Does Aligned Hedron Network exile creatures that enter after it does? In conjunction to my previous question here, I created some confusion for myself. I want to know how this scenario would pan out:

My opponent casts 2-3 huge creatures (say Eldrazi Devastator, Ruin Processor, and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger)
On my next turn, I play Aligned Hedron Network, exiling these three creatures.
On my opponent's next turn, he is unable to destroy AHN.
I play Ulamog's Despoiler, and choose to send Ulamog and Eldrazi Devastator to the Graveyard from Exile.

After this process, if my AHN is still in play, will my Ulamog's Dispoiler be exiled? I think not, because of the text, "When Aligned Hedron Network enters the battlefield exile ...". However, the last bit threw me off "until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield."

Which of these interpretations is correct?

Until AHN leaves the battlefield, all creatures with power 5 or more are exiled whenever they enter the battlefield.
All creatures on the field with power 5 or more at the time that AHN enters are exiled until AHN is destroyed.

The second option is correct: the Aligned Hedron Network has a triggered ability, that exiles a set of creatures when it enters the battlefield. This exile effect lasts until the Network leaves the battlefield, at which time the creatures return to the battlefield. It does not continuously exile creatures that enter after it does.

First, the rules describing Triggered Abilities, specifically 603.1, say

Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and begin with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” They can also be expressed as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect].”

In the case of Aligned Hedron Network, the trigger condition is

When Aligned Hedron Network enters the battlefield

and the effect is

exile all creatures with power 5 or greater until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield

When the Aligned Hedron Network spell resolves, it enters the battlefield as a permanent and the ability triggers. That is the only time it happens, because it is the only time that the trigger condition is true.
Then, the effect has the "until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield" clause. The rules regarding One Shot Effects say

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

610.3 Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.

So, as soon as the Network leaves the battlefield, the objects it exiled return to the battlefield under their owners' control.


How to counter an aggro deck with massive +1/+1 counter packing I recently played with a guy who had a deck full of vampires and whenever one of his vampire attacks/deals combat damage/etc that vampire or all of his vampires get +1/+1 counters.

How can I effectively counter that strategy? I was thinking about cards like Hex Parasite. My deck is mainly green/red but I'm open to new ideas.

I assume you are talking about a Black/Red Vampire Standard deck with Curse of Stalked Prey as the card that generates the counters.

Hex Parasite is probably a bad idea, as it will completely hog your mana supply. You have to pay mana to remove counters which he put on basically for free. You may be able to eat the counters, but the creatures will still hurt you with their base power and you will be unable to cast anything significant for additional defense. Since you are talking about a G/R deck, you won't have a lot of black mana available either, so you typically pay life (Phyrexian mana) to reduce damage - so Hex Parasite is not only mana-intensive, it doesn't even save you any life loss. Hex Parasite is clearly an offensive utility creature, not defensive.

A much better strategy is to simply beat down on your opponent better than he does, or to attack Curse of the Stalked Prey or the creatures themselves, without which the Curse is useless. With Green/Red, you should be able to pursue both strategies efficiently.

Green is known for being able to handle enchantments, and red is good at destroying lots of small creatures with damage.

So basically your strategy is to never let the enemy attacks gain any momentum. Put out some creatures of your own, especially green ones, which should be more efficient ( = more power/toughness per cost) than your opponent's black and red ones. If he manages to build a large army because of a stalemate, create card advantage by sweeping the board clear of creatures with your red spells (card advantage: you have more cards in hand and battlefield combined than your opponent). If you just want to go for a straight damage race, just make sure you get rid of the Curses with enchantment destruction.


How long are trading cards expected to last? I am trying to make my Pokémon cards last for as long as possible, so I am storing them in soft sleeves and then again in hard sleeves. These hard sleeves are kept in a shoebox.
I know that old paper always decays with time no matter what we do (just look at the original US Constitution even after spending a fortune trying to preserve it).
Does anyone know how long these cards are expected to last?
Edit: For clarity, the cards will not be played with, just stored.

This depends very much on the what paper stock was used to print the cards.  There are paper documents far older than the US Constitution (papyrus written with carbon ink dating back to the Egyptian dynastic period?) still in pretty good shape, and paper books and periodicals printed a decade ago that are going to pieces.
Beyond that, the ink (the main point of deterioration in the Constitution and moreso the Declaration of Independence -- which was written with pokeberry juice for ink) can deteriorate as well.
Pokemon cards are/were printed on thoroughly modern paper card stock, but as far as I'm aware no special care was taken to use acid-free paper or archival inks, so while it's a guess, my guess is we might reasonably expect well-stored cards to last anywhere from thirty to a hundred years.  Some of the oldest ones are nearly twenty years old now; if you have a few of those first issues, you might be able to estimate better from their condition than I can from first principles.


In Warhammer 40k is it possible to have your army use vehicles from other factions? Is there anything in the rules that say you can have your army use vehicles from another faction?

I use Harlequins and I always thought about trying something new and using some Eldar vehicles like a War Walker or a Wraithknight. I figured it would work since Harlequins and Eldars are the same race. Or with human races like a Militarum Tempestus army using a Space Marine Land Raider or two.

Is this possible?

Yes and no

In the current edition, all armies (except unbound armies) are made up of formations.  For example, you might take the Combined Arms Detachment from the basic rules, or any other formation from your codex.  Which army you are using is basically determined by which faction your warlord is from.  You can take formations from other armies and books, however, as long as you follow the rules for allies, located in the rule book.  (I don't have my book with me to get a page reference).

So, you could take a Harlequin Combined Arms Detachment and also take an Eldar Warhost, which would give you the ability to take a lot of Eldar stuff, as long as you fulfill the requirements of the formation.  I'm sure there are other Eldar formations that would have less stringent requirements, as well.

Additionally, you could take an unbound army, which has no force org requirements, but also grants none of the special rules associated with formations (no objective secured or warlord trait reroll, for example).  In that case, you can take exactly whatever models you want.  You would still have to follow the rules for allies, though, which can make movement or deployment difficult if you pick armies that do not like each other.


Is it possible to determine the exact probability of getting a card in a pack? I am building a draft cube and cannot decide how many of a certain card I should put into it. Is there anyway to know exactly how likely a specific card is so that I can attempt to duplicate the probability Wizards gave it when designing the set?

Cards are printed on four different sheets: Basic Land, Common, Uncommon, and Rare. (Mythics are printed on the Rare sheet.)

The number of times a card is printed on the sheet determines how rare it is relative to other cards on the same sheet. For most sets (Alliances and afterward, plus Ice Age), all cards of the same rarity level are printed the same number of times. Within each set, every card with the same rarity has the same probability distribution*.

Older sets only had two print sheets (Common and Uncommon) and varied the number of times any given card was printed on it; this is where you get rarity codes like C5 and U2 – the card was printed 5 times on the Common sheet, or 2 times on the Uncommon sheet. "Rares" in this era didn't really exist, but all of the U1 cards are considered rare today. Because of this rarity distribution, it was actually possible for certain cards on the Common sheet to be more rare than certain cards on the Uncommon sheet, if the Common was printed very few times (eg, C1) and the Uncommon was printed many times (eg, U4).

When designing packs*, a nonfoil Mythic rare appears in approximately 1 in 8 packs. I believe the actual ratio is something between 7 and 8 which varies by set, but 8 is a good approximation.

Foil cards have the same rarity distributions as their nonfoil counterparts, but they are printed on foil sheets and their appearance in a pack is not dependent on sheet distribution but rather on card packing*. Approximately 1 in 6 packs contains a foil card.

Some sets throw the above numbers slightly out of whack with special packing parameters*. Modern Masters contains a foil instead of a basic land, for example. Dragon's Maze contains a Gate, shockland, or Maze End instead of a basic land. Innistrad replaces a regular common with a dual-faced card of any rarity. The "Alara Premium Foil Booster" contains 15 foils from the block. And so on.

* Note: How the sheets are divided up and packaged is not necessarily the same as how they're printed, changes on an almost set-by-set basis, and is not published information.


Initial setup for a house game I just bought a 300 piece poker set and none of the pieces have a denomination on them.  I have white (100 count), red (50 count), green(50 count), blue (50 count), and black (50 count) pieces.

I have about 6-12 people coming over this weekend to play.  How should I break up the chips and have them be assigned?  For value assignments I was thinking of: 10 (white), 25 (red), 50 (green), 100 (blue), 500 (black).

There is no official color scheme for chip values, and it varies from venue to venue and by country or governing body if any (Nevada does not regulate chip colors). New Jersey does have a Gaming Control board that does regulate the chip colors. (I couldn't find an official link). These colors match up with many of the standard colors you find in home sets. This site lists the same NJ chip colors, and has some recommendations for chip distributions based upon the number of players, the gametype, and the small blind. They recommend you use whichever colors you prefer.

$1 - white
$5 – red
$10 – blue
$25 – green
$100 – black


When on New Caprica, can a crisis effect move a player from Detention to the Medical Center? When on New Caprica in the Pegasus expansion, can a crisis effect move a player from Detention to the Medical Center?  The Cylon players allowed it in the individual instance to try and keep the game running and fun, but we had some doubts about whether or not it is legal to be forced out of Detention simply by a crisis forcing the current player to move someone on New Caprica to the Medical Center.

I'de say no.  Even thought the rules don't spell it out explicitly I think it's clear enough.

First, detention and the bring are treated to be the same thing, especially for player powers.

Second, according to the FAQ (page 2, bottom of the first column) nothing can move a player out of the brig except a successful skill check for the brig location action.  So by extension this applies to the detention center.

Third, thematically it didn't happen (spoiler follows).

   When Tigh was in the detention center and Cavil ripped his eye out, he left him there.  Even when he kicked the snot out of him as well he left them there.  He totally should have gone to the medical tent but didn't.


Is death from deathtouch a state based action? If someone attacks me with a trample creature say, 6/6, I block with a 1/1 deathtouch AND have Dissipation Field in play (returns permanents that damage me to their owners' hands),
will the wyrm go back to his owner's hand or does it die from my deathtouch creature?

Death from deathtouch is a state-based action. Specifically, this one:

  704.5h If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and it's been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based
  actions were checked, that creature is destroyed. Regeneration can
  replace this event.

The triggered ability from Dissipation Field will still go on the stack, but its target will be dead by the time it resolves.


Can I use a reaction card in response to Minion being used for +2 coins? Can a player reveal a Reaction card, such as "Secret Chamber", in response to the Minion action, even if the player who played the Minion chooses the +2$ option?

Yes, you can reveal Secret Chamber in response to Minion no matter what.

Secret Chamber is a Reaction that can be played in response to Attack cards, and Minion is an Attack card.  The fact that the person played the card in a way that wasn't "attacky" doesn't change the fact that it is an Attack card.

The same goes for Pirate Ship when using its +$ option. Yes, this makes Secret Chamber an amazing counter against Pirate Ship.


In Axis and Allies, Which Ally Should "Take Out" Norway. In most versions of the game it is essential for the Allies to capture Norway to allow the US and UK to properly reinforce Russia. A question them arises, which Ally should do the capturing (i.e. which mouse should "bell" the cat)?

Among many second edition players, Russia can't attack the first turn. Assuming that the German player moves out his fighter on his turn (as he should), the UK could launch an amphibious assault on Norway using the tank on the transport from Canada, supported by a bomber and two fighters (assuming that the ships in the UK sea zone were sunk by German air and sea attack).

But the odds aren't great. The attack succeeds 73% of the time (79% if you assume mutually assured destruction that allows Russia to occupy Norway on its turn). http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html. The average UK IPC loss is 21 (the tank, one fighter, and a second fighter half the time) versus much less for the Germans. In conjunction with the naval losses, might that leave Britain too weak to defend itself properly?

Let's try Russia. If it doesn't get to attack the first turn, it might take out Norway the second turn. But that might weaken Karelia too much?

I can't imagine America doing this job. On turn two with two fighters (based in the UK) and two infantry in an amphibious assault?

Maybe a clue comes from another example (using a Russian first turn attack). Russia "strafes" Norway without taking it. In Axis and Allies, Should An Attacker Be Allowed to Relinquish Certain "Prerogatives?" UK (or US) makes an amphibious attack against a WEAKENED German force. Could a "cooperative" venture be the best solution of all?

There are some subtle benefits of owning Finland:

To Russia, it represents another 2 IPCs a turn, which it can turn directly into infantry on the front: a valuable ability. The US and UK can obviously also use the money, but it takes longer for the units to reach the front (first built, then moved to Finland, then to Karelia). Also, both the US and UK have to move units via transports, which means that sometimes even if they have the 3 IPCs for an extra infantry they don't actually have the transport bandwidth to move it the following turn.
The US can build a factory in Finland, thus enabling it to pump 2 units a turn directly into Europe. I typically don't do this if the shuck-shuck is going well because the opportunity cost of a factory is too high. Although I've done it in a long game where I have too much money and the Axis isn't ready to concede--just to speed up the tanks I can put on the continent.
I don't perceive any real advantage of UK ownership--other than the money.

That said, I usually try to have the first country able take Finland and don't worry too much about who it is.

In general, this seems to be Russia. Assuming no ally can take it on turn 1 (by rule for Russia, for want of sufficient transports for UK and US), then turn 2 is the earliest. If Germany was clever, they rescued the tank and 2 inf with a feint on Karelia, making capture easy; if not, it's a prime target for the Russian tanks and the necessary infantry (no dead zone concerns assuming the German North Sea transport is gone). This attack doesn't leave Karelia too weakened because of their turn 2 infantry placement and UK and US fighters that can be moved over in turn 1.


Can the Mirror-Mad Phantasm rescue itself? If I use a Mirror-Mad Phantasm in combat against a creature that does at least 1 damage, is it possible to activate its ability after combat damage has been applied but before the Phantasm enters the graveyard? I'd really like to do 5 damage and return to the battlefield unscathed.

Unfortunately that's quite against the law!  Even the laws of the spirit world...

The way the timings work in Magic are basically as follows: after you announce the beginning of combat, both players have a chance to play spells and effects.  After attackers are declared, both players have a chance to play spells and effects; after blockers are declared, both players have a chance to play spells and effects.  Once all of that is finished with, we go directly to combat damage.  There is no window of opportunity for the Phantasm to activate its ability before it deals and receives combat damage and goes to the graveyard.

Well, I say that... there is one way!  If you can manage to give the Mirror-Mad Phantasm first strike, it will deal its 5 damage in the first strike combat damage phase, and then there will be a chance for you to activate its ability before the normal combat damage step.  It's probably not what you wanted to hear, but that's the only way to do it.

Are you getting as excited for Innistrad as I am?  I can't remember the last time a Magic set had so much sheer flavour about it...


Orléans: endgame - beneficial deeds and development track Recently played Orleans with a board gaming group here in Japan and ran into something interesting with the rules.

We first played it a month ago, but this month when we played it, they told me got the rules wrong the first time. Specifically, it was claimed that:

  the person highest on the development track gets all of the citizens from the unfinished beneficial deeds at the end of the game.

Can someone show me where in the rule book this is? In the rules from BGG, I see

  The game ends after 18 rounds. Before you proceed with the scoring, the player who has built the most Trading
  Stations receives the remaining Citizen Tile. If there is a tie, no player receives the tile.

But does this mean all of the citizen tiles or just one?

The player would just receive the one remaining citizen tile that isn't on the game boards.

The game comes with 14 Citizen Tiles. In the rulebook under setup, section 8 (labeled page 12):

  Place 13 Citizen Tiles on the marked spaces on the game board and the “Beneficial Deeds” board. Put the remaining tile on the table.

The part we are concerned with is the last sentence, where there is one Citizen that doesn't go onto any board space. On page 19, under final scoring:

  ..the player who built the most Trading Stations receives the remaining Citizen Tile.

So the player who built the most Trading Stations gets the Citizen that was left off the board during setup.

In relation to the rule regarding the person highest on the Development Track getting any Citizens tiles from the Beneficial Deeds board, it doesn't exist. Those Citizen Tiles stay on the Beneficial Deeds board and do not get scored at the end of the game.


When drawing Destination Tickets, can you discard any Destination Tickets or only those you just drew? When picking up destination cards, after the initial deal, does the card(s) which the player chooses to discard, have to be from the three he picked up at that time, or can he discard a card which he picked up from a previous turn?

The cards you discard/return must be from the three you drew this turn.

Here's how the rules phrase it:

  The player draws 3 Destination Tickets from the top of the deck. He must keep at least one of them, but he may
  keep two or all three if he chooses. Any returned cards are placed on the bottom of the deck.

It's not so much that you "discard" destination tickets, but rather that you draw 3 and keep from 1 to 3 new destinations.  This means that any destinations you were already holding are totally unaffected - you're stuck with 'em.


Can Feather bring back a spell with Jump-Start? Jump-Start is a keyword ability that allows a card to be cast from the graveyard, and then exiled afterwards. (For example, Maximize Velocity.) According to the Comprehensive Rules, the exact wording of the cast-then-exile effect is "[i]f this spell was cast using its jump-start ability, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack."

If I cast a spell using Jump-Start while Feather, the Redeemed is in play, can I use Feather's ability to bring the card back into my hand (at the next end step) after casting it?

On the one hand, both Feather's effect and Jump-Start's effect are replacements that apply when the spell leaves the stack, which makes me think I can choose which applies.

On the other hand, Jump-Start's replacement exiles it instead of putting it anywhere else, not just the graveyard—so could it then replace Feather's replacement, exiling it anyway?

Yes, Feather's ability can return jump-started spells to your hand.

Feather's effect is a replacement effect. When an eligible spell would be put into your graveyard as part of its resolution, you may exile it instead and return it to your hand at the end of turn.

  614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.

The exile part of jump-start spells is also a replacement effect that affects where the card goes after resolving:

  702.132a Jump-start appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents two static abilities: one that functions while the card is in a player’s graveyard and another that functions while the card is on the stack. “Jump-start” means “You may cast this card from your graveyard by discarding a card as an additional cost to cast it” and “If this spell was cast using its jump-start ability, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack.” Casting a spell using its jump-start ability follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.

Your example of Chemister's Insight is a bad one, because it wouldn't be eligible for Feather anyway, since it doesn't target a creature. Maximize Velocity would be an appropriate example.

As you can see from cards with Jump-Start, they fit the definition of replacement effects, and the following rule applies:

  616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).

Therefore, you can choose to exile a jump-started with Feather so it returns, or exile it through Jump-Start so it won't return.


What happens if someone reneges on a loner hand in euchre? Yesterday, I was observing a game of Euchre when something interesting occurred and I wasn't sure what to make of it. I'll call the two teams A and B. Team A went alone, and around the 4th trick someone on Team B ended up reneging on accident. We noticed it after the final trick had been played, and none of us were really sure how to rule it. We ended up calling it a renege, even though Team A took all 5 tricks. But is that correct? Should Team A have gotten the 4 points since they took all 5? Or does a renege trump (no pun intended) that?

To be clear, if someone on Team B reneges during Team A's loner hand, and Team A took all 5 tricks. Would it result in two points, because of the renege, or four points because they took all the tricks?

Side note: We determined that even if Team B had not reneged that all 5 tricks would have been won anyways. Making this dilemma even more confusing.

I have always interpreted the renege penalty as being generally 2 points because that's the maximum the opponents could have gained from the hand. In a loner hand, the maximum the makers can get is 4 points, so I would penalize a renege on with 4 points. Some sources:

On the Ohio Euchre page the renege rule says:

  RENEGE: - There are no exceptions to the ruling for a Renege: The hand is over, the offending team loses their bid and the non-offending team scores two points. In the case of a renege during a Loner attempt, the non-offending team scores 4 points.

On the wikipedia page for euchre, it says almost the same, though leaves open the possibility that other variants might not do this:

  In some variants reneging when a player or his opponent is going alone may result in a penalty of four points in order to equalize the potential values of a hand. The four point penalty for reneging should apply equally for the maker of trump and the opposing team.

A third source, Euchre Links says the same, though only specifically about the team that is attempting the loner:

  If the guilty team is defending against a lone-attempt during the infraction, 4 points are awarded to the team that was attempting the loner.

So, the sources seem to be in agreement that the maker would get 4 points when one defender reneges, and two of the three using language that indicates ANY renege in a loner hand (maker or defender) awards 4 points to the non-offending team.


I noticed after the last lead someone reneged but it actually helped me so I just let it go I had made it spades I played the jack of clubs opponent put on the ace of clubs and I had low clubs but more and higher spades. If the gentleman had played properly he probably would have euchred me. So instead of trying to get 2 points when really played right they would of got the 2. But because he reneged and wasnt played right i might have got a point or i may have gotten euchred. We very seldom count a 2 points for reneg its either corrected. For a lone its counted as 4 points otherwise you could just reneg so person couldnt get their lone hand. He had the right bower when he reneged so i thought anyway i wasnt getting 2. Did I do the right thing to let it go?

Most Euchre rules leave it the opponent (you in this case) to call the renege. They don't explicitly identify it as optional, but neither do the penalty sections go on to say what to do if you don't call it (i.e., there's no penalty for not calling a renege).

For instance, from these rules:

  the opposing team is rewarded two points if it is caught

and

  [unintentional reneges] are still callable by opponents as reneging

(emphasis added)


Why first strike wouldn't work in a single fight? I've been playing on Android Magic 2015 game and noticed that first strike damage aren't dealt in a single fight (with Hunt the Weak for example).
Is this a bug in the game or is there a rule that prevent first strike to apply in this case?

First Strike has no involvement in Fights.

First Strike applies to actual Combat, i.e. the stuff that takes place during the Combat Phase, where you and your opponent(s) nominate creatures to attack and block. First Strike and Double Strike both introduce a second Combat Damage step that takes place before the usual one.

However, Fight doesn't involve any of that. Fight is an effect which just means what it says on the tin: "Each deals damage equal to its power to the other." Get their Power values, and they both deal that much damage to each other simultaneously, and that's it. This is more akin to, say, Aethertorch Renegade's activated ability in which it deals damage, than the combat damage step.


Assigning PDS 11 Hits When a PDS 11 fires on an active player moving in an adjacent space and scores a hit, can a fighter be destroyed or does it need to be a non fighter unit? (not referring to advanced fighters)

Anytime a PDS scores a hit, regardless if it's an upgraded or regular PDS, the active player decides which ships should be destroyed. The active player being the person moving their ships. This could be a fighter unit if they have them. All ship units are "units" in terms of space combat, cannon or ship to ship.

The rules for this game is pretty comprehensive. For more information regarding PDS please read over the Twilight Imperium 4 Wikipedia - Space Cannons. Additionally, you may view page 22 of the reference guide, subsection 66.2 labelled Space Cannon Offense.


If I have only one creature in play, is it on a flank? Many cards (e.g. Valdr, Hand of Dis) reference creatures that are, or are not, on a/the flank. If I only have one creature in play, is it considered to be on a flank?

Yes. I'm including a screenshot of an e-mail reply from the developer on this topic.

  Flank simply means if its at the end of a battleline. If there is only
  one creature in a battleline it is on both ends of a battleline and is
  on both flanks.


Is there an extension that converts regular Pandemic to Pandemic Legacy: Season 1? I own Pandemic. I want to buy Pandemic Legacy: Season 1. It's quite expensive though and it seems that the game board looks the same.

Is there an extension to the Pandemic game that reproduces Pandemic Legacy: Season 1? Or do I really have to buy the new version entirely?

There is no expansion to convert Pandemic into Pandemic Legacy.

Firstly, the board is not the same anyway. It has a month track that doesn't exist on the non-Legacy board, as well as printed places for stickers that alter the board. Many other components are also different.

Secondly, even if there was an expansion/conversion kit, it would be nearly as expensive as the full Pandemic Legacy due to the large number of added components (sticker sheets, secret booklets, secret decks, secret boxes), and due to needing to replace some standard components with Legacy versions (some cards, the board, the occupation cards).

Thirdly, considering that you have to permanently alter your board and cards in order to play a Legacy game, you would just have to replace your copy of Pandemic after using it in a Legacy game anyway, resulting in no savings even if an expansion was offered.

No, the price of Pandemic Legacy is the only available way to play Pandemic Legacy.


What is the name of this card game? I'm looking for the name of this game in English.

It's a drinking game, in which the participants get together in a circle and, with a playing cards deck, draw cards and follow their drinking rules (according to each card value).

E.g.: I drew a Queen, so all the ladies that are playing must drink. My friend then draws a Two, so he chooses 2 people to drink. Etc.

Does anyone know this game?

Thanks in advance! :)

Here's one variation, having a couple different names:

  Kings Cup (AKA Ring Of Fire or Circle Of Death) Is a popular card drinking game. To play the game you should have a medium size group (at least 4 players). You start by placing a red cup in the middle of everyone and spread a deck of cards around it face down. You then go around in a circle taking turns drawing cards following the rules below.
  The Objective?: Draw all of the Kings

I'm guessing there are many variations of this game, going by many names.


Munchkins Ruling of destroy item with highest bonus On the table there are 2 items giving bonus of 4 and 5,  the one with 4 is used and the one with 5 is carried and not used.

The card "Lose the card that gives you the biggest bonus", does it destroy the 5 or 4 bonus card?

Items that aren't in use don't give you any bonus.


Why is Trade Secrets banned in EDH or Commander? Ban list for commander

I don't see any announcement for Trade Secrets. Why has it been banned? Is there any mention of this card from Wizards, a card they made specifically for Commander?

Commander/EDH is a community-moderated format. Its banned list is not managed by Wizards of the Coast or the DCI. Official announcements from the EDH Rules Committee an be found on mtgcommander.net.

In this case, the April 2013 banned list announcement explains (emphasis added):

  Trade Secrets is much like Limited Resources in that has some issues in a multiplayer environment. It isn't a problem when one player draws four cards and another draws eight. Trade Secrets is a problem when both players decide to draw 80 cards and effectively turn a four-player game into a two-player game. It just doesn't add enough to the format to justify the games that it single-handedly ruins.

Duel Commander, also known as "French" 1-on-1 EDH, has a separate rules committee and banned list. You can find their official postings on duelcommander.com. Trade Secrets isn't banned in Duel Commander, since it's not a problem outside multiplayer formats.


Does untapping lands trigger Wake Thrasher's ability? I have a card called Wake Thrasher. It says:

  Whenever a permanent you control becomes untapped, Wake Thrasher gets +1/+1 until end of turn.

Does this mean when I untap my lands at the beginning of my turn would put counters on him till the end of my turn?

On my previous turn I summoned him with his 2 generic and 1 blue mana, coming from 3 lands. At the beginning of my next turn, since I'm untapping a total of 3 lands, will he be a 1/1 + 3 * +1/+1 so a 4/4 creature?

Wake Thrasher is a Rare 1/1 merfolk with a converted mana cost of 3. The value of the card is he gains power and toughness when you untap permanents you control.

From the oracle rulings:

  If permanents you control become untapped during your untap step, Wake Thresher’s ability will trigger that many times. However, since no player gets priority during the untap step, those abilities wait to be put on the stack until your upkeep starts. At that time, all your “beginning of upkeep” triggers will also trigger. You can put them and Wake Thresher’s abilities on the stack in any order.

Lands are permanents. They untap during your untap step. This would cause the ability to trigger, and "wait to be put on the stack until your upkeep starts." For the three lands you untap, Wake Thrasher will get a total of +3/+3.

This is right.

Edited to add: A second reading of the question highlights the possible consternation. If you are under the impression that the triggered ability of Wake Thrasher puts +1/+1 counters on the creature, which have a measure of permanence, dissuade yourself of that idea post haste. Counters are not put on the creature. Instead, it is temporarily granted +1/+1 untill end of turn. There is a distinction between the concept of +1/+1 counters (MCR 121), and the continuous effect of +1/+1 (MCR 612).


If I rez Rasmin Bridger after an ICE, does the Runner have to pay its bit immediately? If I rez Rasmin Bridger after the Runner has passed a piece of ICE, does he get to pay its bit immediatly, or does it take effect only after the following ICE?

I think it only takes effect on the following ICE. While I also have not seen any official ruling on this card, it hinges on several different rules. When does Rasmin Bridger's ability trigger?

  After Runner passes each piece of ice on this fort, Runner must pay 1 or end the run.

From this chart, step 32, the ICE is passed and this is where the effect triggers if Rasmin Bridger had already been rezzed. If he had not been rezzed, the next opportunity to rez him would be after the runner decides to jack out or not (step 35).

The rulebook only mentions that a Rezzing a Corporation Card can occur (among other times):

  during a run while the Runner approaches a piece of ice and while the Runner passes a piece of ice;

The rules don't really clarify the timing of while. The closest thing regarding timing is the Run Protocol - Overview section. It seems to indicate that Upgrades must be rezzed during the approach or just after the runner doesn't jack out.

  If the Runner passes all of the pieces of ice (or if there is no ice to be passed in the first place), he or she gets one last chance to jack out. If the Runner doesn't jack out, we have one last opportunity to rez any of the nodes and upgrades inside the fort, and unless these end the run, the run is considered successful, and the Runner accesses the appropriate cards.


What's the best way to teach/learn the Game of Thrones board game for people who haven't played before? Recently some friends and I got together to play the Game of Thrones board game, but the game didn't happen.

We spent an hour setting the game up, and started learning the rules, before giving up as too complicated.

As the games master I screwed up by not being more prepared (ie. familiarising myself with the rules before hand), but I get the feeling that this might have been a difficult task anyway.

What's the best way to introduce this game to people who haven't played before?

This is a very general question and really depends on who you're playing with (and how they're feeling at the time).

Playing any new board game with a group of new players can be a daunting task, and a lot of players are reluctant to listen to a rules explanation for an hour before you start.

If nobody knows the rules then, unless the game is simple, it's likely (as you experienced) that the group will give up. Unless you have enough rulebooks for everybody, or a really interested group, having one person read the rules in front of everyone is a bad idea. As you mentioned, a better idea is to have someone take charge, and read enough of the rules in advance that they'll be able to set up and guide the learning.

It's fine for that player to follow along with the rulebook. A new player is a good facilitator, especially if everyone understands that they're still learning too. This helps avoid blame where you didn't give them all the options or explain all the rules in advance (and if you did they'd have stopped listening or given up!).

Set up the basic parts of the game and give a brief explanation of what the board means and how the game flows. Then you can go through phases in a bit more detail. Try to mention the various options without necessarily explaining the details (again, this helps avoid the "you didn't tell me that" issue).

Then finish setting up, getting the players to help out (e.g. "can you sort the cards into coloured decks, can you give each player a set of tokens, please?"). This helps everyone get a sense of the different parts used in the game and the names of those parts, which helps understand the rules as you go on.

Then, start playing the game, stepping through the options and details of what's going on. After a couple of rounds you can ask everyone if they understand, and offer the option of a restart. In my experience, most people will be fine to carry on unless they've accidentally devastated their own position, and resetting shouldn't be too difficult.

The most important part is for the group to accept that mistakes will be made. If you realise you were playing the game wrong, let people know about it and move on.

To reiterate the important points:

Have a player who's familiar enough with the rules to set up and help others understand the game. If nobody's played, someone should spend a half hour or so in advance.
Make sure everyone knows that it's a learning game, and that it'll be a bit of a muddle the first 1 or 2 plays.
Be ready to allow people to undo recent mistakes based on rules misunderstandings, or to stick with/change incorrect rules as you play.
Focus on getting everyone to understand what's going on rather than just picking easy options. Encourage the whole table to share good strategic advice with everyone, even their opponents, so that players can focus on strategy in later games.


Unnatural Axe Santa vs. Elf and the Mummy card In an epic Munchkin game with the Unnatural Axe extension, we had an Elf player encounter Santa. Santa is normally a level 9 monster, but that changes by -5 because Santa trusts Elves. Silly Santa.

That player was doing way to well, so someone added Mommy to the fight. Mommy can only be played on a monster of Level 5 or below, or one that is a Baby. We reckoned that since Santa was now a Level 4 monster against Elves, this card could be applied! Mommy adds another monster of the same kind but 10 levels higher.

The poor victim Elf player complained loudly in proper Munchkin fashion, but conceded that our interpretation of the cards was probably allowed.

Was our interpretation correct, and was Mommy playable here? We were going by Santa dropping down 5 levels for Elves here, but perhaps it should not have been allowed because normally Santa is Level 8 instead.

In case you feel sorry for that player, they survived (having slain a monster without help to get of Santa's naughty list) to end up with this hand about two rounds before winning, utterly unstoppable:

Unfortunately, the -5 added to Santa's level does not change the actual level. It is simply a Bonus/Penalty. It is much the same way the Elven Bow provides a +4 Bonus. The Bow does not change the character's Level. Rather, it changes the character's Attack, which is a derivative of the Player's Current Level plus all Bonus and Penalties.

Though there are some cards that specifically state "Adds X to Monsters Level", the Race/Class bonus/penalty is not one of those.


What are some fun setups for Dominion for two players? At present I only own the Dominion Base set and my girlfriend and I have only played the game a few times. I figure we'll stick to the starter layout for a few more games but after that I'm curious what are some fun initial setups for 2-person play?

As I noted in comments below I'm looking for multiple setups which will be well suited for a fun two person game. By fun I mean multiple strategies and some interaction. I'm playing with my girlfriend, when we've played random setups we have had fun but have found many that aren't as engaging as others. Cards such as Council Room (which some don't like) at least engaged the other player during a turn.

I am open to buying expansions in the future but initially I'm looking for suggestions to have fun with just the base set.

Since random setups have already been recommended, let me suggest a couple of individual card combos that can form the core of an interesting set.

Option 1: Core strategies in the base set. Choose 2 of these, and fill in the rest of the cards randomly.

Woodcutter/Workshop + Gardens (+ Cellar): obvious gardens path
Throne Roome + Remodel/Mine: TR helps the fact that these strategies are slow on their own
Chapel: trash as fast as possible and race for provinces
Witch/Militia (interesting both with and without Moats): slow down your opponent with attacks
Smithy/Moneylender: accelerate the early game to 5+ coin hands

Option 2: Interesting card interactions in the base set. Choose one and fill in the rest randomly.

Witch + Gardens strategy cards: do you curse your opponent and make his/her Gardens more valuable?
Militia + Library: you can attack to slow down your opponent, but if he/she has a Library in hand then the attack is mostly wasted. Do you go for offense or defense?
Chapel + Thief: if you trash your starting cards to accelerate your deck, you will be more vulnerable to having your few (and good) treasure cards stolen.

Finally, if player interaction is a really important criterion for you, you should seriously consider adding the Intrigue expansion. Not only is it built around the theme of interaction, but it also has lots of cards that combo well with base set cards to create interesting strategies (Duke/Duchy, Gardens/Bridge, Gardens/Ironworks, etc.).


Can a Rummikub tile be moved After a tile is placed but before a player indicates the turn is over by saying "Done", may he move a tile from his rack to a different position on the table after he has initially placed it?  May he place a tile down and then decide to remove it or replace it before saying "done"?  Or once it is on the table in a certain position it must stay there?

During your turn, you can pretty much do whatever you see fit with every tile on the table, including those you've only just placed. As long as the end result has no invalid sets. Except, apparently, joker tiles:

From Rummikub.org:

  With the exception of the joker, any tile on the table may be repositioned provided that all tiles on the board eventually become part of a meld. The joker may be used in place of any tile when forming melds, but once a joker is on the table it cannot be moved to another meld. It must first be replaced by the tile for which it was used.

I cite this source, because it seems to be the most reliable one. But, truthfully, I wasn't aware of the joker exception.


What is optimal end play in Settlers? Part of what makes Settlers of Catan both balanced and exciting are two sets of slow-the-leader rules: The robber and trade embargoes. While this means you have a chance to win even after a slow start or a seemingly poor starting position, it conversely means it can be difficult to close out the game for victory after having a great starting position, making many great tactical decisions, and having the lead for most of the game. The most extreme example I've seen is the leading player with 8 victory points lose to a player who had 4 victory points, 10 to 9, as everyone successfully and almost completely stalled out the leader for many turns. Much more common are games where someone reaches 8 or 9 points first goes on to lose to someone with 2 fewer victory points.

Is there one (or a small set of) end play technique(s) that significantly increase(s) one's chances of winning when faced with opponents who competently employ slow-the-leader techniques?

Plan your last few VPs with resources you can gather yourself. For example, if you have decent wheat and ore resources, build your extra villages before your towns. That way when you have only the cities left to build and are a VP or two away, you can finish off on your own power without trading. Obviously ports can increase your versatility in this manner.


Michigan Rummy? Incorrect Name? I remember a rummy variant that I played as a child. I was taught it by older family members, who are all long dead. They called it "Michigan Rummy" but it was quite different from the game that I find online by that name on several different sites. Can anyone tell me the correct name of the game I knew, and point me to full rules?
The game was much like many rummy variants, in that the object is to form combinations or melds. These were of two types: a "set" composed of three or more cards of the same rank, and a "run" or "sequence" composed of four or more cards of adjacent ranks, such as 6, 7, 8, 9 or K, Q, J, 10. Ace could be high or low, but not both at once. I can't recall if a run had to be all of the same suit.
Each hand had a separate goal. In the first hand, the goal was two sets. The following hands were one run and one set,  two runs, three sets, two sets and one run,  tow runs and one set, and finally three runs. A player could go out only by completing all of the required melds for that round. Extra melds were not allowed, but IIRC one was allowed to "lay-off" cards on the melds of other players.
I think two or three decks were shuffled together. Three players was the minimum, 4-6 more common.
On each turn a player drew or picked up a discard, optionally set down one or more melds, and ended with a face-up discard. Any other player could claim this discard, and picked it up along with the total discard pile. If no player wanted the discard, the player to the right of the previous player drew a card from the stack, and the discarded card remained face up until another discard was placed on top of it.
If more than o0ne player wanted a discard, whoever called for it first got it, leading to fast and raucous play.
To start, each player was dealt a hand of 6 cards. Thus in each round but the first, a player would have to take the discard pile at least once to have enough cards to make the required melds. A player scored positively for cards in melds or laid off, and lost points for all other points. Spot cards were worth there face value two thru ten, face cards ten each, and aces fifteen.
When a player went out, other players were not allowed to  meld cards left in their hands -- these counted negatively. The player who went out could make a final discard, or not.
On the last round special rules applied -- no melds might be put down except by going out, and the player who went out had to make a final discard. This was summarized as "down and out with a discard".
All this is remembered from more than 40 years ago, and I may have some details incorrect. Can anyone identify this game and point to full rules?

This is a form of contract rummy called progressive rummy.
(I note that since the contracts you name include ever-increasing ones eventually leading to ones that cannot be met with only seven cards that each deal probably involves an additional card)

Progressive Rummy: Progressive Rummy is played very similarly to Contract Rummy. The main differences are in the number of cards dealt in each of the seven deals. The first deal starts with 6 cards dealt, the second deal 7 cards are dealt, and so on until the 7th deal where 12 cards are dealt. The initial meld requirements are the same as in standard contact rummy. The player generally completes the hand by playing all his cards to the table to meet the contract, as he will usually not have any additional cards in his hand (unless he opted, on another player's turn to take the current upcard, as described in the rules for Contract Rummy, above). If this is the case, the player may play cards to other melds on the table (if any) once they have made their initial meld. A player may also play their last card by discard, at which time they also win the deal. Scoring in progressive rummy is the same as in Contract Rummy, except that jokers are worth 25 points each.


Was the blind chess match between Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty in the movie Game of Shadows real/plausible? I saw the movie and was wowed by two things: the blind chess match in which Holmes wins with the move Bishop-Bishop 8, discovered check; and the mental fist fight they have in their minds. It's such a creative way for two geniuses (genii?) to do battle.

My question is, was the match that they had real/plausible? Was it based on a real, historical chess match? And was it even played as chess masters would play?

My first instinct was that they took a historical and famous chess match, and my gut feeling is strong. But I could be wrong. And anyway, which chess match is this? I figured, if it's a historical chess match, many users here will have studied it before.

I tried to get a screenshot of the last configuration of the board, but they never actually show it.

Instead, I know that Moriarty plays White. His opening move is c4.
When Holmes moves again, he is shown to play d5, some turn after he has played e5 (but we're not sure how many turns after). On the bright side, I have a this screenshot when he plays d5:

Finally, I have the list of moves they made during the end game, when their blind match started. I'll list their alternating moves according to how they said it, as I don't know how to write in notation.

Holmes: Bishop takes Knight, check
Moriarty: King to Rook 2
Rook to King's Rook 3
Bishop to Rook 3
Bishop takes Bishop
Rook to Bishop 4
Rook takes Rook
Pawn takes Rook
Bishop to Bishop 7
Queen takes Knight Pawn
Bishop to Bishop 8, discovered check, mate

Interesting question! Unfortunately it's not possible to easily reconstruct the complete game from the limited information available in the movie. Fortunately for us, this has been investigated in detail at chess.com, where they have done an awesome job of reconstructing the opening and ending from the movie.

The game played in the movie is based on the historical grandmaster game, Bent Larsen vs Tigran Petrosian, 1966 (Santa Monica). Both the opening move sequence and the ending have been changed somewhat to make it a little bit more exciting to watch. You can play through this original game in the linked article.

I won't include the board for the final position here since until we have better chess rendering support, it is better displayed on the linked website. You can click through the moves and see how it all unfolds.

The author of the blog post also emailed the movie's technical director, and got some additional information, including the historical background, which he used to refine his reconstruction of the game's opening and ending:

  I emailed the technical advisor Adam Raoof during the chess scene and Qh6 and Kh1 wasn't in the movie but are the correct moves.(I presumed it cause it was the only possible move with queen cause of later Qxb2 and of course the King could have moved to f1 also).

  I took a closer look at the chess scene and the opening and you can read the about it in the middle of the blog.They use a different opening in the movie then the Larsen-Petrosian game.

  Adam Raoff told me that he choose the game with Larsen as a tribute to him and because it was one of his favourite tournament books and was played in the year of his birth.

  Holmes was gonna play white in the original script but soon after they decided on this line the director changed the script so that Holmes was gonna have the black pieces so they reversed the position and lost a move.

  Adam added the line 'discovered check and, incidentally, mate', which made it to the film and which Robert Downey Junior thought was  "&&**ing awesome"!


Usage of Philanthropist Flare as Schizoid Suppose I'm playing as Schizoid. I have the power to alter reality, so I choose one of the six new cards to be the new win condition. That card is face down.

Then suppose I use Philanthropist Flare:

  Send one of your ships to the warp to lend your power to another player for the duration of the encounter. Until the end of the encounter, that player is considered to have your power instead of his or her own. You may not use your power while it is loaned out. The player may not refuse the loan of your power.

Would the player I use this on get to look at the win condition card?

I'll start by saying that there won't be an explicit answer to this question. Cosmic Encounter is about interactions, and given the number of aliens with different powers, sometimes you just have to make it up as you go and use some logic to come to the best conclusion. I think this is probably one of those situations.

My interpretation would be when you play the Philanthropist Flare as the Schizoid, the player you lend your power to can look at the win condition. The most logical reasoning for this is presented by dorakeen in a different answer: the player with the Schizoid power "is responsible to announce when any player(s) have fulfilled the winning conditions". When you use the Philanthropist Flare, you no longer have your power and as such cannot declare a win condition met. The person who is now the Schizoid, even temporarily, has that job.

Additionally, there's nothing on the Schizoid card that says you can't show the alternate win condition to other players. If something in the game would cause that card to be revealed to another player or players for some reason, nothing is there to stop that event. The lack of specification about whether other players could see that card leads me to believe that it could be shown.

Having said that, if you and your game group feel that the answer is actually no, there's nothing in the rules to contradict you. Remember the game is about interactions, so do what makes the most sense to you.


The opposing member inadvertently plays two card that are stuck together and it is discovered later What is the penalty if the opposing team inadvertently plays two cards on a trick because they stick together. It is discovered later.

Assuming you are playing rubber bridge, the Laws of Rubber Bridge apply.
If the irregularity is discovered part way through the hand, was a misplay by a Defender, and during discovery of the misplayed card it was ever placed such that Offender's Partner could have seen the card then it becomes an exposed card subject to the Penalty Card
rules.
Additionally, if the irregularity is discovered any time before the play is complete and the cards collected for shuffling, then the possibility of a revoke must be checked whether Offender was Declarer or a Defender. The card played in error must be regarded as being in the Offender's hand continuously from the trick of the misplay until noticed and restored. This can result in a revoke for the misplayed card. The applicable rule is:

Law 67 - Trick Either Appropriate in Error or Defective
A trick containing more or fewer than four cards is defective. When one player is found, during play, to have fewer or more cards than all of the other players, the previous tricks should be forthwith examined, face down; if a defective trick is discovered, the player with a correspondingly incorrect number of cards is held responsible.
The defective trick is inspected face up and
...
B. after the responsible player has played to a subsequent trick, the ownership of the defective trick cannot be changed and

....
if the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, he withdraws all but one card, leaving the highest card he could legally have played to that trick. A withdrawn card may become a penalty card (Law 50); such a card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender’s hand and failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.


In Eldritch Horror, when a mythos card refers to a monster's toughness, does it mean its current or max toughness? The Blood Flows mythos card says under its event:

  The Lead Investigator discards 1 Monster of his choice and loses Health equal to its toughness

Do I use the monster's current or max health?

Toughness is the max health. That's the damage you should take.
To clarify,  a monster taking damage does not effect its toughness. Once a monster takes damage equal to Toughness,  it dies


Do creatures created after first strike damage contribute to exalted? Let's say I have Pollenbright Wings on a creature with double strike, and I have given all my creatures exalted (say with First Slivers Chosen, and Arcane Adaptation choosing slivers).
Does the exalted from the new tokens created (which are now slivers), increase the regular damage from the double striking creature? Or is that checked after all the damage is done?

No

702.82. Exalted
702.82a Exalted is a triggered ability. “Exalted” means “Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, that creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.”
702.82b A creature “attacks alone” if it’s the only creature declared as an attacker in a given combat phase. See rule 506.5.

Exalted triggers when you attack, and then after the trigger resolves (which it must before first strike damage can be dealt) it doesn't trigger again. You need the exalted creature to be on the battlefield when you declare attackers for it to contribute; creating more exalted creatures afterwards has no effect.
In the same way, killing a creature with exalted after exalted has resolved does not magically shrink the attacker (and neither does killing it before the trigger has resolved, usually).


Is there a valid Blokus configuration where all the pieces are on the board? Is there a configuration of Blokus pieces where all pieces of one colour touch only at the corners and not the edges, so that the pieces could actually appear that way in a Blokus game, with each player ending up with a score of 0?

Solutions for both the four-player and two-player game would be appreciated.

After poking around a while for information on the scoring system, I found this site:

http://puzzlesland.com/blokus/

It contains an "optimal configuration" as I asked for in the original question, plus various other hypothetical configurations that were figured out.


Can I pay to return my opponent's Shackles to their hand? If my opponent plays Shackles enchanting one of my creatures, can I pay the {W} cost to return it to their hand?

No.
Activated abilities can normally only be activated by the controller of the permanent with the ability. When your opponent plays Shackles, even when it is attached to one of your creatures, they are still the controller of Shackles.

303.4e An Aura’s controller is separate from the enchanted object’s controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura, and vice versa. Only the Aura’s controller can activate its abilities.
110.2. A permanent’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it’s a token; see rule 110.5a). A permanent’s controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller.
602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Only an object’s controller (or its owner, if it doesn’t have a controller) can activate its activated ability unless the object specifically says otherwise.


Is resistance Coup worth getting if I already have resistance avalon? I've played regular Resistance and I have Resistance Avalon, but I've never played Resistance Coup is it worth getting? I like that you can play with just 2 people but, besides that I don't know much about it.

I'd like to post an additional, though not entirely different answer to Joey's.

Coup is a completely different game.

Key distinguishing elements are:

Coup has no co-operative element like The Resistance does, it's entirely out for yourself and trying to outlive all the other players.
Coup is a very short game - games can be over in 30 seconds (for two people) to 10 minutes for a long game.
Coup can be played by 2-6 people.

In my opinion Coup is a very good addition to your board game collection. For its price and size, it's an easy game to add.

Basically - Coup is a very good warm up game.  While everybody is getting settled, or you are waiting for people to arrive, you can play a few games of coup.  The rules are nice and simple, most people understand them after one short game. Because the games are so short, it doesn't matter if someone arrives half way through, because they can just join the next game.


PDF with Shogi Zukou and Shogi Musou I'm very interested in Shogi, and I have a board I bought from USA (I'm in México).

So of course I'm interested in Shogi tsume (mating problems), eventually I came to hear about Shogi Zukou by Kanju Itou, and Shogi Musou by Soukan Itou III (the third).

However I've come across a bit of a problem, I can't really find any one source for all the problems, at least an English one...

So, is anyone aware of a PDF file (preferable) or some kind of file that has all these problems compiled? Along with their solutions of course. If they could use images or kanji instead of pure text, I would be grateful.

A web search for tsume shogi reveals lots of sites with Shogi mating problems.

I'm not aware of a specific compilation of Shogi Zukou and Shogi Musou, but if it's a pdf you want I did discover this compilation of 300 problems in pdf form.


What happens when a double-sided card is returned to the battlefield or a copy of it appears? Say I cast Oblivion Ring on Garruk, the Veil-Cursed (i.e. a transformed Garruk Relentless). What happens when my Oblivion Ring gets destroyed?

My interpretation was that Garruk returns in his Veil-Cursed form, but dies with zero loyalty counters, since there is no reference to how many counters he has upon return.

Also, am I correct assuming that Clever Impersonator is everything but clever when trying to impersonate Garruk, the Veil-Cursed (i.e. he dies due to zero loyalty counters)?

It will come back as the Garruk Relentless with 3 loyalty counters since it enters the battlefield as a new object. See comprehensive rules 110.6 and 110.6b

  110.6. A permanent's status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values:
  tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased
  in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each
  of these categories.

  110.6b Permanents enter the battlefield untapped, unflipped, face up, and phased in unless a spell or ability says otherwise.


Why are some decks (i.e. Meandeck Tendrils) not playable in tournaments? I have been working with Meandeck Tendrils lately.  In the linked article, Stephen Menendian indicated that while the decklist was tournament legal (at the time), it was not possible to play it in a tournament, as:

  The primary reason it's unviable is because you have to compress all of the numerous decisions of a typical Vintage game into the space of one turn - and do that in a reasonable amount of time."

Can someone explain this reasoning?  I am unfamiliar with tournament timing rules, and don't even know where to begin to understand his claim.  Note, in case it's important, the card list for his deck is below.

Clarification:

This paragraph is added after many comments were made on the original question.  I'm not so interested in a detailed analysis of this deck per se (My version of this deck differs considerably from Stephan's).  I'm interested in why would a deck that's a 66% first turn kill be slow to play?  That said, Stephan's decklist is hard to play.  My best guess, is that his deck takes at least 5 hard decisions on average, (8 worst case) to play through it's various lines of play.  That is just goldfish play, I have no experience playing against Force Of Will, or other disrupters.  So, it appears Stephan's argument is,

  You just can't play this deck enough to automatically know how to make
  all those hard decisions.  Moreover, those hard decisions take a lot
  of time, and you will be too slow for a real tournament.

I can buy that.  The dude has experience (as pointed out in the answers or comments below).  I have none.  If I'm missing something about tournament rules, and how slow play works in tournament rules, I'd like to know it.  The answers below do an excellent job of capturing that.

1 Bayou
1 Polluted Delta
1 Tropical Island
1 Black Lotus
4 Chromatic Sphere
1 Chrome Mox
4 Darkwater Egg
1 Lion's Eye Diamond
1 Lotus Petal
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Sol Ring
1 Ancestral Recall
4 Brainstorm
4 Cabal Ritual
4 Dark Ritual
1 Demonic Consultation
4 Repeal
4 Spoils of the Vault
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Imperial Seal
4 Land Grant
3 Night's Whisper
4 Tendrils of Agony
1 Yawgmoth's Will

Effectively, you need to be able to win two games (possibly after losing one!) in 50 minutes, and give your opponent their fair share of that time too, so if a deck is difficult and time consuming enough to play, you may simply run out of time, and not be able to win matches. And you may never even reach the time limit - if a judge thinks you're playing slowly enough to cause problems, they will step in and force you to speed up or lose. If on the other hand you play fast enough to avoid all this, you'll make too many mistakes, and lose anyway.

All these things are potential issues since as Menendian says in the article, a lot of the decisions you have to make are difficult, and the deck is difficult to play fast enough without making mistakes. (Of course, it's also possible that you can play it fast and well even though he couldn't - feel free to try to prove him wrong!)

In tournaments, the time limit is typically 50 minutes per round. (Officially, the minimum time limit allowed is 40 minutes but 50 minutes is the recommended time for constructed tournaments). In each round you're playing a best of three match. If someone hasn't won two games by the end of time, the current turn is finished, then five more turns of play are allowed (i.e. three for one player and two for the other); if the game isn't over by then, that game is a draw. If that was the third game (reasonably likely, it's been 50 minutes), each player has won one of the first two games, so the match is a draw as well. So if a deck is slow to play, you'll likely end up with a lot of draws.

In order to help make sure that people actually finish their matches, the tournament rules disallow "Slow Play". It's normally something where a judge will simply give a caution, letting a player know they need to speed up, but if it continues to happen it can lead to more significant penalties. You can't just sit there thinking forever; you'll eventually get a game/match loss.

The point at which you're playing too slowly is up to the judges' discretion, though. This article by a couple of judges goes into some detail about the way they personally think about it, though it's explicitly not official policy. The key thing to notice is that it's largely based on what speed of play is necessary in order to finish games within the allotted time. So while for many decisions 15-30 seconds is about as much time as you can reasonably take, if you're to the point where clearly you'll either win or lose within a minute once you decide, you might get some leeway. Bottom line, though, it's possible you won't actually get to the point of running out of time in the round: a judge may step in sooner and force you to either decide (making your decisions more error-prone) or lose.

There's another problem on top of this: combo decks tend to have long turns, so those few extra turns at the end of the game can drag on for much longer than with other decks. There's only a small amount of buffer time between rounds, so the two players in the extra long match will end up delaying the next round, upsetting the schedule for the entire tournament. Wizards actually banned Second Sunrise from Modern in order to stop a combo deck from causing these kinds of delays. That doesn't exactly mean the deck was unplayable (in fact people were doing reasonably well with it), but at the same time, you don't exactly want to be messing up tournaments for others.

As for this specific deck, I can't personally tell exactly how difficult and slow it is to play, but it certainly looks hard. There are an awful lot of decisions, and getting any of them wrong could totally derail you, so you'd have to take your time and get it all right under pressure. I would tend to trust the opinion of the experienced player who wrote that article and assume he's right that it's simply too hard to play within the available time. On the other hand, perhaps with enough skill (or enough practice) you could get fast enough.


Was there ever a non-1st Edition version of the Machamp found in the 2-player Starter Set? Back when I collected Pokémon cards, I received a 2-Player Starter Set, which included a 1st Edition Holographic Machamp. As far as I know, everybody who got this set received the same 1st Edition Machamp card.

Was there ever a non-1st Edition version of the starter set Machamp released?

According to Bulbapedia:

  A 1st Edition version of this card was included in the 2-Player Starter Set. While an Unlimited Edition version of the Base Set print of this card was never officially released, a Non Holofoil version of this card lacking the 1st Edition stamp was included in the Trainer Deck A, distributed to prototype Pokémon Leagues before the TCG officially launched in North America.

So it look like all Foil Machamps from the Base set are 1st Editions ("Unlimited" refers to cards that are not 1st Edition).


What does this oval symbol at the bottom of Magic cards mean? This is not related to game play as far as I know. Creatures such as Shivan Dragon, Victory's Herald and Glyph Keeper, and even enchantments like the double-sided Search for Azcanta, there is this shiny part near the bottom of the card. The only link that I have is that it is linked to rarity, because only cards that are rare and above have them, but not all of the cards that are rare and above do have them, and it is not related to premiums. Can anybody help me know what it is?

These are holograms, to prevent forgeries. They were introduced as part of a new card design in Magic Origins (2015):

Magic Origins (2015)
The second (and current) overall frame change was unveiled in Magic Origins. It was a more subtle change, adding some more (non-game related) information on the bottom of the card, which received a black colored background. Also, rare and mythic rare cards received a hologram sticker to prevent forgeries.

(source)
Compare Shivan Dragon from M14 with the one from M15:


Why does Cryptbreaker need to specify "untapped" Zombies? The card Cryptbreaker has the following ability:

  Tap three untapped Zombies you control: You draw a card and you lose 1 life.

Why is it necessary to specify that the three Zombies must be untapped? You can't tap an already tapped creature, or use tapped creatures to pay a tap cost. MtG cards usually have a very good economy of words, so why include this seemingly unnecessary text? Would the card function differently in any circumstance if it just said "Tap three Zombies you control"?

You are correct that the word is unnecessary; it would function the same without.

There are various times that MTG adds extra words for the sake of clarity; even when they have no effect on functionality.

A very common example are cards such as Aetherstorm Roc, which use the wording "Aetherstorm Roc or another creature enters the battlefield under your control..."

This could have simply been written "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control" for the exact same effect. But there would be some less experienced players that would not know if it should count itself or not. The longer wording makes this explicit.

"Tap an untapped creature you control" works the same way. If it simply said "Tap a creature you control", then you wouldn't be able to activate it without actually tapping an untapped creature, due to the rule:

  701.20a To tap a permanent, turn it sideways from an upright position. Only untapped permanents can be tapped.

However, the extra word helps make it clear that this is the case. Especially due to the fact that a "tap target creature" ability can in fact target a tapped creature, some people would wonder what stops them from choosing tapped creatures to pay the activation cost for "tap a creature you control".


Does Prince Arnaud cause someone holding the Princess to lose? The rules for Prince Arnaud say:

  When you discard Prince Arnaud, choose one player still in the round (including yourself). That player discards his or her hand (do not apply its effect) and draws a new card.

but for the Princess, they say:

  If you discard the Princess-no matter how or why-she has tossed your letter into the fire. You are knocked out of the round.

https://www.ultraboardgames.com/love-letter/the-people.php

If Prince Arnaud is used on someone holding the Princess, does that person lose due to discarding the Princess, or do they not apply its effect? Given that the wording of Prince Arnaud says "discards his or her hand" rather than "discards the card in his or her hand", does this count as discarding the Princess?

The player does lose.  The full rule book is explicit about this:

If you discard the Princess—no matter how or why—she has tossed your letter into the fire. You are immediately knocked out of the round. If the Princess was discarded by a card effect, any remaining effects of that card do not apply (you do not draw a card from the Prince, for example). Effects tied to being knocked out the round still apply (eg. Constable, Jester), however.
When you discard Prince Arnaud, choose one player still in the round (including yourself). That player discards his or her hand (but doesn’t apply its effect, unless it is the Princess, see page 8) and draws a new one.

Using the prince on a player with the princess is one of the main ways to eliminate a player during the round.  The big three ways to eliminate a player mid-round are:

Using a guard (and either guessing correctly or having advance knowledge of their card from the King/Priest)
Using the Baron
Using the prince on a player with the princess


How do you eradicate a disease? What are ways you can have a disease eradicated?

Is it if you get rid of all the cubes or do you have to find a cure first?

You must first discover the cure before you can eradicate a disease. Otherwise, some diseases could begin the game eradicated. From the rulebook, page 4:

Treat Disease

If the last cube of a cured disease is removed from the board, this disease is eradicated. Flip its cure marker from its “vial” side to its “0” side.

Discover a Cure

[...]If no cubes of this color are on the board, this disease is now eradicated. Flip its cure marker from its “vial” side to its “0” side.

And:

Removing the last cube of a disease that is not cured has no effect.


"Wrath of God" -VS- "Chord of Calling" + "Selfless Spirit" sacrificed in response My opponent plays Wrath of God. In response I use Chord of Calling to get Selfless Spirit, so I can sacrifice Selfless Spirit and all of my creatures become indestructible, preventing the effect of Wrath of God.

My opponent said I can't play this way because according to the stack rules, by the time he plays Wrath of God, Selfless Spirit is not in the battlefield.

Can I prevent my creatures from dying to Wrath of God this way?

You are correct, you can save your creatures with that play.

The stack works according to the "last in, first out" principle. Whatever spell or ability goes on the stack becomes the top-most object on it, and when the stack starts resolving, the top-most object on the stack will resolve first.

Whenever something resolves, players have the chance to play more spells and abilities. So the line of play goes like this:

Your opponent plays Wrath of God
You play Chord of Calling in response
Both of you pass on playing things, and the top-most object, Chord of Calling, resolves. You get the Selfless Spirit on the battlefield.
You sacrifice Selfless Spirit. Its ability becomes the top-most object on the stack. Wrath of God is still on the stack, at the bottom of the stack.
Selfless Spirit's ability resolves, making all of your creatures indestructible.
Wrath of God resolves, and will not kill any of your creatures.


Crop Circles expansion - Do players HAVE to place a meeple? In the Crop Circles expansion the rules for choosing Option A (placing additional meeples) was ambiguous.

For option B, it's quite clear that everybody, starting at the active player's left, must remove a meeple of the type denoted by the crop circle.

However, it wasn't clear on option A, whether the players MUST place an additional meeple, or whether they could choose not to.

The crop circle rules are slightly ambiguous but my reading of option A is that all players MAY place an extra follower on a tile they have a follower, but if they do it MUST be with a follower of the same type.

I think it reads better if you put the rules together rather than separating them.

He then decides for every player, starting with the player to his left, if:
A) they can place another follower on a tile where they already have a follower
of the type designated by the crop circle.... the player must place the new follower with another one of his followers of the same type (a farmer with a farmer, a thief with a thief, a knight with a knight).


Does the starting world dictate your strategy in Race for the Galaxy? Our board games club recently purchased Race for the Galaxy and we've played around a dozen games so far, plus some research using Keldon's AI (which is excellent).

In the base set with one world, when you draw a starting planet that confers a specific bonus, eg +2 Military does that force you down the Military path? As for a Produce/Consume strategy you are behind a player who drew a Mining world for example.

The short answer is that the start world is able to give you a jumpstart toward one or more specific strategies (the military world is probably the best example), but you can still play a very successful strategy that does not revolve around (get it?) that world.

I often make the decision about whether to commit to the start world pretty early on. A very common strategy, I'm sure you've noticed, is to play Explore on the first round. Between my starting four cards and my first explore draw, I will try to find a strategy that will get me ~50% of the way through my tableau (not necessarily from the cards in hand, but from the powers and phase plays I expect to focus on). If there's one that the start world helps, that's usually weighted pretty heavily.

If a strategy coalesces in my hand that the start world does little to help, I'll usually still go for it.


Resolving Diplomatic actions in a RISK-style board game I'm working on a board game called Farlanthia: Lords of War. And I need some help with resolving diplomacy during play.

My original idea was to have Diplomacy be a form of "attack" like in RISK.  This would force another player to perform an action (like a trade, or peace treaty, etc.)  The idea is that each "season" you would send a diplomat to court, and politics would play out.  Sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don't.  This would allow me to use modifier cards (say, you have as prisoner a general from the other player, this would give you +2 in diplomacy with them).

However, as was pointed out on BoardGameGeek this isn't optimal for everyone.  So I'm considering adding in a voluntary portion where if both parties agree to the treaty at hand, it goes into place without die rolling.

Thoughts?  I'm just not sure how to arbitrate the rules of diplomacy during an otherwise concrete game if the diplomatic actions aren't just as concrete.

Thanks,

[EDIT]

(Cross-posted to GameDev in case it isn't appropriate for here.)

A question to consider is whether diplomacy should even be something that is directly handled by the game mechanics, or something that happens purely through negotiation between players with game mechanics that encourage negotiation.

A great example of this is, of course, Diplomacy. There are no mechanics directly related to diplomacy (nothing that says you're in a treaty, or that diplomacy was successful or not), but the fact that moves are submitted simultaneously, and that you generally need support from multiple armies in order to take territory, means that you need to ally with other players in order to get ahead, and you need to place a certain amount of trust in them that they will do what they say; and those facts means that there are complex, shifting alliances throughtout the game, backstabbing, and negotiated two or three way wins at the end.

Another good example of this style of encouraging diplomacy and backstabbing is A Game of Thrones.

Beyond simultaneous movement mechanics, another way to encourage diplomacy without adding it explicitly to the game it through trading. If people are able to trade resources at some point in their turn, like in Settlers of Catan, then they may be able to negotiate a non-aggression pact and/or trade some resources, giving the players who negotiate such a pact an advantage over the other players in the game.

I would be wary of making diplomacy be something you roll for. It's very easy to add too much rolling for action resolution to the game. People will wonder when playing "why can't I just negotiate directly, why do I have to roll randomly to negotiate, even when what I'm proposing is directly to the advantage of both players involved?" Try to make the diplomatic aspect more of an emergent property of your game, which comes about not because of explicit rules, but because it's the most sensible way to play the game, and I think your players will enjoy it much more.


Bidding: How to figure out if responder has 4 carder or 5 carder major? Playing SAYC, you open 1 Minor. Left passes and partner bids 1 Major. How do you figure out if partner has 4 carder major or 5 carder?

Obviously if left overcalls, then partner can use a negative double to indicate  he has a 4 carder or bid 1 Major to show a 5 carder. But otherwise, is there any convention to figure this out?

In general no, there is no convention to convey this information because it is not (yet) important enough to warrant co-opting a call sequence. The subsequent auction will enable the partners to first determine if an 8-card fit exists, then whether either notrump is a suitable contract, or notrump is unsuitable but only 7-card fits are available.

Opener will show 4-card support eagerly (either by an immediate raise or a delayed jump raise) so that Responder will know there is an 8-card fit.

If forced by Responder to make a preference then Opener's minimum return to Responder's will be assumed to show only 2 card support. This will often be passed unless Responder has unrevealed strength to compensate for the lack of fit

If Opener returns freely to Responder's first suit then this delayed support shows three cards. At this point Responder holding 5 can indicate this by passing, inviting game, or jumping to game depending on his knowledge of the combined partnership assets. If Responder holds only 4 cards then a choice must be made to play in a Moysian fit of the major; in notrump; or in some other suit.

An essential point to note in these auctions is that the beginner's rush to rebid a 5-card suit is a terrible habit, and to be avoided whenever possible. Fast rebids of a suit should be reserved for showing 6-card holdings, so that partner can freely raise to show 2, revealing the 8-card fit.

AN exception to the above exists when Opener rebids 1 Notrump. Many partnerships will play some variation on Check-Back Stayman or New Minor Forcing to then explore major suit fits in more detail.

Update - as noted below in a comment:

by "fast rebid" is meant "at the next round of bidding." The tempo of the rebid itself, slow or fast, cannot legally (or ethically) be taken into account by partner!


Types of EDH mana base After looking at a number of EDH deck lists I have seen two distinct types of mana bases used by various decks.

Some decks use a large number of basic lands, dual lands and utility lands.

Other decks use a minimum number of basics, dual lands including the Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Revised duals plus Shock lands, a range of fetch lands and the relevant utility lands.

The cost is a obvious factor for choosing the first type of mana base but for what other reasons would you choose one type over the other?

Fetchlands + duals is a formula used by almost all the top decks in every format that allows them. The main advantage is monumental consistency.

Verdant Catacombs, for instance, can fetch any of the following original dual lands:

Badlands (Swamp / Mountain)
Bayou (Swamp / Forest)
Savannah (Forest / Plains)
Scrubland (Plains / Swamp)
Taiga (Mountain / Forest)
Tropical Island (Forest / Island)
Underground Sea (Island / Swamp)

That translates into easy access into any color you need, significantly superior to even what you'd get running a full set of Shards of Alara tri-lands.

In addition,

The duals you fetch can produce two colors, so you'll have good color depth among the lands you have in play (color depth is an advantage of multi-color non-basics in general).
Fetches provide a way to shuffle away the top of your library, commonly employed with cards like Brainstorm and Sensei's Divining Top: put the cards you want on top of your library and the cards you don't underneath them, draw the cards you want, then crack your fetchland to shuffle the chaff away.
Many multi-color lands come into play tapped at least some of the time. Both old-school duals and shocklands can come into play untapped, so there's no loss of momentum compared to playing basic lands.
Since cracking a fetchland actually removes another land from your library, it thins your deck, reducing your likelihood to draw lands in the late game when you'd rather have spells. This effect is rather marginal, but it's a tiny little bonus.
Fetches basically double your landfall triggers.
Unlike other non-basics, these lands make it very easy to use domain-like abilities. This is basically why "Zoo" even exists as a deck type in Modern and Legacy. In Commander you'll see this used to support some powerful cards like Collective Restraint.
Fetchlands give you an easy way to put lands in your graveyard, which powers up Deathrite Shaman, Tarmogoyf, Life from the Loam combos, threshold cards, and other stuff.

Why shouldn't you play fetches, duals, and shocks, besides the cost of owning the cards?

Strategically speaking,

Fetch abilities can be countered by a few rare effects. In Legacy, the spell for this is Stifle. In Commander, you could fall prey to repeatable effects like Azorius Guildmage or Voidmage Husher.
Fetches are vulnerable to search hosers like Aven Mindcensor and Shadow of Doubt. Commander has a very powerful hoser: Stranglehold.
A heavily non-basic mana base is vulnerable to non-basic-land hate like Wasteland, Back to Basics, Blood Moon, Price of Progress, and Ruination. Experienced players can easily mitigate many of these effects by using their fetchlands to get basic lands, though; ultimately you still have better protection against them than you would with a multicolor deck that doesn't use fetches and duals.
Fetches and shocks drain your life. A couple life here and there seems inconsequential, but it can add up pretty quickly.

Also, practically speaking, shuffling your deck all the time is annoying. I can't even shuffle 100 sleeved cards without splitting the deck in half. Although you can at least reduce some of the inconvenience by cracking fetches on an opponent's turn (similar to proper Divining Top etiquette).


Do you acquire Evolution cards simultaneously when Attacking, and when can you use them? The King of Tokyo rules state:

If you are attacked while in Tokyo and you don’t want to be there anymore (and who can blame you – it can be rough!) you can yield to the Monster that attacked (he has to take your place). You still take the damage, however.

The King of Tokyo: Power-Up expansion rules state:

If a Monster ends his roll with at least 3{Heart}, he draws the top Evolution of his deck, keeping it secret. [...]
Evolution - Monsters keep their evolutions secret until they want to play them - which can be at any time.

The fact that you can use Evolutions at any time brings up some interesting rules interactions, and some difficult to answer questions:

Do you acquire an Evolution card simultaneously when attacking?

How does this affect when Evolution cards can be played? (provide answers and reasoning for The King's Evolution cards below)

To give some concrete examples, can you play the The King's evolution cards if you roll at least 1 {Claw}, and at least 3 {Heart} immediately during the same turn you acquired one of them?

King of Tokyo: "Gain 1 extra {Star} when you take control of Tokyo or start your turn there." (Can you play this if the opponent yields, or does dealing damage & yielding occur before acquiring the Evolution card?)
Alpha Male: "Gain 1 {Star} when you attack." (Can you play this immediately and gain a star, or have you already attacked? Is this answer different than the above, why?)
Chest Thumping: "When you attack Tokyo, you can force the occupant to retreat." (Do you make this decision to reveal the Evolution card during your attack, or during the opponent's yield? Does that timing difference make it match the first/second rule above?)
Jungle Tokyo: "Discard this Evolution to take an extra turn. Only do this when you have attacked Tokyo and have failed to enter Tokyo."

In the absence of any published clarifications from the publisher or game designer, I think the rules for any game should be taken as literally as possible, unless doing so "breaks" the game and there is a more reasonable way to interpret them.

Naturally, should all players agree to a modification of the rules prior to the start of the game and it isn't some sort of "tournament" play, then the agreed on house rules will supersede the normal rules.  It is your gaming groups luxury to play how you wish.

So let's take a look at the turn order from King of Tokyo rules:

Rolling and rerolling the dice
Resolving the dice
Buying cards (optional)
End of your turn.

From the King of Tokyo Power Up! rules (emphasis added):

  If a monster ends his rolls with at least 3{Heart}, he draws the top Evolution of his
  deck

So this all hinges on when the rolls end. For me, rolls are clearly performed in stage 1, and the rolls would end before stage 2 starts.  As such, this is where the rules indicate you should draw the evolution card.

The following question was raised in the comments:

  "2. Resolving the Dice - The symbols you get at the end of your rolling step are the actions for this turn." You don't get the benefit of any die faces until you resolve the dice in the 2nd step, why would evolutions be different.

This is fallacious reasoning.  Nowhere in the rules does it say that "you don't get the benefit of any die faces until you resolve the dice in the 2nd step." It simply says that the symbols are your actions and the actions are resolved in stage 2.  A player doesn't take the rolls into the resolution stage, they take the symbols (and the actions they indicate) into the resolution stage.

Drawing the evolution card is not an "action" as defined by the rules nor is it coupled to performing actions. Evidence that the drawing of the evolution card is decoupled from actions can be found directly in the Power Up! rules:

  The hearts do not need to to be used to regain life, and a player can even use the hearts
  to draw an Evolution when in Tokyo. The card does not replace healing, the card is in addition to any healing that would normally occur.

What I take from the above rule:

You can draw the card whether or not you can make use of the healing action.  Said another way, even when in Tokyo where the {Heart} symbols would otherwise provide no action.
You can draw the card whether or not you choose to make use of the healing action.
The drawing of the card does not replace the healing action.

In summary, drawing the evolution card has nothing at all to do with the healing action itself.

Moving on to if you can play the evolution card on the same turn, this is what the rules say:

  Monsters keep their evolutions secret until they want to play them – which can be at any time.

There is no mention of not being able to play the card the turn you draw it, so when they say anytime, you should be able to play it immediately if you choose.

Based on this reasoning, in respect to your specific questions, here is how they should be interpreted:

King of Tokyo: you can play anytime (for instance before you resolve the dice roll).  But to get the effect, you would need to play it before your opponent yields, but not after he/she does.  Once they yield Tokyo, you now control it so playing the card afterward won't provide the effect this turn.
Alpha Male: if you play it and attack this turn, it will provide the effect this turn.
Chest Thumping: yes, you can use it to force your opponent to yield Tokyo.  You would need to use this when you attack (there is no point if your opponent has already yielded).
Jungle Tokyo: you could play it this turn if you did attack and didn't take control of Tokyo.

Edit: Addressing the point made by user1873 regarding Gigazaur's Gamma Breath/Saurian Adaptability.

Prior to this, I was representing (at the very least in my own head) the evolution draw as somewhat of an added stage in the turn (say 1.5).  I haven't sat down with the rules and all the cards to try to figure out every nuance, but it would have been more clear and accurate to say the draw take place in stage 1, following the rolls but before stage 1 ends.

The ability to modify the results of the final roll indicates the game creators have already allowed for game play to take place in stage 1 after the final roll but before stage 1 ends.  So I would take this as stage 1 doesn't end until stage 2 starts (i.e. the player moves on to start resolving his actions).

This allows for Gamma Breath to function (ignoring whether it is on the same turn played or in future turns).  If stage 1 were to end with the final physical dice roll, there we be no way to use this mutation within the rules as pointed out by user1873.

This also then allows for the evolution card draw as well as being able to play evolution cards at this time.


If unit A attacks unit B (which was attacking unit C) does the attack on B by A stop the attack on C by B? Let's say an English fleet has orders to attack Denmark from Skagarac, with plenty of support to take it. However, a Russian fleet attacks the English fleet from the Baltic Sea, with plenty of support to take Skagarac.

Would the Russian fleet's attack take priority, preventing the English fleet from taking Denmark? Or would both moves be successful, putting Denmark in English control and Skagarac in Russian control?

Both attacks/moves are successful. Supports can be cut by attack from elsewhere, but moves aren't.