Reputation
13,989
Next tag badge:
92/100 score
10/20 answers
Badges
1 34 60
Newest
 Mortarboard
Impact
~220k people reached

13h
comment Are there simplified rules for Race for the Galaxy?
@HaoYe I suppose, but I'm a bit wary. It'll save you from having to plan ahead, but at the same time it'll introduce a ton of extra decisions since you'll have to decide every single turn whether you want to develop and settle. And if you include explore, you'll have to pick cards every turn, which I think is actually the hardest part - you have to read them all and think about your plans.
1d
comment Can Auras be moved between creatures?
Asking about downvotes often isn't terribly productive since the user who voted won't be notified about your comment. But my best guess would be lack of research effort (one of the things shown when you hover over the downvote arrow): It's something that's covered in the basic rules, and the Google results for things like "can you move auras mtg" answer this pretty directly
1d
comment How can we avoid big money in casual games?
@GendoIkari But the OP isn't trying to have almost-big-money games (single Smithy plus treasure) either. If you really think it's that simple, you can post it as an answer. But I think the upvotes on the question and the OP's explicit statements are a sign that it's not that easy. I know, the OP isn't thinking about the game the same way as you or I would, but that doesn't mean he's wrong or that it's easy to change.
1d
comment Can Auras be moved between creatures?
@SteveMangiameli Also note that these don't specifically say it can't be moved, they just explain that when you cast it you get to attach it to a creature. The reason you can't move it is exactly what diego said: this is all the rules say you can do.
1d
comment Can Auras be moved between creatures?
The thing that can move around between creatures, by the way, is Equipment.
1d
comment Can Auras be moved between creatures?
@SteveMangiameli If you have questions like this, the basic rules are really much better. There's a brief bit about auras early on in the rules, then the entry for "aura" in the glossary tells you pretty much exactly what it means, and it's all written to be much more understandable than the comprehensive rules.
1d
comment How Specific Does Card Naming Have to Be
@Waterseas Ah, okay. It's not relevant for searching a library or the OP's situation, but I guess you have to be consistent about it.
1d
comment How Specific Does Card Naming Have to Be
@Waterseas Really? You've still named a specific card. Are you saying that you can say "the front side of the double-faced Jace" but not "the double-faced Jace"?
1d
comment How can we avoid big money in casual games?
@GendoIkari Again, I don't think that really works. Without anything explicit, they're both still going to be playing to win, and both know that buying more treasure will let them do better. Without anything to keep them from doing that, every time they buy a card, they're going to be thinking, "okay, do I shoot myself in the foot this time?" and the game will be less fun and they'll be prone to just buying treasure anyway. "Just voluntarily do something you think will make you lose" is a hard way to play a game. (Or more simply: if that worked, they would've done it already.)
1d
comment Can you trade equipment between combat with multiple creatures?
Also, the usual fallback is to rule based on flavor, but in this case that's kind of hard. It already makes no sense that there are two investigators in the area and one is just standing there while the other fights off all the monsters. (I suppose you could say that the investigators are in some iffy hiding place until they move, and once they do, they get spotted... in which case it wouldn't make sense to be able to trade between combats.)
1d
comment Can you trade equipment between combat with multiple creatures?
I think I agree, by the letter of the rules, but it does feel like something that could've also been an oversight, and in the spirit of "the world is not nice to you in Arkham" it'd be fair not to allow this. (Most of the time it won't matter anyway; the one time when it really does is if you're worried the first monster might kill you and don't want to be holding all the items when that happens.)
1d
comment How can we avoid big money in casual games?
@GendoIkari I don't think it's really that simple; if they agree to not buy only treasure, they'll buy almost only treasure, so they'll have to restrict it a bit more, and so on, until they end up with bona fide house rules. Would it help if the OP instead said they had a rotating group of inexperienced players who all have heard of big money and are bright enough to play the thing that makes them win, and they want to put a stop to this?
2d
comment Does adding a subtype to a creature count as entering the battlefield?
The question I proposed as a duplicate is about adding a type (turning something into a creature) not a subtype, but the answer's the same: the object hasn't entered the battlefield.
2d
comment Understanding Haste
I've proposed as a duplicate a question that goes into a fair amount of detail about how the stack works and when you can do what. The answer to your specific question is an application of that, as mentioned in my first comment.
2d
comment Understanding Haste
In the current version of the basic rules the stack is discussed on page 10.
2d
comment Understanding Haste
@Steve I think you might want to go read in the basic rules about how the stack works. Once the killing spell is played, it's not at all too late to activate an ability. The spell goes on the stack, then you activate the ability in response (as the answer says) so it goes on the stack on top of the spell, and resolves before the spell does.
2d
comment How can we avoid big money in casual games?
Not only that, the OP explicitly said that the answers there don't work for them, because they're not looking to play competitively enough to figure out that level of strategy right now.
2d
comment Have I missed a trigger if I announce it but then forget to resolve it?
(I don't know if that's right, of course, but it does make some sense, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a judge did that or if eventually these rules were amended to say that putting it on the stack counts as demonstrating awareness.)
2d
comment Have I missed a trigger if I announce it but then forget to resolve it?
I think you could definitely read all this as I said: as a definition of the expected way that you demonstrate awareness of the trigger (i.e. taking that action or making that choice at this point in time is sufficient to count as acknowledging/resolving the trigger), without it ruling out other ways of demonstrating awareness. That makes the OP's situation into a simple illegal action (with some bits possibly being acceptable out of order sequencing), same as if you'd put an activated ability or spell on top of the stack then tried to resolve things beneath it on the stack first.
2d
comment Have I missed a trigger if I announce it but then forget to resolve it?
It looks like the TR quote is kind of at fault here; I guess it's using "would have" to imply "would have but hasn't", because otherwise, it's not saying anything at all about "without demonstrating awareness" etc and a literal reading of it would define all triggers to be missed even if they were correctly resolved.