If I summon a world breaker can I exile a card my opponent owns? I summon World Breaker and want to destroy my opponent's land.

But my opponent thinks I should exile one of my own lands, as cost to summon a World Breaker.

Whose lands am I allowed or required to exile in this case?

Worldbreaker's cast trigger says:

  When you cast World Breaker, exile target artifact, enchantment, or land.

So, when you cast World Breaker, you pick a target.  It doesn't have to be one of your artifacts, enchantments or lands.

However, for the return ability:

  {2}{C}, Sacrifice a land: Return World Breaker from your graveyard to your hand.

Using that ability would require you to sacrifice one of your own lands (which means putting that land into the graveyard; it won't get exiled).  You can't sacrifice something you don't control (although if you somehow came to control an opponent's land, you could sacrifice it even though you don't own it).

If any effect/ability states "target (insert card type here)", it can be any permanent of that type.


Does your Death's Shadow become bigger if you are at negative life? Is your Death's Shadow a 16/16 if you are at minus 3 life and not dead due to something like a Platinum Angel.

No.

From the Gatherer rulings:

  If your life total is negative, X is considered to be 0. (This is a change from previous rulings.)

The actual comprehensive rule that supports this is:

  107.1b Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero. You can’t choose a negative number, deal negative damage, gain negative life, and so on. However, it’s possible for a game value, such as a creature’s power, to be less than zero. If a calculation or comparison needs to use a negative value, it does so. If a calculation that would determine the result of an effect yields a negative number, zero is used instead, unless that effect sets a player’s life total to a specific value, doubles a player’s life total, or sets a creature’s power or toughness to a specific value.

So in other words, you can actually have negative life, and your life is treated as being negative, but not for the purposes of calculating an effect such as Death's Shadow.

I would argue that 107.1b does not apply in the Death’s shadow result. It says if a calculation uses a negative number it does so, only replacing the value of the RESULT is negative. Since 13 - (-3) =16 the resulting value of the creatures power and toughness would not be a negative number and therefore is not altered by this rule.


How does priority of triggered abilities and state based actions work together? So, my opponent and I have 5 life each.

My opponent is attacking with two 5/5 random creatures, and I'm blocking one with Spitemare.

What would happen next?

Will the Spitemare's ability trigger? Letting me redirect that damage to my opponent and winning

Or will I die before the ability is triggered? Losing the game beforehand?

The ability triggers, but you lose and the ability is never put on the stack. What happens as the damage is dealt is this:

Five points of combat damage are dealt to each of you and your Spritemare, and three damage to one of the 5/5's, reducing your life total to 0, and giving one creature lethal damage

The spritemare's ability triggers, but is not put on stack yet (cf. comprehensive rulebook, 603.2 "[...] The ability doesn’t do anything at this point." and 603.3 "[...] its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority", emphasis mine)

Your opponent is about to get priority. Rule 116.5 says what happens in which order:

116.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event (see rule 704, "State-Based Actions"), then repeats this process until no state-based actions are performed. Then triggered abilities are put on the stack (see rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities"). These steps repeat in order until no further state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the player who would have received priority does so.

State-based actions are checked first. You lose the game for having $0$ or less life, and simultaneously the spritemare is put into your graveyard for having taken lethal damage. If there are no other players, the game ends immediately (cf. 104.1). If there are more players left, this is what happens.

You take all cards you own and leave the game. Effects that give you control over permanents and players end. If there are still objects under your control, they are exiled. (Here I am a bit uncertain, as according to the examples in the comprehensive rules a creature that got under your control with Bribery is exiled, while a creature you've taken over with Act of Treason is just returned to its owner's control. Memnarch seems to have a middle ground and I can't tell which way that will go.) Every spell and effect you own on the stack ceases to exist (there can't really be any in this specific case, considering that the last thing that happened in the game was that combat damage was dealt, and that can't happen if you had anything on the stack).

State-based actions are checked again (maybe you had an aura that was keeping someone else's creature from dying, for instance) until nothing more happens. Then all triggers controlled by players still in the game are put on the stack. Then state-based actions are checked again, then new triggers are put on stack again, and so on until nothing new happens.

Your opponent gains priority and may play an instant or a card with flash, or an activated ability. In other words, play resumes as normal, with all the triggered abilities going off the stack one by one, and letting players respond between each one. Since we are in the End of Combat step, even if there are no triggers, the active player can't play sorceries, creatures etc. until all players have passed priority and the game continues to the second main phase.

So in this scenario after you have declared blockers we move to the damamge step.

You are dealt 5 damage, putting you at 0 life, as is the Spitemare.

The triggered ability from Spitemare is placed on the stack. Then before either player gets priority State Based Actions say the Spitemare is dead as it has taken lethal damage and that you are dead as you have 0 life. So the Spitemare is placed in the graveyard and you die before the trigger from Spitemare resolves.

The thing to be aware of here is that before any player recieves priority for anything State Based Actions come in and check for things like 0 life, creatures with 0 or less toughness, etc.


In bridge, how do you tell when to use holdup versus blocking plays? You are the declarer at a 3NT contract (1NT, 3NT, no opposing bids). West leads what appears to be a five card suit, and you have Axx in dummy.

Your main concern is that East can get the setting trick by attacking a vulnerable tenace you have in hand; something like Jxx in the led suit, or AQx in a side suit (and maybe the the answer to the question below is found in the difference between one and the other).

At times, you should go up with the ace in dummy (if East has an honor and a small card) to "block" the suit. At other times, you should hold up the ace until the third round to exhaust East of the led suit. How do you tell the difference?

A club kibitzer gave the opinion, "You use a blocking play if you're worried about what will happen in the LED suit (e.g. if your tenace is Jxx, above), and you use a holdup play when you're worried about what will happen in a different suit (e.g, your AQx tenace)." Is there any truth to this statement?

I haven't stated whether West led from "top of a sequence" or "fourth best," but maybe the answer to question lies in the difference between the two.

Because another take of this matter is "avoidance." That is, if the priority is to keep East off lead, then let West win if he led a high card, and cover if West led fourth best, to prevent East from getting the lead.

I have been told that if I have something like Axx in hand opposite xx in dummy, I should hold up, and hope to exhaust East of the suit. But if I have Axx opposite xxx, West led the queen (denying the king), and East plays low, I might take the trick to "block" the king in East. Does this make sense?

To prevent the lead form RHO through your tenace, you want to win the ace when RHO plays his last card in the suit. If it looks like LHO has 5 cards, with three in dummy and your hand, win the second round with the ace. If you have only two in had with three in dummy, win the third round with the ace.

In regards your Club Kibitzer - yes, the proffered advice is in general sound - however, the cardinal rule is always Count the hand. If you have counted the hand, the answer is often obvious and possibly counter-intuitive from the general rule suggested by heuristic analysis.

There is a little known rule in Bridge called "The rule of 11" that tells you how many cards your right-hand opponent has that are higher than the one led.

If your LHO has not lead an honour card then they are likely to be missing one of them - they would lead one from a sequence or internal sequence. In this case it is likely that their partner has one honour. if you can deduce that the player has HX then you can try and block the suit by going up with your Ace. I would look out for 6-card combinations when you hold the Ace and Ten.

With regard to hold-up plays, the first thing to do is to see whether by holding up you can prevent the defence from being able to communicate with the 'danger hand' - the one whose card holding may cause you to fail in your contract - in the suit led. Even if they may hold an entry in another suit, holding up to prevent (or at least reduce the chance of) this happening will be worthwhile. There may also be occasions when you can hope that the partner has a singleton honour, but the opening leader will have an entry. In which case you might duck even with a finessable honour combination from your right, but safe from attack from the left.

Of course you should also take time to work out whether the opponents (having taken the trick by you holding up) have a possible damaging switch.


King of Tokyo: Healing in Tokyo City/Bay Can players that are in Tokyo City or Tokyo Bay heal themselves on their turn?

They cannot heal using the "heart" dice, but they can still heal in other ways.

From the rules:

  Being in Tokyo (Tokyo City or
  Tokyo Bay) has some advantages
  and disadvantages:

    The Monster in Tokyo
    cannot use the
    [heart] result on
    the dice to heal (but can
    heal using cards)

They can not heal themselves using hearts in Tokyo City/Bay.


Is number diversity really important? People often say you should go for number diversity in your initial settlements.  Obviously having higher-probability numbers is good, but is 6-9-4 and 8-5-10 really better than 8-5-10 and 8-5-10?

I'd say having repeated numbers is better, as it allows you to get your resources in a clump, allowing quick and surprising expansion.  Often I've won a game this way from 8VPs, whilst others are on 9VPs and no-one is trading with them.

Am I wrong?

Does playing cities & knights make a difference to your opinion, where the Green bonus of a free resource makes my strategy even stronger?

Alex P's answer touches upon an interesting philosophical angle to this question. Suppose there are two strategies of game play in a four player game. Strategy A will reliably give you "good performance" (whatever that means for the current game - say 100 points) if carried out well; strategy B, if carried out well, gives you "bad performance" in 60% of your games (say 60 points) and "exceptionally good performance" 40% of the games (say 110 points).

In this (fictional) game, strategy A gives you better performance on average, but it may give you a lower probability of ending up in first place: in an environment where your three fellow players also play A, the game will be a toss up and strategy A will win you 25% of games, all other factors being equal, whereas strategy B will win you 40% of games. If your three fellow players play B, then strategy A will win only if all three of them have bad luck - less than 22% probability - and strategy B will turn it into a toss up again, so 25% wins. In both cases, strategy B will give you a higher probability of ending up in first place than strategy A.

Thus we see that even a relatively small chance of a relatively small improvement of your score over the alternative strategy may be worth a large risk of a really bad score - if all you care about is ending up first. However, you may prefer doing relatively well compared to your peers for certain, to having a slightly higher chance of winning overall but also a higher chance of ending up dead last. In that case, strategy A is better.

How does this apply to your question? Even if we leave the social aspects of the game aside (where players are more likely to impede further success of already successful players), going for clumped-up bunches of resources has some of the properties of strategy B: if you can ensure a steady trickle of resources, you will do well, but if you gamble the same number of settlements on a few numbers and they happen to come up more often, you will do even better - at the risk of losing badly if the dice don't go your way. Thus my answer is: all else being equal, spread the numbers if your objective is to do relatively well; concentrate the numbers if your objective is to have the highest chance of winning, and you're willing to accept a high risk of ending up last. (The key phrase in that sentence is "all else being equal", of course - in practice this consideration should be only one of many arguments when weighing different courses of action against one another.)

Number diversity is important - the best play is always with diverse numbers - but isn't the sole factor in winning. Diverse numbers gives you mimimum down-time, and maximizes income.

Diverse resources on those numbers are essential, as well, most of the time.

Use of 2:1 ports can mitigate concentrated resources, especially wheat if one as the wheat 2:1 and a concentration of wheat on good numbers. With the "standard" numbers layout for beginning games it's less important, but with the optional randomized number placement, and random tile placement, some spectacular ugliness can occur...

I once won as I had 5,6,8 on three adjacent wheat, and 6,8,9 on a wood, wheat and a brick. I was able to get to a wheat port in a couple turns, too. I was able to (due to some luck) build a city on turn 2 on the wheat. Turn 5 I had a wheat port... game was over by turn 20, and I'd won hands down... because I had a wheat port, and multiple cities on that wheat (which said, 2 of the tiles were map-edge).

So, it's important, but only as one of several components.


How does Charmed Pendant interact with Reaper King? Charmed Pendant has the ability

  {T}, Put the top card of your library into your graveyard: For each colored mana symbol in that card's mana cost, add one mana of that color to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant.

Reaper King has a mana cost made entirely of colorless hybrid symbols. If I turn over Reaper King with Charmed Pendant, can I add any mana to my mana pool? If so, do I have to add one mana of every color? Can I add any colorless mana to my mana pool instead of colored mana?

You have to add WUBRG to your mana pool.

From the Comprehensive Rules:

  107.4e Hybrid mana symbols are also colored mana symbols. Each one represents a cost that can be paid in one of two ways, as represented by the two halves of the symbol. A hybrid symbol such as {W/U} can be paid with either white or blue mana, and a monocolored hybrid symbol such as {2/B} can be paid with either one black mana or two mana of any type. A hybrid mana symbol is all of its component colors.

Colorless is not a color, so you cannot add colorless mana to your pool in this case.

  105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, he or she must choose one of the five colors. “Multicolored” is not a color. Neither is “colorless.”

Also note the rules clarification on the card's Gatherer page:

  If you flip over a hybrid card, you get one of either color mana, not both, for each mana symbol.

This is just in cases where you flip other, "proper" hybrid cards with 2-colored hybrid mana symbols. In this case, you don't even have a choice as you can't pick colorless for a color.

According to Reaper Kings' notes, it can be paid for with one of each color, or any combination up to 10 colorless. It does include all 5 symbols so therefore you can add 1 mana of each color in this situation.


Nivmagus and cipher card rulings Well since the new set is available I was wondering the combo between Nivmagus Elemental and cipher cards[1].

So let's assume that Nivmagus is on the field then I cast a cipher spell from my hand can I:

Eat the spell and mount it on Nivmagus
Eat the cipher spell on each attack

Also is it possible to have multiple of the same cipher spells on a target creature?

The definition is assumed to be "You may exile this spell card encoded on a creature you control. Whenever that creature deals combat damage to a player, its controller may cast a copy of the encoded card without paying its mana cost."

If you eat a spell with Nivmagus, it won't resolve, so you don't perform any of its spell abilities, so you don't perform its cipher ability. You'll get the +1/+1 counters, but that's it.

Now let's say you did let a cipher spell resolve, and you did attach it a creature. Since a copy of a spell is a spell, you can eat the copies created by cipher. But again, the spell won't resolve if you do. You'll get the +1/+1 counters, but that's it.

Note that you can't encode the copies created by cipher because you can only encode spell cards with cipher, so eating the spell copies is not as expensive as eating the original. It actually sounds like a good use of cipher to me :)

Note that the spell triggers after damage is dealt, so the +1/+1 counters it gets will only help it the next combat (except possibly if it has first strike or double strike).

Yes, multiple spells can be encoded on a single creature.

since cipher triggers by combat damage to the player, first strike shouldn't apply any real changes to the mechanic of cipher. first strike applies damage first during blocking to a creature assigned to block, thus not applying damage to the player. unless double strike may be interrupted during the damage phase, double strike will not benefit nivmagus that turn, but the next.


What is the maximum allowed number of repeats in a Pokémon deck? I've realised that, when playing Pokémon, the trick to winning is to evolve your Pokémon.

This takes a bit of luck, in that you have to have the first level Pokemon on the table, then you have to have drawn its corresponding first evolve card, and then you have to have drawn its second evolve card.

So, if I want to create the ultimate Pokémon deck, I'd simply buy 5 water type decks, then assemble a deck containing 25 Totodiles, 10 Croconaws and 10 Feraligatrs. It would make for a less interesting game, but I'm guaranteed to evolve my Pokémon, and my opponent doesn't have a chance unless he does the same thing I do.

I wouldn't be the first person to have thought of this. Is there an official rule specifying the maximum number of any one Pokémon in your deck?

The official website does have the rules, and the maximum limit for any card is 4, unless the format restricts the card further.

  1.1 Constructed - In a Constructed event, players arrive at the tournament with a 60-card deck. The cards used to build the deck come from each player's personal collection. Decks may not contain more than 4 copies of a single card, as defined by the card's English title, with the standard exception for basic Energy cards. Some cards may have additional construction restrictions on them, which are treated as exceptions to the 4-copy rule. Matches are played for 6 Prize cards.

Many responses included the answer 4 for any type of Pokemon unless further restricted. One year, many many moons ago, Sneasel, a dark Pokemon, was banned in any deck. The official Pokemon web site publishes the rules for deck building and playing, but an event may also have additional rules and restrictions.

Of course energy is one of the card types that is not restricted, unless it is a special energy. Just for fun I used to make a psychic deck with mostly psychic energy and just 4 pokemon! Because I get to shuffle untill I draw at least one basic pokemon in my opening hand the deck was annoying, but I always had plenty of energy to fuel my clever deck.

So to be a good "Pokemon Trainer" when you play the card game you need to use the right balance of trainer cards in order to draw cards and get to your key evolutions, key basic pokemon, and trainer cards. If you go online you can find the four top decks in the senior division and the junior division of the world championships. You will notice a common ratio of Pokemon, trainers, and energy in these top decks. Try to imitate their ratios and even their decks, especially how and why they use certain trainers and you will be competitive in a local Pokemon league or against your friends. Notice which basics they use that do not evolve, and notice the weakness and resistance they have. Pokemon is a "don't put all your eggs into one basket" type of game, influenced by who gains control first with a key knockout, and by the ability to play an energy every turn or more. (Blastoise was so powerful because of his ability!)


What is the best way to shuffle a large deck without damaging the cards? I'm quite familiar with a few methods of cards, primarily Riffling and Mongean* shuffling. The issue I have with those is that the Riffling shuffle tends to bend cards and wear them out, as well as not working well with a large deck. The Mongean method isn't particularly good at shuffling large decks either.
Unlike this thread I'm not dealing with a well organised deck, but I am dealing with a large deck (80 cards plus).
I've considered cutting the deck in two first, but that then takes twice as long.
What is the best method for shuffling in this case?
*Instead of moving one card at a time, I move a random number.

With the implied restriction on time combined with the explicit restriction to keep the cards pristine, I'd suggest using extra space to shuffle.  Here's what I do with large decks of cards:

Divide the large deck into several smaller piles.  For 80 cards, I'd make about 8 piles of 7-15 cards
Select two piles at random and combine them using a hindu shuffle (unlike in the video, when I do it, I do it by grasping the wider-side rather than the narrower side of the cards for better control of larger decks.
After a few shuffles, grab another random pile and add it to the deck
Continue until all decks have been added.
Continue with several more Hindu shuffles until you're satisfied.

If you cannot keep all cards in your hand, recombine/shuffle half the cards, then recombine/shuffle the other half, put the two halves together (just stacking them) into 1 full deck again.  Finally, repeat the entire process two or three times (this is only necessary if you had to do a simple stacking).

I would do similar to the accepted answer but deal out a different number of piles that never are a multiple of the number of cards. Deal out the entire deck randomly as well to each of these piles, then combine the piles randomly always putting the next pile on the bottom or always putting the next pile on top. For example:

a deck of 80 cards should have the deck divided up by an odd number of stacks. We want the highest number we can take before it's too cumbersome. So say 7 stacks. 7 goes into 80 11 times with 3 left over. If you chose 9 stacks to deal out to then it would be 8 cards a stack with 8 left over. The numbers look more "messy" with the stack of 7 so let's go with it. Now you deal out randomly to each stack even keeping the piles uneven from the 11 increasing the imbalances of each stack. This adds even more randomness into the spread of the cards. Now you take each pile and combine them putting each stack on the bottom. There is no need to alternate top or bottom since you are choosing to pile the stacks randomly. Random is random, so it's faster to just keep it the same in one way but randomize it in your choice of what goes on the bottom.

The deck is now immediately shuffled. There is no reason to do any other type of shuffle. All the cards have been spaced out from each other by at least 7 spaces from their original position and with your randomness you increase or decrease that spacing randomly throughout. Then you stacked the spacing randomly again which gives 3 levels of randomization to the shuffle: the 7 spacing, the random up/down of spacing and the random piling. The faster you deal out the cards to the stacks, the faster this will finish but you will always have a complete shuffle with no need to do any other type of shuffle. Cutting the deck after is totally acceptable and encouraged.

EDIT: It takes me 30s to shuffle a 52 card deck in this way. Shuffling with 14 stacks, only added 15s to the time. The more stacks the better but this will undoubtedly shuffle the deck without damaging the cards.


Can Dive Down protect a creature against Pacifism? If my opponent casts Pacifism on my creature and in response I cast Dive Down, what happens?

Dive Down resolves first (since it's the last spell on the stack) and will give your creature Hexproof.

Then, Pacifism (an Aura, which by rule 114.1b is a targeted spell) tries to resolve, but its target has become invalid, so it will not resolve and end up in your opponent's graveyard.

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

(source: Comprehensive Rules, emphasis mine)

Your creature would gain hexproof before the pacificim hit it therefore the pacifism would go to the graveyaard and your creature would be left on the battle field with hexproof and  +0/+3 until end of turn.


Is there a rule specifying which direction your card faces? With the introduction of Link cards, it makes a difference if some cards face you or face your opponent. Is there a rule that specifies that a card has to be played facing you?

Even it is not a rule per se the game is created with the orientation in mind, as most cardgames i know of, that your cards are readable for you.
By turning the cards name to the bottom you would switch the game state as Link Arrows would point in different zones than intended.

While there is no rule in the rule book agaist it, there is a rule in the tournament floor rules (IV G. Game State)

http://www.yugioh-card.com/ygo_cms/ygo/all/uploads/KDE_TCG_Tournament_Policy_1_4.pdf

Even though it's not said in the rule book, in all practicality, the card should be facing you. To minimize confusions and argument in as far as game play, it would be much more efficient to do so, and thus let the arrows point to where they're supposed to point at after this.


Useful Settlers of Catan calculations? I'm trying to calculate various probabilities that would be useful for Settlers of Catan.  So far I've tabulated the probability of rolling X in Y turns, the probability of rolling X before Y, and the probability of drawing a victory point within X tries given knowledge of Y knights / progress cards in play.

  Can you guys think of any other data / calculations that would be useful for Settlers of Catan?

[Edit] Another calculation I've found extremely useful is "how many of each resource do you need to win the game, assuming you're going for X".  I'd love to hear more ideas though, and I don't care how hard / tedious they are to calculate!

Here are some useful calculations: Playing the probabilities in Settlers of Catan

A useful statistic/calculation is the various combinations of settlements, cities, and development cards that add up to 10 VPs. Also the best combinations according to general terrain production.


Does reading strategy guides before a game night count as cheating? We play a board game once a week.  Before our last session I have read a good strategy article for Great Western Trail followed the strategy suggested there and won by a lot. (This was not our first time playing this game).
After the game, I told my friends about the guide and the main suggestions. Some of my friends said that reading the guide gave me an unfair advantage and that it is a form of cheating.  While I don't see it as cheating it did give me a huge advantage.
How should we properly approach setting up these rules/expectations so no one is frustrated?

This is all about your social contract1 - some groups play to win, in which case the behaviour you've described seems perfectly reasonable. Other groups play more for fun, and fun can often be reduced if one player is significantly better at the game than everyone else.
I'd wouldn't go so far as to call it "cheating" as you didn't break any of the written rules of the game, but it's obvious here that your friends had less fun because of your actions. At that point, it's behaviour that should be avoided.
How to avoid it? You already know the answer to that - talk about it beforehand, but with your group not with the Internet. Whatever you agree with your group that lets people have the most fun is the right answer (and sometimes that may involve people finding that they would have more fun if they played with a different group).
1. Link to Role-Playing Games SE, so obviously refers to some RPG-specific concepts, but the concept of a social contract applies across any group setting

TL:DR Immoral yes, cheating no.
Firstly, it's not technically cheating.  If there are publicly available resources and all your friends have internet access and knew in advance what game they would be playing then you've not done anything that another player could not have done if they chose to.
If you should however depends on your motivation for playing a game.  If its to win at all costs, ie in a tournament then by all means research a game and give your self every advantage going. There is not friendship lost in that situation.
If you are playing games for enjoyment of spending time with people and to just play the game then researching strategy before hand make the game less fun for everyone.
It's less fun for you because you don't get the joy of discovering a game for yourself.  isn't it fun to look at a games rules and think how you would approach it, not what some internet article tells you to do?
You also make it less fun for every other player.  A game is at its most enjoyable when all players are of an equal level,  No one enjoys winning or losing by a huge margin.  Who wants to spend over half a game knowing they have already won or lost?
To manage this I would suggest the following,  firstly don't read strategy guides before playing a game.  Would you buy a computer adventure game and then follow a walk through rather than trying to solve it yourself?  Would you buy a puzzle book and copy what's in the answers pages on to the puzzle pages?
If you are teaching a game that you're are more experienced at the way to manage this is to share some of your knowledge and warn about pitfalls but still letter players discover their own strategies.  When I play games such as World Without End I know all the events off by heart, so I try to warn players and things that might happen.  Similarly if I'm playing Carcassonne I know the tile distribution, so If know all 6 Cloister tiles have been player why wouldn't I share that information with my opponent?  I want them to have same public knowledge that I have and they can then choose what to do with that information.
Reading your question you say you told your friends AFTER you had read a strategy guide.  If I was your friends I would be really annoyed with you as well.  I'd be struggling to understand their motivation for doing so and would conclude winning a game meant more to them than actually playing a game and spending time with them.  So no you didn't cheat but its was certainly morally dubious.


Why was Maxx "C" banned from play? Now I have absolutely NO idea why this card has been banned from play. Sure it's effect that lets you draw a card every time your opponent special summons is powerful to the point where it should be limited, but why banned?

First off there are multiple ways to stop it, Tri-Gate Wizard, Debunk, Solemn Strike, Banisher of the Radiance, etc.

Second, it can help people turn a duel around, but as I said a SPYRAL player I once beat with it, "You chose to special your monsters, even at the cost of letting me draw cards. The fact that you lost is your own fault. If you hadn't chosen to special summon, you would've been able to win."

So in other words, it doesn't force your opponent to special summon, it forces them to RECONSIDER special summoning. Now obviously it can stop mass summonings, but THAT'S THE POINT. It's the best way to keep OP decks like Pendulum Magicians in check. It's supposed to help give each player a chance to win.

So with that being the case, why on earth does Maxx "C" need to be banned rather than limited?

Well, surely Konami had their own reasons for doing so (my impression is that this was done to favor newer decks that special summon more, or perhaps many decks were abusing it) but I think you already found one of the main reasons why:

  it can help people turn a duel around

Indeed Maxx-c can turn a duel around, specially when used on early/mid game when it is most disruptive.

Like you said, when you see your opponent activate a Maxx-c you are faced with a difficult choice: (1) either keep summoning to ensure building your game and strategy, but give your opponent a huge hand advantage, or (2) stop summoning to prevent giving your opponent hand advantage, but basically delay your strategy a whole turn by refraining from finishing your combo.

As you can see this is a dire choice, as in both scenarios you have few or nothing to win, hence why this card could have been banned.

Now, as you experienced, Maxx-c is less effective on late game. This is because on that moment it doesn't matter anymore if you give your opponent hand advantage, as chances are that if you successfully carry out your combo you will win right there. In these situations it is usually better to ignore Maxx-c, summon and ensure your victory that turn.

So, there probably are other reasons for Konami to ban this card, but in my experience Maxx-c has always been a powerful card since it came up; with the current format it has become even more powerful.

You say that this card could "easily" be countered (although to be honest there aren't that much cards to do so, and the ones that do are really specific, like Debunk), but that would force players to include such counters on their main or side decks, possibly affecting their game strategy. So restricting or banning it sounds reasonable to me.

Originally the card was at 3 but then players started complaining about it being annoying to deal with as when their opponents use it on them, it's basically asking them to choose between:

a bad decision: ending their turn on a wide open board for their opponent to otk them next turn
a worse decision ignoring the maxx c and letting their opponent draw into all their combo pieces as well as the cards needed to break whatever board you manage to make

This essentially guarantees that you will lose no matter what.

Konami tried first to hit the card to 2 but then it didn't make much of a difference as most players only ran 2 maxx c anyways. Konami then tried limiting it to 1 which turned the game from a game of being the better player or having the better deck into a game of who manages to get to their maxx c first.

Obviously this beats the purpose of the game altogether if the winner is almost always decided by whoever manages to draw into a certain card first regardless of what deck(s) they were playing. Thus the card can't remain at 3, 2, or 1, and has to be banned.

I personally see this card as one of those cards that should either be unlimited so that both players have a reasonable chance of getting it or outright banned where neither players have access to it because of how huge of a difference it makes but we should just be happy that Konami has given us cards like ash blossom and infinite impermanence which can interrupt our opponent's plays on turn 0 without creating such an all or nothing situation like maxx c does.


Do the Magic tournament rules allow Rock-Paper-Scissors to see who goes first? The Magic Tournament Rules specifically state 'For the first game of a match, the winner of a random method (such as a die roll or coin toss) chooses either to play first or play second'.  My method of choice has often been Rock-Paper-Scissors, but it never occurred to me until recently that this might not be considered a valid method under the rules.  Obviously this question is more hypothetical than not; if my opponent disagrees with my method of randomization then a different option, or a judge, would be called for.  But at least in theory, spectators or judges watching our match could complain, so the question holds: is RPS (likely to be) considered a 'random method' for determining play/draw under the tournament rules?

My understanding is that it's really up to the judge.

The tournament rules just say this:

  For the first game of a match, the winner of a random method (such as
  a die roll or coin toss) chooses either to play first or to play
  second.

They don't really specify a more detailed criterion for "random." (For example,  cutting to a random card of each other's decks and then comparing their mana costs is a method players use some times. It's random, but it's not actually fair: the CMC of various cards in your deck skews the results.)

My first assumption was no rock-paper-scissors, since RPS is a game that permits some level of psychological skill. However, here's a quote from an old tournament report:

  The both of them shuffled up and scanned about for a way to figure out
  who went first; turns out neither of them had dice. "That's the
  problem with being up here," deadpanned Jensen. "You play against a
  random? They always have a die."

  It was suggested that perhaps the two of them play rock, paper,
  scissors to decide who would go first, but Jensen said that it wasn't
  random enough. "Rock, paper, scissors is strategy," he said earnestly.
  "I think I could psych someone out at rock, paper, scissors."
  Eventually, someone donated not only a twenty, but a twelve-sider and
  a ten-sider, and they rolled all three and added them up to see who
  went first. Jensen snagged it with a 22.

Note that it was the opponent who decided RPS was insufficient, not a judge. This implies that RPS might've been acceptable if both players were fine with it.

In practice, I would expect low-level events not to care about the exact quality of the method you use as long as it's mutually agreeable to both parties (which is all the comp rules really call for), unless they've had to set up a specific system due to previous issues with cheating.

A method isn't random if it is asymmetrical in any way or its outcome comes from a mixture of random and non-random factors.

Examples:

Cutting decks for highest mana cost is asymmetrical if you are not cutting from the same deck.
Cutting decks for highest mana cost is still inadvisable if you are cutting the same decks you are playing with, as it could be a breach of other rules.  It might be acceptable if you use an unrelated third deck, provided that it is in a randomized state and its cards are not marked.
Cutting for even/odd collector's number is not random, since the distribution of evens and odds may be known to one of the players, or the distribution may not be symmetrical.  Odd numbers also occur slightly more often than even numbers (sets with an odd number of cards contain 1 more odd card than even).  There is a somewhat fair way to approach it (i.e. use your own deck and ask the opponent to pick odd or even), but since you might have the opportunity to rig the deck to contain only odd or even collector numbers, this could become a psychological guessing game similar to rock-paper-scissors.  I.e. most novice RPS players lead off with rock, so you might have an asymmetrical skill advantage if you throw paper.  Most analytical even-odd number guessers should guess odd, since it occurs slightly more frequently than even, so you could rig a deck to have all even collector numbers and essentially guarantee that you win the option.
You roll a d12 and the opponent rolls a d10.  This is obviously asymmetrical, but it helps highlight less obvious examples that give either player a statistical edge by a similar amount.
Each player rolls a different d20.  Your d20 might be fair, but how do you know that your opponent's d20 isn't imbalanced?
Rolling a spindown d20.  It may be outside the realm of real human control, but you could attempt to roll it similar to spinning a top so that it settles on a high number in the 14-20 ballpark.
Playing any game of skill.  Playing a game of skill is not a random method.  For similar reasons, since RPS has some skill, it is not a random method.  RPS strategy integrates elements of psychologically reading your opponent to deduce which symbols they favor, using predefined strategies so that you aren't shooting reactively (and predictably), and sometimes reacting to predictable novice behavioral patterns.
Playing high number on a random number generator app could be adequate, provided that it isn't rigged.  You could neutralize the chance of rigging it by letting the opponent decide whether the first number is yours or theirs.  In theory, this choice could be very difficult to psychologically game, but possible.

The seriousness of randomness enforcement will be greater at higher REL events.  However, even at REL casual, most opponents would require you to abide by common sense randomness practices (i.e. no spindown dice, no cutting decks).


Bridge: Holding both 5 card majors which should I bid first in Jacoby transfers In SAYC my partner bid 1 NT showing 15-17 HCP (no void, no singleton and only one doubleton).  I was holding a hand of 10 HCP with 5S, 5H, 2D and 1C.  Using Jacoby transfers should I have responded 2D (showing 5H) or 2H (showing 5S)

This is mostly a matter of agreement.

The reason this is so, is that what you decide to do with a 5-5 game forcing hand would effect other hand types.

Here are some hand types the responder can have:

5-4 majors game forcing.
5-4 majors invitational

5-5 majors game forcing
5-5 majors invitational.

They are multiple ways of bidding:

For instance, some folks play 3H response to 1NT as invite with 5-5 majors and 3S response as GF with 5-5 majors. This allows them to transfer and bid the other suit to show some 5-4 hands etc.

So there is no one way to bid this, and is something you need to agree with your partner.

I personally would not bid this using Jacoby transfers, but using Stayman. By bidding 2C in response to the 1NT opening, you ask if opener holds a 4-card (possibly 5, depending on your definition of a 1NT opening) in a major. partner responds with:

2 Diamonds: none
2 Hearts or 2 Spades: that one, or
2 NT: both majors.

If he has no majors, you can still bid 2H. Having asked him about his 4-card Majors, him denying and you still bidding one makes it at least 5 cards long. 3NT is still an option at this point, even with your distribution.

If he does have one (or both) of the majors, pick one for game.


Does the commander count as part of your deck? Say I have an EDH/Commander deck with Omnath, Locus of Mana as my commander.

Does that count as being in my deck?

Or can I have another Omnath, Locus of Mana in my deck?  (If so I imagine I would have to follow all the Legendary rules about playing the second one.)

If I could include a second one in my deck that could be useful (if the commander version gets killed a few times I would be able to play the one from the deck for only 3 mana.)

Yes, the Commander is part of the deck.

  903.5a Each deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including its commander.

The Legend rule doesn't limit what can be present in a deck — it limits what's on the 'field — but the following Commander rule does:

  903.5b Other than basic lands, each card in a Commander deck must have a different English name.

The uniqueness rule extends to the sideboard. You only have a single copy of a card in both the deck and 10 card sideboard combined.

No. The commander itself does not count as part of the deck. When you are playing EDH your Commander is technically off the board when it is in the command zone. So before you even start playing an EDH/Commander game the Commander is not in the deck. Ergo it does not count as part of your 100-card restriction.


What general strategy exists for countering a white swarm/pump deck? A white swarm/pump deck is a deck with a lot of small, inexpensive white creatures that are subsequently improved by enchantments such as Honor of the Pure or other bonuses.

The goal of this deck is to kill off the opponent before they can develop their strategy.

What deck types are effective in countering this sort of deck?

"Kill off the opponent before they can develop their strategy" is the standard gameplan of aggro decks. The question "How to prevent being overrun in the early game?" addressed some general aspects of dealing with aggro decks.

One way to deal with aggro is to play like a control deck: force your opponent onto your timetable by dedicating your early plays to negating his, while the natural momentum of playing land every turn moves the game closer towards your big endgame strategy. This article explores this idea in detail.

Among creature-based aggro decks, the "classic" white weenie deck is notable for several qualities:

Poor reach: What white distinctly lacks is the ability to get damage in despite a board stall. At best, you've got flyers, which still compare unfavorably to red's direct burn.
Good creatures: White's low-curve creatures, like Champion of the Parish and Blade Splicer, tend to have excellent stats and combat-enhancing abilities.
Strong answers: White has some of the easiest access to multifaceted removal, with cards like Path to Exile, Disenchant, and Oblivion Ring. In most formats, white also has at least some powerful hosers, like Grand Abolisher and Leonin Arbiter.

The lack of reach means that creature damage is pretty much this deck's only way to win (whereas against red decks you also have to worry about cards like Shrine of Burning Rage even after you've set up adequate creature defense). Therefore, your main goal is to deny your opponent the ability to attack profitably.

The typical tools used by control to combat creature-based aggro are:

Sweepers like Supreme Verdict are one of your most effective tools. These are really strong because you can set back several turns of your opponent's development with one spell, but often you need support from other cards to avoid getting hammered long enough to use them. In the early game, 2-for-1 spells like Arc Trail are like cheaper sweepers. Since this is traditionally creature aggro's biggest weakness, you can expect a well-built deck to have some way to reduce the impact — for example, like Doomed Traveler, Boros Charm, and Moorland Haunt.
Spot removal and counterspells are the classic answers to individual threats. 1-for-1 removal isn't great against big gangs of cheap guys, but, in this case, its value generally increases with the number of anthem effects your opponent plays (since their decks are running fewer net creatures). One advantage of counterspells over removal is that you get to stop nasty ETB abilities (e.g. Blade Splicer, Stoneforge Mystic) and you can handle spells that create multiple creatures (e.g. Midnight Haunting) more easily; generally players don't run a lot of counterspells against aggro decks because removal is more efficient and doesn't constraint your timing nearly as much, though.
Blockers are handy for reducing incoming damage. Ideally you'd like to be able to kill some of their creatures every time they attack, but sometimes just a few turns of chumping is sufficient (which is why Timely Reinforcements and Kitchen Finks are great cards).
Bounce and life gain essentially force your opponent to spend a turn making the same attack or summoning the same creature he used last turn. These aren't as effective as straight-up destruction but are often available more cheaply or in colors your deck can more easily use. Life gain is best when it's attached to something else, so that you're not just giving your opponent a free turn to develop a superior board position.

Which you should play generally depends on your deck, since you'll want to pick cards that are useful to you in many different situations. Sweepers work best when they don't constantly destroy your own guys, for instance, while even aggro decks make use of some spot removal to clear the way for their attackers or pick off particularly nasty utility creatures.

When playing against anthem effects like Honor of the Pure, generally it's more useful to kill creatures than to remove the anthem. The exception is when the pump-up is super-significant, either due to the size of the buff (e.g. Tempered Steel, True Conviction) or the volume of creatures receiving it (like Intangible Virtue in a deck that's routinely creating 3-4 tokens a turn; ideally you want to shut down the token maker, though). If your opponent is running Swords, those are usually worth directly removing as well.

...

There are times when this advice doesn't apply:

When your deck is faster than your opponent's. If that's the case, you can "race" instead of adopting a control posture. Do note that some white decks include several control-oriented cards like Timely Reinforcements and Day of Judgment in their sideboards, allowing them to play control against faster aggro opponents.
When you opponent isn't actually trying to swarm you with creatures. With access to a "deeper" card pool, like Legacy and Modern, a critical volume of powerful utility creatures allows mono-white to run in a rather untraditional aggro-control kind of style normally more common in blue decks (U/W, Bant, RUG). I'm assuming that's out of scope for this question, though.

My white weenie deck's weakness is mass board wipes. Before Elspeth, Sun's Champion's final ability, Earthquake will work. Furnace of Rath with Pyroclasm works too.

But if my opponent can't kill my creatures, I can use Spear of Heliod, Veteran Armorsmith and Veteran Swordsmith, and other cards to get 1/1 tokens to 7/7 first strike, vigilance, flying.

Other things that kill that deck are Armageddon, Wrath of God, and Virulent Plague which is a black enchantment that all creature tokens get -2/-2. But watch out for the mass life gain and the creature that gives 40 or more life I win the game (this one: Felidar Sovereign) :)


Can Link monsters be switched to defense? One thing I've noticed is that Link monsters don't even have defense points. A card I like to use is Book of Moon, which lets me switch a monster into face-down defense mode. Since Link monsters don't even Def category, is it still possible to switch them into face-down or face-up defense?

From the Official Ruling, page 15, first paragraph:

  Link Monsters have no DEF and cannot ever be in Defense Position.
  They can’t be changed to Defense Position by a card effect. They
  can’t even be flipped into face-down Defense Position.

We can see that Link monsters can't ever be in Defense position, not face-up or face-down. This also excludes changes from card effects like Book of Moon.

More info on this answer and question.

You can use a card called Darkness Approaches which allows it to be face down either attack or defense relevant to the card's current position.

More on the rulings of:
Darkness Approaches: Ruling
Very useful to flip the Link monsters to face down attack position.  Hopefully, you can add these can of worms into your deck for maximum trolling.


When my opponent plays several spells at once, can I counter them all together? My opponent has all these zero cost equipments and laid them all down at once and played some of his creatures spells without passing priority to me to see if I had a response. At the end of his whole thing I played a counter spell to counter all of it since he laid it all down at once. So was it all countered or not?

No, it doesn't work like that, not unless you're doing something very unusual (which I'm not even sure is actually possible).

For starters, your opponent can't actually cast multiple spells at once. When they put all their cards down on the table as you described, they're proposing a shortcut where they cast all the spells, one by one, and you decline to respond to any of them (i.e. you decline to counter them or whatever). You do not have to accept this shortcut. In other words, your opponent cannot deny you the opportunity to respond to their spells.1 If you do want to respond, you can tell your opponent something like "wait, back up, I have responses" and then they have to take the cards back into their hand and cast the spells one at a time, passing priority to you after each one1, and you tell them when they cast each of those spells whether or not you want to play something in response.

The other issue is that, even if your opponent did have multiple spells on the stack at once (as in the situation described in the footnote2), Counterspell and similar cards only counter a single spell. Just because there are a whole bunch of spells to choose from doesn't mean that you can actually apply Counterspell's effect to all of them at once. There are a few cards that can counter multiple spells, like Counterflux (when overloaded) or Summary Dismissal (which technically exiles rather than countering), but they can only do this because they say so on the card. Note the difference in wording compared to a standard Counterspell.

1 Except when split second is involved, but that's very exotic these days.

2 If you were asking about instants or cards with flash, then things would be a little but more complicated. Your opponent could cast a spell, then immediately cast an instant or flash card without passing priority, and then could cast another instant or flash card without passing priority, and so on for as many as they want to cast. But that only applies to instants and cards with flash, not to typical artifacts and creatures (which don't have flash), as it seems you're asking about here. And even in this case, none of these spells could resolve without you having a chance to respond to them first. Your opponent can never take that away from you.1

I'd say you're both in the wrong. Counterspell counters 1 spell as it's being cast, so you can't just counter everything in one go like that. On the other hand, if you're playing properly then he should have cast one spell, given you the chance to counter it, then let it resolve and cast the next one and repeat. Otherwise, you can just work out which of the spells it's most important for you to counter, and say that you're countering that one - and passing priority properly would mean you don't get that opportunity.


Card that deals damage and adds a +1/+1 counter Simple question: Is there a permanent that has "Pay 1 Mana: Target creature takes 1 damage and gains a +1/+1 counter" or "Tap: Target creature takes 1 damage and gains a +1/+1 counter"?

No, there isn't such a card.

Gatherer is the official source for Magic card wordings, and has a powerful search engine behind it.

The text of the card you're looking for would certainly contain the wording "(deal/deals) 1 damage to (target creature/any target)", and also the term "put a +1/+1 counter".
So we can search for any card that at the same time contains the terms "1 damage to", "put", and "+1/+1", resulting in this search

As you can see, none of the currently 10 results fitting that pattern match your exact requirements.

Also note that  under most circumstances, dealing 1 damage and putting a +1/+1 counter on the same creature in the same effect would cancel each other out, as far as survivability of that creature is concerned. It's unlikely that such a card will ever be made, because the +1/+1 counter is supposed to be the reward for surviving the initial damage, which has to come in a separate effect.

That "+1/+1 counter for surviving damage" mechanic isn't all that rare. You might be looking for cards such as in this search. Those are the cards that put +1/+1 counters on themselves or other creatures whenever those creatures are dealt damage. Then all you need is a source of ping damage, which is plentiful on permanents, at least for {t} cost. A repeatable ping damage ability, i.e. one with a mana cost instead of tap or other cost, will usually cost at least {2} per damage, because {1} per damage would be too strong.

In any case, you will probably never find both ping damage and putting a +1/+1 counter effects in the same ability of any card.

Not to my knowledge. Would be a weird effect, since it cancels itself out (almost).

You can always use magiccards.info for in depth card search.


Why is Homelands considered among the worst Magic expansions? In various forums and articles, it is frequently mentioned that Homelands is one of the worst, if not the worst, Magic the Gathering expansions. Even on the main Wizards website, you will occasionally see this mentioned. Is there any canonical consensus as to what was wrong with the expansion?

It helps to look at the whole set in Gatherer and think about what you don't see.

The only counterspell is Memory Lapse (this is actually better now than it was back then -- remember this was competing with Counterspell and Mana Drain).
There are no real card draw spells. There is one looting spell, Forget, and one search spell, Merchant Scroll; all the other "draw a card" cards are cantrips.
The only straight-up removal spell costs 5 (beyond that, you've got the annoyingly-specific artifact-smashing Legends and Serrated Arrows, which is one of the few cards to escape Homelands and actually see competitive play).
The only sweepers are a couple of cards that do 1 damage to everything (e.g. Dry Spell) and Apocalypse Chime.
There's no real burn in the entire set. Direct damage is limited to overcosted pingers and cards like Winter Sky.
There are no mana-ramp cards in the set. Only Renewal, which is an awful Crop Rotation.
There are a lots of cards like Æther Storm and Aysen Highway -- which do practically nothing (one notable exception: An-Zerrin Ruins).
Its flagship cards are Legends-style giant honkin' Legends that are practically unplayable against the competitive decks of its day.

Basically it's a set that's full of rather weak creatures and almost nothing else. Have fun turning Spectral Bears sideways!

Mark Rosewater described Homelands this way:

  It wasn't very innovative. It didn't introduce any strong mechanics.
  It didn't have good synergy. It wasn't particularly elegant. It didn't
  have many of the qualities that we now judge a set's design by. (To be
  fair, the set was very flavorful, so it wasn't without any design
  merit.)

This reputation was further cemented when Wizards tried to "fix" Homelands' unpopularity by adding stupid rules forcing you to use Homelands cards to the first Pro Tour.

What I find surprising isn't so much that Homelands had all these problems but that the original Magic set (Alpha/Beta/Unlimited) largely didn't. Most of the design space of modern-day Magic can be traced directly to about 300 cards in ABU: direct damage, removal, countermagic, bounce, fast mana, mana ramp, card draw, card filtering, tutors, sweepers, tokens, reanimation, X-spells, even morph.

Now, Homelands was never really meant for stand-alone play; note the inclusion of Leeches, for instance, without any in-set poison cards. As a 1995 Duelist article explained:

  Legends also sparked a few key card ideas; in response to
  Serpent Generator and Pit Scorpion, for example,
  Scott and Kyle added an anti-poison card to the set — one of
  what would turn out to be a series of cards meant to help
  counteract various deck strategies.

But, even if you use the core set or previous expansions will make up for them, I think the gaps in the set are still noteworthy as reflections of the designers' general unpreparedness and confusion: Why are there no real burn or removal in Homelands? Because the designers just couldn't seem to get their heads around the role of those things in a game of Magic. Instead you've got way too many narrow cards that try to answer strategies that were mostly too weak to need "answers" anyway.

Overall, it has the feel of someone taking their "kitchen table" dynamic and turning it into a set. I think that's a reflection of the set being designed by folks who weren't really plugged into the ways Magic had developed as a strategic game.

I'm tempted to mark this question as subjective, but I suppose we can try and look at it from a more objective "what makes magic work" and how you define "bad" viewpoint.

What makes an expansion bad? I can think of two things: how it contributes to the limited environment (drafts, sealed deck tournaments) and how it contributes to the constructed environment (standard, extended, vintage, etc.)

So let's take a look at commons to evaluate how limited for Homelands is like. Ugh. Overcosted, low power creatures, quite often with significant drawbacks or costs for minimal abilities. As just one example, compare Samite Alchemist to that staple of original Magic: Samite Healer.

Now, Samite Healer was never that great to begin with. Two mana for a 1/1 body in white, tap to prevent one damage. So if he's blocking alone, it's like getting 1/2 body for two mana. Of course you could use the healer on other creatures for fancy combat tricks. Still, its impact is fairly minimal.

For Samite Alchemist, you have to pay two more mana for to get a 0/2 body, and to prevent 4 damage (not an insignificant amount, I concede) not only do you have to have two untapped plains to save it, but you also have to give up the use of that creature for next turn. If someone decides to use direct damage before your attack, to save it you must give up two turns of it not attacking.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to go through those commons and see how weak they all are. If I remember correctly, the only common to see significant constructed play was Serrated Arrows.

The Uncommons and Rares were also similarly weak and overcosted. The uncommon filter lands were terrible. Here is a list of Homeland cards on Gatherer rated 4 or better. Count 'em. Seven. Not sure how Didgeridoo snuck in there but I suppose it would work well with Changelings. :)

How do you judge an expansion as bad objectively? Well I suppose by the value of the cards, when it came out and over time. I remember when Homelands came out at the height of Magic's initial wave of popularity, and if I remember correctly, its print run quite outstripped demand. This also contributes to it being perceived as the worst expansion, as none of the cards really got to be worth much due to overprinting and low demand.


How compatible are the two versions of Netrunner? I have a stash of the original Netrunner game. If I were to play a game against someone with the Android:Netrunner game, what changes/adjustments would we need to make?

The powerlevel of cards has changed, quite a lot of cards from the original netrunner have been increased in cost or decreased in effect.

The main difference is that the new netrunner has factions and identities. When building a deck you are allowed as many neutral and your faction cards as you like, but you can only include up to 15 (normally) of other faction cards. Each identity has a influence allotment, minimum deck size and some ability. You are also only allowed 3 of a given card in your deck at most, in contrast to the original netrunner which had no limits.

Some key words have changed, Wall is now barrier. Black Ice is now Illicit, and gives a BadPublicity when rezzed. Icebreakers have types Fracter instead of Worm/Noisy and Decoder instead of nothing for Code-gate breakers. Icebreakers which can break any ice is now called AI, and a new Icetype of Trap exists, which currently no breakers can break, other than AI and special icebreakers matching Destroyer or AP keywords on the trap. These Trap ice self-destruct as part of their effect.

Base link cards have been removed from the game, now each runner identity has a base link on it (either 0 or 1). Traces are now open bid, with the corp bidding first. Trace(n) now means the trace starts from level n, and the corp can pay xC to boost this value by x. Then the runner takes their link (from base link + any from cards in play) and bids yC. If the values are equal the trace has failed, if the corp's values is higher than the runner's then the trace was successful.

Bad publicity is no longer a win condition, instead the runner gains 1C for each bad publicity the corp has at the start of each run. If these credits are not spent during the run, they are lost.

Virus counters are now placed on the virus, instead of being given to the corp. This means destroying the program will also remove the effects. Virus purging now requires 3 clicks to be spent, rather than forfeited. This means you cannot purge viruses easily without it taking your whole turn.

Agendas are now forfeited as a whole, rather than forfeiting agenda points.

Stealth has changed, there are no Noisy icebreakers any more. Instead stealth icebreakers get special benefits from spending credits from stealth cards.

Regions no longer have to be rezzed immediately when installed, but you are still not allowed more than 1 region per server at any time, rezzed or unrezed.

Because of these changes the cards aren't really that compatible balance-wise, but a lot of cards are the same so you could check to see what changes have been made and adjust accordingly. You could play a game with them easily enough, but it might not be very balanced!

Example of changes, increased cost, change in virus mechanics:

The icebreakers are generally less powerful at breaking big ice in Android Netrunner, so the very useful Pile Driver has no real equivalent in Android Netrunner.
 compared to  and

I know I'm late in answering this, but in original neterunner, loss of clicks persist through subsequent turns.
i.e. If you cause an an opponent to lose six clicks, two or three of those would carry over to your opponent's next turn.


Why was the banding ability 'removed' from MTG? What was so complicated about it? While the banding ability was never actually removed from the game, no cards have been printed that use the ability in any set following sixth edition and it has never appeared on any rules summary I've seen from the past several years. Why is this? I've heard it's because the ability was 'too complicated'. What exactly was so complicated about it that might have encouraged its extinction? What is a good situation/example that demonstrates why it was probably exiled from the game?

List of cards that reference the banding ability

Take it from the horse's mouth:

The short explanation of banding is that if your creatures attack or block in a band, the controller of any creatures that deal combat damage to them doesn’t get to assign that damage -- you do. Pretty cool. Everything else about banding, though, elicits a “huh?” It works differently when attacking and defending. (In an attacking band of X creatures, at least [X-1] of them must have banding. In a defending band, only one creature must have banding.) A lone blocker could block multiple creatures if they were banded together. If an attacker with evasion (flying, swampwalk, whatever) is banded to a creature without evasion, the whole band can be blocked. Then it gets really complex: What if the only defensive creature with banding is destroyed before damage is dealt? What if my band of three attacking creatures, one of which has trample, is blocked by your band of three defending creatures, one of which has first strike?
The only answer I can give you is, “I dunno.”

Banding was an ability that was flavorful and simple enough in the simple cases. But when you left the simple cases and got into more unusual situations, the rules suddenly became very complex, unintuitive, and opaque. You wind up with a mechanic that cannot be understood or accurately applied simply by reading the text on the card and applying your general rules knowledge. Instead, you have to know a whole bunch of banding-specific rulings, and hope you have a copy of the comp rules handy if it ever comes up.
And all of this complexity is maintained for a mechanic that rarely actually mattered. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is any card with banding that has ever been a tournament staple. Under these conditions, the best choice is the one that Wizards made, which is to let banding lay fallow and pretend the whole thing never happened.

I still don't get the difficulty. I don't know if this was just our house rule back in the day or if it was explicitly stated but everyone I knew back in Alpha and Beta days unless all creatures in a band contained a keyword ability then any who had that keyword lost it for the duration of the band.

So in the examples provided, the creatures with trample and first strike lost those abilities the instant they were added to the band. Also once the band is declared it lasts until the end of the turn, so if you take out the only creature with banding in a band the band remains.

The one complexity that existed which could have been completely removed by a rules update was it working differently on attack and defense, just make it so that they are the same requiring all creatures in a band but 1 to have banding regardless of whether you are attacking or defending.


How do Pitiless Plunderer and Bontu's Last Reckoning interact with each other? Would Pitiless Plunderer create treasure tokens if you had two other different creatures on the battlefield when a board wipe like Bontu's Last Reckoning is cast?

Yes.

Triggered abilities trigger once per event, and the trigger conditions defines the event.

"Whenever a creature dies" will trigger every time a creature dies.

Since Pitiless Plunderer is phrased similarly to this, it triggers twice.

"Whenever one or more creatures die" will trigger every time one or more creatures die simultaneously.

Since Pitiless Plunderer isn't phrased similarly to this, it doesn't trigger only once.


How can we avoid big money in casual games? My girlfriend and I have recently discovered the Big Money strategy in Dominion, and it's killing the game for us. We're not very competitive, so we don't want to spend a lot of time and effort trying to play even better than Big Money (as the answers to this question propose). But Big Money is so easy that it's hard to not just play it, and then we lose all the fun of the kingdom cards.

Are there any house rules we could add to simply keep us from being able to play Big Money, so that we can go back to casual games with plenty of kingdom card excitement? I know that if we really wanted to we could learn to play better than Big Money, but the games wouldn't be as fun and easygoing.

We also have almost all the Dominion expansions so we can use them.

For my suggestion of a house rule to use, please see the section of this answer titled "Embargo Counters".

If I understand correctly, you were learning the game naturally by playing it - it's just that at the current stage of learning it you have got to, it isn't very interesting, which makes it harder than it has been to carry on learning it simply by playing it.

So, it may be that all you need is to see, or be shown the strategies that are more powerful than Big Money in a natural way, so that you can have fun exploring them, rather than feeling forced into big money all the time.

As part of that I would draw your attention to this list; http://councilroom.com/openings. This is a compiled list comparing how good the first two opening moves are. Silver / Silver (so buying silver with your first and second purchase) is only rated as a +1 - there are 962 better opening moves. The best move involving silver at all is rated as a +4, with 86 possible openings rated as being better.

Similarly the Thief isn't especially powerful, and wont show up highly on the list above, but does actively and obviously combat BM. With no moat or other defence cards in play BM could look a lot less attractive with a Thief available, particularly if there are some action cards that give money, like festival and market out as an alternative.

My suggestions

You could intentionally play a few games with cards specifically from the top of this list (same as linked above), and set a house rule like those suggested in Jefromi's answer, my suggestion involving embargo counters at the end of this answer,  or those in other answers, to force you to experiment with these strategies, while still enjoying the game. You should find yourself exploring ways that beat BM anyway. I suggest you employ the lightest touch home rule you can find that does the job in pushing you both away from BM.

You shouldn't need to always play with any particular cards, or with house rules, but seeing and playing a deck built around the cards at the top of this list should help show most obviously and quickly that BM isn't the best strategy. And hopefully do so in an enjoyable way.

Play with others

Having a few games playing with other people - who know the game better than you do. You will hopefully quickly see a wider variety of strategies, without having to put effort into learning them. It might help to see a strategy like Chapel being played for example - it is one of the most powerful cards in the game, as you can see from it's presence in a fair number of the best openings in the list linked above, though you never want more than one, and it's power is not immediately obvious.

Prosperity

Lastly, the top answer here: How can I beat "Big Money" in Dominion? suggests counter intuitively that including cards from Prosperity advantages Kingdom Card strategies, because it slows the game down. - I realise that question isn't the question you are asking, but thought it'd be worth pointing out as a potentially subtle way to further disadvantage big money. That said, it probably wouldn't be enough on its own.

Embargo Counters

It might work to put a small number of embargo counters on each coin denomination at the beginning of the game, so that whenever a player buys one, they gain that many curses. This house rule has the advantages that it should make BM less attractive while not preventing certain other kingdom cards from working, it uses a game mechanic and it doesn't require constantly remembering that you aren't using the cards as printed.

The disadvantage of this home rule is that it could be too heavy handed, particularly at the start of the game (especially with certain setups; for example one that manages to combine no ability to trash curses with no alternative, low cost sources of purchasing power).

Fund the next Dominion purchase with a "swear jar"

Make yourself a cheat sheet of all the kingdom cards with two checkboxes (first and last) for each. When you play a game the first player to buy a particular kingdom card marks the first checkbox for that kingdom off, and the other player has to put a quarter in the swear jar. Similarly if a player buys the last kingdom card of a stack they mark off the last checkbox for that kingdom and the other player has to put a quarter in the swear jar.

This will give you an external stimulus to avoid big money, with the added benefit that doing so will fund your purchase of the next expansion of Dominion whenever it's released! Finally you get the slightly addictive "achievement" of being the first/last to buy each kingdom card.

And the best part is it doesn't significantly alter the gameplay, so when you have friends over and play with other people you'll be less likely to have picked up bad habits from playing with house rules!


Does Touch of Moonglove need another "this turn?" So, this question is pedantic, but still I must ask.

Here is the current oracle text for Touch of Moonglove:

  Target creature you control gets +1/+0 and gains deathtouch until end
  of turn. Whenever a creature dealt damage by that creature dies this
  turn, its controller loses 2 life.

Normally when card text discusses something dealt damage by a creature, it looks for "dealt damage by X this turn" (e.g. Abattoir Ghoul), or for a delayed trigger in a spell, it looks for "dealt damage this way" (e.g. Aggravate; not appropriate here because Touch of Moonglove doesn't deal damage).

So, I think a literal reading of Touch of Moonglove means it would apply to all creatures that have ever (in any turn) been dealt damage by the target creature as long as they die this turn. ("This turn" after "dies" I think can syntactically only apply to the duration of the delayed trigger.)

Clearly this is not the intended reading. If this was intended, it would perhaps be worded like Diseased Vermin ("previously dealt damage", but in this case probably worded something like "dealt damage this turn or previously dealt damage"). But, such a card has memory issues at the very least.

The correct wording is I think "Whenever a creature dealt damage by that creature this turn dies this turn, ...", but it is maybe a bit awkward.

Note that although damage is cleared at end of turn, the "dealt damage" clause cannot be understood to rely on marked damage. It should work with wither or infect which do not mark damage (and last beyond this turn), and I think it still works after regeneration or other effects that would remove marked damage (if it still dies later).

Note also that I am reading that "dealt damage" can refer to damage before Touch of Moonglove resolved. This could even be previous damage dealt "this turn," which is how I understand the card should work.

Is this criticism correct? Is this some reason that Touch of Moonglove doesn't need another "this turn?" Are there other cards with similar issues? (I didn't find any others yet.)

Given the Oracle wording on Bone Shaman (as pointed out by @ArcanistLupus in the comments), I would say it probably should have another "until end of turn".

Bone Shaman's Oracle text

  {B}: Until end of turn, Bone Shaman gains "Creatures dealt damage by
  Bone Shaman this turn can't be regenerated this turn."

Clearly someone at Wizards decided that Bone Shaman needed similar wording to be more clear as to the purpose of its ability.  I would guess that Touch of Moonglove's wording is just an oversight (or maybe whoever wrote Bone Shaman's Oracle text wasn't involved with Touch of Moonglove).

Ultimately though, as you've pointed out, the intent was obviously not to deal with all creatures damaged throughout the course of the game.  You could try to rules-lawyer it that way, but I doubt any reasonable judge or playgroup would allow it to happen.

No, Touch of Moonglove does not need another 'this turn'
Theoretically, damage dealt by a source to another source can be remembered across the game, because it's part of the game's history. However, for practical reasons, no card references damage dealt in previous turns without a system (e.g. counters), because it would be a large impediment to the game if players had to keep track of all instances of damage, even if they knew beforehand they might need it later.
The only exception is commander damage to opponents, which is remembered for the whole game, but only because every player knows beforehand to keep track of that damage, and it's only one card per player.
Wither and infect are kind of remembered through -1/-1 counters, but those don't count as "remembered damage". The counters could come from anywhere, could be removed, and, most importantly, those counters are damage results, not the actual damage:

119.4. Damage is processed in a three-part sequence.
119.4a First, damage is dealt, as modified by replacement and prevention effects that interact with damage. [..]
119.4b Next, damage that’s been dealt is processed into its results [..]

Marking damage on a creature is also a damage result, not the actual damage.


How to win at Nine Men's Morris I always find finishing off my opponent tricky in Nine Men's Morris.
If they have 3 pieces and can fly, how do I guarantee a mill to secure the win? What's the minimum number of pieces I can do this with?

You can't guarantee a win. In a 1996 paper called Solving Nine Men's Morris, Ralph Gasser describes how he used search techniques to determine that, given best play, the game of nine men's morris should end in a draw.

In figure 11 of that paper, he gives a graph of the percentage of won positions for the player to move, against the number of stones each has on the board. The highest percentage of won positions is 83% when the player to move has 3 stones against 3.

The data also reveals that a player with 3 stones left cannot force a win against an opponent with 6 or more stones left. Although many of those positions should still end in draws, rather than wins for the player with more stones.

A player is much more likely to be able to force a win when they have 7 or more stones left, than when they get down to 6. A player with 4 stones against 3 can only force a win if it is their go, and they can immediately make a mill.

All of this assumes two players who are playing completely optimally, which is not usually the case. In 1990 six games were played between the British champion Mike Sunley and a heuristics-based computer program. Two games were drawn and four were won by the computer.

There is a winning opening: Any corner of any quadron.
If opponent does not play same quadron, you follow the corners of the quadron until you have a double mill opportunity.
If opponent plays same quadron, proceed to next quadron with same strategy.
If opponent plays same quadron all 3 times, there is almost always a way to connect existing pieces to a double mill opportunity, unless opponent knows that, in which case he can block.

You are now way above beginner level.


Splitting the pot without showing hands Can the last 2  players in Texas Holdem agree to split  the pot equally after the river without showing their hands. is this legal or ethical?

This is a form of collusion, and would not be permitted in many casinos or tournaments according to their rules.

A home-game or less-reputable operation may make its own rules that allow this, but it would be considered very dodgy.

Legality does not typically factor, though anywhere in which it matters, either the entire game is illegal anyway or the operation already has rules to ensure they comply with law and regulation.

Each hand in Texas Holdem has players compete to win the pot, or the collection of chips being wagered in that game. Sometimes the pot will end up being split if the betting is extremely high and one player does not have as many chips as their opponents are betting. In this case multiple people can win a part of the pot, but there is still at least one loser in this situation.

There is no rule I am aware of that allows players in a hand to mutually agree to bow out of a hand, but depending on where you're playing this may be a house rule that has been agreed upon and in that case would be legal at the table it's being played at.

Ethics would involve whether or not all players are aware of this rule prior to the start of the game, and agreed to enforce it. If this rule was not brought up, or if not everyone agreed to play by this rule, then it would not be ethical for two players to support it.

In the general sense as each showdown between players is meant to have a loser, one (or more) of the players who are splitting the pot had a weaker hand than the other. In this case the winning player is voluntarily sharing his chips with the losing player, which is against the rules.


Looking for name of very old board-type game I do not remember if it is competitive, cooperative or solo game.

It is played with small cubes having a different marking on each side representing directions such as straight, turn, an X, diagonal, and two other symbols I don't recall.
The board has numerous square notches in it for the cubes to fit in. The notches are aligned in columns/rows similar to a chess board with connecting lines.
I do not know what the goal of the game is.
I know that the cubes can only be moved in the direction of the marking on the current face of it.
It's possible the game may even be ancient in origin.

I found the game in a book of games that no longer exist. There were diagrams of the game along with detailed playing instructions. I made a physical copy of the game about 20 years ago, but accidentally threw it out last year.
The book I found it in was one of those history-of-board-games books, but I do not remember the title and I've not found the game in other books of those type.

Its form is that of "Tigers and Goats" or "Tiger Move" (Bagha Chal), and its cell number indicates that it is a puzzle rather than a game, or  variant.


What should be used to represent creature tokens when the printed token card isn't available? Many spells or abilities cause one or more creatures to join the battlefield (i.e. 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens, 3/3 green Beast creature tokens, etc.). These token cards are not included with the cards that require them.

What do MtG players use instead to represent token creatures?

A quick search shows you can buy packs of such cards, but I'm wondering what convenient ways exist to represent these tokens without actually having to buy more cards?

I can cover what is legal and what is common, and you can hopefully determine what is "convenient". The MTG Tournament Rules dictate that you clearly represent your board state. This means:

You must be able to represent the tapped state of your token
You must be able to differentiate types of tokens
Tokens must not be in the same sleeves as the deck you are playing

This is under Section 3.8 of the Tournament Policy

  [...] Sleeves or card backs that appear similar to any player’s sleeves or card backs may not be used as markers. [...]

Notably, if you are playing without sleeves, you may not use an unsleeved Magic card as a token

I see no reason to ignore these rules for casual play. They aren't very limiting.

The most common legal method of representing a token, for those lacking the actual token card, is a plain face down card. Any card. If you control multiple types of tokens, it must be clear to both players which cards represent which tokens.

Some players use dice to represent tokens. Depending on what kind of dice you use, it can be difficult or impossible to tell whether a particular token is tapped or untapped. It's also unclear whether a "2" means "two tokens" or "one 2/2 token". You can overcome this by using dice that don't have rotational symmetry and by communicating clearly. I still advise against it because there are easier, clearer options (my opinion).

Representing a large number of tokens individually may not be feasible. In these cases, you can group tokens that have the same status using a single card with a numeric counter placed on top. Every token in the group must be identical. If some are tapped, or if some have summoning sickness, represent them as a separate group.

Yugioh cards find a creature card that represents the token it is supposed to be. You can buy one in playsets of 3 for 2$.


Returning to Origin city when Married Do you need to end your turn in the city with your origin marker in order to satisfy the condition on the Married status?

The status Married says, in part:

  After you have an encounter in another city, you must return to your home before you may end your turn in any other cities.

It is ambiguous as to whether or not you must end your turn in this home city in order for it to count, or if you may simply move over it with your movement (rolling your check for making babies on the way) and then proceed as normal.

On the one hand, nothing else in the game functions by just passing over a space, but on the other, many cards make reference to their effects happening only "after an encounter," while this one does not.

Yes you must end a turn in your origin city before you may end your turn in any other. Your interpretation is correct, this game does not care about the spaces you pass over as you move (aside from the movement speed, though that's between spaces technically), only the spaces you end your turn on.

"End your turn in any other cities" defines return as ending your turn in your home. Otherwise, it would say "end your turn in a city". This is standard English and board gaming terminology. None of the roughly fifteen people with whom I've played ever suggested otherwise.


What is the fastest MTG Mill deck that can be made? I have been working on putting together a Mill deck and it occurred to me that there are likely much faster Milling decks out there. So, what is the fastest Milling win condition that can be achieved?

Deck limitations: Standard 4-card limit, and all cards except those from the Un-sets (Unglued and Unhinged) are legal.

Goal: Fastest win by Milling

Other considerations: You have perfect luck (you always draw the cards you need), your opponent won't be doing anything to disrupt you, your opponent has a 60-card deck that is susseptible to milling (ie. doesn't have any of the "shuffle your graveyard into your library" cards)

Also, if this sort of question isn't appropriate for this site, please let me know.

Opening hand:

Leyline of the Void
Helm of Obedience
2 Dark Rituals
1 Swamp

Turn 1:
Start with Leyline of the Void on the battlefield. Play a Swamp, then a Dark Ritual. Use one black mana to play another Dark Ritual. You will now have BBBBB in your pool. Play the Helm of Obedience and activate it for 1 mana. Your opponent's entire deck will be milled out because none of the cards ever goes to the graveyard.

Had someone use this against me in MTGO once and it took me a minute to work out how it had happened. Takes some serious luck to get this going on Turn 1, but if you can pull it off, it's definitely fun.

What always works for me in my mill deck is having cards like Tome Scour, Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker or traumatize to mill a pretty good amount of their deck. In the meantime I have my fog banks and Kraken Hatchling doing a little blocking while I am searching my library for Consuming Aberration using Diabolic Tutor. I then use either Dying Wish or Rite of Consumption to sacrifice consuming aberration alowing to do damage equal to its toughness to the opponent.

Dead.


Thumbing with both hands Can we use both the hands while thumbing the coins in carrom board or are we limited to single hand only.

Under IV: How to strike in the official rules

  Any hand may be used in play.

Hand in this case is singular. This is somewhat clarified further down...

  The elbow of the playing “hand” shall not come within the playing surface nor shall extend beyond the imaginary lines of the arrows. The “hand” may, however, cross the arrow.

This indicates that there should only be one hand in use.

The rules also indicate what the other hand could be used for

  While making a stroke, taking support of the Stool or Chair, Stand or Table of the C/B or keeping the legs on the rim of the stand or table by the player is not permissible. However, hands may rest on his body and legs or on the rim of the stool or chair on which he sits.

Furthermore, if you wanted to make an analogy with cue-sports, there is almost always a rule against double stroking or push strokes, as the concept of a "stroke" is one single instantaneous point of contact. Carrom's definition gives some more leeway because we're using fingers instead of cue sticks, but the concept is still the same. Using two fingers undoubtedly results in striking the striker twice.

You can shoot with either hand and thumbing is allowed:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-thumbing-allowed-in-the-international-Carrom-game


How many Auras can enchant one Creature? I played Magic: The Gathering with couple of friends.
I was asked a question when we came to a situation where we could put two Auras on one Creature. Can one enchant a create with more than one Aura?

You can have any number of Enchantments attached to a given Creature, unless the cards themselves say otherwise.

It is applicable to creatures only. But for Global Enchantment based on the old rule of MTG from 4th to 5th edition, you can only play one enchantment per type per game. for Example, you can play one pestilence during the game and can no longer play another one while it's still in play (because it doesn't make sense right?). I never saw another rule out there that overrides this rule but I'm seeing a lot of players who does not abide by this rule.


Beetle movement clarification I took an image from another question and roughly repurposed it in paint. Here's my question:

Can a beetle move through gaps that would otherwise restrict a queen/ant/spider?

That is, can the circled beetle get to the desired field in 1 move (yellow track), or would he need to first climb over one piece (as illustrated in the red).

If that is legal, it brings me to my follow up question. Could the beetle move in the following way, or would it temporarily break the hive in between transition (1 hive rule) ?

It appears that here, the beetle would be in constant contact with the hive, even though that beetle is clearly the anchor.

Here is a quote from book Play Hive Like a Champion: Strategy, Tactics and Commentary by Randy Ingersoll with foreword by John Yianni, Designer of Hive.

According to section 2.2, page 6:

  Note that the ability to climb on
  the hive can be thought of as a circumvention of the Freedom
  to Move rule, but while moving on the same level the Beetle
  is subject to the Freedom to Move rule.

It is pretty clear, that contrary to Steve's answer, the yellow route is not a legal move.

There is also a good discussion of beetle move rules here

See similar question answered here

The beetle can use the yellow route. The rules expressly exempt the beetle from the "freedom to move" rule.

In re the 2nd question, that move would not temporarily break the hive, but it would not be legal. The rule on page 3 is that "[i]f a piece is the only connection between two parts of the Hive, it may not be moved."


How do Gatherer Rulings interact with existing rules? Many cards on gatherer have some amount of Gatherer Rulings (for example, Wild Evocation has quite a few).

Are these rulings just a shorthand and reminders of the relevant bits of the rules (i.e. if you knew the complete rules of MTG off-by-heart and how to apply them perfectly, then you would be able to derive everything in the Gatherer Ruling)? Or do these rulings fundamentally change the rules of MTG (i.e. the card would function differently if the rulings were not there)?

The rulings on Gatherer are simply applications of the Comprehensive Rules, taking what the card actually says and applying the rules. They don't change how cards work.

You could indeed deduce all rulings, but it's still incredibly helpful to provide them because the Comprehensive Rules are quite long and detailed and often abstract, so to most players it won't even be clear where to look for things, and of course if you're in the middle of a game you want a quick answer.

The rulings do also often clarify or explain the actual words on the card, that is, some of the deduction does also involve understanding English. For example, one of Wild Evocation's rulings is:

  If a player reveals a nonland card, that player must cast that card if it's possible to do so, even if he or she doesn't want to. ...

and that's because Wild Evocation says "the player casts it" not "the player may cast it." There's nothing in the comprehensive rules that's really going to explain that, it's just understanding what the words mean.

Typically they are just reminders or tips on how the interactions play out, but sometimes they are notices that the card works differently than how it is read. these are called "errata."

As an example, look at Impulse. Original printings said you shuffled your deck after putting cards on the bottom, but the errata removes that.


Good General Strategies for Agricola? What are some good general guidelines for strategies when playing Agricola? I know it will depend on the exact games, but are there any typical dos and/do nots?

John

Pat Ludwig has mentioned some good ideas. In my opinion, the four most important things are:

Decide and work towards your food strategy early. You need a solid plan to get food. This is the foundation that gives you the breathing space to do everything else. The first couple of turns feel relaxed, because it's ages before the first harvest. Don't let that fool you! Time constricts sharply in later turns, and what you do here can make or break your later game. Getting something planted by first harvest is usually a good idea.
Don't obsess over Occupations. Most of them will theoretically help you. However you probably can't easily play more than 3 without impacting other areas. Come up with a straightforward plan (also considering your Minors), and then prioritise ruthlessly.
Have a baby as soon as possible. Extra family members are the key to getting lots done.
Be flexible. The best strategy depends heavily on what the other players decide to do. If everyone else is grabbing animals, prioritise farming. If lots of wood is available, consider a building spree. Sometimes the Occupation square is occupied for long enough to render your plan worthless. Move on. Most people have a preferred play style. But the key to winning is to realise that you often won't be able to play the game according to your desires.

I try to get as many ppl as possible and at least 1 or each scoring category.