Tales and legends or whatever sounded almost like planechase level tweaking.
Yes, Tales and Legends is pretty similar to Planechase: every so often you reveal a card that has some random effect. The small expansions like Cursed and Grand Dames of SmallWorld are just additional race/class chips. Underworld is actually a standalone game that follows most of the same rules.
As far as Euro games go, no. It's nowhere near the complexity of, say, Agricola or even Pillars of the Earth. The basic mechanics can very easily be explained in about 5 minutes.
Settlers has a reputation as a "gateway" game to draw people into "designer" boardgaming for just that reason.
But yea, it seems simple with a ton of randomization - was always a huge Cosmic Encounter fan, but the wife doesn't see the appeal to it - this sounds like Cosmic meets Risk in a fantasy setting - and she thumbs up'ed giving it a shot, so order done and en route.
Cosmic Encounter meets Risk is a pretty fair characterization of the game, actually.
Haven't watched the episode yet but I know they're playing Small World. The game is not particularly complex as far as strategy goes, which is probably why they chose it. A more advanced game just couldn't be reasonably explained in the time frame of 30 minutes or so along with all the other stuff they're trying to do.
• Members who have been guilty of ripping, posting malicious links or other very severe offenses, will under no circumstance be allowed back on MtG Salvation.
I think the question was more about people who have been banned only from Market Street for poor trading practices, yet still allowed to participate elsewhere on the site.
It remains an equipment because abilities that make things artifact creatures don't cause them to lose any types, supertypes, or subtypes they already had.
However, since it is a creature, it cannot be attached to anything. It will unattach itself immediately after the ability that makes it an artifact creature resolves (i.e. the first time state-based actions are performed.)
Since it is not possible for it to be attached to anything else while it's a creature, the second question is irrelevant.
See the other couple of threads on the front page regarding what happens when you remove Fiend Hunter from the battlefield while its ETB ability is still on the stack. The net result is that the chosen creature stays exiled permanently.
So my opponent cannot play instants/activate abilities before I untap my lands?
Players never get priority during the untap step. The earliest opportunity your opponent has to play anything during your turn is the upkeep step, after any "at the beginning of upkeep" abilities have been put on the stack.
Once you have paid the cost to play Blasphemous Act, changing the number of creatures on the battlefield will not affect it in any way. Spells don't check between being played and resolving to see if something about their costs changed.
This is one I've always been a little confused on and I'd like to get a little clarification between the difference of cards that say "put into play" things like Kaalia of the Vast and "cast for free" cards like Maelstrom Archangel.
My assumption is that "put into play" bypasses the stack, it goes from point A(your hand, your deck, your graveyard),to point B straight into the battlefield. Cast on the other hand uses all the normal card-playing mechanics, you just don't have to pay it's cost. It can be countered, the stack can be split-seconded, ect...
Is my assumption correct on this?
Pretty much, although I would take issue with your "the stack can be split-seconded" statement. Split second only stops players from playing spells and activated abilities while the spell with split-second is on the stack; as soon as that spell resolves, players get to play spells and abilities again before the next thing on the stack resolves.
For the helavault to even be used a creature has to already be on the battlefield.
The Fiend Hunter is on the battlefield.
It can't exile a creature that isn't there yet.
Agreed, but not relevant to the situation.
Ergo, there is no stack for the helavault to prevent the 2nd ability of the FH from happening.
I don't understand what you mean by this sentence.
I can see preventing the first ability from targeting something, but since the helavault can't target the FH till after it resolves and is a legal target, it would be to late to prevent the 2nd from being activated.
To be clear, nothing is being "prevented" from triggering here. Both abilities on Fiend Hunter are triggering, and both are resolving. The important point is that the leaves-the-battlefield ability resolves but does nothing because there is no exiled creature for it to return to the battlefield.
The way i read this is that the helavault is being allowed to target a creature before it becomes a legal target.
That's not happening here. The Fiend Hunter is a creature, and it's on the battlefield, therefore it's a legal target for Helvault.
I think the point of your confusion is that the Fiend Hunter spell has already resolved and the creature is on the battlefield. Its enters-the-battlefield triggered ability is what's on the stack. The Fiend Hunter spell and its triggered ability are not the same thing.
So, basically, you are saying that as the Hunter enters the battlefield, he MUST target another legal target, even if he himself is the only legal target?
Yes. The presence of the word "another" means the Fiend Hunter can't target itself, but you must choose a legal target for the ability if one is available.
I understand that he would not have to exile himself, but I really don't see the difference between not targeting himself and not exiling himself after targeted, except that if you are playing with M12 illusions and you play a Fiend Hunter you run the risk of screwing yourself.
The key difference is when the decisions are made. Targeting decisions are always made when a spell or ability goes onto the stack. Other decisions (like whether to exile the creature because it's a "may" ability) are made on resolution.
And yes, the example situation you presented is one where this distinction is important.
Quick question on this. I don't understand how the helavault can react to an ability of the fiend hunter after it enters the battlefield to prevent it from reaching the battlefield.
It's not "preventing it from reaching the battlefield." It's simply removing it from the battlefield before the ETB ability resolves.
The ability to exile comes after the FH enters the battlefield, not as a function of the card being cast. I could understand this sequence working if the creature being exiled happened at point of casting due to the stack.
If that were true, then the ETB ability would never trigger in the first place.
So we go through the whole process of using the ETB step of FH and putting various effects on the stack to respond. At the end of all of it the net result is that the FH leaves the battlefield thus activating the 2nd ability of the card, returning the orignal exiled creature back to the field.
No, because the leaves the battlefield ability resolves first, returning nothing (because nothing has been exiled yet).
This to me seems like a SBA action and not something that can be prevented. Stack not withstanding.
State-based actions have absolutely nothing to do with anything going on here.
It pretty much is true. If it can target something, it must.
"May" means that you do not HAVE to target something.
No, it means you don't have to exile the thing you target when the ability resolves. You still much choose a legal target if one is available.
You are not required to exile one of your own creatures if your opponent has nothing you can target. You simply choose not to place that triggered ability on the stack.
No, you can't just choose not to place the ability on the stack. The ability goes on the stack even if there are no legal targets whatsoever; in that case, it is immediately removed from the stack once the game realizes it can't target anything.
If there are any legal targets at the time the ability goes on the stack, you must choose one. When the ability resolves, you can choose not to exile that creature thanks to the "may."
All combat damage is dealt simultaneously, then state-based actions destroy any creatures with lethal damage.
Yes, Tales and Legends is pretty similar to Planechase: every so often you reveal a card that has some random effect. The small expansions like Cursed and Grand Dames of SmallWorld are just additional race/class chips. Underworld is actually a standalone game that follows most of the same rules.
As far as Euro games go, no. It's nowhere near the complexity of, say, Agricola or even Pillars of the Earth. The basic mechanics can very easily be explained in about 5 minutes.
Settlers has a reputation as a "gateway" game to draw people into "designer" boardgaming for just that reason.
Cosmic Encounter meets Risk is a pretty fair characterization of the game, actually.
I think the question was more about people who have been banned only from Market Street for poor trading practices, yet still allowed to participate elsewhere on the site.
However, since it is a creature, it cannot be attached to anything. It will unattach itself immediately after the ability that makes it an artifact creature resolves (i.e. the first time state-based actions are performed.)
Since it is not possible for it to be attached to anything else while it's a creature, the second question is irrelevant.
Players never get priority during the untap step. The earliest opportunity your opponent has to play anything during your turn is the upkeep step, after any "at the beginning of upkeep" abilities have been put on the stack.
Pretty much, although I would take issue with your "the stack can be split-seconded" statement. Split second only stops players from playing spells and activated abilities while the spell with split-second is on the stack; as soon as that spell resolves, players get to play spells and abilities again before the next thing on the stack resolves.
Otherwise, you're right.
The Fiend Hunter is on the battlefield.
Agreed, but not relevant to the situation.
I don't understand what you mean by this sentence.
To be clear, nothing is being "prevented" from triggering here. Both abilities on Fiend Hunter are triggering, and both are resolving. The important point is that the leaves-the-battlefield ability resolves but does nothing because there is no exiled creature for it to return to the battlefield.
That's not happening here. The Fiend Hunter is a creature, and it's on the battlefield, therefore it's a legal target for Helvault.
I think the point of your confusion is that the Fiend Hunter spell has already resolved and the creature is on the battlefield. Its enters-the-battlefield triggered ability is what's on the stack. The Fiend Hunter spell and its triggered ability are not the same thing.
Yes. The presence of the word "another" means the Fiend Hunter can't target itself, but you must choose a legal target for the ability if one is available.
The key difference is when the decisions are made. Targeting decisions are always made when a spell or ability goes onto the stack. Other decisions (like whether to exile the creature because it's a "may" ability) are made on resolution.
And yes, the example situation you presented is one where this distinction is important.
It's not "preventing it from reaching the battlefield." It's simply removing it from the battlefield before the ETB ability resolves.
If that were true, then the ETB ability would never trigger in the first place.
No, because the leaves the battlefield ability resolves first, returning nothing (because nothing has been exiled yet).
State-based actions have absolutely nothing to do with anything going on here.
It pretty much is true. If it can target something, it must.
No, it means you don't have to exile the thing you target when the ability resolves. You still much choose a legal target if one is available.
No, you can't just choose not to place the ability on the stack. The ability goes on the stack even if there are no legal targets whatsoever; in that case, it is immediately removed from the stack once the game realizes it can't target anything.
If there are any legal targets at the time the ability goes on the stack, you must choose one. When the ability resolves, you can choose not to exile that creature thanks to the "may."