text:
Is it possible to count cards by literally counting cards?
Typical card-counting, which treats 2,3,4,5,and 6 as "+1" and 10's as "-1", requires card counters to keep track of each card as it's dealt. I wonder if you can get a reasonable approximation of this by just counting the number of cards that are on the table and ignoring what cards they are.
For example, when a player stands after exactly two cards, they usually have something like 10-8, 10-10, 9-7 (against dealer 6), etc. so the count is usually negative.  If a player stands after three or more cards, there's usually a 2 thru 6 in there, often more than one, so the count is usually positive.
Through simulation, general averages could possibly be determined; for example, hypothetically, Two cards = -0.75; Three cards = +0.6, Four cards = +1.8, Five or more cards = +3.25.
I'm envisioning a system where instead of counting +1, -1 as each card gets dealt, you begin with a negative "x" count (under the assumption that each player will use exactly 2 cards), and then increase the count by "y" for each card beyond the second that any player receives, regardless of its value.
Edited to add: This would be a cumulative count, and at the beginning of each new hand you'd continue by again subtracting "x" from your current count.
Could such a system provide enough advantage to be useful to a beginner?  Thank you very much.

The answer is almost certainly no. Card counting is used primarily to determine how much to bet - a standard strategy might look like:

-1 or smaller: find a better table
-1 to +1: bet table minimum (still in casino's favor but worth waiting around)
+1 or higher: start betting big (the game has tilted in your favor)

Now I haven't run the simulations, but my guess is that the correlations you'd find are too small, e.g. Two cards = -0.05; Three cards = 0, Four cards = +0.05. Unless any of the numbers are greater than 1 or less than -1, you can't do anything useful with the information.
Ultimately, I think if it were as easy as counting the cards on the table, everyone would be doing it.

One possible source of confusion: "the count" that we care about is for all cards that have ever been dealt from that shoe, so even if standing with 2 cards usually means that the count currently on the table is negative, it will have a much lower correlation to the overall count of the deck.

Thanks Benjamin, I've edited the original question to specify that the count should be cumulative.  I'm not suggesting that you just do it for the current hand and expect that to be enough.

The big problem I see right off the bat is that just counting the two card hands wouldn't give you an understanding of the cards left in the shoe, it would be too imprecise:
Here's the 2 card hands you could (ever) possibly stand on:
12 (vs some dealer up cards)
13 (vs some dealer up cards)
14 (vs some dealer up cards)
15 (vs some dealer up cards)
16 (vs some dealer up cards)
17 (vs any)
18 (vs any
19 (vs any)
20 (vs any)
21 (vs any)
for a 12 the combo of cards is
10+2, 9+3, 8+4, 7+5, 6+6.  So one hand with a +0 count, and 3 hands with a +1 and one hand with a +2 all on top of the fact that the dealer would have a bust card (3-6) face up in any instance that a player would stand on a 12, so if people stand on a lot of 12s, the deck is getting heavier, or good for the player.
For a 20 however, the combo is
A+9 or 10+10  one hand at a -1 or one hand at -2.  both make the deck lighter or negative for the bettor.  So if people are standing on a lot of 20s then the deck is generally getting lighter or worse for the player.
So, there's a marked difference from one two card hand to another, so in order for this system to have any chance at all, you'd actually have to remember how many 12's stand, how many 13's stand etc. And it's not going to be as accurate as a hi-lo count, because sometimes in every hand the deck isn't actually getting better or worse.  Consider an A+9 vs a dealer up card of 5.  That's a net zero change in weight.
At this point I'd say the Hi-lo count is better because it's simpler.  A simple system that gives you an edge is all you ever need.

The disadvantage of your system is that it is imprecise, as discussed below; the advantage is that it is a "nonstandard" method of card counting, and you may get less "heat" from the casino. But I think you're onto something here.
First, there are 20 10- and 11- valued cards (counting aces) in the deck, and 32 other cards, in a ratio of nearly 2 to 3.
Second, if someone stops at two cards, especially against a dealer's 4,5, or 6, it's likely that their total count is the the 16-21 range, meaning that at least one card is a "10." And if the values are 10-8 or 9-9, the second card is "close enough.
If someone draws a third card, that suggests at least one, probably two non-ten cards, originally. Note that it is possible to "bust" with something like 9-8-7. or even 6-7-9.
If someone draws a fourth card, that suggests an average value for the first three cards of four or less, meaning all low cards (except possibly the last).
So a bunch of two card draws are not good for the player, three card draws are normal to good, and four card draws are great.
A player playing perfect strategy and "flat" betting is about a 1% disadvantage to the house, but if you can use the above to vary your bets, it could cancel out the house advantage.

If the cards are randomly shuffled and if you're just counting the number of cards without regard for their values, then you effectively have a constant "count" of 0.  The whole point of counting is to monitor the values of the played cards to determine what values are left in the deck.

You seem to have misunderstood the question, the values of individual cards are statistically inferred from how many other cards a player has in a hand.

@hkBst Give it a shot.  I have two cards, and I stand.  Dealer has a 5 showing.  What are my two cards?


text:
Which country spends the most on board & card games?
I've been wondering which country spends the most money on board / card games? Are there any statistics available?

The one with the greatest number of MtG players :-)

What about other collecting card games (Pokemon, Yugio or however you write it, Harry Potter, ...) and other board games? Is it one game to dominate them all, to find the money, one game to bring it all to Wizards of the Coast and bind it?

To determine this, you would need to know the sales information for every manufacturer of board games and card games, broken down by Country. Magic the Gathering, even with it's life span and overall success, would only be a limited indicator.

@DrunkCynic not necessarily - I can get a good estimator of (say) the country that spends the most on wine simply by asking consumers how much they spend on wine; I don't need to talk to every wine retailer. No reason I can't (in theory) do the same for board games.

@PhilipKendall - That could develop an approximation of the countries spending, if you polled a sufficient portion of the populace of each nation to generate a strong per capita correlation. In order to know which country spends the most, the hard sales numbers and approximate exchange values would provide discrete differences.

@moose Total or per capita?

@John I don't care. If I have one, I can calculate the other easily. But I think  per capita would be the more interesting one.

you might have better luck on http://opendata.stackexchange.com/

I think GfK should have these numbers readily available, but they don't come for free.

So looking online I found this from 2015.
It says

More are sold per capita in Germany than anywhere else on earth

Magic the Gathering is big, with something like 20 million players worldwide, however that will pale in comparison to board game sales so I'd be likely to ignore card games as they won't add a huge amount overall compared to board games.
So in conclusion, Germany looks like the best bet

That would also track with Essen Spieltage, which is I believe the biggest board gaming convention there is world wide, held in Essen, Germany. Spieltage means game days in english.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I forfeit an agenda when rezzing Archer via Priority Requisition?
I've got an unrezzed Archer. I score a Priority Requisition and use it to rez Archer. Do I have to forfeit an agenda?

No, you do not need to forfeit an agenda in this case. "forfeit an Agenda" is "an additional cost" to rez Archer, and Priority Requisition instructs the player to "ignor[e] all costs".

So "an additional cost" is not a part of "all costs"? Can yout cite the rules (FAQ or core book)?

@Denis Gladkiy I think he were answering a question in the title. I edited question to make in unambiguous.

@Andrew Vandever please check if your answer is true after the edit.

It's still true. I went ahead and edited it now to make it more clear. You do not need to forfeit an agenda to rez Archer with Priority Requisition. :) "Additional cost" is included in "all costs".

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


text:
Can you use an ability and scrap a card in the same turn?
I'm pretty sure you can do this with my understanding of the rules, but my friend keeps arguing that you can't.
When you play a card like an "Explorer" for example. Can you in the same turn, use the 2 units to buy in the trade row and then scrap the card for 2 combat?
Explorer card for reference:

You can check out their official Android port for the game, not sure about iOS. Yes, I can do both on my turn with the official game.

@penguin359 Just upgraded my phone yesterday, thanks for the suggestion, I'll be getting it!

According to the Star Realms rules, I think your interpretation is correct: you may play a card for its trade value, then scrap it in the same turn.
The relevant text (in the third row, top):

When a Ship is played, its Primary Abjility triggers immediately.  If
  a ship has an Ally and/or Scrap ability, you may choose to use one or
  both of these abilities any time during your Main Phase (provided you
  fulfill the obligations for doing so).

Your interpretation is supported too from the Main Phase description:

At any time during your Main Phase, you may perform any of the following actions, in any order you wish:

And then finally, under Using Abilities:

With the exception of a Ship's Primary Ability, players may use the various abilities of their in-play ships and Bases at any time during their Main Phase.  Each ability may be used just once each turn. (emphasis mine)

Since a ship has more than one ability (primary, scrap), each ability is only being used once per turn, too.

This is also how things work in the app.

While this doesn't detract from the answer, it's important to note that the mentioned rules only apply to Scrap effects from the target card.  You cannot, for example, use a Machine Cult "Scrap a card in my hand or discard" effect on a card that is played.  A card is drawn to the hand, put in play to use its abilities, and then put in the discard pile at the end of play in your turn, and cannot be in any two of those locations at one time.

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


text:
Does this game or similar games exist?
Ok, First I have zero  knowledge about boardgames, I browsed some in the past and have watched some youtube videos a while ago and this will seem really , really weird, but today I woke up witha  really vivid dream about a board game, I don't know if I have just made it up or I have seen it being played and that made went into my mind.
The game was like this. the first (darker) rows from each side , were the "teachers" and the second (lighter) the students, I actually remember some rules:

Students can move forward 1 circle
Teachers can stack upon students,
when student has 1 teacher it can move 1 circle in any direction,
For each aditional teacher upon a student it can move the amount of
teachers upon itself: 2 teachers = 2 circles in any direction, 3
teachers = 3 circles in any direction.
A piece can only take another
piece of the same value or below a student can take a student a
student+1 can take a  student+1 and a student a student+2 can take a
student+2 , student+1 and a student
teachers can't move unless there are no students on the board
once this happens teachers can be stacked in the same manner as students
a player loses when there are no more teachers available

I know it may be taken as offtopic, It just seems awfully specific for a dream and is bugging me , so I had to post

I have a weird question: if a teacher can't move unless there are no students on the board, and the students can only move "forward,", how do the teachers get stacked on top of the students?

@SocioMatt In this case I think the only move they could make would be stacking up.
But I don't think all the rules here make much sense since they are a recollection from my dream, I just wrote everything I could remember so people could identify this as some real board game.

A somewhat similar game to this exists, called DVONN, in which pieces stack onto each other and then a stack can move a number of spaces equal to the number of pieces in the stack.  However, the rest of your game is different and as far as I know is not identical to any currently existing game.


text:
Oiling fake Yunzi stones
I bought some "yunzi" stones that came in straw bowls, but they aren't translucent at all. They are fully opaque.
Considering the price paid (around 35 dollars, I bought it in Brazil), I think that they weren't the real deal, but they look nice anyway.

Now, should/can I oil them? What are they made off?

Without knowing more about them it is impossible to answer your question.

I don't really think that there too many choices of material for a fake yunzi. They aren't plastic, they look like yunzi, their weight (I think) are like yunzi, they feel like some sort of ceramic glass, and not like pure glass stones (again like yunzi), but they aren't translucent green (like real yunzi). How many different types of material do YOU know like that? And about my question, oiling them will make they shine like oiled yunzi?

Considering that they are fake and you know they are fake makes it hard to assume what they could be made out of.

Are you so sure about that? Not trying to be disrespectful, but have you ever dealt with "yunzi" which are opaque? How many different material choices do people have for faking those stones? I don't think it could be more than one or two...

You failed in trying not to be respectful. @JoeW tried to help you, but he needed a bit more information. And you treated him like he was a clueless kid.
You are the one with the question. If you want a real chance for a answer, please be nice and give the requested information.

He requested no specific information, merely saying that it was impossible to answer. What more can I tell about those stones that haven't been already told? Again, I don't think there are many choices of material for that as he seems to think.

You could have posted an image.

Added the requested image.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question asking to identify a type of stone/material based on a picture and a description; the fact that the stone can be used for the game Go doesn't help with the identification; Go knowledge doesn't help to answer the question.

Perhaps http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/

@GendoIkari, my primary questions was simply "should/can I oil [fake yunzi stones]?" Just that. Again I'm pretty sure that there aren't many choices of material for this, and people who know them might be able to give a simple: "that is probably glass/ceramic/etc". Anyway, I'm a member of several stack exchange sites, and never saw such a bad response to a question.

I'm not trying to be negative or respond badly or anything; I simply don't think that this question actually has very much to do with board games at all.

Asking questions and trying to get a better understanding is a bad response?

@JoeW Asking questions to try to clarify what is being asked or to get additional information is a fine response. Having said that, your first two posts in the comments weren't doing either of these things. Both are statements that read as "Your question can't be answered."


text:
In Catan, why do knights allow you to move the robber and steal?
What do knights have to do with making a robber go where you want and steal from your competition for you? Are they all corrupt knights in league with the same robber?

One of many reasons why it was a bad idea to change the name of the soldier cards.

I agree that this question is primarily opinion-based. However, if someone can find a designer comment on this choice and such things are on-topic, I'd feel this should be reopened.

Thematically, the knight is maintaining order by chasing away the robber from your lands. Mechanically though, if knights could only move the robber then developing and activating knights wouldn't be as interesting and worthwhile, so you get to steal too. Which means thematically, the robber... sends you a gift for not jailing him instead?

The knights demand a shrubbery.

Thematically, is a good context to analyze this from. And those carefully chosen words still leaves room for the knights to not be totally corrupt, which seems to match the overall spirit of the game.


text:
Is there a technical (or slang) term for triggering a game loss due to attempting to draw from an empty library?
Does a game-loss triggered by meeting the conditions presented by CR 121.4 have a particular name, or rather is there a technical (or slang) word that indicates a loss via this condition?

I've heard the term 'milled out' when the deck was actively thrown into the graveyard during the game, but I have no sources with this and it may have been regional.

Yes, the slang term is "to deck" or "to deck out"
Decking, decking out
You can use the term transitively or intransitively, i.e. you can say "I decked (out)" meaning you lost due to drawing from an empty library, or "I decked (out) my opponent", meaning you won by milling your opponent to death.
Personally, I've only ever heard "to deck", but apparently both are used.

In my experience "decked out" is less common than "decked" when there is an object attached (ie "I decked my opponent" is more common than "I decked out my opponent")

@ArcanistLupus Interesting that outside of the context of MTG, both of those terms have very different meanings.  "Decked out" generally means "lavishly decorated", while "decked" means "knocked to the ground".  (Both work either transitively or intransitively in this case.)

Never once heard "decked out". Played for over a decade. More common usage would be "I almost got decked/I almost decked them".

@Our_Benefactors I've found that which gets used depends a lot on the exact group. Some I've played with prefer 'decked out', others prefer just 'decked', but most seem to understand both. I suspect some influence here from other games as well, as there are at least a few where one or the other is the term for that type of loss per the actual rules.

I've only ever heard "decked out" for the other player, although sometimes I've heard just "decked" for doing it to yourself.  That is, "I decked him out", but never "I decked him" (except once when they meant they literally punched their opponent, anyway); but "I decked myself" and "I decked myself out" were about equal.  SouthEast US here.

We mostly use the (in most cases incorrect) term: I milled myself. I got milled. I milled you.

Informally known as "decking yourself" (or your opponent). For example, see ChannelFireball's Temur Reclamation deck guide:

Be careful to not deck yourself.

(Yes, that is Hall of Famer LSV decking himself after not checking his deck)

Decking yourself applies only when your own draws cause your deck to empty - if an opponent mills you (or causes mass draw) it's just decking out.

Check yourself before you deck yourself.

I don't think "decking yourself" applies when an opponent causes you to get into this situation.

The actual event of losing the game is getting decked. You may also hear the term "mill". That term originated with the card Millstone, which moved cards from a player's library to their graveyard, and until recently it was an informal term for removing cards from a library, and could be ambiguous as to whether it referred to moving the cards to the graveyard, drawing them, exiling them, etc. However, in M21 (released in 2020), "mill" was made a keyword specifically referring to moving cards from a player's library to their graveyard. Thus, while forcing a player to draw cards does remove cards from their library, it is not milling. Milling does not directly cause a game loss; only when the player is required to draw from their empty library do they lose. However, decking and milling are still closely connected, since milling sets a player up to deck themselves.

"However, in 2021" My calender is still in 2020. When did this happen?

@Mast in the core set M21, pronounced "Magic 2021", which released in 2020

@Caleth Ah, set 2021. It looked like it referred to a date.

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


text:
Enduring Angel and Metamorphic Alteration effects
This is a bit of an edge case:

Player 1 has an Enduring Angel on the field
Player 2 plays a Delver of Secrets and enchants it with Metamorphic Alteration, copying the Angel
Player 2 is reduced to 0 life, triggering the Enduring Angel replacement effect.

Being specifically Delver isn't important, other than it being a double faced card. It's clear that if this were a normal creature, the copy wouldn't be able to transform and the player would lose the game. However Delver is double faced and is able to flip to transform. What happens? The card will end up flipped over and still a copy of Enduring Angel - does this still count as transforming and let the player live with 3 life and a repeatable Enduring Angel?

Edge cases are the best cases....

Yes, the copy will "transform" and the player will survive.
This is covered by one of the examples under rule 712.5, although the text of the rule itself doesn't explicitly say it.

712.5. Only permanents represented by transforming double-faced cards can transform. (See rule 701.28, “Transform.”) If a spell or ability instructs a player to transform any permanent that isn’t represented by a transforming double-faced card, nothing happens.

Example: A player casts Cytoshape, causing a Kruin Outlaw (the front face of a
transforming double-faced card) to become a copy of Elite Vanguard (a 2/1 Human Soldier creature) until end of turn. The player then casts Moonmist, which reads, in part, “Transform all Humans.” Because the copy of Elite Vanguard is a transforming double-faced card, it will transform. The resulting permanent will have its back face up, but it will still be a copy of Elite Vanguard that turn.

The example clearly shows that a TDFC that becomes a copy of another card can still be transformed. The copy effect will continue to overwrite whatever's printed on the card with the card it copied. Notably, rule 707.8 means it won't become the back side of the copied card:

707.8. When copying a double-faced permanent, a face-up meld card, or a melded permanent, only the copiable values of the face that’s currently up are copied.

The Delver passes the restriction of rule 712.5: it's still a permanent represented by a TDFC, so it may transform when instructed to do so. Per 712.5 and 707.8, it will continue to be a copy of the front side of Enduring Angel. (It still tracks which of its own sides is up, which matters if Metamorphic Alteration is removed.) Enduring Angel's ability only checks whether the card transformed as a result of that ability, not whether it actually gained the characteristics of Angelic Enforcer, so it will not cause the player to lose the game.


text:
Full explanation of how multi-phrase cards work
So, consider Snap or Subtle Strike
and generally other spells that do multiple things, whether as 1 sentence, 1 sentence with commas, 2 sentences, 2 separated sentences, etc. etc.
I struggle with understanding when failure to do or be able to do parts of a spell will stop other bits from happening. As far as I can tell sometimes the spell fizzles, sometimes you go "up to the bit you can't do", and sometimes you get to keep going anyway?
Obviously, for an individual card the gatherer errata generally tell you such things.
Is there a complete description of the rules for this.
Ideally a complete readable description, rather than "here are the 17 formal rules clauses that apply", though obviously having a record of those clauses would be a useful addendum, and might be the only viable answer.

Worth noting that separated sentences (assuming you mean lines breaks) each mean a different ability. So Snap only has one ability.

The two most important rules here are

Do as much as you can (609.3 below), but...
...if every target of your spell has become illegal, then the whole spell is removed from the stack without resolving. (608.2b below) (Commonly known as the spell "fizzles".)

So applying this to your examples:
Snap: If the target of Snap has become illegal (e.g. left the battlefield, been given hexproof, etc), then since it is the only target, the spell never resolves and you do not untap any lands. However, imagine instead that the target of Snap had some weird effect on it like "This creature cannot be returned to players' hands by spells or abilities." In this case, the first part of the spell would be unable to affect the creature, but since it's still a legal target the spell still resolves so you would proceed to untap two lands.
Subtle Strike: If you choose to do both and pick two different targets, then even if one of the targets becomes illegal you will still resolve the effect on the other.

609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.
608.2b .... If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal...

Note that 608.2b has been updated in the Dominaria rules update; previously a spell whose targets had all become illegal would be countered rather than simply removed from the stack.

There is discussion in R&D about potentially removing that rule. Bob casts "Destroy target creature. Draw card." on Alice's creature. Alice responds by sacrificing the creature. Currently, Bob does not get the draw - there is discussion to change that so Bob does get the draw.

Great! It's currently an unnecessary source of confusion (and probably the cause of OP's question) that the draw from "Destroy target creature. Draw a card." can be stopped by removing the creature, but the draw from "Untap two lands. Draw a card." cannot be stopped by removing all lands.

@corsiKa Interesting; would that mean that countered by game rules or fizzling wouldn't exist at all any more?

@GendoIkari I believe the answer to that question is why it's under discussion. I don't have it in me to sift through a few hundred pages of Blogatog to find the latest result of it, but there was a point where it mentioned specifically fizzling due to lack of targets was something they were trying to find an elegant way to get rid of. As for other game rules, I can't say and/or don't recall offhand.

It would certainly make Gilded Drake simpler! It would also allow them to errata all "can't be countered by spells or abilities" into simply "can't be countered".

FYI, 608.2b will be updated as of Dominaria: spells that have no valid targets will simply fail to resolve and be put into the owner's graveyard instead of being "countered". (Which is functionally exactly the same thing, except we don't call them "countered" anymore and Multani's Presence gets a nerf.)

Wow, now I'm really curious how Gilded Drake will be worded to keep it working the same. They can't just remove "can't be countered", but they also can't keep it the same. It needs some weird wording like "this ability resolves even if it has no legal targets".

Ha, with the new oracle wordings updated now, I was quite curious to see Gilded Drake... and I almost called the wording word for word! It's actually "This ability still resolves if its target becomes illegal." Edit... and only now do I see that this wording was in fact written in an article 3 days before my previous comment... but I hadn't seen that until now.


text:
Constricting Sliver + Hibernating Sliver interaction
If a sliver comes into play while Constricting Sliver is in play, and then with the exile ETB effect on the stack, the sliver is returned to hand with Hibernation Sliver's ability, is the target of the exile effect exiled with no chance of returning to the battlefield or does it immediately return to the battlefield?

The (attempted) exiled creature will never leave the battlefield.
This is because the exile ability only works if the sliver causing it is still on the battlefield when it resolves. As per the Gatherer rulings:

If a Sliver leaves the battlefield before its enters-the-battlefield ability resolves, the target creature won’t be exiled.

This is covered under One-shot effects in the comprehensive rules:

610.2.: Some one-shot effects create a delayed triggered ability, which instructs a player to do something later in the game (usually at a specific time) rather than as the spell or ability that’s creating the one-shot effect resolves. See rule 603.7.
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.
610.3a: If the specified event has already occurred when the initial one-shot effect would cause the object to change zones, the object doesn’t move.

Lets break down your interaction:

You control a Hibernation Sliver and a Constricting Sliver. You opponent controls a Runeclaw Bear.
You play a Sliver creature, Constricting Sliver's given effect triggers. You target your opponents Bear.
You then return that Sliver creature to your hand using Hibernation Sliver's given ability. The stack is now (hibernation) return effect on top of (constrict) exile effect.
Your opponent has no responses, the stack starts to resolve.
First your sliver leaves the battlefield. Next the exile effect checks to see if the Sliver is still on the battlefield, and fails to find it. The exile ability does nothing, the Runeclaw Bear is not moved and remains on the battlefield under your opponents control.

I believe rule 610.2 doesn't apply to this case. Perhaps it'd be better to leave it out of the answer?

I believe the “until” wording was created specifically for this purpose; to not allow the loophole that cards like Oblivion Ring had.

@DavidZ I decided to include it for context, 610.3a is the important one but it makes more sense with the preceding rules included.

@Malco Well, I agree that including 610.3 helps to provide useful context, but I don't see the connection with 610.2. After all, nothing in this scenario actually sets up a delayed triggered ability. Unless I'm missing something?

Actually, it's neither — if you bounce the Sliver with the exile effect still on the stack, nothing gets exiled at all.
Check the Oracle rulings on Constricting Sliver:

If a Sliver leaves the battlefield before its enters-the-battlefield ability resolves, the target creature won’t be exiled.

Note that this is different from exile-and-return because ETB effects won't trigger, tokens won't disappear, a creature won't get summoning sickness, &c.

Neither of the end results in the question happen. What does happen is the ETB effect resolves, but doesn't do anything, causing the targeted creature to remain on the battlefield unchanged. Constricting Sliver uses the new wording of the ability, as seen on Banishing Light, this wording was used to close that timing issue, as seen on Oblivion Ring.
In the rulings on Constricting Sliver:

Constricting Sliver gives Slivers you control an ability that causes a zone change with a duration, a newer style of ability that’s somewhat reminiscent of older cards like Oblivion Ring. However, unlike Oblivion Ring’s abilities, this ability creates two one-shot effects: one that exiles the creature when the ability resolves, and another that returns the exiled card to the battlefield immediately after the Sliver leaves the battlefield.

And:

If a Sliver leaves the battlefield before its enters-the-battlefield ability resolves, the target creature won’t be exiled.

I corrected what I thought was a mistake in your answer, and then found the same mistake in Malco's answer. Now I'm not sure that I'm right. Can you check my edit and tell me what you think?

@Rainbolt Yes I believe you are correct, the ability resolves but does nothing. However that's above me in the technicalities of magic, it could be countered as a state based effect, similar to removing all legal targets.


text:
Name of dice-rolling board game
There's a game where you roll (usually three) dice and then can combine them to claim items on the board. Play proceeds clockwise with each person using one, two, or three of their dice to claim resources, millitary power, peeks (find out what the next combat card will be) or (+2) dice modifiers from the board. The three resources are gold, wood, and stone.
In the winter of each year there's a combat phase and everyone fights the next card on the deck. There's a reward for those who win and a penalty for those who lose.
After each reward-claiming phase you can spend your resources to build structures to gain various bonuses and also victory points (which is how you win the game).
What's this game called?

Maybe you're talking about Kingsburg https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/27162/kingsburg
I haven't played it but I've watched reviews and it looks similar to what you describe.

I've played the game and this totally sounds like Kingsburg.


text:
Whose shadow is in the background of Mox Amber?
The Dominaria printing of Mox Amber has a person's shadow on the right side of the art.  It looks like the person has either a helmet or horns.  They are the wrong shape for Nicol Bolas.  Is this the shadow a known character from Magic?

Looks like Ob Nixilis' horns

I could not find any reference to the in-universe backstory of the art. If the shadows really do represent named characters, it is not clear who they are.
Higher resolution image of Mox Amber. It's not even clear to me that a character really is casting the shadow.
Regardless, the best I could find about the piece's backstory was the blog of Steven Belledin, the card's artist, which has a post on Mox Amber and the process of its creation. Apparently, Steve Belledin had rather large freedom in designing the art of Mox Amber. He only mentions 2 stipulations by the WotC art direction, one of which was later dropped:

What Wizards asked for initially was a little confounding to me, but it subsequently was simplified a bit. To start, they wanted a silver necklace with the amber being the necklace's charm. The necklace would be cradled in someone's hands. However, there were two specific stipulations: 1) the piece should not feel like it was part of Volkan Baga's cycle of mox paintings that also include the various moxes cradled in hands; 2) there should be no recognizable things floating in the amber (I assume to avoid any reference to Jurassic Park).

Obviously, the "cradling hands" part was later dropped, after some preliminary sketches. Further considering that

I spent a lot of time trying to hash something out in my sketchbook, but in the end I found it easier to take a piece of my wife's jewelry and arrange it in different ways on the back of her splayed leather jacket

it seems unlikely that the art of Mox Amber is deeply tied to the game's lore.
Just for good measure, I left a comment in the comments section asking about the shadows, but I don't expect an affirmative answer.


text:
Drover of the Mighty + Raptor Hatchling + Fiery Canonnade
Let's say I have a Drover of the Mighty and a Raptor Hatchling in play and then someone casts Fiery Cannonade, dealing 2 to each of them. Does the 3/3 dino arrive in time to save the Drover or does it briefly drop back to 1/1?

Unfortunately no.
After Fiery Cannonade deals 2 damage, you check State-based-actions (SBA).  SBAs happen right before a player would get priority.
It sees Drover as a 3/3 with 2 marked damage, and the Hatchling as 1/1 with 2 marked damage.  So, it puts the hatchling in the graveyard.
Then it checks SBAs again to see if anything should happen again.  It sees Drover as a 1/1 with 2 marked damage, so it puts it into the graveyard.
SBAs check again, see nothing, so then it goes ahead and puts the Hatchling's enrage trigger on the stack.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “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. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated. Once no more state-based actions have been performed as the result of a check and no triggered abilities are waiting to be put on the stack, the appropriate player gets priority.

Very clearly explained. Thanks, I know MTG better now!

Sometimes when we think of the "stack" we think that everything has to happen in order, but that is not the case. You might be tempted to say "okay, this one takes two damage... and dies... and comes back like this! Okay now the other takes two damage" - the damage happens at the same time - then state based checks happen.


text:
May a creature declare an attack while it is exhausted?
In Berserk: War of the Realms, if a creature 'may declare a magical strike' on some condition, does that apply even when it is exhausted? For example, the Elf Spellslinger 'may declare a magical strike' if an adjacent creature of the opponent becomes exhausted. Is he allowed to use that even when he himself is exhausted?

According to this post on BoardGameGeek abilities can be declared even if a creature is exhausted.


text:
If a player goes to "combat", and then activates an ability, what is the game state?
My question is not a duplicate of When should I activate Man Lands and Keyrunes in order to attack with them?, although anyone answering this question would need to understand at least that much in order to understand this one. That question only explains when a player would need to activate. It doesn't cover shortcuts or illegal actions, which is what my question is primarily about.
Does activating an ability when you have already decided to move to the declare attackers step imply that you are declaring zero attackers?

Anthony: Combat?
Noah: Sure.
Anthony: Animate Mutavault?
Noah: Sure.
Anthony: Declare attackers?
Noah: Hang on. You're already in the declare attackers phase, right? I thought you animated Mutavault after you decided to declare no attackers.

Anthony offers the shortcut "Combat?". According to the Tournament Rules, that means he is offering to pass priority until Noah has priority in the Beginning of Combat step.

A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority
  until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
  then unless they specify otherwise.

Noah responds with "Sure." I believe this means that Noah is passing priority back to Anthony (don't get too hung up on this - it isn't the focus of the question). That means the game moves to the Declare Attackers step.
Anthony activates Mutavault, which is an action that could, if it is legal, only be taken after declaring attackers. Now the game state is potentially ambiguous.

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack
  ...
  508.3. Third, the active player gets priority

Assume the tournament level is Competitive REL, and that if a judge is needed, one will be called. What is the resulting game state? I believe the resulting game state would be one of the following, but I am not sure which is correct (if either):

The game is in the Declare Attackers phase, and Anthony does not have the opportunity to declare attackers.
Activating Mutavault was an illegal action because Anthony didn't have priority. That action is reversed. The game is in the Declare Attackers phase, and Anthony still has the opportunity to declare attackers.

@SocioMatt If you are in the Declare Attackers step nobody gets priority until all attackers have been declared

@SocioMatt Added (severely truncated) rules to illustrate what Diego said.

Potential relevant information in When should I activate Man Lands and Keyrunes in order to attack with them?

I'm not really sure what the ambiguity you're referring to here is. You give a clear description with a reference of what happens up to the point where Noah passes priority in the Beginning of Combat step, then you describe Anthony taking an action when he has priority. There seems to be only one possible state: Anthony has priority during Declare Attacks. What other possible states do you think there are?

@murgatroid99 It's possible that Anthony took an illegal action (activating an ability when he was supposed to declare attackers). The illegal action would be reversed, and Anthony would be allowed to declare attackers. A similar situation would be if I cast a sorcery on your turn. Doesn't mean I skipped my draw step - it just means I took an illegal action.

@SocioMatt I don't think my question is a duplicate. That question is asking when I should activate manlands if I want to attack with them. My question is about the ambiguous game state caused by not following the recommendations in the answers to that question.

@Rainbolt That's why I changed my comment to "Potential relevant information..."

Would you say then that you're asking whether it's a legal shortcut to implicitly skip declaring attackers by taking an action that requires priority after both players have passed priority during Beginning of Combat?

@murgatroid99 No. If it isn't one of the shortcuts listed in the TR, it's not implicit. I already know that.

If you already know that you can't implicitly skip declaring attackers by taking some other action, what is the part where you are unsure about the legality?

Premise of the question is a confusion between the two players. Anthony seems to be ending his 1st Main Phase and Shifting to the Beginning of Combat, while Noah has mad the assumption Anthony wants to skip to Declare Attackers.

I'm confused about why "combat?" would imply skipping until opponent has priority in beginning of combat phase. What would be the proper communication to say that you want to take an action in the beginning of combat phase?

@GendoIkari The reason is because that is how the Tournament Rules define it. Proper communication would be specifying the phase's name.

@Waterseas I see that that's what's in the rules, I'm just confused about why that's the rule. In plain English, you would think "ready for combat?" would imply "I want to move to the combat phase".

@GendoIkari In general, the first thing you want to do in your own combat phase is declare attackers, and the first thing you want to do in your opponent's combat phase is take action before attackers are declared. So, the shortcut is set up for the most common case.

@murgatroid99 Fair enough. So if it's currently your main phase, and you want to do something at the beginning of combat phase, you would just say "go to beginning of combat phase?"?

That's exactly how it works. Some shortcuts are pre-defined by the tournament rules, but you are always free to propose an explicit shortcut to any point you want.

I think this could all be avoided by just activating abilities in your main phase. If an opponent couldn't stop you in combat phase, they won't be able to stop you in the main phase. The beginning of combat is there so your opponents can react with out your sorcery actions afterwards. I can't think of a card that your opponent can play that is better in the opponents main phase over an opponents combat phase. The added bonus of activating abilities in your main phase is you can then react to any unexpected changes to board state a lot easier.

@ProgenitorMimic Even if I take your advice and activate all of my abilities in my main phase, what stop my opponents from activating their abilities whenever they want to? Anyway, there are plenty of situations where you wouldn't want to do that. Arcum's Sleigh. Also, if your opponent has mana in his or her mana pool, you might need to move to the beginning of combat in order to empty their pool. There are other interesting situations, but I don't have enough room in this comment to go over them all.

@Rainbolt Sorry, should have said most of the time, it is better to activate in the main phase (when you can activate them in the main phase, forgot there were combat only abilities). I think what I was trying to get at is that activating abilities last second isn't always the best time. I think the mana pool is a case where it would give the opponent the advantage but how often does that come up? I think we can play the edge case game all day but 99+% of the time, it isn't going to matter whether you activate an ability in your main or start of combat so why make things over complicated?

@ProgenitorMimic Again, I am perfectly capable of following your advice. That does not mean my opponents will. I am asking for a ruling so that I can react appropriately when my opponents do this.

@Rainbolt Fair enough. In which case, I agree with LovesTha's answer that the the player is confused by what that shortcut does and should be educated.

Not that it's relevant to determining if there's a single 'right' answer, but I've done this or seen this done countless times in PTQs, sometimes with judges watching, and don't recall anyone ever actually feeling it required intervention.

@ProgenitorMimic This is a super common occurrence with cards like Wasteland and Ghost Quarter though. Opponent floats a mana, and you don't want to activate Mutavault with that mana floating. "Combat?" is almost always the shortcut I'd use here to indicate I'm moving past my main phase, and my opponent has his last opportunity to use that mana.

@Skyl3lazer Maybe it is common in other play groups but I don't tend to see much in mine. You are right in the fact that you would want to empty the mana pool although by saying Combat?, you have invoked the shortcut mentioned above and missed your chance to attack with the Mutavualt. In this case, I'd clearly state I was moving to the beginning of combat and maybe state that I am retaining priority. I think my original point is being missed though, I think most people believe they get an edge by activating Mutavault at the last second when it doesn't make too much difference most of the time.

As of the release of Amonkhet, the "Go to combat" tournament shortcut changed, and it now unambiguously supports Anthony's interpretation of the sequence of events. The game is in the beginning of combat step and Mutavault's ability is on the stack. Noah has priority.
The current wording of that shortcut is

If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their first main phase, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in beginning of combat unless they are affecting whether a beginning
of combat ability triggers. However, if the non-active player takes no action, the active player has priority at the beginning of combat. Beginning of combat triggered abilities (even ones that target)
may be announced after any non-active player action has resolved.

The Amonkhet policy changes announcement describes the practical impact of the change to this shortcut:

What this does, in a bunch of words, is set the default case so that the active player moving to combat (usually) means that the non-active player is acting in beginning of combat, but the active player’s role there only happens after that. They haven’t missed triggers, and they can still crew. But, by offering to pass priority into combat, they can no longer claim to be in main phase for non-instant spells afterwards unless the non-active player took an action to prevent the trigger.

In the situation in question, activating Mutavault serves the same purpose as the ability to crew that they mention: it turns a non-creature object into a creature in preparation for attacking with it.
In addition, that same blog has a post that takes a more detailed look at the change, and it discusses a scenario that involves actions like those described in the question:

The Cryptic Command Problem
It’s not a problem with the shortcut, per se, but it’s a protection for the non-active player that’s been removed. There are various permutations of the “Phantom Priority Pass”, but here’s a simple one:
The active player has a two Bears and a Mutavault. The non-active player is at 5 life, but active player is worried about a Cryptic Command.
The active player wants to try to get a read on if the coast is clear. So, they say “Combat” in an attempt to imply that they’re ready to declare attackers. If the non-active plays the Cryptic, you activate the Mutavault and get in for 2. If they don’t, unless they’re a very precise player, it’s a strong sign that they may not have it and you should activate the Mutavault and go for it. The old shortcut precluded that baiting.
Of course, the correct time to play the Command if you have it is after the second priority pass (or interrupting the declaration). But now you need to be more careful if you’re the non-active player to not accidentally tip your hand.

The "if they don't [play a Cryptic Command]" scenario plays out exactly like the one in the question: the active player announces that they are moving to Combat, the non-active player takes no action, then the active player activates Mutavault and attacks with it.

Anthony is confused by what the shortcut does. A judge will rewind the game to the point of confusion: Anthony attempting to activate Mutavualt when he is meant to be declaring attackers. The land he used to activate Mutavualt will be untapped and he can proceed with declaring attackers.
It is not Out-Of-Order-Sequencing because he has gained substantial information about what his opponent intends to do during the Beginning of Combat Step (nothing).
The judge should mention that the way to do what Anthony wanted to do was instead of saying "Combat?" was to say "Activate my Mutavualt at the Beginning of Combat?"
Aside: The minor advantage that Anthony is trying to gain: Passing priority in his mainphase without letting his opponent know that he's going to attack with Mutavualt; is such a small advantage that it really isn't worth attempting. The chances of messing it up and having it back fire is much more significant than the strategic advantage attempting to be gained.

Is the correct move to rewind the game state to before declare attackers step? The only error is that Anthony tried to attack after he declared attackers (which should just involve un-tapping the Mutavualt). I can't remember (and I'm at work so can't look up) what the rules are for rewinding legal plays so I could be wrong. Granted this is a bit harsh and as a judge at FNM would probably allow the Mutavualt to attack but at higher events would say that they proposed on the shortcut should make intentions more clear.

Every scenario I can think of where that even matters that would actually happen with cards commonly played in tournament decks, it's really Noah who's getting the informational advantage anyway

Progenitor Mimic: I aren't suggesting rewinding to before the declare step, but to the very start of the declare step. A can declare attackers but doesn't have priority until they finish declaring attackers.
Affe: You really think people want to commonly do something during their opponents first main phase?

This answer contradicts the current Magic Tournament Rules.

This is no longer the case as the shortcut has changed. This information was correct when posted however.

Root Cause
The root cause of the problem is the confusion between the short cut offered by Anthony and the shortcut accepted by Noah.
Anthony's intention is to end his 1st Main Phase and transition into the Beginning of Combat. Noah's interpretation is that Anthony wants to pass priority until the end of the Beginning of Combat Phase and transition towards Declare Attackers.
From the April 2017 change to the Magic Tournament Rules, this is the now expected shortcut when moving from the first main phase into the Combat phase.

If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their first main phase, the non-active
  player is assumed to be acting in beginning of combat unless they are affecting whether a beginning
  of combat ability triggers. However, if the non-active player takes no action, the active player has
  priority at the beginning of combat. Beginning of combat triggered abilities (even ones that target)
  may be announced after any non-active player action has resolved

When Noah says Sure, Anthony assumes his short cut has been accepted, and takes allowed actions during the Beginning of Combat phase, making Mutavult a creature. Presumably, this is prepatory to declare Mutavult as an attacker during Declare Attackers. Noah states his complaint, possibly citing the implication provided by his short cut per the Tournament Rules. Anthony clarifies what his intentions were by offering his shortcut.
Judgment
If the Judge is called, because the disagreement over the current phase can't be resolved by the players, the Judge should tell Noah that Anthony's interpretation is correct.
Commentary
This is why I am rather pedantic about explicitly declaring the phases I am in during my turn, in order to avoid the associated confusion.

At competitive REL, this is not how it would be handled typically.

I agree with intentions, and think Noah is acting shady to say the least. "I thought you animated Mutavault after you decided to declare no attackers." No he didn't, that's almost definitely a lie. Why would someone intentionally animate Mutavault in the declare attackers phase, after declaring no attackers? Once Anthony tried to activate Mutavault, Noah knew his intention. Now it's a legitimate question if it matters at that point or not, but Noah shouldn't be claiming ignorance.

If your opponent proposes a shortcut defined in the tournament rules, and you accept that shortcut, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they intended to use the shortcut as defined.

@murgatroid99 I think it is reasonable to assume that, but then to realize that your assumption was wrong when your opponent then makes another statement that makes no sense if he really intended to propose that shortcut.

This answer basically says that even though Anthony's intended use of the shortcut directly violates the tournament rules, the judge would effectively rule in his favor by setting the game to the state it would have been based on his interpretation instead of the official interpretation. That seems unreasonable to me.

I don't think the game would ever be reversed to the Beginning of Combat step. Anthony used a Tournament shortcut, which Noah accepted. A judge may consider rewinding to the start of the Declare Attackers step for the Games Rule Violation, but the "Go to combat" shortcut is being strictly enforced, as indicated by recent discussions on the judge forums for Competitive REL.

You quote "unintentional errors are not punished severely", but you are suggesting that Noah should essentially be punished for Anthony's error, which is surely not the intention of that section. And you quote part of the rules about Out of Order Sequencing, but the very next paragraph is relevant: "An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence." In the scenario described, Anthony announces activating Mutavault after he knows that Noah has no actions at beginning of combat.

@murgatroid99 Nothing is known about the board state from the question, except Anthony has a Mutavult and sufficient mana to activate it. It comes down to what Anthony meant in phrasing his shortcut. This answer presents the premise that Anthony intended to go to the Beginning of Combat phase and was naive that there was an accepted definition for this shortcut. Intention matters.

I didn't say anything about the board state. But once Noah has passed priority at Anthony's beginning of combat, Anthony has information that he should not have at the latest time he is allowed to activate Mutavault. At that time, activating during beginning of combat is an invalid application of Out of Order Sequencing because of the rule I quoted. And what Anthony meant doesn't matter. You don't get a free pass just because you don't know the rules.

With the rule update, Noah's complaint no longer has any backing in the Tournament Rules (p5 of the answer). Also, Anthony's intentions and whether he was trying to mislead Noah do not matter (in fact I am convinced that player intention was never relevant in this specific situation even before the rule change). Also, I think the last part of this answer about infractions is wrong. You can't get a Game Rule Violation without violating a game rule, and I see no evidence in the question or the answer that Anthony violated any game rule. Maybe it would help readers if you spelled that part out?

This is no longer the case as the shortcut has changed. This information was correct when posted however.


text:
Missed triggers in two-headed giant
My partner and I recently played in a Two-Headed Giant Sealed. As is the case with most multiplayer tournaments, the event was run at Regular REL. My partner has an upkeep trigger (Thopter Spy Network). The following events occur sequentially:

Our opponent's pass the turn.
I untap, draw a card, and mix it into my hand.
My partner says, "Wait! I have an upkeep trigger."

Has the trigger been missed?

805.2. Within each team, the player seated in the rightmost seat from that team’s perspective is the primary player. If the players on a team can’t agree on a choice, such as which creatures attack or what order triggered abilities are put on the stack, the primary player makes that choice.

Comprehensive rule 805.2 states that if players on a team can't agree on a choice, the primary player decides. However, we didn't really disagree on anything, so I don't think 805.2 applies. I reference this rule because I have moved to the draw step, while my partner wants to remain in the upkeep step. I guess one could argue that I silently disagreed with him by drawing a card.

If the primary player has moved forward to the draw step, then the trigger was missed. If the secondary player is the one that drew a card, then that player has drawn extra cards.
In either case, at regular REL, you should call a judge, explain what happened, and allow the judge to decide whether the trigger was missed or whether the game should be rolled back. If the game is rolled back, you would have to put a random card from your hand on top of your library, then do your upkeep stuff, and then continue as normal with a reminder to play more carefully. From Judging at Regular:

If the identity of the card(s) were known to all players, return them to their proper location. Otherwise, determine how many extra cards have been drawn, take that many cards at random from the player’s hand and place them on top of the library. Don't shuffle the library after doing this!

In general, play penalties at regular REL are basically nonexistent, and mistakes should be fixed more often than punished.

You seem to be describing the remedy for a missed trigger. Just to be clear, are you saying that the trigger was in fact missed?

If the primary player has moved forward a phase, then yes the trigger was missed. If the other player had moved forward, it would have been a drawing extra cards (but still probably has the same remedy).

If that's your answer to the question, you should write it as your answer.

I think you had my partner and I mixed up in your answer. I'm the one that drew a card. I went ahead and edited the answer for you, and while I was at it, I absorbed your previous comment into the answer. I have to ask: did you make up the "put a random card on top" fix, or did that come from somewhere?

Nevermind, I figured it out and edited your answer again.

It probably doesn't matter given the REL, but I'm still wondering about the missed trigger part. The rules try to avoid this kind of thing with normal games: "Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. For example, if a player draws a card during his or her draw step [...]" Given that 2HG rules are notoriously weird, it's not a stretch to think that judges could reasonably apply the same rules here, even though it's a teammate not an opponent.


text:
Is giving resources away for free allowed?
Motivation: I once had one surplus card on my hand, and knew the robbers would come soon. So I gave it to someone for free, to avoid losing more cards when they hit.
I was surprised by how badly this was received. Two of the three other players (the hosts of the game) acted upset, like I had tried to cheat. I had to take the card back, get robbed the next turn and 'giving cards away for free' was banned immediately. (Oh, how I hate mid-game additions to the rules. But that's beside the point.)
So now the question: Is this really illegal in Settlers of Catan? Is it generally considered underhanded in any way? If so, why?
My reasoning was like this:

Consider players A and B.
A wants to give B a sheep.
A trades a sheep and one rock to B, in exchange for wheat.
A trades the received wheat for the (formerly his) rock.
A and B now both have the same resources they had in the beginning, only the sheep has moved from A to B.

Can you clarify when you are giving away cards – is this during a normal trade portion of the turn? Also, what do you mean by "knew the robbers would come soon"? You only discard down to half when a 7 is rolled and you have > 7 resource cards. Dice rolls can be assumed to be independent, so the likelihood of a 7 occurring next doesn't change over the course of a game...

The reasoning scenario you provided is different from giving away resources because each player starts and ends with the same number of resources so it is completely different from giving away resources for the purpose of having less cards.

There is an official rule against this practice. This is stated twice in the Almanac section of the the 5th Edition rulebook, in both the Domestic Trade section on page 7 and the Trade section on page 14:

Domestic Trade
On your turn, you may trade resources with the other players
(after rolling for resource production). You and the other
players negotiate the terms of your trades—such as which
cards will be exchanged. You may trade as many times as you
can, using single or multiple cards. However, you cannot give
away cards, or trade matching resources (“trade” 3 ore for 1
ore, for example).

Trade
After you roll for resource production, you may trade with
other players (domestic trade Y) or with the bank (maritime
trade Y).

You may trade as long as you have resource cards.
If you decide not to trade during your turn,
no one can trade.
You may trade with another player between your turns,
but only if it is that player’s turn and they elect to trade
with you.
You may not trade with the bank during another
player’s turn.
You may not give away cards.
You may not trade development cards.
You may not trade like resources (e.g., 2 wool for 1 wool).

(emphasis added)
I understand that you can "effectively" give away cards by cunning sequences of "legitimate" trades, but it seems clear that this isn't really in the spirit of the game, and players should feel free to frown upon such sharp practice!

Yeah, thanks! This helped. When I asked the game hosts whether this was forbidden by the rules, they said that probably no, not explicitly, but then I'd avoid the robber. That was their main problem, which didn't sound very legit.

@ver, While you can't give away cards, you could easily do a trade that may be slightly against your favor (normally) to end up with one less card in your hand. I can't see anything against the spirit in that.

If you are just trying to get rid of cards, you might be able to trade with the bank at 2:1 or 3:1 or 4:1 depending on how your harbors are setup. This could have the advantage of getting rid of cards without other players getting them.

This question is answered in the official Settlers of Catan FAQ:

Trade - Can I give away resources or buy services with them, for
  example, to avoid being bothered by the robber?
No. On Catan, a trade always involves a give and take of resources.
  Consequently, Catan’s trade law does not contain a “trade” of
  something for nothing or for immaterial goods such as services.

Although you could get around this by doing the 2:1 then 1:1 trades, it violates the spirit of the rules and would be looked down upon by your fellow players.

You don't even need to go to the FAQ for this, it is explicitly forbidden in the rulebook!  You are right though that it's hard to see how to stop getting around the rule by sneaky sequences of trades: I would suggest that, following the 2:1 trade, it is permitted for one of the players to renege on doing the 1:1 trade.  This might makes players think twice before trying to "game" the rules in this way!

Right. I was pretty sure it was in the core rules, but I didn't have them to hand to check! I remembered seeing it in the FAQ, though, so I used that as a source and citation.

Catan's trade law?!?! So this island has not only already been settled, but its inhabitants have their own laws and just happen to be letting us invade their terriory?!?! :D ;)

The 5th edition rules do specifically prevent giving away resources directly:

You cannot give away cards, or trade matching resources ("trade" 3 ore for 1 ore).

There is nothing in the rules to prevent the thing you describe, namely using intermediary resources to effectively give away a resource without literally doing so.
As a result, this rule seems rather odd.  All it literally prevents is a players gifting in particular situations (such as to a player with an empty hand).  We need to dig into why this rule exists in order to evaluate what is or is not in "the spirit" of it.  Here are some possible explanations, with their implications for the situation you describe:

The rule exists to prevent kingmaking.  A player who is decisively losing could decide they want one of the players in the lead to win and start gifting all of their resources to cause that player to win.  The rule doesn't seem very good at preventing this, as a player can just as easily kingmake by giving resources to a player at extremely favorable rates, but it does still add logistical complications, which may psychologically disincentivize this.  If this is the reason for the rule, then gifting a resource to avoid the robber is totally fine, as it benefits you to do so potentially as much as it benefits the player getting the free resource.
The rule exists to prevent "7 dodging".  The point of losing half your resources on a 7 is both to penalize hoarders and give some advantage to players in last.  Thus, the rule is to preventing players from blatantly getting rid of resources to be at that safe 7 number.  If this is the intent, the rule is not very good at this, as you can just make a 2 for 1 trade of different resources to get under the limit.  In this case, giving away a resource is what the rules are trying (but failing) to prevent, and so is against the spirit of the rules.
The rule exists to prevent players trading resources for non-resources, such as robber placements, settlement spots, loans, and futures.  In my opinion, allowing these things makes the game better, but that is personal preference.  If this is the reason for this rule, it's unclear what the spirit of the rules is with regard to "7 dodging", as the benefit you are getting is simply having fewer resources rather than some non-resource concession from the receiving player.  What is definitely against the spirit of the rules in this case is trading extra resources to a player (to get down to 7 cards) in exchange for some of those cards back later.

At the end of the day, "the spirit" of the rules is defined by your play group.  If the hosts have a particular interpretation of the rules for a game, that's typically what you have to go with.  My group's preference is to house rule that you can trade resources for intangibles, in order to allow all of those fun things like futures and bribery.

There is an 'official' rule against this idea, since one player is unfairly favored over the others, and it may create trouble in practice.
In my games, we usually avoid this issue by trading 2:1 (with a player) to a resource you need anyway. If you got any 2:1 ports to reduce your number of cards, use those instead as it is fair to everyone.
Example: Assume you intend to build a city, but have two extra sheep you don't need and lack a wheat. Your number of cards adds up to 8. Simply trade the sheep 2:1 with someone to wheat and you'll not only avoid the robber, you'll also make progress towards your goal.
Either way, this pretty much only applies in the early game when you're unlikely to get many resources per turn. Later, when you've already got a number of towns built, you'll get new cards almost every turn so giving away one of them is less important.


text:
In a game that just involves Unstable cards, does it ever actually matter that Just Desserts deals π damage instead of 3?
The Unstable card Just Desserts says

Just Desserts deals π damage to target creature. (π is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. (It’s a smidgen more than 3.))

And the Unstable FAQ further elaborates that

If you ever have to calculate Just Desserts, you have my permission to use 3.14.

In most situations, this has the same outcome as if it just dealt exactly 3 damage: a creature with 3 toughness will die if hit by Just Desserts or by a Lightning Bolt. A creature with 4 toughness will not die from either. So, in a game with just Unstable cards, such as Unstable limited, does it ever really make a difference that Just Desserts deals π damage instead of 3?
I think it would be best to ignore cards that can be brought into the game by Spike, Tournament Grinder and Summon the Pack because they expand the card pool well beyond Unstable.

There are a few ways in which it matters that Just Desserts deals π damage instead of 3.
The simplest is the card's interaction with each other. A single Just Desserts has about the same effect as a single Lightning Bolt. But 8 Just Desserts deal a total of about 25.13 damage, while 8 Lightning Bolts only deal a total of 24 damage.
In addition, in combination with Super-Duper Death Ray, it can result in non-integer damage being dealt to a player. Hitting a creature with 4 toughness with Just Desserts then Super-Duper Death Ray deals π damage to the creature's controller. This alone doesn't make a big difference: 0.86 life keeps you alive just as well as 1 life does, because every other source of damage has integer values. Of course, Just Desserts interacts with itself here too, so doing this enough times will result in the player taking at least 1 more damage than they would if Just Desserts only dealt 3 damage.
Other than that, if any cards care about how much life you have, this could make a difference. One context in which it may matter exactly how much life you have is a cost that involves paying life. Rule 117.3 says

A player can’t pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can’t pay a cost of 2 life, and a permanent that’s already tapped can’t be tapped to pay a cost. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color,” and rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.”

In the context of this card, this means that a player with 0.86 life can't pay 1 life, and more generally a player with N+0.86 life can't pay N+1 life. There are two cards in Unstable with costs that include paying life: Spike, Tournament Grinder and Everythingamajig F. So, a player with just 0.86 life can't pay for Everythingamajig's second ability, and a player with just 1.86 life can't pay life for any of Spike's Phyrexian mana costs. These could matter if the player had Rules Lawyer for example, and would survive having 0 life.
There is also a planeswalker in the set, Urza, Academy Headmaster, so that damage could be redirected from the player to Urza. Mark Rosewater has ruled in the past that half counters exist, so it would make sense that with Just Desserts, other fractions can exist too. So Urza can have N + 0.86 loyalty counters. Rule 117.3 comes into play here: you can't pay for a cost unless you pay it fully, so you can't activate Urza's second ability unless he has at least 1 entire loyalty counter, and you can't activate his third ability unless he has at least 3 entire loyalty counters.
There is also another way in which Urza can be affected here: One of Urza's possible ultimate abilities says

Create X 2/2 white Cat creature tokens, where X is your life total.

Unfortunately, I don't actually know what happens here. There do not seem to be any good rulings about handling fractional creature tokens.

This would be a fun thing to ask MaRo directly, a sort of "look at what you have done, how are we supposed to resolve this?" comment

I've asked. Hopefully he replies appropriately :)

And someone has pointed out that he already did, some time ago - http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/119139275673/i-have-a-little-girl-i-cast-mercy-killing-on-it So 0.86 of a 2/2 Cat token is a 1.72/1.72 Cat token. But if you got the effect twice, it would result in you having 1.72 Cat tokens, which results in one 2/2 Cat and one 1.44/1.44 Cat.

That does answer the immediate question here, but it leaves some questions unanswered, like "What happens if a fraction of a token gets a +1/+1 counter?" That's probably a topic for a separate question on this site, though.

Re "There do not seem to be any good rulings about handling fractional creature tokens.", I fully endorse tearing up a token card to the appropriate fraction of its normal size.

@murgatroid99 A +1/+1 counter on a partial token is still a whole +1/+1 counter.  I would think it would have to give its full value.  (On the other hand, a "all creatures gain +1/+1" effect probably shouldn't give its full effect to that token.)

It also prevents the owner of Urza from killing him off by use of abilities, since all the abilities have whole loyalty costs and any fractional counter would never be able to be spent. Not that killing your walker is usually a desired effect of using loyalty abilities, but it often happens when firing the ultimate.

Having fractional creatures could become interesting with one of Urza's +1 abilities: "Add X mana in any combination of colors, where X is the number of creatures you control. "


text:
What rules explain Xantcha's behavior when its controller leaves the game?
Xantcha, Sleeper Agent has the ability:

As Xantcha, Sleeper Agent enters the battlefield, an opponent of your
  choice gains control of it.

The release notes for Commander 2018 describe what happens when a player who controls a permanent owned by another player leaves the game as:

If that player controlled any permanents owned by another player, the
  effects that gave control of them to the player who left end. If this
  doesn't give control of them to a different player (perhaps because
  they entered the battlefield under the control of the player who
  left), they're exiled.

In the same document, the release notes for Xantcha state:

If the player under whose control Xantcha entered the battlefield
  leaves the game, the effect changing control of Xantcha ends.

Answers to a previous question lead me to believe that Xantcha's replacement effect causes it to enter the battlefield under an opponent's control and not under my control at all.
Because Xantcha appears to be entering the battlefield under an opponent's control, I thought Xantcha would be exiled when its controller leaves the game.
However, I know this is not what happens because the official Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager has answered a question about it:

What happens to Xantcha when the opponent controlling her dies? Does
  she get exiled? Returned to my battlefield? Do I get to give her to
  another opponent? Is all of this in the release notes?
It's all in the release notes, but I'll tell you! You end up with
  Xantcha. Will you keep her as your poisonous friend, or kill her so
  you can pop a new Xantcha out of the vat? #WotCStaff

So I know what is supposed to happen - Xantcha's owner is supposed to gain control of it when its current controller leaves the game. What I want to know is the full explanation within the rules of what causes this result to happen.

Related: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/754600-rule-800-4a-player-leaves-game-control-effects

Assuming that the ruling is correct, the most likely explanation seems to be that "gains control" has special meaning that affects how this plays out.

When Throne of Eldraine was released in October 2019, Xantcha, Sleeper Agent received functional errata that makes it now work the same way a card obtained with Bribery works; and Xantcha will now be exiled by 800.4a when her controller leaves the game.
Leaving the original answer below; as the question only existed due to the old wording on Xantcha and the old rules associated with that wording.

Xantcha, Sleeper Agent has an ability that generates a continuous effect. This continuous effect then ends due to the first part of rule 800.4a:

When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end.

We can see that it is a continuous effect:

Continuous Effects

611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.
611.2. A continuous effect may be generated by the resolution of a spell or ability.

611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.

This is confirmed by a Gatherer ruling on Xantcha:

If the player under whose control Xantcha entered the battlefield leaves the game, the effect changing control of Xantcha ends. Because Xantcha’s replacement effect creates a continuous effect causing another player to control it, Xantcha isn’t exiled.

This is different from the wording on cards such as Bribery, which says "put that card onto the battlefield under your control". In that case, there is no continuous effect, the card simply entered the battlefield under your control. Because of this, the first part of 800.4a would not see a control-changing effect to end, and instead the third part of 800.4a would exile the creature.
Note that the wording that causes the controller to be an opponent is the same on Xantcha as it is on cards like Donate, "[...]player gains control". The only difference is that it is a replacement effect that happens as the creature enters the battlefield, instead of something that happens to a creature already on the battlefield. Bribery on the other hand has no such replacement effect or continuous effect, it simply lets you put something on the battlefield under your control.
It is still correct that you never controlled Xantcha in the first place, but that is not relevant. The rules don't cause Xantcha to "revert" to its original controller, they simply cause a control-changing effect to end. Theoretically, Xantcha could end up going to a different opponent instead, if there were multiple controller-changing effects in play.

I see your point and retract my answer, but will leave it standing for future visitors to compare.

Xantcha will be exiled when the opponent that has control of her leaves the game but the game continues.
The owner of Xantcha never had control of Xantcha, so there is no controller to revert to if the opponent controlling her leaves the game. Thus, Xantcha will be exiled. I have to suspect that the Rules manager tweet was mistaken, if he indeed meant that the owner will gain control of Xantcha. The bolded example of rule 800.4a is the closest equivalent to the Xantcha situation:

800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects 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 they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.
Example: Alex casts Mind Control, an Aura that reads, “You control enchanted creature,” on Bianca’s Assault Griffin. If Alex leaves the game, so does Mind Control, and Assault Griffin reverts to Bianca’s control. If, instead, Bianca leaves the game, so does Assault Griffin, and Mind Control is put into Alex’s graveyard.
Example: Alex casts Act of Treason, which reads, in part, “Gain control of target creature until end of turn,” targeting Bianca’s Runeclaw Bears. If Alex leaves the game, Act of Treason’s change-of-control effect ends and Runeclaw Bears reverts to Bianca’s control.
Example: Alex casts Bribery, which reads, “Search target opponent’s library for a creature card and put that card onto the battlefield under your control. Then that player shuffles their library,” targeting Bianca. Alex puts Serra Angel onto the battlefield from Bianca’s library. If Bianca leaves the game, Serra Angel also leaves the game. If, instead, Alex leaves the game, Serra Angel is exiled.
Example: Alex controls Genesis Chamber, which reads, “Whenever a nontoken creature enters the battlefield, if Genesis Chamber is untapped, that creature’s controller creates a 1/1 colorless Myr artifact creature token.” If Alex leaves the game, all such Myr tokens that entered the battlefield under Alex’s control leave the game, and all such Myr tokens that entered the battlefield under any other player’s control remain in the game.

I can see a possibly important difference in the wording: "onto the battlefield under your control." vs "gains control of it". The latter sounds like it may be setting up a continuous effect; which would be an effect that can end due to the first sentence of 800.4a. You used the phrase "revert control", but that's not what the rule says; it simply says that the control-changing effect ends.

An opponent gaining control of Xantcha is also a continuous, control-changing effect. From the wording it's a replacement effect, but that doesn't really matter. Neither Xantcha nor the Bribery'd Serra Angel are under their owner's control at any point. Also note that the rules manager tweet and the release notes directly contradict each other, so they can't both be right on that point.

The release notes have a ruling for Xantcha that is quoted in the question and that matches what the tweet says.

"An opponent gaining control of Xantcha is also a continuous, control-changing effect. " Yes, that is my primary point... And the release notes do not contradict the ruling; the release notes simply mention 800.4a, about creatures being exiled in certain situations... not as it relates to Xantcha specifically.

I don't understand how 800.4c is related at all. It specifically talks about effects that give control to a player who is still in the game. There is no such effect in question here, only an effect that gives control to a player who has left the game.

I believe 800.4c would apply if Alice plays Bribery on Charlie to get creature from his deck, and then plays Donate to give the creature to Bob. Alice dies, and then Bob dies (and Charlie and David are still in the game). In this case, the Donate effect giving Bob control would end, but Alice is not there for control to revert to, so the creature would be exiled.

I removed the ref to 800.4c, after reading it ten more times I got that it was irrelevant here. It's too damn hot for advanced rules lawyering.

Just thought of a much simpler example.... Alice plays Bribery to get a creature from Charlie. Bob plays Act of Treason to get control of it until end of turn. Alice dies during that turn and leaves the game. When the turn ends, Act of Treason ends, but there's no one there to get control of the creature.

Xantcha has a ruling that suggests this is not what occurs; it's the last ruling on her page.

This answer may now be correct because Xantcha has received functional errata as of Throne of Eldraine (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/oracle-changes-2019-09-27).


text:
What are Riggers and Contraptions in MTG and how do I assmble them? (Steamflogger boss question)
I just saw this card called Steamflogger Boss today, but I've never heard of a Rigger, a Contraption, or an ability called 'assemble' in Magic. Am I missing something? Does this card refer to a very rare card type like locus of which there are only a few examples? It seems like the card would make perfect sense if I could only find something that could assemble a darn contraption...

Gotta love the flavor: "Whip the Xs Pinch the Os What we're building, no one knows"

If you care for a less-than-serious interpretation/guess on the matter, head over to Judge's Corner

Read the ruling at the page you linked:

Contraption is a new artifact type. There are currently no artifacts with this type. And there's no current game meaning of "assemble."

Wizards had a bit of "fun" with Future Sight, creating weird card such as this one, Dryad Arbor, Ghostfire, etc.

Update: It is now the future. We now know what this mechanic is thanks to Unstable!

Contraptions aren't put into your main deck. To play with them, you must build a separate Contraption deck
In Constructed formats, such as Standard-but-with-silver-borders, Commander-but-with-silver-borders, and all-Un-set-Constructed-but-with-Steamflogger-Boss-I-guess, your Contraption deck contains at least fifteen unique Contraptions. The Contraption deck is "singleton," meaning you're limited to only one of each Contraption.
In a Limited format, such as Booster Draft or Sealed Deck, your Contraption deck can contain any or all the Contraptions in your card pool. The fifteen-card minimum and the one-of rule don't apply. You can play whatever Contraptions you draft or open.
Several cards in the set will instruct you or a creature you control to assemble a Contraption. To do this, turn the top card of your Contraption deck face up. Then, put it onto the battlefield under one of your Contraption deck's three sprockets, helpfully labeled Sprocket 1, Sprocket 2, and Sprocket 3.
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control at least one Contraption, you move the CRANK! counter forward one sprocket (so, from 1 to 2, from 2 to 3, or from 3 to 1). Then you can crank any of the Contraptions under that sprocket. This causes their abilities to trigger. You can put these abilities on the stack in any order. Also, you don't have to crank a Contraption if you don't want to.
How you assemble your Contraptions determines what kind of infernal machine you're building. Load up one sprocket to produce a devastating turn every three turns, or spread them out to make sure you get something every turn?

Taken as a copy paste of the major points for the article detailing them here.
To all you still back in 2012, I hope this was helpful, you just have to wait 5 years or so to play with them.

Steamflogger Boss was printed in the set Future Sight, and the card alludes to the fact that riggers and contraptions may be part of the game in a coming set (the preceding 2 sets in the Time Spiral block were about the past and present). However, seeing as there are still no mention of the assemble mechanic as of 2012, it is still primarily a joke card in the same vein as the Unhinged and Unglued sets. While a 3/3 for 4 mana isn't terrible, it is definitely weak enough that it will only see actual play in limited decks that desperately need to fill up some mid-range creature slots.
Aaron Forsythe, the director of Research and Development for Magic: the Gathering, commented that the card was purely a joke and was probably a bad idea.

Hey in that uh... Lorwyn-Morningtide-Future Sight draft that is all the rage right now he's an awesome value for buffing changelings!

This answer is completely incorrect! As others have already caught, there are loads of Riggers in Magic.  Plus a Steamflogger Boss will also buff other Steamflogger Bosses you have in play, which is marginally better than being a vanilla 3/3.

Actually, there are other Riggers besides the Steamflogger Boss.
Moriok Rigger from Fifth Dawn had the Rigger Sub-Type retroactively added to it after the Grand Creature Type Update.
Any Changling is also a Rigger, as well as the Mistform Ultimus

Nice catch on this one!

Yes, Contraptions are (at time of writing) a joke, but let's not forget that a Steamflogger Boss does buff other Steamflogger Bosses (without even mentioning the many, many other Riggers that exist in the game of Magic, most of which are admittedly Changelings).
Your first Steamflogger Boss may just be a Hill Giant, but your second is a 4/3 haste, and by the time the third hits the table, you have three hasty 5/3 bad boys on your team.  Okay, maybe this scenario isn't exactly the pinnacle of brokenness, but it it goes to show that Steamflogger Boss's (first) ability isn't quite useless.  You could do worse for a cost of 3R...

Future Sight was a set full of "what ifs" - glimpses into possible futures for the game, and this was one of them. Some of them were simply gags, and this was one of them. (Although it's worth mentioning that new sets are starting to use terminology in the manner of assemble - detain, for instance)


text:
Can you use custom made cosmetics on 40K figures?
In tournaments are you allowed to custom cosmetics like custom Space Marine shoulder Pads and heads, as long as the rest of the figure, weapons and wargear are all official. I found a website that makes custom parts I wish to use with my Marines but I wasn't sure if they were legal in tournaments
Stuff like this,
this,
this,
and this

This question/answer might be helpful: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/30110/14416

For cosmetic stuff like this, you should be ok.  The ITC rules certainly don't make any distinction about things like that, as long as it is clear what the model represents.  Other tournaments may have differing rules - for example the NOVA open tournament states that if your models are different from the standard, you cannot gain any unfair advantages (for example, making a model taller to give it better line of sight), but otherwise states that as long as your models are clear on what they represent, you should be fine.
Generally speaking, modifying or converting models is a big part of the hobby, and most tourneys accept and embrace it - with some even having awards for best converted model or the like.  However, it is always in your best interest to read the rules for any tournament you may want to enter and, if you have any questions, contact the organizer to ensure you'll be compliant.


text:
What is the purpose of opening this package in March?
Spoilers for the Pandemic Legacy Season 1 Legacy Deck for the beginning of March below.

According to the legacy deck in Pandemic Legacy Season 1, in the beginning of March, you are instructed to open box 5.
I opened all the other packages that you are also instructed to open, and all of them related to

 military base construction

but I cannot figure out for the life of me what the items within box 5 are for.  Was this a misprint and they will become useful later, or did I miss something?

You should have opened door 5, not box 5. You can tape box 5 back up and continue with the game with no ill effects, especially as the meaning of the contents of box 5 is not apparent to you at this time.
From what I remember, when you are instructed to open a box (or package as the game refers to it), it will specifically say "Open Package #". Numbers in circles are doors to be opened, and letters in circles are rules to be opened (same mechanism as doors).
According to this thread, the contents of door 5 is

 Three additional scars, so you're not missing anything vital

Oh damn I feel dumb.  But you are right, and I should be confused by what was in package 5.  And IIRC, one of the things I opened had the instruction to open the page that contained all the stuff behind the spoiler.  So does this mean there's a good chance I'm missing something then?  Since I didn't open door 5?

@DenisS edited my answer to include the contents of door 5

Accepted and upvoted.  Next time we play I'll know to fix it.