GendoIkari https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_exactly_what_it_says_on_the_tin

Both @ikegami and this answer were very helpful. Giving the check to the latter as I was looking for scenarios, and the link to "damage can't be prevented" addressed that.

The damage can't be prevented.
This is a situation covered by the second Golden Rule of the game.

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
  Example: If one effect reads “You may play an additional land this turn” and another reads “You can’t play lands this turn,” the effect that precludes you from playing lands wins.

As we colloquially say, "can't trumps can".

It appears that I misread the question. Nonetheless, I shall leave my answer up because it could be of use to those that land on this page.

Not misread.I had to pick between two good answers. Thank you for explaining the "can't" vs. "can" semantics.

I thought you asked if the damage would be prevented or not. I think I extrapolated the question from (an earlier version of) Glorfindel's answer rather than actually reading it.


text:
Can I name cards that are not legal in the format I am playing?
When using cards like Demonic Consultation or Spoils of the Vault can I name cards that exist but are not legal in the current format I am playing? For example, could I name a uncard like Booster Tutor or one of the conspiracy cards like Backup Plan which even if they were legal could never be in my deck?
Also Demonic Consultation has a ruling saying you must name a card that exists in Magic, I assume this is also true for Spoils of the Vault, which is why I am specifically asking about if I can name cards that exist but are not in the current format I am playing.

While this is largely theoretical in the case of Demonic Consultation and Spoils of the Vault, it matters in the case of Runed Halo, if you want to protect yourself from Goblin Wizard tokens.

I think the intention is to use these with a card like Laboratory Maniac, where you win instead of lose when you run out of cards.

@TheHansinator But neither Demonic Consultation nor Spoils of the Vault say that the card you name must actually be in your deck. So if that's your strategy, you could just as well pull this off with any legal card you know you are not going to find.

@Philipp True, though perhaps OP has a flair for the dramatic and wants to announce that that's exactly their strategy before they start milling, by naming a card everyone already knows won't be there. Or in a more moderate situation, perhaps they're playing Standard and don't want to have to remember whether their "I know this won't be there" card is still in rotation.

@TheHansinator I just enjoy learning about obscure situations and edge cases in MTG and when I saw the ruling for demonic consultation it got me wondering where the line was for what could and could not be named even if it is not very useful.

@MaxYoung That's fine too. :)

Yes.
You must state the name of a card in the Oracle, but the card doesn't need to be legal in the format of the game being played.

201.3. If an effect instructs a player to choose a card name, the player must choose the name of a card in the Oracle card reference. (See rule 108.1.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.
201.3a If a player is instructed to choose a card name with certain characteristics, the player must choose the name of a card whose Oracle text matches those characteristics. (See rule 108.1.)
Example: Dispossess reads, in part, “Choose an artifact card name.” The player can choose the name of any artifact card, even one that’s not legal in the format of the current game. The player can’t choose Island, even if an Island on the battlefield has been turned into artifact by some effect.

Emphasis mine.
This wasn't always the case. There used to be a requirement for the card to be  legal in the format of the game the player is playing. The rules were changed to remove this requirement when Guilds of Ravnica was released.

We've removed the forgettable requirement that names chosen when choosing a card name must come from the format being played. This was originally added to protect players from accidental misnamings in tournament settings (for example, "Shackles" in Modern—you meant Vedalken Shackles, not the white Aura Shackles) but tournament policy has evolved to protect players in other ways (you may recall some arguments around naming "Borborygmos" in Modern that led to this evolution) so the game rules don't need to do this anymore. The game rules are generally agnostic to the format being played, so this is a nice change.

Thanks to @murgatroid99 for pointing out the change.

Does that include uncards and test cards?

Would the recent removal of some cards from Gatherer like Crusade preclude them from being valid names?

@Acccumulation Silver-bordered cards are technically cards, and they are in Oracle. I think test cards qualify as cards, and they are in Oracle.

@Max Young Crusade is still in the Oracle. Only its image was removed.

@Allure No, but I might be due to the confusion between Borborygmos and Borborygmos Enraged

@Allure Precisely what ikegami says - see "The Prickly Case of Pithing Needle"; the opponent clearly meant to name "Borborygmos Enraged" as that was what was in Bob's deck, but got "done" because Borborygmos also exists as a card.

Amusing they'd remove the image of the card Crusade if the problem is with the whole subject of crusades. The name and card text still reference them..

The problem with the card Crusade isn't simply "the whole subject of crusades". The word "crusade" in general can refer to a variety of organized campaigns to accomplish something, but the art of that card clearly depicts a Crusader in The Crusades, a series of religiously-motivated wars, particularly invasions of Middle Eastern countries by European countries. Uncritically using a depiction of those real events in a card is already problematic, made worse by the card's effect "White creatures get +1/+1."

@murgatroid99 It's hard to make that argument for the Fifth Edition version.

Sure, that's not true of every printing. But removing all of the card images is a simple and effective solution, and there isn't much value in a more fine-grained approach.

201.3. If an effect instructs a player to choose a card name, the player must choose the name of a card in the Oracle card reference. (See rule 108.1.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.

108.1. Use the Oracle card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.

Booster Tutor and Backup Plan are both in Gatherer, so you can choose them. (Whether naming them is useful is another matter, but I'm sure somebody can come up with a reason.)
As @murgatroid99 notes, the official Tournament Rules don't mention any of those restrictions you ask about:

3.6 Card Identification and Interpretation
A card is considered named in game when a player has provided a description (which may include the name or partial name) that could only apply to one card. Any player or judge realizing a description is still ambiguous must seek further clarification.
Players have the right to request access to the official wording of a card they can describe. That request will be honored if logistically possible. The official text of any card is the Oracle text corresponding to the name of the card. Players may not use errors or omissions in Oracle to abuse the rules. The Head Judge is the final authority for card interpretations, and they may overrule Oracle if an error is discovered.

A lot of rules about formats and format legality are in the Magic Tournament Rules, so you may want to mention or quote section 3.6 of that document, which addresses naming cards in a tournament setting.

@murgatroid99, Except 3.6 doesn't mention anything relevant to the question

I thought it would be useful to show that the tournament rules, which normally have rules about formats, do not restrict what cards you can name based on format in the relevant section. However, further research turned up something much more directly relevant: the GRN comprehensive rules update change to rule 201.3 says this: "We've removed the forgettable requirement that names chosen when choosing a card name must come from the format being played."

@murgatroid99, Indeed. From 2015: 201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.) [...]. I've added a mention of the change to my answer.

"Whether naming then is useful is another matter" I believe the current optimal stack for Flash Hulk involves casting Demonic Consultation and naming a card not in your deck while you have a pending Thassa's Oracle trigger on the stack.

@DenisS but in that case you can choose any legal card which is not in your deck.

@Glorfindel true, and it would have the same outcome.  I meant it more as a timesaver, because if you name a card that is illegal in the format, you can shortcut exiling your deck because Booster Tutor is illegal to play in the format.  Same would work if you named Shazarad or Chaos Orb.


text:
A tournament chess game with board sides reversed. Will it be considered valid?
I think I've already asked this question earlier. No answers were received and I was told my question makes no sense at all. I disagree though. I think it has good sense and is pretty clear.

Imagine two players who decided to play a chess game. They arranged the initial position. The white squares h1 and a8 are at the respective player's right—that's totally correct. Queens occupy squares of their respective colors—that's nice, too. However, the white pieces occupy ranks 8 and 7, and black pieces occupy ranks 1 and 2.
My question is: if it's a serious tournament game, would it still be considered valid? I.e. no penalties from the arbiter, game fully played until checkmate or resignation, and score submitted.

Assuming "fully played" involves white's pawns moving up the board and black's moving down, as seen in the pic, then yeah, the spurious markings on the board would be of no interest. If, on the other hand, 1. Nf6 Nf3 2. g8=Q, then the players were not playing from the prescribed starting position and instead were playing a "from position" variant that is likely not valid for the given tournament.

I’m voting to close this question because it really doesn't make any sense to ask, for the exact reason described in the answers. The question posits what would happen in a situation that is impossible by definition: the coordinates can't be like this, because they're determined according to the piece positions, not as some intrinsic property of the board.

@KarlKnechtel A question doesn't not deserve to be asked because it relies on incorrect assumptions, that's probably what more than half of all the questions on stack exchange sites are, someone starting from an understanding with some flaw, asking a question based on that and being corrected.

Yes, the game is valid. The official rules don't say anything about coordinates alongside the board; as far as the rules are concerned, they don't exist.
A similar case, where the board is rotated by 90 degrees (which causes each square to have the wrong color), is mentioned:

7.2.2 If during a game it is found that the chessboard has been placed contrary to Article 2.1, the game shall continue but the position reached must be transferred to a correctly placed chessboard.

but even then the game is still valid.

Out of curiosity, would this also apply to a game mirrored across the files?  E.g. One in which both king/queen pairs have been swapped?  (Note both, obviously it'd be different if only one pair was swapped.) In theory, there should be no difference, except all of the starting positions you might've memorized would be mirrored and that might throw some people off.

@DarrelHoffman I guess 7.2.1 applies: the position was incorrect and the game is invalid in that case.

I'm just thinking that if you had the board rotated 90 degrees, and you remembered "queen goes on her own color", but not "white queen is left of king, black queen is right of king from their players' perspectives", this is not an unreasonable mistake to make.  And it's morphologically identical to a proper game, just mirrored.  Someone would have to reverse all the file letters if the moves were being recorded, but otherwise it'd be not too big of a deal.  Once you got into midgame, it would hardly matter anymore.  But I guess you have to draw the line somewhere...

Once as a child, I was in a winning position when the school's crotchety old chess teacher came over and noticed we had flipped the board as in this question. He declared "Number 1 is for White, number 8 is for Black!", cleared the board and made us start over. I feel some solace knowing he was wrong to do so.

Your question really boils down to this: what if you played a chess game exactly according to the rules in every way, but you gave the squares funny labels? Maybe they're labelled 0-63, or with roman numerals, or... . Obviously that's a silly question. You're fooling yourself by having this funny process that seems to coincidentally and unexpectedly place every piece in the exact spot it should be, and by saying "but what if we also make a big deal of writing those funny labels on the board ahead of time?" But deep down this is the same as asking "if you play a game of battleship but say all the pieces are airplanes, is it still battleship?"

You sunk my B-52!

@RobertColumbia There are many more planes at the bottom of the sea than submarines lost in the sky!

My recent version of battleship has a couple of airplanes in addition to the normal complement of sea craft.

The play of the game obviously doesn't depend on the square markings; it depends on the piece moves and the captures and threats due to those moves.  As long as the pieces are oriented correctly relative to one another, it wouldn't even matter to game play if the board has different colored squares (that is, you could play chess perfectly well, with a little care relative to bishop and queen moves, on a sheet of graph paper).
For record keeping purposes, it would be trivial to correct the move record in the above situation to the correct board orientation (i.e. white on ranks 1 and 2), by reversing the order of ranks and columns -- it could be done programmatically in a spreadsheet, for instance.  It isn't necessary in order to analyze the game, however, as it will be obvious to anyone reading the record how the board was set up (King's pawn can't start from d7 in a normal setup) and how the moves progressed.
If this matters at all, it's due to an artificial requirement specific to tournament play -- which is to say, it isn't really about chess, as such; rather, it's about chess tournaments.

There is the potential of inconsistent move recording: Player may just write down many moves such as 1. e4 c5 blindly, but at dome later stages be fooled, e.g., when moving their queen to a5 they see it stand next to a "4" mark (while still blindly knowing it is on "a") and be tricked into writing down Qa4 instead of Qa5 (and both may be valid moves)

@HagenvonEitzen And this is most likely why the tournament rules require transferring the position to a correctly oriented board when the error is discovered.  Meanwhile, if you record moves the way I learned to do (in the 1970s), "Queen's Pawn to Queen 4" -- there's no confusion.

@ZeissIkon: No kidding! I still have to convert all references by the current recording notation into the traditional notation; yet watching Magnus on Youtube it's clear he thinks entirely by the current notation standard.

@ForgetIwaseverhere I can understand why the change was made -- the notation is far more compact and there's never a "which pawn took rook?" question (which can happen the old way if someone thinks its obvious and it isn't).

You surely deserve to get several answers this time!
The question shows the only way of misplacing the pieces on the chessboard where the rules let the game be played through.  It is so because the rotation shown preserves square colors, and square colors are deemed relevant.
Chessboards used in tournaments often provide labels for ranks and files, many other chessboards don't.  The rules do not mention or mandate any labels.  The rules define the positions irrespective of how the chessboard labels them.  The labels are supposed to provide help with writing down the moves.  The rules mandate writing down the moves, but not any such aids on the chessboard or anywhere else.
In the position shown in the question, there's a white queen on d1.  That d1 square is labelled as e8, but that doesn't make it e8 as far as the rules go.  It is d1 because it's at the side of the table where the white player sits and because it is the fourth file counting from their left hand side.
An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic (e.g., a rotated algebraic system in which the d1 square is consistently notated as e8) should warn the player of the requirement to call the squares the way the rules call them, rather than the way the rotated chessboard labels them; with the penalty being that the non-standard notation cannot be used as evidence if the state of the game ends up disputed later.  Other than that, the arbiter will let the players go on playing with with the chessboard rotated by 180 degrees.
If there's no requirement to write down moves (e.g., in a blitz tournament), then it's unlikely that anyone would even notice that the labels are off, and if they did, nothing would follow from the fact.


text:
Who is the controller of a Pacifism enchanting my creature?
My opponent played Pacifism on a creature on my side of the battlefield. Later, I wanted to exile the enchantment with Conclave Tribunal.
My opponent had the opinion that I was now the controller of Pacifism, so I couldn't exile this enchantment with Conclave Tribunal.
I assumed that I could because I thought he was the controller of Pacifism. Who is right here?

The controller of an aura is the player who cast it, not (necessarily) the controller of the permanent it enchants. A subsequent control changing effect, like Donate, can change this, but they're relatively rare.
So you're right, you can target Pacifism with Conclave Tribunal and exile it.

As Glorfindel pointed out, although pacifism is enchanted on a creature you control, your opponent controls it, and you can target it with Conclave Tribunal. If we look at another example, it becomes much more obvious how this interaction works.
Take mind control. It has two instructions:

Enchant Creature, same as pacifism.
You control enchanted creature.

Here, 'you' refers to the controller of the mind control. It would make very little sense if you controlled the enchantment when your creature was enchanted, since that would cause Mind Control to be almost useless. Instead, the controller of the mind control controls the creature. Similarly, if you were to give control of a mind control you control to another player, such as with Donate, they would also gain control of the creature it targets.
Apologies for using the word 'control' so many times.

All correct, but a card can be owned by one player and controlled by another; who controls a card can be changed by cards like Mind Control, the "owner" cannot be changed by any card or effect (at least since ANTE went away). So "your opponent owns it" in the first sentence is correct, but "your opponent both owns and controls it" would make more sense in this context.

Thanks for the catch. I originally wrote 'owns' all over the place and realized that that's misleading in the context.


text:
Etrata, the Silencer and token creatures
My opponent attacks me with Etrata, the Silencer. I have only token creatures in my battlefield. Does one of the tokens go into exile? Does my opponent have to shuffle Etrata into his library again?

Yes, but it doesn't count towards losing the game because it's not a card.

If Etrata’s ability exiles a token creature, it won’t count to determine whether three cards are exiled with hit counters.

Creature tokens on the battlefield are creatures, so they are valid targets for Etrata's ability.
When Etrata's ability resolves, the following happens:

The targeted token is exiled.

A hit counter is put on the now-exiled token.

Token aren't cards,[CR 108.2] so you don't lose the game.

Etrata is shuffled into its owner's library.

Immediately after Etrata's ability resolves, the following happens:

Tokens outside of the battelfield cease to exist as a State-Based Action.[CR 704.5d]

108.2. When a rule or text on a card refers to a “card,” it means only a Magic card or an object represented by a Magic card.
108.2b Tokens aren’t considered cards—even a card-sized game supplement that represents a token isn’t considered a card for rules purposes.
704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. [...]
704.5. The state-based actions are as follows:
704.5d If a token is in a zone other than the battlefield, it ceases to exist.

No, the token will simply cease to exist (this is a general rule for tokens leaving the battlefield) and won't 'count' towards the three hit counter rule.

11.7. A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist.

This is confirmed by one of the rulings below the card in Gatherer:

If Etrata’s ability exiles a token creature, it won’t count to determine whether three cards are exiled with hit counters.

Even though that part of the ability doesn't have any effect, it is by no means countered, which means the rest of the ability happens too:

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.

So Etrata will be shuffled into its owner's library.

That's not true. They do get exiled. They even get a counter. You don't lose because tokens aren't cards.  They only cease to exist after the ability finishes resolving.

My opponent attacks me with Etrata, the Silencer.

Etrata's ability triggers on combat damage, not attack. So the scenario you describe would not be sufficient to cause a creature to go into exile. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume you mean "My opponent attacks me with Etrata, resulting in combat damage to me".

I have only token creatures in my battlefield.

There is no "my battlefield". The only zones that are specific to a particular player are library, hand, and graveyard. The battlefield, exile, command, and stack are common to all players. While the cards/tokens corresponding to objects in the latter zones are generally physically separated according to control (e.g. a player will place cards they control on "their" part of the playing table), in game terms control is simply a characteristic of the objects, not a matter of what zone an object is in. A permanent on the battlefield that you control is not considered to be in a different "place" than one you don't control, as far as the rules are concerned.

Does one of the tokens go into exile?

Yes. Etrata's ability states:

Whenever Etrata deals combat damage to a player, exile target creature that player controls and put a hit counter on that card. That player loses the game if they own three or more exiled cards with hit counters on them. Etrata's owner shuffles Etrata into their library.

There is no "may" before "exile target creature", and a token creature is a creature. Since there is a valid target for the ability, the ability must be resolved.

Does my opponent have to shuffle Etrata into his library again?

Yes. Etrata's ability states "Etrata's owner shuffles Etrata into their library." There is no "may", so there is no choice whether to resolve this. If you controlled no creatures on the battlefield, on the other hand, then there would be no valid target for "exile target creature". When a spell or ability contains one or more instances of the word "target", at least one must have a valid target. If none do, the spell or ability does not resolve. Since there is only one instance of "target", if it is not valid, then the ability would not resolve, and so Etrata would not be shuffled into its owner's library. See

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve.

Also, while you didn't ask about the "That player loses the game if they own three or more exiled cards with hit counters on them" part of the ability, the following rules are relevant to that part:

108.2. When a rule or text on a card refers to a “card,” it means only a Magic card or an object represented by a Magic card.
704.5d If a token is in a zone other than the battlefield, it ceases to exist.

Since the ability specifically requires three cards in the exile zone, and a token is not a card, the exiled token will not be considered when looking at whether you lose. In addition, as soon as SBA are checked, the token will cease to exist.

Re "There is no "may" before "exile target creature"", That doesn't mean it happens. Some instructions are impossible to follow. While this isn't one of them, I thought I'd point out that your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument since you're nitpicking. [ Don't get me wrong, I approve of it :) ]

I didn't downvote.


text:
When a land becomes a creature, is it untapped?
A friend had the land Mobilized District on the battlefield. He was activating its ability to change this land to a 3/3 Citizen creature. When he activated this ability, he also tapped Mobilized District to add one more mana to pay the costs of this activated ability. Now, when this land becomes a creature, does this creature untap or does it stay tapped because he also tapped this land to produce an additional mana?

The creature will still be tapped because nothing has untapped it.
Tapped vs untapped is one of the four categories of statuses that a permanent has.  Status is not affected by permanent type, and changing permanent types does not make the permanent a new object.  See the relevant rules:

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it’s moved to another zone by an effect or rule.
110.6. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.
110.6c A permanent retains its status until a spell, ability, or turn-based action changes it, even if that status is not relevant to it.

Your friend will have a tapped creature, so it's not a really useful course of action. The tapped/untapped state of a permanent doesn't get 'reset' somehow when the permanent type changes.

It remains tapped.

An object's type is one of its characteristics.

109.3. An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. Objects can have some or all of these characteristics. Any other information about an object isn’t a characteristic. For example, characteristics don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s target, an object’s owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.

Changing the characteristics of an object doesn't cause the object to become untapped. If it did, Giant Growth would untap its target, and Savage Surge would have redundant text.

110.6. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.
110.6c A permanent retains its status until a spell, ability, or turn-based action changes it, even if that status is not relevant to it.

Similarly, changing an object's characteristics doesn't cause it to change zones. For example, it doesn't cause enters-the-battlefield and leaves-the-battlefield abilities to trigger.

tl;dr-  Some cards (e.g., 1, 2, 3) do untap lands when those lands become creatures.  However, these cards specify the untapping.  By contrast, Mobilized District doesn't state to untap.

As the other answers have said, a land doesn't automatically untap upon becoming a creature.  If a card intended the land to become untapped, it'd state it.
Here are a few examples of cards that specify untapping a land when it becomes a creature:

Koth of the Hammer has the ability:

+1: Untap target Mountain. It becomes a 4/4 red Elemental creature until end of turn. It's still a land.

Nissa, Vital Force has the ability:

+1: Untap target land you control. Until your next turn, it becomes a 5/5 Elemental creature with haste. It's still a land.

Nissa, Who Shakes the World has the ability:

+1: Put three +1/+1 counters on up to one target noncreature land you control. Untap it. It becomes a 0/0 Elemental creature with vigilance and haste that's still a land.

Note: Found these cards by searching Gatherer for cards that contained the text becomes, untap, land, and creature.
By contrast, Mobilized District doesn't specify untapping the land when it becomes a creature.


text:
When Using Throne room on a Throne room do you need two more action cards already in hand?
In the base game Dominion, Throne Room lets you play an action card twice.
The Dominon complete reference guide on BGG singles out the Throne room on a Throne room play for some helpful notes.

When you play Throne Room on Throne Room, this will let you play two other cards (each twice).

What I'm not clear on is if you need to have both "other" cards in hand already to be able to do this, or can the first card played allow me to draw the card I use on the 2nd Throne room?
Is this acceptable?
Hand: Throne Room, Throne Room, Moat, Copper, Copper
Play: Throne Room, Throne Room, Moat (drawing 4), Play Laboratory (which I've just drawn using the Moat), etc...
Or do I have to have the action card already in hand to make use of the "third" Throne Room created by duplicating the second card played?

In Dominion, the general rule is that you have to do everything on a card in order before you can play another card.
This affects Throne Room in an odd way, because it means you have to do everything printed on the card Throne Room tells you to play, then do everything on that card again.
Thus, when you Throne Room a Throne Room, you play one card and resolve it twice, then play a second card and resolve it twice.
TL;DR Yes, you can play the Laboratory you drew with the Moat as the second Throne Room's second play.

Incidentally, this is even more complicated with King's Court from the Prosperity set as that card has you play an action 3 times.

I forgot to mention this in the post and it's not relevant to Throne Room, but it is relevant to the "in order" part: "+1 Action" just means that your maximum number of actions this turn increases by 1, not to immediately play another action card.

In Dominion, you can play a card instructing you to do something impossible; you just fail to do it and the game continues. So yes, you absolutely can.
More generally, you don't need to anticipate every game state that might happen if you play a card...in many cases, this is impossible anyway. You just need to follow the directions of the card, and skip instructions you can't follow.


text:
Who wins when the Inquisitor kills somebody in Blood Bound?
In the game Blood Bound, the rules for winning are as such:

The game ends when one player becomes captured, after which
  all players flip their character cards faceup to disclose their full
  identities. If the active player captured the leader of the rival
  clan, the active player and his clan are victorious and win the
  game. If the active player captured anyone other than the leader
  of the rival clan, the active player and his clan lose; the rival
  clan is victorious and wins the game.

However, in the case of an uneven number of players, an inquisitor is included, who wins solo with the following win rules:

Determine the victorious clan as normal (see “Winning the
  Game” on page 5). Now, flip all curse cards faceup. If the
  victorious leader has the “True Curse” ability card, the Inquisitor
  steals the victory away from that clan, and he alone wins the
  game. If any player other than the leader of the victorious clan
  has the “True Curse” ability card, the card has no effect.
  Additionally, if the Inquisitor becomes captured, he alone wins
  the game.

However, the rules are ambiguous on who wins if the Inquisitor is the one to give the final wound to a player, clan leader or otherwise. We had a game where the Inquisitor, identified early and unable to win, decided to ally himself with one of the teams and took out a clan leader on their behalf, theoretically giving the other clan the win. However, as the active player, the Inquisitor has no clan,and thus did not kill the leader of his "rival clan." Who wins in that case? The Inquisitor did not fulfill his win condition, but also the clan leader wasn't taken out by a clan member. Did we all lose?

Nobody has met the win condition for their team in the game.

Blue did not capture the Red leader or capture someone besides the Red leader.
Red did not capture the Blue leader or capture someone besides the Blue leader.
Nobody captured the Inquisitor.
The Inquisitor did not place the True Curse in front of the winning leader (because no winning leader exists).

Nobody wins. Everybody loses. That is the price of outing the Inquisitor early and then giving them the position to end the game as a kingmaker or peasantmaker.

One could also argue that this is the price you pay for playing Blood Bound, but I digress...


text:
How to keep the game interesting if a player is 95% certain to win?
Yesterday I played "Fury of Dracula" with 4 friends. One friend became the Dracula, and he is the owner of the game, so he's the one who explained the rules to us. He knew most of the rules.
We are fairly experienced in board games, so despite this is our first time playing Fury of Dracula, we progressed quite well. Found him within 5 days (by luck), and we proceeded to engage him. Unfortunately, streak of Dracula events turned the table, and after another 5 days, the influence counter already reached 12, and it's just a matter of days before he wins.
Because of that, we played like we don't really care anymore. We still tried to guess where he escaped, but it was not fun anymore. The mood dropped, and there's little to none interaction after reaching 12 influence.
This is our first time playing a long-session board game, and I don't want this keeping us from playing more long-session board games, especially those with "1 vs many" playstyle.
What can we do to keep the game interesting after the winning of one side is certain?
We played with basic rules.

From my experience Fury of Dracula can be quite swingy. Sometimes even single poorly equipped hunter can can peel off half of hitpoints from Dracula in a single combat. And "matter of days" in game terms can be also long enough. Lucky event draw can also happen. Sure, situation is dire and probability of success is low, but if there is still chance you got to go for it

This is a common problem in come strategy games where a "tipping point" is reached, after which victory is assured for one player or faction, but the end game conditions are such that play must nevertheless continue.
Sid Meier's Civilization tends to have this problem, but it also occurs not infrequently in Go.  In the latter case, the losing player will generally concede once the result is a forgone conclusion (it's considered bad form not to concede in this circumstance.)
Adding secondary conditions may be be a way of maintaining interest, but if the contest is win/lose, these secondary conditions have no real meaning.

Wagering on the outcome is a method to make those secondary conditions meaningful

This is a common tactic is sporting events where the two sides are unevenly matched.  Because one team is almost certain to win (call it 95%;) a point spread is introduced. Side bets (proposition bets) are also widely utilized to sustain engagement.
If wagering is not appropriate, Benjamin Cosman's suggestion of post-tipping-point endgame rebalancing is excellent, so long as the presumed victor is so inclined.  (This is because the rebalancing technically constitutes a new game to be "solved".)
Another method would be:

Introducing strength of victory

As opposed to a binary win/lose, there are achievements.  Meeting certain predefined conditions confers points or honors.  PC strategy games commonly utilize achievement badges to keep endgames interesting.
As bragging rights are often the only reward in friendly gameplay, honors based on strength of victory could be incentivizing.
Regarding a capture/escape game, if victory is in the hands of the escapee, conceding and and rebooting is a sensible choice, because it allows the defeated players the chance to take another crack at winning, refining their strategy based on the previous outcome.

If your goal is to keep that same game fun even though you're certain to lose, then perhaps you could rebalance on the fly by choosing a more attainable goal, e.g. "We can't deal 15 damage and win, but how about we try to reach 12."
However, if your goal is to have fun playing games, you could also just concede and use the time you save to play again (or play a different game). In a game with more than two teams, this option doesn't work so well because one team conceding can throw off the balance between the remaining players. But when there are only two teams, then not only are you certain to lose which is no fun, but also your only opponent is certain to win which in my opinion is also no fun because there's no challenge to it anymore, so everyone should be better off ending the game early.
You can also combine the two approaches above: explicitly concede to your opponent, and then suggest that it might be interesting to continue with a rebalanced goal. This is because if you choose a new goal without conceding, then your opponent might not try to stop you from achieving it if trying would damage their chances of winning normally, and the game will probably be more fun if they're trying to stop you.

That an interesting idea in that post-tipping point rebalancing technically constitutes a new sub-game to be solved.


text:
Token Drawing [All At Once (per player) vs Round Robin] -- Mathematician / Statistician needed for a question
In Paris Connection (PC), you go player by player drawing a starting number of trains, with each player drawing their entire complement all at once.
One of our players conjectured this draw method is 'unfair/biased' because the first player to draw has a higher probability of gaining a majority of a single color. [Let's set aside whether or not having a majority of a single color actually gives the player an advantage in PC.] Whereas it was my conjecture that while there's variance in the distribution drawn, in the long run, it'd be a wash overall amongst all the players... and in the process of writing this & formulating my thoughts on the matter further, that it's actually the last player who has the highest likelihood of an unbalanced draw.
If there are any Mathematicians / Statisticians out there who could weigh in (and not just speculate) I'd love to hear a scientific reason why one or the other is correct.
Simplified Example:
1 Bag Containing:
10 Tokens each of six (6) different colors (ROYGBV), for a total of 60 Tokens total
6 Players drawing six (6) tokens each, each player draws all six (6) tokens at once before passing the bag to the next player

My Simplified Analysis (read: conjecture):
"In general", a player would be predisposed to drawing one of each color, leaving all the other players predisposed to drawing one of each color. Hence "in general", all players would have an even distribution.
However, given a player randomly draws more of a single color (as is bound to happen), then it would predispose the next player to also draw more of a single color, which in turn would ripple through the drawings of each player with each player having "more" of a color; hence negating a single player having "more" of a color while the others do not.
Note #1: I'm certainly not saying that one player cannot draw all six red tokens, while all other players have a more flat distribution of one of each color; after all in probability almost anything 'can' happen... but it doesn't make it likely or probable. What I'm saying is that drawing first doesn't inherently give you an increased chance of a single color majority.
In fact, I would almost argue the opposite, that the last player has the highest probability of a majority of a single color. Here's my thoughts... Player #1 has an equal chance of drawing all colors, lets say she draws R. Now on her second draw, she has a slightly higher chance of drawing any color but R; so she draws an O, etc. So let's say for sake of argument, she draws a flat distribution (ROYGBV). Now her twin sister, Player #2, when starting, has an even distribution, and manages to draw an even distribution as well (VBGYOR). But let's say their cousin, Player #3 - Miss Entropy, draws an uneven distribution (RRRRVV)... from this point forward, the remaining players to draw, are more and more predisposed to draw a non-flat distribution. So it would seem, and I'm not a Mathematician / Statistician, that the first player has the best chance for an even distribution; and with each player the chances worsen for an even distribution.
Note #2: As you'll see below, in PC, the number of tokens drawn is only an even multiple of the number of colors in the 5 player game... which I feel would even strengthen the effects of 'increasing Entropy' as each player draws, as only the first player would have a truly even distribution to draw from.
Finally, all that being said... let's say we do the other Round Robin method, where each player draws a single token, and then passes the bag each time. Does this necessarily increase the 'flatness' of each player's distribution? "Ideally" (ROYGBV). Or does it 'really' put the beginning players on the same level as the last player? Or does it not matter at all?  For instance, in my only statics course I took, I remember something about "dependent events"...  but I'm not sure if that applies?.?.  and whether it's tokens, trains, or cards; does the method of drawing/dealing matter?
All of that being said, I unfortunately do not have the mathematical / statistical rigor to "prove" it one way or another, or some other thing I had not considered.
**
\\   \\   \\   \\
     \\   \\   \\   \\
          \\   \\   \\   \\

Actual Paris Connection (PC) Example Details:**
1 Bag Containing:
31 Tokens each of six (6) different colors (ROYGBV), for a total of 186 Tokens total
X Players drawing y (Y) tokens each, each player draws all y (Y) tokens at once before passing the bag to the next player

X == Num Players
Y == Num Tokens Drawn

X     Y
3    10
4     8
5     6
6     5

Welcome to boardgames stackexchange. I think, the probability of getting an awesome answer increases if you post the question on a more math centered site.

Hi! Great question. For future questions, be aware of https://stats.stackexchange.com and https://math.stackexchange.com if you want to reach probability experts.

No player has a greater chance of drawing an even or uneven distribution than any other.
One way of looking at it is to consider permutations of the tokens, where they are laid out in some sequence instead of jumbled in a bag or something. Then, if we shuffle the tokens up, so that they can be in any order, we can distribute the tokens, so that the first player gets the first Y tokens in the sequence, and the next player gets the next Y, and so on.
If you assume that any permutation has the same probability as any other (which is as valid as assuming that the bag is uniformly jumbled), then you can see that the player's position doesn't affect what tokens they are more or less likely to receive.

Your sampling sequence is an example of an exchangeable sampling sequence.  Exchangeable sequences are not independent.  The outcome of earlier samples does affect the outcome of later samples.
However the marginal distributions are identical.  i.e. the probability of whether or not the first player gets a single color is identical to the probability the last player gets a single color.
Mathematicians/probabilists call this an urn problem.  That should be sufficient to help you find a more detailed solution if this one is too high level for you.

Imagine that we drew the tokens face down. The first player draws their six tokens, but don't look at these tokens and don't show them to the other players. Then the second player also draws their six tokens without looking, etc, until all players have drawn their tokens, but no one has looked at any token.
Then one of your friends, let's call him Terry, complains that with this drawing method, the first player has an advantage.
So, the first player, Fred, offers Terry a choice: you can keep your tokens, or we can exchange. In case of an exchange, Terry takes all six tokens that were in Fred's hand, and Fred takes all six tokens that were in Terry's hand. Note that at this point, neither Fred nor Terry has looked at the tokens yet.
Do you believe that Terry should make the exchange? Well, he can, but it will have no impact whatsoever on the probabilities. Fred's hand and Terry's hand both follow the same probability distribution.
Now, you can look at the tokens, and it doesn't affect the prior probabilities. So the first player does not have an advantage, and neither does the last player.
However, the first player receive the information about their own hand faster. This might be what gives your friends the impressions that the game is not fair. Indeed, there will be an intermediate state in which the first player has already drawn their hand, and already knows whether it's a good hand or a bad hand; and the other players have not drawn their hand yet, so they don't know if they're about to get a good or a bad hand. The other players do have a bit of residual information; for instance, if the first player's hand contained a lot of red tokens, then the other players now have a decreased probability of getting red tokens.
Compare this with a game of Russian roulette for six players. There are six chambers in a revolver, and one of these chambers contains a bullet. There are six players. The chambers have been rolled uniformly at random; so each player has exactly one chance out of six to get the bullet (about 17%). However, after the first player has taken their turn, if they haven't been blown up, then there is an intermediate state where the first player has probability 0% of hitting the bullet, while the other players each have one chance out of 5 to get the bullet (20%). During this intermediate stage of the game, things can feel very unfair.