Victimize with Noxious Ghoul and opponent's Murder I play Victimize targeting some creature I have. Victimize resolves and returns Noxious Ghoul and some other creature with an ETB triggered ability to the battlefield at the same time. Both my creatures triggered abilities trigger and I choose to let Noxious Ghoul's triggered ability trigger first. In response to the first triggered ability, my opponent chooses to Murder my Noxious Ghoul. Noxious Ghoul's triggered ability will still be on the stack, but will my other creature trigger Noxious Ghoul's triggered ability giving non-zombie creatures -2/-2 instead of -1/-1?

Creatures entering the battlefield at the same time cause each other's abilities to trigger. Triggering Noxious Ghoul's ability requires either itself or another card of the Zombie creaure type to enter the battlefield - if the other creature isn't a Zombie, only Noxious Ghoul will trigger it's own ability.

That said, assuming the other creature is a Zombie, both abilities trigger at the same time, along with any other ETB abilities that might trigger. Then, those abilities are put on the stack in APNAP (active player, non-active player) order, and for each player in the order of their choosing. Only at that time can players cast spells or activate abilities.

Abilities on the stack exist independent from their sources. If Noxious Ghoul's ability triggered twice, destroying a creature on the battlefield won't remove the ability from the stack. Unless it's countered by something like Stifle, both abilities will resolve, giving non-Zombie creatures a total of -2/-2 until end of turn.


What happens when I copy a creature whose characteristics change before the copy resolves? If I cast a spell to copy a target creature and then a second spell is put on the stack, say one which changes the creature to a 0/1 red Weird. What creature does the copy spell create?

Only the printed text will be copied, unless the other spell was also a copy effect. It doesn’t matter if another effect changes the to-be-copied creature’s stats or abilities.

  706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

This works this way because of the layer system that controls how different continuous effects work together. When determining what an object currently looks like, the copy effect is applied first, and the other changes made are applied after.

  Interaction of Continuous Effects

    613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:

      613.1a Layer 1: Copy effects are applied. See rule 706, “Copying Objects.”

      613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.

      613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”

      613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.

      613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.

      613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.

      613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.


Catan: Hiding Development Cards When me and my friends normally play Catan, no one reveals the number of resource cards  they are holding in their hands (which is legal according to the rulebook).

Is it also legal to hide Development Cards after you get them in order to not let others count them? Say in your pocket? Or, should all the cards be kept in the hand or on the table, visible to everyone ?

You can NOT hide the number of resource cards that are in your hand, so the premise in your question is incorrect.

From the rules, page 8, under Knight Cards:

  However, you can always ask players about the number of cards they hold.

And from the Official FAQ:

  Resource Cards - Am I obligated to tell my opponents the number of Resource Cards in my hand?

    Yes.

This combined with the rule

  Keep your development cards hidden (in your hand)

suggests that the number of development cards is also public.

While the rulebook and FAQ are not completely clear on this point, it seems to be the logical conclusion based on those other rules. Whenever I have played, players generally keep unplayed development cards face down in front of them, as keeping them in your hand would cause problems when cards are being stolen, or when counting how many resource cards you have, etc. Knowing which players have how many unplayed development cards is usually an important part of the strategy.


What has been the evolution or progression of traitor/betrayal/defector games? What has been the evolution of games with a traitor/betrayal/defector element? I remember what seemed like decades ago mention of party games like Mafia, Assassin, and as I re-enter the tabletop arena, I see a number of games like Resistance, Werewolf, Battlestar Galactica, Dead of Winter.

Does someone have an interesting historical perspective on the evolution of these games and their mechanics starting from whenever they may have gained momentum, showed similar or copycat mechanics, started branching into different mutations of the mechanic?

These days Mafia is renowned as the worst game in the mafia genre.  The unifying element behind all of these is the hidden information about player allegiance.  It was an interesting mechanic in mafia, but the issue with mafia was that it had player elimination, so players spent a statistical third of the game sitting around doing nothing.  Another issue with mafia is that it was really only good with large numbers of players.  Board game designers being who they are adapted the hidden team mechanic to create better behaved versions of mafia, or include mafia like elements in various games.

Games like Resistance, Avalon, One Night Werewolf, Two Rooms and a Boom, etc. are all trying to address the fundamental problem that mafia had a great concept with a rather poor implementation of it.  (Werewolf proper is just a mafia reskin.)

Games like Battlestar the Boardgame and Shadows over Camelot are trying to include this in a set of broader mechanics to have the game have more intrigue than just a fully cooperative game (such as Pandemic) or a many vs. one game (such as Descent).


Rule clarification about debt mechanics I just bought the "Dominion Empires" expansion (German edition) and have a question about the debt mechanics.

According to the rules, when I buy a card with a certain debt value, I need to take the corresponding number of debt markers. The rules then state, that I can repay my debts at any time, including "right away".

How do I repay my debts "right away" after taking the debt markers? Since I had to take the debt markers as part of my buying phase, I can no longer play cards from my hand.

So as far as I understand the repayment of debts "right away" would need to be done with money cards I already played but which I did not use to buy something (so to say the "change left over" from my buy).

Is that assumption correct?

It is a common mistake to think of treasure as cards you play in order to buy something. Instead, it is important to remember that playing a Treasure card is almost just like playing an Action card that produces coin when played (such as Market or Legionary). Playing a Silver simply adds $2 to your pool of coins you can spend this turn, just like playing a Market adds $1.

So at the start of your buy phase, you will play all the Treasure cards you want to play this turn (which more often than not is just all of the Treasure cards in your hand). Then you will buy the card or cards that you want, and if you have leftover coin after doing so, you can use it to pay off debt.

This has the practical effect of being able to spend $4 to buy an Engineer just as if it cost $4 instead of 4 debt; but the actual steps you are taking is to first buy Engineer for $0, taking 4 debt, and then spending $4 to pay off that 4 debt.


What is a good way to get used to counting points? Being able to count is important - in the end, it's about the points. Does anyone have any tips to get used to counting during a game, little things that can speed it up or make it a little less tedious in the beginning?

The advice I have heard most is to count in pairs.  The human mind can easily count groups of around four objects, and so it may be beneficial to eventually move to counts of fours, but pairs tend to be easier in my experience.  Count a dead stone as one pair, and if you see a lone empty spot, just mark that in your mind and continue, removing the mark and adding a pair once you see another lone empty spot.

Once you have your count for one colour, either subtract that number from 50 (or 100, if there's a lot of empty room), or start counting down.  Otherwise, you are very likely to forget the score you counted, making you start all over again.

Another useful trick is to simply balance large pieces of territory against each other, and then count what's left;  this is less accurate, but in the mid-game speed may be more important and you may be unable to give good estimates, anyway.  Make sure to multiply the value of an area by the probability of the player keeping it;  a good way to do this automatically is to count in threes or fours when looking at large areas that are very likely to be invaded.

A fairly obvious trick is to count in your opponent's time; however, be careful that you still count the effect of your move before you play it (if possible), and not afterwards.  Especially in the yose, if you have time, try to count how many points a move will cost.  In many cases, you may find that taking sente may be worth more than responding to the opponent's move.

Finally, if you happen to have trouble keeping track of the score, consider learning binary;  it'll let you count to 1023 on your fingers, which should be enough for most games. :)


Betrayal at House on the Hill: Haunt 2: The Séance During the Séance Haunt, the hero's summoned the Ghost and started traveling around to complete their quest.

The traitor then, attacked and killed the Hero who completed the Séance.

Does this mean the Hero's fail their quest because the Turn/Damage track can no longer progress?

The rules say, "Set up the Turn/Damage track with a plastic clip on 1. At the end of each subsequent turn of the player who completed the Séance, advance the clip to the next number on the track. You have until the start of the Turn 5 to bury the Ghost's bones."

For the heroes, there are two ways to win:

  they either defeat the ghost after the traitor takes control of it, or they burry the ghost's bones after they summon it.

They have 5 turns to find and bury the bones. The track marker advances after the players turn. If that hero is dead but other hero's are alive, you just advance the marker at the time the dead hero should have had his or her turn.

So no the heroes only lose if the last one of them died.


Tsumego intermediate problem 11 - possible without winning ko two times? This tsumego (intermediate problem 11) gave me hard time:

I actually only found a solution where black must win the ko two times, which is nasty. Is there a better solution?

It actually looks like "bent 5" :-)

My solution here:


How can I recognize games I should avoid buying if I only play with non-hardcore gamers? I started with this question about good games for new players and got plenty of good answers. But now I want to look at things from the other end and figure which games I should definitely avoid.

I was thinking about buying Power Grid, Puerto Rico, and Arkham Horror to play with my family because they have tons of good reviews and are widespread. But when I asked if they would be a good choice at our local game store I was told to steer away from them due to complexity, and it seems there aren't many reviews on the complexity of games and friendliness to new people.

I love board games to death, and when I see a 40 page manual I think 'bring it on!' and have no trouble sitting there for a half hour learning to play the game.  Many of my friends aren't as hardcore, and they start to get bored if we don't get started in 15 minutes.

What are some good ways to recognize if a game is probably not suitable for non board game enthusiasts? The outside of the box is usually unhelpful, and it can be difficult to figure this out before actually buying the game. Sadly I don't live very near a board-game store, so I can't try all of them out. If you list a game, please include why it doesn't meet the criteria, how this can be recognized, and its implications for the game.

Instead of going on to list one game after another I'll try to find some common points to help you out. I'd say there are three main factors in what might put off less hard-core gamers:

Upfront intimidation (should resolve during first game)
Continuous complexity (remains an issue indefinitely)
"Obscure effects" (should resolve after one or two games)

"Puerto Rico" is a good example of "Upfront intimidation". If you take the time to read the rulebook upfront that's gonna be a huge time investment. For many casual players that might be intimidating having to remember all of it. Having "Lots of bits and pieces" also falls into this category. For some that's a turn on for other's not so much.

"Agricola" is much faster to explain upfront but much more complex during gameplay. Handling all those bits and pieces, making sound decisions and trying to form some semblance of a strategy challenged me big time even after several solo games. There are so many different aspects to keep track of, that it requires a lot of concentration.

"El Grande" would be a good example for what I classified as "obscure effects" (to your choices). The game does not have much of upfront reading nor too many continuous choices. The problem is that it usually takes a few turns before your choices have their effect on your score. Some players don't really mind playing along and waiting to see what they get but others will find it frustrating. Especially in the beginning. This is something you can only find out through reviews or first hand experience.

Boiling it down to a few signs to watch out for: Avoid games that...

have lots of material. (The more abstract the material the worse it is)
take close to or more than 90 minutes. (Anything above that is either complex or boring)


What happens in Catan junior if you have to pay out a resource from your own pile to another player, but you don’t have that resource? What happens in Catan junior if you have to pay out a resource from your own pile to another player, but you don’t have that resource?

When you roll a dice and you have to give some to another player as they have lairs next to another island.
Thanks

Quick disclaimer, I've never played this game before but as the rules are only 6 pages long it was worth reading rules and seeing if I could find the answer.

Looking at the rules here I cant find any references to having to give players resources from your own pile.  There doesn't appear to be any stealing like in Normal Catan.

Instead it looks like you might have misinterpreted the following on page 4.

  Because you rolled the die, you must give your fellow players
  any newly earned resources from the stockpile.
  Look at the picture below. You are the white player and roll a
  “4.” You and the red player each have a pirates’ lair next to the
  sugar cane island with a “4,” so you each get a molasses tile.
  A treasure cave island is also marked with a “4,” so you must
  give the blue and the orange pirates 1 cutlass tile each.

The stockpile appears to be just a general supply by the board (as described on page 2 under 'resource tiles'.  The way these rules are wrote its implying that the player rolling the die is responsible for giving other players resources they are entitled to. I believe the line "must give the blue and orange pirates" means give them from the stock pile not your own pile.  I think if it was your own pile that would be more explicitly stated and all new resources always come from stock pile.

So in answer to the question what happens if a player cant give a resource they need to I would say that is an impossible situation that should never happen.


How do major online game stores set Magic: the Gathering card prices? I understand complete answers might not be public, but is there any public information on how major sites (like StarCityGames, TCGPlayer, Abu, etc), price their cards?

In particular, since the prices fluctuate often and there are a huge number of cards, I assume there is some automation, so I'm interested in any algorithms they might be using. I'm looking for references or insider perspective, not just speculation.

I think is highly unlikely that you'll get an "insider" answer here. Your main question is:

"Is there any public information on how major sites price their cards?"

And an straight forward answer would be: No. Wizards of the Cost does not set prices on ANY card, it all comes down to how much people pay, supply and demand. Whenever a new set releases, I'd say there is some sort of standard pricing depending on the card rarity. This is why, very close to the release, you see most Planeswalkers cost around $20, and then those with a high demand go to around $40-$50 pretty quickly. It is with time and use of the cards, demand or performance of different decks, that prices settle at some point. For a while at least. It is easy to predict, for example, that the fetchlands that are now in standard are going to see their prices go through the roof once Khans rotates out of the format.

As for automation, TCG has a price aggregator (think on how pricegrabber.com works), and they get information from different sources. They are not actually pricing anything, just showing you lowest prices. Most of this information (think of services that provide them) are public (for a price). So, technically, you can study the behavior on the price of different cards and kind of "predict" prices of similar, future cards, with some margin of error. At the end, the price of a card depends on perception of the value it can have on a given deck. And this is pretty hard to put on code.


Is 5 a maximum number of buildings in Stone Age? On the player board there are 3 spaces for tools. Player can't have more than 3 tools at the same time (permanent tools). There are 5 spaces for buildings. Therefore, I assumed 5 is a limit of huts a player might own. Is that correct?

No, there is no limit to the number of huts a player can have. The space on the board is simply done that way for design; you do not have to put 1 hut in each space.

From the rulebook, page 7:

  The player places the acquired building on one of the corresponding spaces of their
  board. Once a player has more than 5 buildings, he stacks them on these spaces.


Wall of Frost vs a cyphered Hidden Strings My mate just attacked with 2 creatures. One is unblockable and has Hidden Strings as a cypher on it. The other has been blocked by Wall of Frost, which now doesn't untap next untap step. Can hidden strings untap it?

We are assuming it can.

Yes it can because Wall of frost says:

  Whenever Wall of Frost blocks a creature, that creature doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.

But it doesn't say anything about untapping by another way.


Can I make a card that places a +1/+1 counter on an enchantment that isn't a creature? Say I want to create a card that places +1/+1 counters on non-creatures:

Egzampla 1R
Creatures - Human Wizard
1/1
When Egzampla enters the battlefield, place +1/+1 counter on target enchantment.

Is such an effect legal (so to speak), and is it considered good or bad practice from design standpoint?

There is nothing in the rules that disallows counters from being on particular permanents. This means that +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters (or as in your title, 0/-1 counters) can be on artifacts, lands, planeswalkers or enchantments. Additionally, there is no rule that stops those counters from being placed, although the number of scenarios where that will happen are pretty few and far between.

Example of a non-creature permanent with a +1/+1 counter on it: I crew my Heart of Kiran, then cast Oath of Ajani, putting a +1/+1 counter on each of my creatures. At the end of the turn, Heart of Kiran will no longer be a creature, but it will still have a +1/+1 counter on it. The introduction of vehicles to the game makes this a fairly common occurrence now, but even before it would happen often with lands, artifacts, or enchantments that had a way to become a creature temporarily.

Example of a spell that puts +1/+1 counters on a non-creature permanent: Earthen Arms. The obvious intention is that you either put the counters on a creature, or cast the spell with awaken and get the extra counters on the land you "wake up". There is nothing stopping you from using this spell to slap +1/+1 counters on a non-awoken land, or enchantment, or planeswalker, or anything else however.

Example of a non-creature that has a +1/+1 counter on it, and isn't meant to become a creature by itself: Llanowar Reborn gets a +1/+1 counter as it enters the battlefield, but isn't a creature, and doesn't have an ability on it that allows it to become a creature.

Note that the same thing works in reverse: counters that normally belong to some other permanent, or permanent type, can end up on a creature that doesn't "know" how to use them, given the right circumstances.

Example of counter weirdness, a non-planeswalker permanent with a loyalty counter on it: I activate Gideon, Ally of Zendikar's +1 loyalty ability, turning him into a creature until end of turn. I then activate Experiment Kraj's ability targeting Gideon to put a +1/+1 counter on him, giving Kraj all of his activated abilities. I can now activate Gideon's +1 loyalty ability on Experiment Kraj to give it a loyalty counter (and turn it into a 5/5 human soldier ally creature with indestructible, and prevent all damage that would be dealt to it this turn). When Gideon stops being a creature, Kraj will no longer have his loyalty abilities, but will still have the loyalty counter, with no real way to use it (at least, until it somehow gains loyalty abilities again).

ADDENDUM: Good or bad practice? As you can see, there are a few official cards that can put counters on non-creatures, and that have no intention of turning those non-creatures into creatures.

However, doing ANYTHING on a card without a reason is usually poor design by default, so I can't tell you whether or not your card is poor design without knowing the context. In a vacuum I can say that I think it's awful design, because it is a line of text that does nothing (if you wanted it to only be able to put counters on Enchantment Creatures, you would just have it say "target Enchantment Creature" after all). If it existed in a set where enchantments were prone to becoming creatures, it makes a little more sense, but I would still feel iffy about that as a design paradigm overall; there's a term, "parasitic mechanic", which refers to mechanics that only work within a single set. Placing counters on enchantment permanents is a VERY parasitic mechanic so you'd need a very good justification to convince me that it's good design.

That said, quality of design is at least a little bit subjective, so there's no true yes-or-no answer to whether or not it's a good or bad idea.


Kemet: Controlling another Player's pyramid and Victory point It is clear that when you capture another player's pyramid you gain the ability to use that pyramid and also the temporary victory point.

If you willfully abandon the pyramid by moving the occupying troop, does the player who's city the pyramid resides in automatically gain control of the pyramid.  Do they automatically get the temporary victory point back?

A more summary question might be:  Does a player who has a pyramid with no units on it in his home city automatically control the pyramid?

Yes, a player who has a pyramid with no units on it in his home city automatically controls the pyramid.

Here's some supporting threads from BGG.  Look at the second (italicized) line.

From BGG "Kemet Supplementary Rules"
(emphasis mine)

  Pyramids: A zero level pyramid means no pyramid is present. You control any pyramid in your city that is unoccupied. You control any
  pyramid in an enemy city where you are in sole occupation, and may
  upgrade it (getting its temporary VP) and/or use it to buy tiles of
  that color and teleport from it.

This is also backed up by the "City Control Question" thread.


Can I Stifle Heritage Druid's ability? Heritage Druid lets you tap three elves you control to add GGG to your mana pool. Stifle counters activated or triggered abilities. My question is...  if I use Heritage Druid to tap three elves and then that ability is countered are the elves still tapped?

You cannot Stifle Heritage Druid's ability since it is what is called a mana ability

  605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets all of the following criteria: it doesn’t have a target, it could put mana into a player’s mana pool when it resolves, and it’s not a loyalty ability

  605.3b An activated mana ability doesn’t go on the stack, so it can’t be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated.

If instead of the Heritage Druid's ability if your opponent was trying to Stifle Imperious Perfect's activated ability your Perfect and lets say the Forest you tapped for the {G} would remain tapped.

  701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard.

  701.5b The player who cast a countered spell or activated a countered ability doesn’t get a “refund” of any costs that were paid.


Do cards like Giant Growth create a one-shot or continuous effect? I'm curious as to how a card like Giant Growth works. I'm not sure if the effect on it is a one shot effect, a continuous effect, or something else.

If I had to guess, I think it works as follows: When Giant Growth (legally) resolves, a one shot effect is enacted. This one shot effect generates a continuous effect that lasts until end of turn and while the continuous effect lasts, the continuous effect gives the targeted creature gets +3/3.

Can one clarify as to whether or not I am correct, or if not, explain what really happens?

Not quite correct. It is just a simple continuous effect.

  611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects
  players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

  611.2. A continuous effect may be generated by the resolution of a spell or ability.

So Giant Grown resolving generates a continuous effect. No one-shot effect happens:

  610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destruction a permanent, putting a token onto the battlefield, and moving an object from one zone to another.

"Getting +3/+3" is a continuous effect, not something that just happens at one moment in time. This can also be seen in the examples listed under the Continuous Effects section of the rules:

  611.2c ... Example: An effect that reads "All white creatures get +1/+1 until end of turn"...


Playing Pathfinder ACG with all adventure deck cards in early scenarios My fiance and I just finished playing the Pathfinder ACG through all of the adventure decks and are thinking about getting started again with all new characters from the beginning.

The question we were debating about was whether or not to keep all of the cards from the later adventure decks together or to remove the cards that come after the scenario we're currently playing.  I feel like the game was relatively easy the first time through and it might add some challenge to have a random powerful bane appear in an early scenario.

Is there a particular rule to this or is it just up to the players to decide what they're up for?

There is no official rule or FAQ per se. On page 19 of the rule book it gives some guidance on what to do after you have completed all the adventures.

I have read on other forums that some do go ahead, adding cards from other adventure decks, but that this will make the game more difficult.


Using an existing Canasta to pick up the discard pile I understand that you can pick up the top discard (and then the whole discard pile) if the pile is not frozen, and the top card matches a meld you have on the table.

I have some friends who play that you cannot do this if the meld is already a canasta. That makes a matching card a much safer discard - the opponent could conceivably still take the pile with matching cards from their hand, but if they already have a canasta of the same cards on the table, this is much less likely.

Any opinions, or definitive rules on this?

Yes, you can add to a Canasta just like you can add to any other meld.

Source:

  Additional cards may be added to a canasta to score their point values, but these do not affect the bonus - except that a wild card added to a natural canasta reduces it to a mixed canasta.

Other rules sources aren't as straight-forwardly clear on that point, but they say you can add to a meld on the table, and a Canasta is defined as a meld of 7 or more cards.


Can I begin a turn when there is only 1 card remaining in the player deck? If my role (let's say the Scientist) has 4 cards of the same color but was not able to get to a research station.  And, let's say a different player (the Operations guy) lands on the same city as the Scientist and in his last action he builds a research facility in that city. The Scientist is now in the city with the research facility, but just as it is now the Scientist's turn, there is only 1 card remaining in the player deck.

Did the team run out of time?

Technically, as the player's turn begins with actions, the Scientist can cure the last disease before having to draw the 2 cards which would result in the game ending--except that the cure had been placed on the board ending the game in a win.

So, can a turn begin when there is only 1 card in the player deck, or must there be 2?

The game ends when you have to draw cards and there are not enough.

If, as you are about to draw, there are fewer than 2 cards left in the
Player Deck, the game ends and your team has lost! (Do not reshuffle
the discards to form a new deck.)

But you perform your actions first:

Each player turn is divided into 3 parts:

Do 4 actions.

Draw 2 Player cards.

Infect cities.

Reference to the rules.
So even if the deck is empty, if you win the game before the draw phase, you win.


Wording on Volrath's Shapeshifter I was surprised to see that the wording on Volrath Shapeshifter is not just old card text, but the actual oracle wording. I am curious, why does it not simply copy the the other creature, and have that ability added?

Instead of

  As long as the top card of your graveyard is a creature card, Volrath's Shapeshifter has the full text of that card and has the text "2: Discard a card." (Volrath's Shapeshifter has that card's name, mana cost, color, types, abilities, power, and toughness.)

why isn't it

  As long as the top card of your graveyard is a creature card, Volrath's Shapeshifter is a copy of that card except it gains "2: Discard a card."

The latter wording is used by lots of cards such as Evil Twin or Progenitor Mimic. Is there a functional difference between the 2?

In fact, I just now noticed that older version of the card DO use the "copy" wording. So there must be a good reason for the change!

Related question, what exactly happens when the top card of the graveyard changes? The wording "As long as the top card of your graveyard is a creature card..." was part of the original Shapeshifter, but it card no longer has that text once it takes the text of another creature. So what rules or text is there in the game that would cause it to change to another creature, or to change back to a 0/1 blue creature?

For example, if you discard Grizzly Bears, then the card on the battlefield is now simply a Grizzly Bears with the discard ability. No where in that card's new text does it say anything about changing to a different creature if the graveyard changes, so how does it work?

The rulings specifically say "A copy of a Volrath's Shapeshifter will have the shapeshifting ability", but why?

Sometimes Google does wonders. According to the January 2009 Update Bulletin, the oracle wording was changed because of the new layering system rules.

  Oh, Volrath's Shapeshifter. Sometimes when the rules are systemically changed for the betterment of the game as a whole, and for most cards in general, one or two cards get thrown under the bus. That's what happened to Volrath's Shapeshifter. When the continuous effect layer system was implemented, different kinds of continuous effects were broken out so they'd apply in a set sequence. It was determined that copy effects would apply before control-change effects because all existing cards—except one—would work that way. (Switching those layers to save Volrath's Shapeshifter is not an option; if we did, Copy Enchantment copying Confiscate, or Clone copying Sower of Temptation, to name a couple of more modern examples, would cease to work as you'd expect.)

  The reason Volrath's Shapeshifter breaks under the layer system is that it cares about the top card of its controller's graveyard—so its copy effect is dependent on who controls it. Say Player A controls Volrath's Shapeshifter, then Player B Confiscates it. Volrath's Shapeshifter will continue to look at Player A's graveyard. That's because Volrath's Shapeshifter knows who its original controller was, and its copy effect is applied before Confiscate's control-change effect is applied to swing it over to Player B.

  To handle this, Volrath's Shapeshifter's effect was changed from a copy effect to a text-changing effect (which happens after control-change effects). Most text-changing effects change a single word of text, like Mind Bend does. Volrath's Shapeshifter changes all its text, and expands the definition of "text" to include color and mana cost, among other things. It's ugly, but it does the trick.

  I'd love to tell you that I have an elegant fix for this card, and that's why it's on the list. Nope. I'm deleting some unnecessary text from the card, putting in a comma, and fixing the italicization of its reminder text. (The unnecessary text is that Volrath's Shapeshifter's ability says that it works "as long as Volrath's Shapeshifter is in play," but that goes without saying, so this is just redundant.)

The short version is that with the copying effect version, if someone steals control of the Shapeshifter with Mind Control or something similar, then the Shapeshifter would have continued to look at the original controller's graveyard, not the new controller's graveyard, which is counter-intuitive. So the text-changing ability was given instead to make it work as expected.

I still have no answer to the second part of the question, though.


Can I use simulation to show that one bidding point count is more accurate than another? I've created a new bridge point count system with aces worth 4.5 points, kings worth 3.0 points, queens worth 1.5 points, jacks worth 0.75 points, and tens worth 0.25. There are still 40 points in the deck, in line with the Work 4-3-2-1 system.

Apparently, a compilation of hands played in tournaments was run, and the following tables were created decades ago for the Work point count. Assuming "double dummy play, they showed, among other things, that a partnership with 25 hcps and a reasonably balanced hand was a (slight) favorite to make 3NT.

Supposed I had the computer recalculate points under the new system and sort the percentages of successful and failed contracts at each point level under double dummy play. Such an exercise might show higher ratios of success for 3NT and higher contracts for 25+ points than the original simulation, and higher rates of failure for 24- point contracts.*

Is this an appropriate test? Would the results described above demonstrate the advantages of the new point count system?

*The simulation could, of course, show the reverse, which I would take to mean that the new system was inferior.

Absolutely!

I believe Deep Finesse (100% free according to the web site) is the double dummy analyzer used by the A.C.B.L. for modern tournament to determine par scores on hand records. That would likely be your best choice for play analysis.

Yes, a double dummy analyzer is, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, the best technology available for hand analysis. It is imperfect, but world-class players rarely miss a line of play that can be deduced from the available information.

However, before you jump in, you are not the first, by a long shot, in this pool. I would recommend researching the attempts already made along this line. One other such is:

Two thirds the total obtained from:

A = 5;
K = 4;
Q = 3;
J = 2;
T = 1;

with fractions of 1/3 and 2/3 rounded down and up respectively.

Other factors to consider including:

assess distribution in both NT (hand shape) and trump (fit & ruffing potential) contracts differently;
adjusting for suit quality;
traditional (uniform) approaches miss that Aces and Kings are overvalued in NT contracts and off-suit quacks and tens are overvalued in suit contracts.


Are there times it's actually advantageous to wait to pay mana abilities until casting a spell? In Magic, you have two ways to pay for a spell (or ability):

Collect the mana first, then cast the spell and spend the mana to pay for it.
Cast the spell, play some mana abilities as part of the casting, spend the mana to finish the casting.

I can name some situations when the first approach is more advantageous.
For one, you can collect mana from other sources, like spells.
As spells aren't mana abilities you can't use those in the second approach.

Are there some situations where the second approach is more advantageous mechanically? What kinds of situations are those?
Let's assume no mistakes are made, so no need to rollback an illegal casting.

I can think of one that I used to use back in the Mirrodin days using Mycosynth Golem and Krark-Clan Ironworks. The short version is that in the case where you cast the spell before paying its cost, you can save yourself from sacrificing more artifacts than necessary.

As an example, you have five artifacts on the battlefield, so your affinity is five. You also have two available land that produce two mana, and an Ironworks. Here are the two ways you could play it:

You pay the costs first. You tap your 2 land, so now you need 9 more. In order to get this to work, you have to sacrifice 4 artifacts to generate an additional 8 mana. This leaves you with an affinity of 1, which gives you enough to pay for the Golem.
You cast the Golem first. The Golem goes on the stack with an affinity of five, reducing the cost to six mana. You then pay the six mana by (1) tapping your two land and (2) sacrificing two artifacts to the Ironworks for four mana.

In most cases, the second option is better (unless you are wanting to sacrifice more artifacts for some reason). This is a case where casting your spell before paying costs is beneficial.

In a more general sense, the cases where you'd want to cast the spell before paying costs are ones where you want to lock in a casting cost that has the potential to change as you're paying for it. The example above illustrates this principle, and rule 601.2h in JonTheMon's answer has an equally important example.

This is going to be a little verbose, but the standard is probably something like:

"If you are going to be paying a reduced cost for your spell because of effects of cards on the battlefield, but in paying the cost for your spell you will be removing those cost-reducing cards from the battlefield, you should put the spell on the stack first and then pay costs."


Dictionary for Scrabble that doesn't contain ridiculous words In playing Scrabble with friends, where can I find a dictionary that doesn't contain the ridiculous two-letter words that turn the game into a contest to see who has spent the most time reading the official Scrabble dictionary?

I'd want present-day words, but don't want words like:

  ee: The sound made to say the letter 'E'

It seems that even online resources have been pandering to the hardcore Scrabble crowd.

Every dictionary has words that would be considered "ridiculous" in it. You can choose to have an arbitrary subset of ridiculous words, but that doesn't really improve the situation any. Most of these are in every reasonably-sized dictionary anyway (e.g. how do you feel about ZAX?).

There are a small enough number of 2-letter words that you can ban them on an individual basis (i.e. no QI, XU, XI, or ZA), or make a whitelist (these are the only 2-letter words we're allowing). If you do this and just use the regular Scrabble dictionary for everything else, you'll substantially lessen the edge of people who study the official word list, without suffering the problems of using a small dictionary that might exclude actual words.


How can I improve my deck building skills? I've been playing M:tG for nearly a decade now. I understand the rules very well, I've participated in a few draft tournaments, and I've built a few decks that I'm very proud of.

Nonetheless, I seem to have hit a wall in my MtG deck-building ability. In draft tournaments I rarely finish in the top half. I see other players pulling cards that I've discounted as low-power or junk, then I'm astounded at how effective they make them. (I rarely read MtG sites, so I'm not often aware of what the "buzz" around the best cards is.) When I look at the deck listings for top tournament decks, I often can't understand how they're supposed to play or why they're so powerful. I realize that the better players are able to see interactions between cards and identify sources of power that are effectively invisible to me.

How can I get past this block? I realize that this is a broad question, but I'm wondering if there's a blog, a book, or a series of articles that can help a middling, mostly casual player up his level of play.

Details on my play style, which may help focus answers:

I'm definitely a Johnny. I strongly prefer the black/green/white side of the spectrum. I almost never play red/blue. I find that I'm naturally drawn to the following mechanics, and tend to build decks that contain lots of:

Life gain
Creature buffs, +1 tokens, regeneration, etc.
Creature destruction, -1 tokens, etc.
Mid-size creatures (neither 1/1 weenies nor 8/8 monsters)
Enchantments of all kinds
Non-land mana generation

Whereas I consistently underestimate the effectiveness and fall prey to decks that contain:

Direct damage
Creature control
Artifacts
"Draw a card" spells and abilities

Even when I've tried to stretch myself and build a deck using these mechanics, what I built was much weaker than what a friend of mine built starting from the same card pool. Furthermore, I have a hard time building decks that can successfully resist a deck that's heavy in creature control or direct damage.

It does seem, from your description of your play style, that you do have a problem in consistently misinterpreting what things help people win Magic games.  Let's have a look at some of the things you say you like, and that you underestimate:

LIKES

Lifegain - with a few rare exceptions, lifegain cards are TERRIBLE - they do nothing to help you win the game, just slow down the rate at which you lose it.
Creature buffs - if you spend a card putting +1/+1 counters on a creature, and your opponent Terrors it, you've just 2-for-1'd yourself.  Not good.
Creature destruction - okay, your instincts are correct on this one.  Removal is and always will be king.
Mid-sized creatures - these tend to be the least efficient choice.  Either you want highly efficient "weenies" who can win the game for you fast, or you want massive monsters who can end the game in a couple of swings.
Enchantments of all kinds - I assume you include Auras in this.  See the 2-for-1 problem I mentioned under Creature Buffs, above.
Mana generation - it would be fair to say that mana ramp strategies can play a part in successful Tier One decks; but you need a definite game plan and a strong likelihood of consistently using all your mana every turn.  Just having more mana than your opponent, while he's swarming you with creatures, seems like a really bad place to be!

UNDERESTIMATES

Direct damage - this is obviously amazing, because it can act as 1-for-1 removal early on to keep you in the game; but then go straight to the opponent's dome later, when you're only a few life points away from victory.  Look at Fireball and it shouldn't be hard to understand why this is a top pick in almost any draft format.
Creature control - Mind Control is also a #1 draft pick.  By casting it you not only gain a creature, you also steal the opponent's best creature, making it a sort of automatic 2-for-1.
Artifacts - well, these vary from good to bad, but one of the great things about artifacts is that they don't require a complicated manabase to pilot.  Artifact decks never get mana screwed, so you shouldn't underestimate them!
Card draw - something like Divination may not look impressive, but you need to get your head around the idea that getting 2 cards return for an outlay of 1 card is the cornerstone of winning games of Magic...

It seems to me that you would do well to learn more about the principle of card advantage.  If your opponent plays a card and you remove it with a card, you're level pegging.  If you play two creature cards and he removes them with one card, he's a card up.  If you play a card that gives you 7 life, he's also a card up.  Whoever is the most cards up at the end of the game often wins!  The alternative, of course, is blazing speed: kill your opponent before he can get too many cards up on you...

I could talk about this stuff forever but this answer is already getting long; hopefully there are plenty of things for you to think about here already!  Feel free to ask about anything that is unclear in the comments though.


What is this brick-based board game? I'm looking for the name of a board game from the 80's or 90's that was made up of yellow bricks in a small table that you had to tap out with a small red pick or hammer.

Not yellow, but that sounds like Don't Break the Ice: http://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-4784-Dont-Break-the/dp/B00000IVZJ

These variations have yellow tiles:

Summ Bumm (Spielkiste Bee edition)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1283724/dont-break-the-ice
Wer andern eine Grube klopft (German First edition, 1976)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1070084/dont-break-the-ice


In Descent, can heroes jump over arbitrary tiles or just pits? The rules clearly state that heroes can jump over pits, and how much movement it costs  to do so.

But in some quests, simply stepping on a regular terrain tile may trigger effects too (in this case, Quest #3 in Well of Darkness, where it triggers a rolling boulder, and can trigger this effect multiple times), and it's a safe bet that once the heroes have triggered that once, they're going to want to jump over that tile the next time they need to get past it.

So, is that allowed? Do we simply assume that the "jump over pits" rule also applies to "jump over blank tiles"? Or is there some official ruling about this?

I don't know about the general case, but the official FAQ does specify that you can NOT jump over water tiles. They give a pretty lame justification for it, but the real reason is that it would break a lot of the scenarios that count on that to act as a barrier. So a good rule of thumb is probably that you also can't jump over "trigger" type tiles that a scenario's challenge is built around. Unfortunately I can't find anything official to back that up, other than the rulebook only specifically mentioning pits in regards to jumping and the FAQ specifically saying you can't jump over water.

That said, in all our games, we always allowed jumping over damaging tiles such as lava, too. Spending the extra extra movement point to avoid a wound (which is pretty much why you'd jump over a pit, too) seemed balanced.


Is a Boros Guildgate considered a mountain? I ask this question because I don't know if we can enchant a guilgate, like a boros guildgate as example, with Chained to the Rocks.

No it is not. Mountain is a subtype of a land cards; for Boros Guildgate, the subtype is "Gate".

However, Steam Vents is a mountain and can be enchanted with Chained to the Rocks, because it has subtypes "Island" and "Mountain".


Does Goblin Test Pilot hit a Planeswalker? To my understanding, after it hits the player, the person in control of the Goblin gets to decide whether it hits the player or planeswalker, but I could be way off. How would it work?

Whenever you do damage to a player outside of combat, you can decide to redirect that to one of that player's planeswalkers instead. This is explained better than I can by Wizard's cust-help:

  If a source you control would deal noncombat damage to an opponent,
  you may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker that
  opponent controls instead. This is a redirection effect: you choose
  whether to redirect the damage as the redirection effect is applied,
  and it's subject to the normal rules for ordering replacement effects.
  The player affected by the damage chooses the order in which to apply
  such effects, but the controller of the source of the damage chooses
  whether the damage is redirected. Note that this redirection can't be
  applied to combat damage.

  For example, although you can't target a planeswalker with Shock, you can target your opponent with Shock, and then as Shock resolves,
  choose to have Shock deal its 2 damage to one of your opponent's
  planeswalkers. If you do, two loyalty counters are removed from that
  planeswalker.
  You can't choose to split the damage between a player and a planeswalker. In the Shock example above, you couldn't have Shock deal
  1 damage to the player and 1 damage to the planeswalker.
  If a source you control would deal damage to you, you can't have that source deal that damage to one of your planeswalkers instead.
  In a Two-Headed Giant game, damage that would be dealt to a player can't be redirected to a planeswalker his or her teammate controls.


How do you handle two epidemics in a row in pandemic? Instructions on epidemics ask that the discard pile be reshuffled and put back as the last action to take with the card. This means that if a player draws two epidemic cards at the same time, there won't be a discard pile for the pandemic to use for the outbreak step.

What's the most appropriate way to handle this situation?

You completely resolve one epidemic card and then the other. I don't have any concrete rule to back that up but consider what would happen if you drew the two cards separately:

In this case it would be obvious that you resolve each card.

And now consider if there should be a difference to what happens in the game depending on how you draw your cards...


When does "at the beginning of the next end step" trigger? When casting a creature for its the Dash cost, will the creature return on the same turn's end step or the next turn's end step?

The phrase "at the beginning of the next end step" means "the next time an end step begins." So, after you play a creature with Dash, when an end step starts, the creature returns to your hand. Usually, this means that it returns to your hand at the beginning of the end step on the turn when you played it. However, if you somehow play it during an end step, it won't return until the following turn's end step because that is the next time that an end step begins after you play the creature.

Note that it doesn't say "your next end step," so if you play it during your own end step, it returns to your hand at the end of your opponent's end step.


Can "Phantom Knights's Sword" Prevent a monster from being destroyed because of "Call of the Haunted"? So let's say I use "Call of the Haunted" to summon a monster from my GY. Then I equip "Phantom Knights Sword" to it. So now that monster gains 800 ATK and if it were to be destroyed, I can destroy "Phantom Knights Sword" instead. If "Call of the Haunted" is destroyed, however, then the monster I summoned with it will also be destroyed. But can I still use "Phantom Knight's Sword" to prevent that monster from being destroyed? And if yes, then what happens to "Call of the Haunted?"

Both "Call of the Haunted" and "Phantom Knights' Sword" would be destroyed. You can use the effect of "Phantom Knights's Sword" to prevent the monster from being destroyed because it is a continuous effect. "Call of the Haunted" will be destroyed as per normal.


What are some examples of non-creature permanents? We are new to the game, I have been skipping over tokens for a few weeks here trying to get to know the game a little at a time. But I have finally starting diving in to the token aspect. I understand the creature tokens and how they work. But I found a card that say something about destroy non-creature permanent. What is a non-creature permanent? I am assuming it is like a non-creature token. What would be some examples of that?

A permanent is anything on the battlefield (a.k.a. "in play"),CR 110 whether represented by a card or a token. A noncreature permanent is any permanent that is not a creature.

For example, Icy Manipulator, when on the battlefield, would be a noncreature permanent. A land like a Forest, when on the battlefield, would also be a noncreature permanent. Treasure tokens, if you've seen those, would also be noncreature permanents.

More precisely, permanents can have any of five types: land, creature, artifact, enchantment, and planeswalker.CR 110.4 A single permanent usually has one of these types, but it can have more than one (for example, Juggernaut), and some permanents can even gain or lose types due to things happening in the game (for example, vehicles like Fleetwheel Cruiser). The only thing that matters for deciding whether something is a "noncreature permanent" is, at the moment you need to make the decision, whether it is a permanent and whether it has the type "creature". If it has other types as well, that doesn't matter. If it became a creature in the past or is going to stop being a creature in the future, that doesn't matter for deciding whether it's a noncreature permanent right now.

Note that cards which represent permanents when they're on the battlefield do not represent permanents while they're in your hand, in the graveyard, in your library, or anywhere else other than the battlefield.CR 110.1 Anywhere else, they're just cards. (There's a rarely used term, "permanent card", which means a card that isn't on the battlefield but would be a permanent if it were.)


What is the standard rule for running 12-1? In Phase 10, in specific phases, you have to complete "run"s of cards, like this:

  4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

But recently I've come across the discussion whether this is a valid run?

  11, 12, 1, 2..

According to the rulebook, you have to agree on this before the game (elsewise, you can play runs like this).
But according to Wikipedia:

  Runs can go from one to twelve.

In my understanding, this does not include from twelve to one!

What is the common agreement for this?

Here is my opinion.

1) I have never seen it played where 11, 12, 1, 2 was allowed.

The official printed rules say...

  RUNS: A run is made of four or more cards numbered in order. EXAMPLE: Part of Phase 2 requires a run of four, which could be “3,” “4,” “5,” “6.” The cards may be in any combination of colors.

2) The official iPad version of the game does NOT allow 11, 12, 1, 2. (I tried to make sure)

3) I found an updated version of the rules on line...

  Run: A run (similar to a straight) is made of four or more cards numbered in order. The cards do not have to be the same color. A run may not go in order of 11, 12, 1, 2; this is an illegal play. Runs must stop at 12 and only start at 1.

So, I would say that 11,12,1,2 is NOT allowed.


What's the best way to get a good food engine going in Agricola early on? I've played Agricola a couple of times and really like the game. But I have a problem: getting a good enough food engine going so I don't have to concern myself with taking too many important actions getting food, and not other really beneficial things. Any advice?

(Sorry if that was too weirdly worded)

There are a number of options, but if you've only played a couple of times then a Fireplace + sheep is the way to go.

Sheep are worth two food each, so a pile of sheep is a valuable commodity. If you can keep them in pastures long enough to breed (i.e. without eating them first), then they're a valuable investment, providing you with two action-free food every harvest. Two key points to remember about eating animals:

You need a Fireplace or Cooking Hearth (you can't eat raw animals!)
You may take all animals on a space and cook them immediately, even if you don't have space to keep them on your farm.

The second point is crucial. If your opponent is able to pick up a Fireplace, then you must always be alert to the possibility that he could take all of a given animal, and just convert the lot into food. Of course, you can do the same.

Once you've played a few more games, you'll realise that setting up your food engine correctly every time is much more subtle than this. There are several key food sources, and how you put them together depends to some extent on your Occupations/Minor Improvements, and on what your opponent(s) go for. You can

Eat animals
Bake bread
Eat vegetables
Pick up food from Fishing or other food accumulator spaces
Buy one or more specialist Major Improvements (Basketmaker's Workshop/Joinery/Pottery), and eat resources
Use food-based Occupations or Minor Improvements (if you have them)

Your overall strategy for the game, coupled with how your opponents play, will drive your choice of food engine. There are far too many permutations to discuss them in detail here, but for example if you have Occupations/Minors that aid with plowing, sowing or baking, then bread could be a solid food source. If you can get wood quickly, or if sheep come out early, then animals might be preferred. If you can get to a Cooking Hearth, or if you have a Schnapps Distiller, or a way of getting vegetables very early, then vegetables can be a great food solution. On the other hand, if your opponents take the Ovens before you, then baking may become too inefficient, and you'll have to switch to something else. It all depends.


Is the Commander strictly fixed during deck construction? I expect that the answer to the question in the title is "yes", but I'm not sure where the official rules for Commander deck construction are.

Is a chosen Commander a property of the deck, or is it possible for a single Commander deck to contain multiple possible Commanders and to choose before each game (as long as each meets the general requirements such as colour identity)?

It doesn't matter. Since you can change decks between games, you can change to a deck that's identical except for the choice of Commander.

Everyone talks about the Commander as if it's a property of the deck, including the Comprehensive Rules and the EDH site.

CR: In the Commander variant, each deck is led by a legendary creature designated as that deck’s commander.
EDH: Players choose a legendary creature as the "Commander" for their deck.

But that's not necessarily significant. It's simply the obvious and simple way to explain Commander. There's no explicit mention in the rules that the Commander is a property of the deck.
Does it matter?
In a casual setting, one may change decks between games as often as one desires, so you can obviously play two games with decks that vary only by your choice of Commander. The answer to your question is therefore irrelevant in a casual setting.
The answer is only potentially meaningful in a tournament setting, but I can't find anything suggestion that DCI hosts Commander tournaments. That means the the answer to your question is irrelevant as far as Wizard-sanctioned tournaments go.
That leaves non-sanctioned tournaments. Since they're non-sanctioned, there's no way to predict their deck registration policy. The answer is unanswerable for those in general.
The only tournament I was able to find is this league. But since they allow you to change deck between games, the answer to your question is irrelevant there too.

Given all of the above, my answer to your question is as follows:
If you enter a situation where you must reuse a deck for more than one game, consult with those with which you enter into this situation on this matter. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. Since you can change decks between games, you can change to a deck that's identical except for the choice of Commander.


Penalties for Thursday theatre slot in Trickerion The Thursday slot on the theatre section of the board in Trickerion has a penalty of -1 fame and -1 gold for any tricks performed.

Does this penalty apply if you only have your workers backstage and do not have your magician on the performance slot.

This is for the situation where another magician performs a playbill with your tricks on it without your magician actually being present at the theatre

From the rulebook, page 17:

  When having at least one Character on a Thursday slot, the player subtracts 1 from the Fame and Coin yields of all of his or her Performed Tricks, while when having one on any Sunday slot, he or she adds 1 to the Fame and Coin yields of all of his or her Performed Tricks. This also applies when the player’s Tricks are part of another player’s Performance, and when the player’s Magician is not present in the Theater. If the player has no Characters at all in the Theater when his Tricks are Performed, he receives the same Yield modifiers as the performer.

Seems pretty clear to me: as long as any of your characters are in a Thursday slot, any of your tricks performed that week get the adjusted Fame and Coin, regardless of whether your Magician is present.


Are there any board or card games known to have been designed to feature OODA loops? I am looking for any board or card games that use OODA loops as a part of their design. Specific examples of the application of each phase of the OODA loop are appreciated.

The OODA loop is the cycle Observe > Orient > Decide > Act

The approach explains how agility can overcome raw power in dealing with human opponents.

Wiki reference: The OODA loop

The phase layout for Munchkin practically is the OODA loop:

Observe:
Phase 0 - Check and adjust your possessions
Orient:
Phase 1 - Draw a card face-up from the Door Deck

If it's a Monster: fight it and go to Phase 3;
It it's a Curse: apply it;
It if's any other card: put it in your hand or play it;

Decide:
Phase 2 - Choose either "Look for Trouble" or "Loot the Room"
Act:
A. Phase 2

If you choose "Look for Trouble" then play a monster from your hand and fight it.
If you choose "Loot the Room" then draw a second card face-down from the Door Deck and place in your hand.

B. Phase 3

Charity: Reduce hand to at most five cards

One could probably make a similar case for all D&D-type games, but Munchkin is always the most fun. Part of the satire that makes Munchkin work is that everything is explicit in the rules.


Catan Road Eligibility for Diplomat with Knight In Between? I recently played a game of Catan with Cities and Knights. We had a situation like the following (excuse the horrendously crude art).  Where an Orange Knight (A) is breaking up some roads between two Red Settlements (B & C). My question is if orange played a diplomat card, would they be able to take either of the adjacent roads (indicated by the green arrows)?
The C&K rules say this under the Diplomat card details:

You may remove an “open” road (without another road or other piece at
one end). If you remove your own road, then you may immediately place
it somewhere else on the island (following all the normal building
rules) for free.
An “open” road means a road that is at the beginning or end of a chain of roads which does not have any knight, city, or settlement of
the same color at one end. If you remove an opponent’s road, it
returns to his supply. If you remove your own road, then you may place
it immediately on the board, free of charge (following the normal
building rules—connected to your own road or settlement/city). You may
remove your own road and choose not to replace it.

My contention is that yes, orange could take either road. I think this is the case because a knight has the ability to break up longest road, which to me, seems like a knight placed like this would break up any road into two separate parts. But I'm asking because the almanac is not explicit as to what a 'chain' in

An “open” road means a road that is at the beginning or end of a chain of roads

is. So although the roads would normally not be at the beginning or the end, now that there is a knight there, I believe that they are both 'ends' of a 'chain' of roads, which would mean they are eligible to be taken.
However, some of the other players disagreed. Is there anything that explicitly clears this up in the almanac or even in the FAQ's?

Oddly this is clarified in the FAQ under When is a ship “open”?
The full answer is that a knight will interrupt a continuous road, but will not make the road "open", while this is a slightly confusing aspect of the rules it's there to prevent "orphaned" roads, which were not handled in the rules until the advent of volcanoes.
Essentially a road is only open if it is at the end of a trade route, not if both ends are connected to other pieces from the same player.


Puerto Rico - Custom gameplay tweaks to introduce player interactions We have been playing Puerto Rico for on a regular basis. It's an excellent game, and one of the few well balanced games in buildup genre as:

There is almost no luck factor involved.
All of the Information about game and players buildup is revealed entirely. It makes the game highly strategic.
Not much of dirty tactics used by players. Say when player(s) tries to favor or screw certain other player, or delay other players winning.

We have been playing other resource management games like Le Havre, Agricola. Settlers of Catan has lots of player-to-player interaction, which makes the game more competitive. I was wondering if we could discuss and share some custom rules to modify the gameplay to have such player interactions; and would it be possible to introduce same new rules to create extra strategies.

Say by allowing other players to use production and service buildings for a fee. Player when in need of money or resources can mark only a building 'open for use' when selecting the role. Once open it can't be closed until her next turn. This fee could be really high 20%-30% of the service building cost, or one-third of production. Production building: Tobacco, Sugar, etc. Service: Harbor, Market, etc.

Many a times I find players getting blocked or waited to gather sufficient gold. Even when they have some of the good buildings.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks.

Puerto Rico is mostly an open information game. The plantation tiles are randomized and hidden information, and VP points are hidden, although a player with good memory could count when each player earns victory points.

There is player interaction in Puerto Rico, but it isn't like Settlers of Catan wheeling and dealing, which allows multiple players who are losing to trade resources among themselves to help each other catch up to the leader. The other two games are very similar to Puerto Rico in their player interaction, in Agricola you can deny your opponents a particular role when you choose it, and in Le Harve you can get your goods to the ship first blocking the boat. (It is confusing that you mentioned them)

I almost never see a player waiting to use newly acquired buildings, any longer than the one round that would be necessary to choose the Mayor action to fill the building/plantation. Puerto Rico is designed as a resource management game. Nearly every turn, it feels like their are two things you need to do, but you can only choose one.

Can you modify the rules to allow trading coins for building use, sure but there will be added complications.

Do buildings "open for business" still require a colonist from your opponents to use?
Do your or other colonists "block" a open building for use by other players? (i.e. are the number of circles relevant on buildings)
How will players indicate they are using your building if colonists are required, how do you keep track of which colonist is which players?
If using a building doesn't require a colonist, when can a player decide when to use it? (i.e. Can I use a Factory right before/after crafting, a Storehouse/Harbor during shipping, etc?

If you think about adding this feature, realize what you are doing. You are allowing other players to trade coins to another player for Victory Points. How many players are going to leave their Guild House, City Hall, or other large building "open for business?" Why would I make my Harbor available to anyone else, when the point of getting it was so that when we ship, I get +1-2 extra VP? I am pretty sure you will find this rule rather pointless.


What does "until end of turn" mean? Sure Strike has the text

  Target creature gets +3/+0 and gains first strike until end of turn.

I don't understand what "first strike until end of turn" means.  Does this mean the creature gets first strike until my opponent starts his turn, and then the "first strike" effect is canceled forever?  Or does the creature get first strike every time I start my turn?

Yes, the "first strike" ability will be canceled "forever". The creature which had the ability "until end of turn" will lose this ability exactly at the end the current turn, and not at the beginning of the next turn.

To answer your question more clearly, a few things must be laid out first as a basic understanding of the game's structure:

A turn is composed of several phases (and their respective steps). The step that is relevant to your question is quoted here. All quoted text is taken from the Comprehensive Rules of Magic: the Gathering.
I strongly suggest your do your own reading about phases and steps, as it will greatly improve your understanding of the game.

Here, we'll be looking at the ruling on effects that happen "until end of turn". That's CR514, which deals with the last step of a turn, the Cleanup Step:

  Cleanup Step

    [...]
    514.2. Second, the following actions happen simultaneously: all damage marked on permanents (including phased-out permanents) is removed and all “until end of turn” and “this turn” effects end. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

As you can see, nothing about this rule states that these kinds of effects ever come back into action. This means that, once your turn reaches the cleanup step, all effects that happen "until end of turn" cease to happen.

Note that at the beginning of this answer, I quoted the word "forever". I did that because, naturally, if at any other point in the game you once again give your creature any ability "until end of turn", it will once again have that ability until the next cleanup step is reached.


How does Orcish Captain work with multiple activations? I am thinking about adding the card Orcish Captain to my Okaun and Zndrsplt deck. I was wondering, if I activated Orcish Captain say, 7 times at once, and he dies at the first flip. Do the other 6 still happen so I can get Okaun/Zndrsplt triggers?

No, this doesn't work.

You can place as many instances of the ability on the stack as you can afford, before any of them resolve, by responding to each one with another one. But you need to choose targets for each one as you place it on the stack. Assuming that Orcish Captain is the only Orc creature you have, then that will be the target for all of the instances of the ability.

The first time you lose a flip, Orcish Captain will die before the next ability resolves. After that, the ability will fail to resolve due to having no legal targets, so you won't do the coin flip.

  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.

So you will only get to flip coins until you lose a coin flip, similar to what your Okaun and Zndrsplt do. You can still add this into the deck, but you would be better off paying just {1}, letting it resolve, then repeating if you won the coin flip.


In Axis and Allies, When (and How) Would You Adjust Your Opening Strategy? Most AA players have a preferred strategy. But not every player gets to go first. Meaning that the later going players may have to adjust their strategies, based on what has gone on before. Or do they?

Germany: If Russia doesn't get to attack on the first turn, you (effectively) go first, and have your choice of Russia, Africa, or both. But suppose Russia gets aggressive (if allowed a first turn attack).  How would that affect your choice of target?

UK: Germany can either go after you (in Africa) or Russia, or both. How, if at all, would those choices affect your opening moves?

Japan: The UK and Russia can go east (India, Sinkiang, Yakut etc.) or west (Africa, Norway). Does this affect your posture vis-a-vis the U.S. in the Pacific?

US: You have your choice of Atlantic or Pacific strategies. Is this choice affected by foregoing moves, caliber of players, or other considerations? Or do you just use an Atlantic "shuck-shuck?"

Russia: You're "last" if you can't attack on the first move. Is Germany or Japan the more dangerous enemy? Under what cirumstances?

As Germany, my preference is to invade (UK's) soft African "underbelly" first, then take on Russia second. But if Russia gets aggressive and possibly overextends herself with a first turn attack, I'd go after Russia first. (I would not play allowing a Russian first turn attack unless I got some compensation under house rules.) Can We Find a Middle Ground on the Russia First Turn Attack Rule In Allies and Axis?   In Axis and Allies, could a house rule upgrading the German navy finally "balance" the 1942 game?

Basically, I'm "renting" Africa for an attack on Russia, but my real object is the latter. Russia has 24 of the 27 IPCs needed for an economic victory. Sacrifice my two African IPCs, and the bar rises to 29. Japan has probably captured China and Sinkiang for 4 IPCs, which, added to Russia, is 28. ANYTHING else gives us victory.

As the UK, it would largely depend on what my ALLIES wanted to do. In descending order of preference, the strategies are 1) a North Atlantic "shuck, shuck," (withe U.S.) 2) a rescue Africa strategy, if Germany concentrates on building naval power instead of occupying Africa and 3) a Far Eastern strategy beginning with a "Kwabang" attack, but only if Russia and the U.S will back me up.

As Japan, I really want to head west. In the Pacific, I may make a spoiling attack against Pearl Harbor, but that's all. My preference is to fight the UK (India, Australia, and later Africa). But if Russia gets aggressive, or Germany prefers this, I will go against Russia (reluctantly), instead.

As the US, again my preferences would depend my allies, and my choices (in order of preference) are similar to the U.K.'s

As Russia, I prefer a Germany-first defensive strategy. If allowed, my preference is for a live and let live policy vis-a-vis Japan.


probably antique French game - asking for identification This is on the back of a board for French Chequers called Jeu de Dames. I have found out that it is  possibly from the mid 19th century!
qq

This is clearly an Egyptian themed version of the French Ludo variant known as Jeu des petits chevaux. (Link goes to the sensible French Wikipedia entry. Note that the corresponding English Wikipedia entry only describes a casino game that may or may not have been played on the same board.)

We can see that it was probably a version with 6 pieces per person (rather than the usual 4), as is typical for this French Ludo/Pachisi variant. The board layout is geometrically non-standard, with the main path following the edge of the board rather than closely wrapped around the four home columns. This allows the home columns to be arranged diagonally and so frees up the space for the sphinx in the middle, which I guess was purely ornamental. (Although there may have been special rules making use of the central field.)

Of the eight squares outside the main path, four are black. I suspect that they are purely decorative - for symmetry with the coloured squares. The placement of the coloured squares supports a counter-clockwise direction of play as was traditional for the original Indian Pachisi game as well as the former French national card game Tarot. The historical playing board displayed in the Wikipedia articles also has this playing direction.

Regarding the age of this board, I can only speculate with very little foundation. But the words "modèle déposé" ("registered design") suggest to me that it's actually from the 20th century. Earliest years for the game given in the French Wikipedia article are 1911 for a mention of the casino game (which may be unrelated, after all) and 1936 for the family game. On the other hand, I can't rule out that registered designs for games already existed in France in the 19th century and that the Wikipedia information is inaccurate.

PS: Robert Miller has added an alternative answer that I think is only slightly less plausible than mine. What they both have in common is that they interpret this game as a European Pachisi variant. An argument in favour of my answer is that it explains why there are 6 houses rather than the usual 4. An argument in favour of Robert Miller's answer is that it explains the unusual overall layout. It is of course possible that the present game was influenced both by the Jeu des petits chevaux (in terms of mechanism?) and by the Chinesenspiel (in terms of layout). In any case, both answers involve some reasonable speculation, which is inevitable until someone finds a book describing this precise board, or even an original box with instructions.


How many cards per booster pack in the Core M12 Sealed Booster Box? I want to buy a booster box to hold some office drafts.

I remember booster packs as having 15 cards per pack, which is in line with what Wikipedia says:

  Starting with the Shards of Alara block, booster packs for both Core Sets and Expansions began to contain 1 land, 10 commons, 3 uncommons, either 1 rare (7/8 chance) or 1 mythic rare (1/8 chance)

But the Amazon page for the Core M12 Sealed Booster Box says that there are "10 Cards/Pack".

Did something change, or is the Amazon page wrong?

It's probably an error, as M12 only had 15 card booster packs (as can be seen in any online store catalog like this one). As far as I could find, the last core set to have smaller boosters was M11 with 6-card packs.


Cardgame where participants have to guess the situation based on hints I played once at a friend's house a game where you picked a card that gave hints like 'John entered Bob's house and went out without clothes'. You had to guess why this happens. During the game, you get additional hints (like 'John is alergic to nickel') until you found the reason.

I remember there was a little statue on the table (I don't remember exactly why, maybe you can speak only if you hold it?).

What is the name of this game?

It's called "Black Stories" and is published by moses in various volumes. But it's (almost) always about guessing how somebody got (him-/herself) killed.
As far as I know, there's only one English edition of "Black Stories" out, but there are several German ones.

Z-Man published a similar game called "Dark Stories", which is in English as well.


Do Sidekicks have a level? Do the Sidekick dice (NPCs in D&D) have a level? They don't have a card, and only one character face. Some actions and cards target characters but only of a certain level.

Side kicks only have one level and can not be spun up or down. It is in the official rules:

  Sidekicks are the .... character side. Sidekick characters have no powers, and only the one level.

(edited one word)


Power Grid - Simpler Resource Grid I've heard that there is a printable chart for Power Grid somewhere online, possibly BGG.

Said chart breaks down the players & steps into individual cards that are more convenient than the bulky back of the rule book.

Something like this:

Players: 4
   Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Oil   1       2       3
Coal  2       3       4
etc.

Does anyone know where I can find this?

Have you tried looking at any of these? I've ordered that list by popularity, so the stuff at the top should be the most useful. There are lots and lots of summaries and crib sheets available. Which one works best for you is really a question of personal taste.


Do you lose your nomad tile if you move all your settlements away? Kingdom Builder with Nomads expansion

If you are the first who builds adjacent to a nomads space, you get the (only) nomads tile.

Do you lose it when you move all your settlements away from the nomad space?

No, according to the game designer Donald X. Vaccarino:

  I do not see this in the rulebook, but the intention was that you do not lose the tile, even if you immediately move away.


Are there any cards that turn creatures into land? There are dozens of cards that turn land into creatures, but are there any cards that turn creatures into land ?

There are four cards that explicitly turn creatures into lands.

Life and Limb makes all Saprolings Forests.
Song of the Dryads turns any single permanent into a Forest
Imprisoned in the Moon turns any creature, land, or planeswalker into a land with no subtype that can only tap for {C}.
Ashaya, Soul of the Wild turns all creatures you control into forests.

In addition, there are 4 cards that can make arbitrary creatures copies of specific creature permanents: Cytoshape, Infinite Reflection, Echoing Equation, and Mirrorweave. If you make a land into a creature (with a card with Awaken, for example), and then cast one of those spells targeting that land, the other creature(s) will become copies of the land.
Finally, any creature that enters the battlefield as a copy of a creature permanent (i.e. Clone) or can become a copy of a creature permanent (i.e. Shapesharer), can become a copy of an animated land, which will result in it being just a land.


Sacrifice blocking creature before damage is dealt no longer working (MtG Arena)? So the following happened to me just now in MtG Arena. I declared a Dauntless Bodyguard as blocker for a creature and then sacrificed it before damage was dealt. As I'm used to in tabletop magic, this would result in the attacking creature not dealing any damage right? However in Arena, the attacking creature for some reason just switched target to my life points directly (which actually did cost me the game).

Was there any change in rules or did I just always play it wrong on paper?

This is correct; the creature is blocked and won't deal combat damage to you (unless it had trample). The timing is important though; you need to sacrifice it when you have priority during the Declare Blockers step (which happens after declaring blockers).

509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.
702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.


Can you force your opponent to cast one of your own spells, using only the cards in your library? Is there an effect that would allow you to force an opponent to cast a spell you own, without relying on cards from their library? A similar effect exists with Word of Command which forces them to cast a spell they own.

One way I can think of is using Sorin Markov's ultimate and make them Spelljack one of your spells, but it requires the use of one of your opponent's cards.

The only way I know to force an opponent to cast one of your spells without controlling their turn is Hive Mind, which reads

  Whenever a player casts an instant or sorcery spell, each other player copies that spell. Each of those players may choose new targets for their copy.

They don't technically cast the spell, but they get a copy of it (and they don't get an option as to whether or not they get a copy - while they can control the targets, they can't choose to not play it like they could with Eye of the Storm.  It won't increase their storm count, but they'll get the effect of the spell.

There's even a combo deck based around playing Hive Mind and then playing Pacts that your opponents aren't able to pay for, forcing them to lose the game.


Cappelletti Overcalled If the intervener is overcalled by a responders to the 1NT what are the options for the advancer in addition to the standard responses. Is he now allowed to pass meaning partner I cannot help.

Assumption:

Your partnership agreement for Capelletti is as outlined on Wikipedia

Absolutely Advancer can pass; the work of interference has been performed. Doing so is a de facto statement by Advancer that he is uninterested in continuing the auction, either because of a paucity of points or lack of fit or both.

The general philosophy is the same for a preemptive opening at the 2-level or higher: the initial bid should be so descriptive that there is no temptation by the initial caller (Intervenor in this case) to continue the auction unilaterally.


Can I enchant tokens too? Is it legal to cast an enchantment on a token creature in MTG?

"Creature" means "creature permanent", which means "creature card or token on the battlefield".

As such, an Aura with "enchant creature" can enchant a creature token.


Mechanic for secret actions in a card game Is there a good mechanic for taking an anonymous action in a card game, specifically one that still moves resources?

For context, in one phase of this game, each player will give the target player a card. These are shuffled face-down and given to the target player, each having a certain effect on him.

I'd ideally like a way that a card could do something like steal gold (represented with tokens) without having to reveal who played that card.

I'm also trying to avoid too much of an honor system, so having someone just add gold to their own count by tracking with a pencil and paper isn't a great solution really.

I'll illustrate with a five-player example.  It is player A's turn.  Based on my reading, I am assuming the following things.  Are these assumptions correct?

Players B, C, D and E each play a card face down and give it to player A.
All cards are played simultaneously.
Player A does not know which player played which card.
Some cards may cause player A to lose resources to another player.

If the above are true, use the following arrangement and turn workflow.

Setup / components

Each player has a screen behind which they can keep their resources available for easy access, but hidden from others.
The game board will contain a number of spaces for playing cards face down. These places will be labeled with numbers.
Resources are the same size and shape, even for different denominations.
A number of opaque bags (with drawstrings for easy and quiet opening and closing) are available

Turn flow

Player A looks away from the board.
Players B, C, D, and E, each plays a card on one of the available spots on the board.
Once all cards are played, the player to A's left tells A that they have finished.
A looks back at the board.  A takes 1 card, reads it, and fills a bag with the required resources from behind his screen.  If the card does not cause a resource transfer, player A places a 0-resource token in the bag.  A replaces the bag where the card was.
A repeats the above step for each card.
A looks away from the board.
Each player takes the bag from the spot where they placed their card, and claims the resources from it.
Once all cards are played, the player to A's left tells A that they have finished.


American canasta - initial meld question If the person to my right puts down an initial meld that is less than the required number of points but no one notices it until I have played my hand, what happens?

The exposed cards become subject to the usual exposed card penalty:

From section 55 of the rules (emphasis added):

  If for the initial meld of his side a player shows less than the required count, he must validate his meld if possible with additional cards. If he cannot do so, or does not do so before discarding, all the cards he has exposed from his hand are dealt with under rule 54. If he has incorrectly taken the discard, he must restore it to the pile before making his own discard from his exposed cards.

54:

  If a player exposes one or more cards from his hand, except to make a legal meld, all such cards must be left face up on the table and discarded in successive turns, except that the obligation to discard lapses for each such card that is included in a valid meld (including its use to take the discard pile.)


Removing persist from a creature -- will it still trigger? Suppose there is a creature with persist on the battlefield, for example Safehold Elite. The creature loses persist somehow, for example because a player casts Turn to Frog on it. The creature then dies, for example due to combat damage. I know that the creature card will have persist again once it's in the graveyard. Does the persist trigger go off, or does the creature simply die?

702.78a Persist is a triggered ability. “Persist” means “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no -1/-1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner’s control with a -1/-1 counter on it.”

Key here is "triggered ability", which happen as the event occurs.

  603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers.

At the time the event happens, the permanent doesn't have Persist, so nothing triggers. It's only after the event concludes that Persist returns to the card.


Card advantage: scry v. surveil I've heard it said that Scry 1 is equivalent to 0.5-0.75 of a drawn card; is there a similar number of card draw that Surveil 1 represents?
Edit: this link has a reddit discussion that attempts to put a number equivalence on scrying: How much is 'Scry' worth in terms of card draw?.

There isn't going to be a nice numerical value that you can assign to surveil like you can to scry because the utility of surveil depends on your deck.

If you have a deck with no graveyard interaction, surveil is pretty much identical to scry in terms of card advantage.  It's arguably worse, because moving the cards to a public zone gives your opponent information about what cards you want in your hand, makes the cards vulnerable to graveyard interactions your opponents might have, and makes it slightly easier for you to deck out (all of which are pretty minor).

On the other hand, if your deck has graveyard interaction, surveil suddenly jumps in value.  Discarding a card with flashback or jump-start gives you half the value you would have gotten from drawing it.  Surveiling a Narcomoeba is actually significantly better than scrying or even drawing it.  And a deck with undergrowth becomes more powerful with every creature dumped into the graveyard.

All this makes the 'value' of surveil significantly more variable than the value of scry, and significantly harder to analyze.


What has been your experience with random villager roles in Werewolf? In Werewolves there are many Villager roles: normally we play essentially the same roles every time and the players know exactly which are the roles that are going to be used.

If you have 8 players you could choose to play with, for example, 2 wolves, 3 plain villagers and 3 "special villagers" taking at random the 3 special villagers from a pool of say, 6 possible ones.

The main advantage of this variant is that no one knows if a specific role even exists in that round until the end of the round, which may or may not be fun.

The downsides include

the moderator will have to spend more time calling for all the possible roles
using cards from a poker set becomes more of an issue with more roles, so you'll probably want to have cards that actually say which role you are

Additionally, the wolves can fake to be villagers much more easily.

What do you think about this variant?  Have you ever tried anything like this?  What elements were fun at first but weren't in the long run?

I've found that if you introduce too much chaos it becomes way, way more difficult for the villagers to figure out what's going on. Even if they were picking 3 roles from among 4 you've added enough chaos that you'll likely need at least one more villager (depending on the roles).

I've played it that way a few times and it's been kind of fun, but it throws deduction and intuition out the window, leaving it pretty much entirely a game of chance. Which, of course, the villagers almost always lose since only the wolves have any real idea of what's going on.


What is the Watson card's ability? On page 12 of the Rulebook, it says

  At the start of the Investigation Phase of this round, the holder of this card may choose the Location card of another player which is read out loud

Does this mean the player can direct someone to read his card out loud to the entire table?

Yes, whenever I've played it, the player who chose that location must read it out loud to the table.

Group policies differ as to how slowly and audibly the choosing player should be required to read it, though there is a convention that listeners may not ask for bits to be repeated.


Are there guaranteed winning strategies for Quarto? As we all know in standard tic-tac-toe the game can't be won if both players play optimally. So:

Is Quarto a game that will end in a draw if both players play optimally?
If yes, what are the most common drawing strategies?
If no, are there one or more strategies that guarantee a player's win, as in games like Nim for example?

I'm a math teacher creating a course on math games and mathemagic tricks, so I'm looking for games that have optimal strategies that are explained with mathematical arguments, and stuff like that. I'm open to suggestions, but will most likely post a separate question when the project gets more concrete.

Quarto has been evaluated as draw if both players play optimally. There's a presentation on the result here:

http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~wouter/Talks/quarto.pdf

Quarto seems to have been originally solved by  Luv Goossens in 1998, although I'm not sure whether this was published or not.  The presentation links to this old web page by Goossens:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041012023358/http://ssel.vub.ac.be/Members/LucGoossens/quarto/quartotext.htm