Sharing Yu-Gi-Oh! card ideas I have designed a few Yu-Gi-Oh! cards, and I want Konami to review them.

Is there a way to submit my designs so that Konami will see and consider them?

Konami has general contact information for their offices. However, I highly doubt that they will accept unsolicited card suggestions. There are a couple of reasons for that:

They are already paying people to design cards, and they have a lot more experience.
If they were to accept fan-submitted cards, you would not be the only person submitting them. Konami would have to pay people to sift through all of the thousands of submissions.
Fan-submitted cards might have rights or legal issues. Do you own the card? Does Konami own the card? What happens if you submit a card and they radically change it? Do you have any say over the final outcome?
If Konami is like most TCG companies, they already have hundreds if not thousands of cards that they would love to publish someday (they plan out new sets well over a year in advance too). They have no need for half a dozen cards from a fan.

Konami has to date released 16 fan-made cards. Out of those, 15 of them were winners of contests that Konami specifically held, usually "draw a monster" contests open only to children. The last one, Tyler the Great Warrior, was a Make a Wish Foundation wish for a 14-year-old cancer patient (who ultimately survived). As best I can tell, all of these fan-submissions were only for monster designs and not for card stats.

Given this, I think your chances are practically zero for being able to show a card to Konami. Your best bet is to participate in one of these fan contests they have, or if you are an adult, convince a child to draw a monster that matches your design.


How to calculate points, if there are more than 10 cards In Curriculum Vitae (CV) the points calculation is presented in the table only for 1,2,...10 cards. It's easy to see, that in this table the nth card is worth n points.

First, count the points from the number of relationship, health and knowledge cards owned. Points for these cards are gained according to the table.

On the other hand in polish rule book we can find a sentence [translated]:

The player will gain more points, if he have more cards. The punctation is showed in the table.

The instruction says, that the calculation is presented in the table, but also says , that more cards = more points. Does that mean, that it's capped on 55 points for 10 cards? Or may I continue counting (66 for 11, 78 for 12,...) ?

The designer answered in this post on BGG that the max score for a set is for the 10-set (55 points):

  Scoring is capped on 10 so if you have 10 you can buy more only to block the opponent form [sic] getting them.


Whose turn is it when the end-of-round 5 turns are called and the turn is being passed? In the midst of the third game of a match, the active player has just suggested a short cut to pass priority until their turn ends. Simultaneously, the judge announces the end of the round, leaving 5 turns for each game that has not yet completed to attempt to determine a winner. Assuming the opponent hasn't acknowledged the start of their turn by untapping permanents or announcing intentions for "At the beginning..." triggers, which player has turn zero, the turn recognized before the countdown of 5 turns commences?

The turn has not yet ended.

To end your turn, all players must pass priority until the stack is empty, all players must pass priority once more to end the current step or phase, and then all players must pass priority again if you ever regain priority (e.g. in subsequent steps or phases).[1]
Since you can't unilaterally end your turn, telling the next player they can take their turn is merely proposing a shortcut to have all players pass priority until it becomes the next player's turn. The others need not accept the shortcut in its entirety, so the turn hasn't ended yet. Only once the last player has accepted the shortcut does the turn end.[CR 719.2a-c]
Having taken no action since your proposal, the other player has not accepted (or shortened) your shortcut (explicitly or implicitly, e.g. by untapping), and it hasn't occurred yet.

There are effects that override these rules. e.g. Sundial of the Infinite

719.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. [...]
719.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.
719.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player.


Can I use creature tokens to win with Mortal Combat? I have 20 1/1 Saproling tokens in play and Mortal Combat triggers at the beginning of my upkeep. Can I play Echoing Ruin to win the game?

I.e., will the Saproling tokens exist in my graveyard until Mortal Combat resolves?

This does not work for several reasons.

In the sequence you describe, Mortal Combat would not actually trigger at the beginning of your upkeep. This is because a triggered ability that says “At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” does not actually trigger when the trigger event happens unless the condition is true at that time.

Saproling tokens are not artifacts so Echoing Ruin cannot destroy them.

Even if Mortal Combat did trigger as you described and then the Saprolings did die from Echoing Ruin, they would immediately vanish. (Tokens can enter the graveyard, but they cease to exist 'immediately' afterward, i.e. when state-based actions are checked which happens very frequently, including at least once between the resolution of any two things on the stack.) So by the time Mortal Combat's ability resolves they are not there.

Also, Mortal Combat counts creature cards in your graveyard, and tokens are never considered cards (even if you are using the 'official' tokens that look like cards).

The text of some relevant rules:

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions... 704.5d. If a token is in a zone other than the battlefield, it ceases to exist.
117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
108.2b Tokens aren’t considered cards—even a card-sized game supplement that represents a token isn’t considered a card for rules purposes.
603.4. A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn’t true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. (The word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.)


When do I lose 2 SO Points at the end of each day? In Thunderbolt Apache Leader, the Artillery Unit (1S) notes say:

  Lose 2 SO Points at the end of the Day.

Can the 2 SO points come from Daily SO Points that are awarded at the end of day? Or must I deduct the 2 SO points immediately upon entering End of Day and before receiving the Daily SO Points?

So for example, if I have 0 SO points when entering the End of Day phase, is that an immediate loss due to 1S?

You deduct the SO points from the Artillery Unit after you've collected your daily SO points.

In the rules on page 21, the order in which actions happen during the End of Day phase are pretty specific:

  End of Day

  No Fly Stress Recovery
  Gain Special Option Points
  Move Enemy Battalions
  Lose Special Option Points (Map)
  ...

During the End of Day, you gain your daily SO points before losing any because of your current map configuration. This includes any points lost through unit effects. This is confirmed by user Walter Gagajewski on Board Game Geek, where he outlines a play session:

  I gained 5 SO for 6 total and lost 3 for the Command units at full strength, 2 for a unit effect, and 1 for a unit in Friendly Rear.

His notation seems to be slightly out of order, showing SO gains and loses after the start of the next day, but his play flows in the same order as the rules indicate. The loss from a unit he is referencing in the above quote is from the Artillery Unit (1S), so that helps to verify how the Artillery Unit functions.

Full disclosure: I have never played the game, but I've just spent a significant portion of my life reading the rulebook and searching the internet for player logs of game sessions.


Do I win or lose if I play "Trade Hands" while tied for "10 Cards in Hand"? I have 11 cards and have to play 2. You have 10 cards. My first card to play is the goal "10 Cards in Hand", which says:

"If someone has 10 or more cards in his or her hand, then the player with the most cards in hand wins.
In case of a tie, continue playing until a clear winner emerges."

We now both have 10 cards.
My second play is the action "Trade Hands". Does this take effect immediately (I now have your 10 cards, you now have my remaining 9 and I win) or is there a gap where I have played the card before we swap where I have 9 cards and you have 10 and win?

I had to pull out my deck to check this one, but I believe you win in this case!
The reason is the wording at the top of every action card (emphasis mine):

"To play this card, do whatever it says, then place it on the discard pile."

So, technically, action cards are still in your hand until you've performed the action they tell you to do.  So when you play "Trade Hands" in the situation you describe, what actually happens is:

You and your opponent exchange hands.  Both of you still have 10 cards in hand, including "Trade Hands".

You take "Trade Hands" from what is now your opponent's hand and place it on the discard pile.  Your opponent now has 9 cards in hand, while you still have 10.  You win.

Yeah, that does feel kind of weird, and of course in practice what you'd actually do when playing is set "Trade Hands" aside before passing your hand to your opponent.  But technically, according to the rules, it still counts as part of your hand (which becomes your opponent's hand) until the exchange is over.

By the way, if the explicit statement on each action card that I quoted above isn't convincing enough for you, some additional support might be offered by the "Discard & Draw" action card, whose instructions read:

"Discard your entire hand, then draw as many cards as you discarded.
Do not count this card when determining how many replacement cards to draw."

Clearly, if action cards were removed from your hand before they were played, there would be no need (except, admittedly, avoidance of doubt) to include the second sentence on the card at all.
I went through all the other action cards in my basic Fluxx deck, and as far as I can tell, these are the only two actions where this rule could make any direct difference.  However, note that following the rule as written does have one non-trivial indirect effect: whenever other cards are discarded as the result of an action, the action card ends up on top of them in the discard pile.  I don't think the order of the discard pile actually matters much (if at all) in basic Fluxx, but there are cards in other Fluxx editions for which it does matter, such as, off the top of my head, "Composting" in Eco Fluxx.  In any case, the "Let's Do That Again!" action explicitly tells you not to change the order of the discard pile, so clearly it's supposed to be at least potentially significant.


Can a single player have all nine potential queens in one game? I would like to know whether it is possible to, in a single game, convert all eight pawns of one colour into queens while retaining the original queen.

Presume that we are both playing chess competitively from the start of the game. Is there any circumstance where this could happen? Has it happened in the past?

Yes. This thread contains a set of sample games.


MTG Does "Emerging" cause summoning sickness? If I emerge a card like Mockery of Nature, does it get summoning sickness?

Yes, your Mockery of Nature will have summoning sickness when it enters the battlefield.

When you pay the emerge cost of Mockery of Nature, it is just an alternate casting cost.  As such, it doesn't change the summoning sickness rule in anyway.


What happens with palace guard and other blockers? Suppose my opponent attacks with 2 grizzly bears and I control 2 palace guard. I am on 1 life and must block both creatures to survive. I elect to block both creatures with both my palace guard.

In this situation, my assumption is that both the attacker and blockers must assign a damage order for their creatures, however this is confusing as each player can potentially choose a different order. I am at a loss as to what happens in that situation.

How are combatants ordered in this situation, and do player decisions have any significant impact on the outcome?

For each blocking creature, you choose the order of the creatures that it is assigning damage to. So, for your palace guards, you have 4 total options:

Palace Guard 1 and Palace Guard 2 both assign damage to Bear 1 first.
Palace Guard 1 and Palace Guard 2 both assign damage to Bear 2 first.
Palace Guard 1 assigns damage to Bear 1 first, Palace Guard 2 assigns damage to Bear 2 first.
Palace Guard 1 assigns damage to Bear 2 first, Palace Guard 2 assigns damage to Bear 1 first.

If you choose either #1 or #2, you will do 2 damage to 1 Bear and kill it, while not touching the other Bear. If you choose #3 or #4, you will do 1 damage to each Bear, and not kill anything.

Also, for each attacking creature Your opponent gets to choose the order that your blocking creatures will take damage, so he also has 4 total choice:

Bear 1 and Bear 2 both assign damage to Palace Guard 1 first.
Bear 1 and Bear 2 both assign damage to Palace Guard 2 first.
Bear 1 assigns damage to Palace Guard 1 first, Bear 2 assigns damage to Palace Guard 2 first.
Bear 1 assigns damage to Palace Guard 2 first, Bear 2 assigns damage to Palace Guard 1 first.

Similar to your choices, if he chooses #1 or #2, he will deal 4 damage to 1 Palace Guard and kill it; if he chooses #3 or #4, he will deal 2 damage to each Palace Guard and won't kill anything.

  509.2. Second, for each attacking creature that’s become blocked, the active player announces that
  creature’s damage assignment order, which consists of the creatures blocking it in an order of that
  player’s choice

  509.3. Third, for each blocking creature, the defending player announces that creature’s damage
  assignment order, which consists of the creatures it’s blocking in an order of that player’s choice.

The key here is that players get to choose separately how each attacking creature (and each blocking creature) orders/assigns its damage.


How should I start a second Gloomhaven campaign when the first is deeply underway? The rules specify that your campaign game can only play modules that are unlocked, and not repeat. It implies two parties moving simultaneously through the world, changing things permanently.

The only other option provided is the casual play mode, where you just pick any scenario that you've unlocked, earn gold, items, and XP normally, but don't adjust the state of the world at all through play.

I want something in the middle: able to play and progress, but starting from the earliest scenario. Has anyone done this hybrid?

There are many questions over on Board Game Geek asking this. here links to many others asking the same.

What I would ask is how important is the consistent world logic to you.  I'll try and give this answer with general concepts rather than specific spoilers.

As you play through the game you will notice that certain quests have prerequisites that certain party/global achievements have or have not happened.  If these revolve around an NPC being alive or dead then it wouldn't make sense for one party to be carrying out a task for someone who the other party killed.

Also you may have logical inconsistencies with road/city events.  Say Party A has an event which involved meeting an NPC who promises something later.  Then Party B has an event which references what the other party did.

Would you be OK with either of the above?

Having two parties might also cause problem with item supply. Some items have 4 copies so, in theory, are available to everyone.  Are you happy with this or would you try and keep a record of who has what item so each is available to either party>

So my answer is the possibly controversial one of 'feel free to break the rules in whatever way makes your group happy and enjoy the game'.  If you you want to start another party from the beginning and you're happy with potentially illogical storylines, then that's up to you - if that's what your group enjoys.

My other suggestion: if you're wanting to try new characters and can't wait till retirement, perhaps break the rules and allow your party to have more than four characters.  Then before each quest/road/city event decide which character you are taking along.

If this is what you want to do, then you just need to decide beforehand how you will handle these issues.  Trying to run two separate campaigns might work for missions being locked/unlocked but trying to keep track of two separate road and city decks less so.


Can I run Loyal Cathar in my green-white Commander deck? I'm running a green white Commander deck and wanted to know if I could.

Alas, you may not. This is because, per the rules posted on mtgcommander.net,

  The back face of a double-faced card is included when determining a card's colour identity.

So, while Loyal Cathar is a white card, a white spell on the stack, and a white creature on the battlefield (or a black creature when it's flipped), its Commander-specific color identity is actually white+black.


If Rayami, First of The Fallen is in the command zone, does his ability still activate? So if Rayami, First of the Fallen is your commander and has yet to be played, does his ability still exile creatures that would normally be destroyed, or does he have to be on the battlefield for that to happen?

Creatures will only be exiled by that ability if Rayami is on the battlefield.

In general, abilities on permanent cards only function while the card is on the battlefield. There are some exceptions, but they mostly boil down to "Does the ability only make sense in another zone, or specifically say that it works in another zone?" The details are in rule 113.6.


Phase 10 how to play on after completing 5 and 3 3 people are playing and I lay down the set of 5 and set of 3 but still have cards in my hand.  Someone completes the 5 and 2 and goes out.  So we need to play another round.  What do I play?  I already lay down the 5 and 3.  Should I start over?

TLDR

Based on the wording of the rules you won...

So the rules say that a player is the winner if:

  THE WINNER: The first player to complete Phase 10 at the end
  of a hand is the winner. If two or more players complete Phase 10 in the same hand, then the player with the fewest total points is the winner. In the event of a tie, the players that tied replay Phase number 10. The first one to go out is the winner.

Looking at this specifically according to the wording it reads that once a hand has ended the first player to have completed phase ten has won. It does not say the winner finished the hand or that the winner finished without cards. It simply says that at the end of a hand the first to have completed the final phase is the winner.

In addition, consider this statement:

  If two or more players complete Phase 10 in the same hand, then the player with the fewest total points is the winner.

This would mean that a hand has ended and two or more players have finished the final phase. One may have cards left and the other may have gone out. Or both players finished with cards and someone else has gone out to end the hand. Either way they both finished in the same hand on phase 10.

According to the rules, the game has ended for all players that did not finish the last phase and the last players now must determine who won. First, the player with the lowest number of points is the winner. If that is not possible then the tying players play the final phase again and the first to go out is the winner.

Since the hand ended and you were the only player to  have completed the final phase, you win by default.


How does Only A Test affect the end-of-round honor bonuses/penalties? In Ninja Burger, you can play the card Only A Test in response to failing a mission; it turns out that your manager was just testing you, and does not blame you for failing.

How does that affect the end-of-round honor bonuses and penalties? There's normally an extra Honor penalty if only one person fails, and there's an honor bonus if everyone succeeds. If Only A Test hid your failure, can you prevent everyone from getting the honor bonus if everyone else succeeded? Similarly, if your "test" is the only failure, do you lose the "additional" Honor even if you didn't lose Honor for failing the mission?

EDIT: Full text of Only A Test:

Play this card immediately after you fail a mission. It was only a test! You suffer
no loss of Honor or other penalties. Your manager made the task very difficult in order
to evaluate you and sharpen your skills, and he does not blame you for failing.
You cannot use this card to save yourself from a failed Errand!

Only a Test has you treat a failure as if you didn't fail. If you were the only failure, and Only a Test was played on your "failure," everyone would receive an honor bonus (+1 Honor) and you would not receive the additional (-1 honor) penality for being the only "failure." A moderator on SJG Forum said:

  You still fail, the manager just kinda hides the fact. So, in the context of the game, you did not fail. And yes, it will affect the game that way.


A&A Sea Zone Attack Rule Clarification I'm playing the 2004 Avalon Hill Revised rules.

Scenario: It is the UK player's turn. They use their Atlantic fleet (without any destroyers) to attack the German Atlantic fleet. Most of the German fleet is destroyed except for two submarines which choose to submerge. At the end of the UK player's non-combat move, the German submarines resurface and remain in the same sea zone as the UK fleet.

Fast-forward to the USA player's turn. They want to use their Atlantic fleet to attack the remaining German submarines. These submarines are still parked in the same sea zone as the UK fleet.

Question: If the USA player attacks the German submarines in the same sea zone as the UK fleet, does the UK fleet participate in the attack?

Commentary: I'm leaning towards no because of the "Defend together. Attack separately." principle. However, I can't find where this scenario is clarified in the rules.

The guidance from the updated 2005 Europe rules almost assuredly applies. You MAY take losses on allied units even when on the attack, and furthermore, MUST take them if there are not enough attacking units to take all the losses. Allied subs may NOT submerge as they never rolled dice. Quote below:

  When German subs are attacked in a zone that contains Allied naval units of more than one nationality, Allied losses can be taken from any of those Allied vessels. If the defending German subs score more hits than the attacking player has ships, must the excess hits be taken from the Allied ships that are standing by? For example, a sea zone is occupied by three German subs and two British transports. The US player brings in two destroyers and attacks the subs. The German player rolls his defensive dice and scores three hits! Must the Allies lose three ships, even though the Americans attacked with only two?
  A guiding principle throughout the rules is that if there is a way to apportion hits so they result in losses, the losses must be taken. In this case, the Allies must lose three ships; whether those are two destroyers and a transport or two transports and a destroyer is up to the Allied players.

  In the previous example, what if the British transports had been subs instead? Could they submerge to avoid becoming casualties?
  The only time subs can submerge is immediately before rolling dice, whether attacking or defending. In this example, the British subs can't submerge because they don't get to roll dice (they're not defenders -- Germany is defending, the US is attacking, and the British are just innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire).


What constitutes "wrongful" hesitation in bridge? The protagonist is West (W). Declarer leads a small card of a suit in which dummy, to W's left, has A8. West hesitates before playing in the following four situations:

  He has Kx (x<8). This is the mark of weak player who has "given away the game," and the declarer has all the advantages.
  He has T6, which "straddle" the 8. If the tournament director (TD) asks why he hesitated,  he responds that he was trying to decide whether or not to "top" the 8.
  He has T9 or 76, "equal" holdings that lose to the A, but either beat, or fail to, the 8. If the TD asks him for an explanation of his conduct, he replies that he was trying to decide whether or not falsecard the higher card to induce the declarer to lose count.
  He has a singleton, and hence no decision to make, and should play "naturally." As it is, he's pretending that he has more than one card when he doesn't.

The last case would clearly be one of wrongful hesitation. Would any of the other three cases, or others that I missed, constitute such misconduct, and why?

I believe that cases 1-3 are all ethical, but these are simple problems that should have been solved at the end of some earlier trick (In duplicate bridge, after all the cards to a trick have been faced, players should indicate that they are thinking about the hand by keeping their card face up. Play does not proceed until all players have turned their cards face down.).

None of 1-3 damage declarer, and in any case you may pause to think whenever you have an actual bridge problem. However, your hesitations may also transmit unauthorized information to your partner, and so your partner may be constrained in their future actions.

Jeff Goldsmith has a useful and interesting discussion about unauthorized information on his website, which covers this area, and discusses what you should do in case partner has accidentally given you unauthorized information.


Do you always need to keep track of what cards have been drawn in a turn? Do you always need to keep track of what cards have been drawn in a turn?

The reason I ask is because of Sylvan Library. While it's on the battlefield it's pretty obvious that you have to do it because you can put back any card you've drawn that turn back on top of your library.

But what about when Sylvan Library is not on the battlefield? I can't find any rules about it. As far as I have known people are are allowed to shuffle the cards in their hand and I've seen it happen a lot as a tactic to confuse your opponent. But what about the following corner case situation:

You have a Vedalken Orrery on the battlefield and no Sylvan Library
In you upkeep you cast some spells that let you draw some cards
You shuffle your hand a bit
Still in your upkeep you cast Sylvan Library
Sylvan Library triggers in your draw step

Now what? you have no way of telling what cards you have drawn in your turn. This seems to suggest that at all time you need to set the cards you've drawn aside. Can anyone clarify this?

If both players can't verify which cards were drawn that turn any unverified cards cannot be returned to the top of the library with Sylvan Library. If you think you might be playing a Library with Flash be sure to keep track of which cards you have drawn that turn.

From the Magic Judge Rules Blog:

  Here’s the Official ruling that has been handed down for Competitive REL events where Sylvan Library is legal: “Players will not have an option to return a card that can’t be proven to have been drawn this turn.”


Are there additional (custom ?) tracks for Formula One? Recently, I fell in love with the Formula One board game (not Formule D or Dé but this game). It is very well balanced and doesn't really leave room for luck but rather relies on planning and resources/risk management.

Unfortunately, the version of the game I have only has one track which can get repetitive after a while. I have not been able to find other tracks even different versions of the game.

I would like to know if there is any known additional content (both official and custom).

I have already created some cars to replace the stock ones and I'm currently  trying to add known tracks such as Magny-Cours (currently 100x70cm board size). A second track would be helpful to have two references regarding the balancing of the new board.

Side note 1 : I have tried to use Formule D tracks but they don't fit because the compartments are too big and need to be aligned. Also, the curves require speed limits.

Side note 2 : Sorry for the potential English mistakes. If the questions requires editing (question clarification or grammar-wise correction), feel free to point it out.

I’m a huge french fan of this extraordinary game.

You can find several interesting tracks on the Lucidphoenix site:
http://lucidphoenix.com/sc/tracks/

The owner of the site is Douglas Schultz, who remastered "Speed Circuit" in "CFR".


How does capturing work in gipf? I'm unclear as to when pieces are captured vs. when they're moved to the repository in Basic Gipf

If I understand it correctly, the 4+ in a row pieces are moved to the repository of the player with their color. Any pieces that extend this line are dealt with as follows:

if they're the same color as the current player, they're moved back to the repository
if they're the other player's color, they're captured.

Is this correct?

That is mostly correct. However, the player who picks up the pieces is not the current player, but the player who owns the 4+ pieces in a row.

E. Taking Pieces

As soon as 4 pieces of the same color are lined up next to each other, they must be taken from the board by the one playing with that color. Moreover, not only must these 4 pieces be removed, but also all of the pieces that form a direct extension of them. The pieces of one's own color are returned to the reserve, the pieces of the other color are captured, thus lost for the opponent.

As soon as 4 pieces of the same color are lined up, it is compulsory to remove them from the board (included the pieces extending the row), no matter who created the row. The color of the pieces in a row determines which player must take them. One's own pieces are returned to the reserve, the opponent's pieces are captured.

A copy of the rules can be found here.


Is there any interaction between hypothetical continuous effects? Consider a battlefield where I control a Deadfall, a Sunweb, and a Muraganda Petroglyphs. Importantly, Sunweb says

  Sunweb can't block creatures with power 2 or less.

Deadfall says

  Creatures with forestwalk can be blocked as though they didn't have forestwalk.

and Muraganda Petroglyphs says

  Creatures with no abilities get +2/+2.

If my opponent attacks with a Jukai Messenger (a 1/1 Forestwalk creature), can my Sunweb block it?

The answer seems at first to be "no", but if the Messenger didn't have forestwalk, it wouldn't have any abilities, so it would get +2/+2 due to Muraganda Petroglyphs' ability, which would make it big enough for Sunweb to block. So the question is really:

When declaring blockers (or checking whether a declaration is legal) and Deadfall is in play and you choose to block as though the creature didn't have forestwalk, are other continuous effects also applied as though the creature didn't have forestwalk?

The Sunweb can't block the Jukai Messenger.

There's a bit of confusion here about the scope of "as though". It definitely only applies to the stated situation ("...can be blocked..."), but

  613.10. Some continuous effects affect game rules rather than objects. For example, effects may modify a player’s maximum hand size, or say that a creature must attack this turn if able. These effects are applied after all other continuous effects have been applied. Continuous effects that affect the costs of spells or abilities are applied according to the order specified in rule 601.2e. All other such effects are applied in timestamp order. See also the rules for timestamp order and dependency (rules 613.6 and 613.7).

Muraganda Petroglyph's effect is a power/toughness changing ability, so it's applied first (in layer 7). The Messenger has an ability, so it stays a 1/1.

Deadfall's effect modifies game rules (changing the way blocking works), so it is applied last. (Ability-removing effects do get applied earlier on, but this is not an ability-removing effect - the creature never loses forestwalk.)

So when deciding whether Sunweb can block, we have a 1/1 Messenger with forestwalk (which is non-functional, thanks to Deadfall). Sunweb therefore can't block it, since its power is 2 or less.

There was also some question about the scope of "as though" in this case. One possibility is that it applies only to the blocking legality decision itself, and thus it doesn't interact with the other effects. Another is that it applies to the whole game state at the time that blocking legality is decided, in which case if it were to apply before the other effects, it would change the outcome. It's difficult to tell for sure which of these is correct; the rules don't go so far as defining "can be blocked as though". But since according to 613.10, it's applied last, we don't have to worry about any of that.


Platinum Emperion and Smash to Smithereens If player A is at 3 life and has a Platinum Emperion in play, does player A lose if the big robot gets targeted by a Smash to Smithereens?

The owner of Platinum Emperion will lose because Smash to Smithereens is a multi-step spell.  The Emperion is destroyed before the damage is dealt:

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.

The Emperion ability stops functioning as soon as it leaves the battlefield:

611.3. A continuous effect may be generated by the static ability of an object.
611.3b The effect applies at all times that the permanent generating it is on the battlefield or the object generating it is in the appropriate zone.

And, importantly, "destroy" causes the Emperion to leave the battlefield immediately (as opposed dealing it lethal damage, which would not cause it to die until after the spell had finished resolving because that is when state-based actions are next checked):

701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner's graveyard.


Game about rescuing books from churches I watched a review of this one a couple of years ago. It's set in France, I think, roughly late medieval / early Renaissance. There's religious unrest which is causing a lot of church burning, and you're trying to get the books to safety before they're burned up. It's a standard counters-on-a-board game.

Can anyone identify this?

Could be Alexandria (although that's not exactly in France): https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/209538/alexandria


Betrayal at house on the hill #43 the star-sickness When you die as an explorer but are also a traitor, and are transitioning into an alien, do you still trade monster tokens to spread the trader infection?   The trader died from the person who initiated the haunt during their additional roll that damages everyone if the can't defend the attacks.

The rules do not specifically say but we have argued that the traitor explorer has the alien virus already so isn't really alive to begin with, and you don't drop your items until the next turn after they miss their turn (from dying and going into transition). So it could go either way that you can trade monster tokens or not.

Spoilers Ahead

Turn back now...

Here's my interpretation based on the haunt rules.

It's never stated that the traitor is dead nor does it sound like the traitor is the real enemy it's just one of your party has an alien infection and may be turning into an otherworldly specimen.

   Ever since I touched that meteorite, I can feel the change working in
 me... If I do not succeed [creating an antidote], perhaps these notes will help whoever comes after. I pray, though, that this disease will die with me.

Personally, if someone dies during the attack against explorers immune system I would think that the explorer is no longer an explorer but in a transitioning state. The book says:

   If a traitor dies for any reason... a transformation to the third stage takes place. The transforming traitor skips their next turn.

Since the transforming traitor cannot do anything on their upcoming turn since they're in the process of transforming into the 3rd stage alien, I would assume they're no longer an explorer and would not be able to interact with any of the explorers in the house which includes trading monster tokens.

There's so many haunts that need clarification which unfortunately can't all be verified by the rulebooks. The last page of the rulebook states:

  What if there isn't a rule that for x scenario? In such cases, come to
  an agreement as a group for what makes the most sense and go with it.

The most important rule is to have fun!


Good ways to speed up a game of Ticket to Ride I just played my first game of Ticket to Ride and we loved it. Our only issue was making it a little faster. We had some small obvious ideas that wouldn't affect the gameplay much, like keep score on paper, play the game when each player has 4 less trains, start the game with 7 cards, and get a free route at the beginning. However I'm still curious about some more drastic boosts.

Here were a few other ideas that actually affect the game:

You draw 3 cards if you choose to draw train cards. Locomotives still cost 2 normal draws.
For each turn you draw 2 cards AND get the opportunity to claim a route.
You can substitute 3 cards of any one color for a locomotive when building. (stolen from the ferries in the other versions)
7 cards stay face up instead of 5

What other affects will each of these have on the game? Are there any other good ways to speed things up? How can I decrease the time required to play while keeping as much of the original feel of the game as possible.

It will speed up with a few additional plays. Honestly, I suggest starting with people getting more experience before modifying the game.

You asked about how your ideas will effect gameplay, so I'll tackle that, having been involved in balancing a lot of games. The game was playtested hundreds of times to reach the balance it's at now, so some things to consider:

  keep score on paper

You'll lose the easy checking to see who's ahead and who's behind, which should affect your play. On paper you'd either have to do without or keep asking.

  play the game when each player has 4 less trains

If I were playing I'd be much more likely to dump the long tickets because it's not at all uncommon that they're completed in the last couple of turns of the game, especially with 4 or 5 players.

  start the game with 7 cards

Probably wouldn't cause any problems.

  get a free route at the beginning

Tricky. They'd have to be the same length (or same maximum length), and if it's long it will help people with western tickets much more than eastern ones. It would also change the early game quite a bit, where people traditionally build up a pretty large hand of cards before laying down, so as to not give anything away to others about how they could block you. It will likely hurt ticket completion a bit.

  You draw 3 cards if you choose to draw train cards. Locomotives still cost 2 normal draws.

I think this will help longer routes more than shorter ones, again with the western/eastern division. Each card draw will be slower (draw, fill, draw, fill, draw), but it would still likely be a speed-up. The bigger problem is that drawing cards will help your game much more than playing them, so it will again favor longer routes, making the already-somewhat-imbalanced longer routes much easier to complete, so the luck of the ticket draw will have an even stronger effect on what many consider an existing flaw (the 1910 ticket replacement add-on is designed to fix it).

  For each turn you draw 2 cards AND get the opportunity to claim a route.

This won't speed the game up as much as you'd think: the cleverness in the current system is that after you draw cards you have the whole rest of the round to think about what you'll do with them. With this change after drawing players will have to think through what they'll lay down while everyone waits.

If they play first and draw second, they'll still need to weigh the cards on display with what route to claim, knowing they're about to draw from them. With the regular game there's no point in thinking about them because they'll likely be significantly changed before it comes around to you.

  You can substitute 3 cards of any one color for a locomotive when building. (stolen from the ferries in the other versions)

This should have no negative effect, though I don't know that it will actually speed things up, since yes, you'll finish that route, but the train car to played card ratio will actually go down. More tickets will likely be completed, though.

  7 cards stay face up instead of 5

This will also favor longer routes, exacerbating that problem. It will increase decision time a bit, but speed up route completion for everyone equally. You'll need to decide on a rule for how many locomotives have to be showing to wipe, likely 4 instead of 3.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to knock all of your ideas. I just see rippling balance issues that are worth considering. If you implement any of them, I suggest getting a few more games under your belt first so you can more clearly see the consequences, if any.


Does the extra effect in Scavenging lead to 2 discards? The Scavenging Crossfire card says

  At the start of each turn, the current runner randomly discards 1
  card. Then for each of their roles, that runner can return a card from
  their discard to their hand that has a color that matches that role
  color.

Then, the additional effect for crossfire discard piles of 3 or more says

  Instead, that runner randomly discards 1 card after returning cards

This wording confuses me.  Do I randomly discard, then return cards for each role, then discard again?  The "Instead" in the wording implies that the second discard is in place of doing something after the card returning, but the original text doesn't do anything after the card returning.

You will only discard one card as that is all the crossfire rule calls for. If you notice it specifies how many cards to draw based on the game setup and it specifies how many to discard under all game setups.

For the normal version you discard then draw meaning you won't discard what you will draw. Also you can draw the card you just discarded.

For the hard version you draw then discard meaning you can discard a card you just drew.


Is anyone the "captain" of the partnership after the following bidding sequence? Non vulnerable and playing five card majors, South opened onw spade. West passed. North raised to 3 spades. This was a "Bergen" raise, which is to say that North promised only four spades (Law of Total Tricks), but could have 0-9 high card points, not 6-9.

S
W
N
E

1S
P
3S1

Who, if anyone, is the "captain" of the partnership if the bidding goes further after this sequence? Or is one of the disadvantages of a Bergen raise the fact that strength ranges are so wide that it is hard to identify a "captain" even after another bid or two?

For the most part, in Bergen, the opener is the "Captain".  Responder does what Opener tells them to, nothing more.  This is particularly true here, in the 1S-3S sequence, which is often described as "preemptive" - it describes a weak hand.
The way you can tell is how the response is very tailored to provide fairly specific information, and then the rebid from opener is either signoff (including pass), or (to lower 3-level responses) includes the help suit game try, which is still fairly limiting in the options it provides.  Opener could have almost any hand (could be 12 HCP, 5-3-3-2, could be 18 HCP, 5-3-4-1, could be 11 HCP, 6-4-2-1, etc.)
Most of the time in this auction, opener passes or raises to 4S (if opener is particularly strong, particularly shapely, or in competition if opener has a 6 card suit or is otherwise willing to tolerate 4S competitively).  Since opener didn't open 2C, you're out of slam territory excepting very limited situations, and so the standard Bergen sequence such as described here doesn't usually mention any other options.
More generally, when you see a conventional sequence, you can tell who is captain because that's the "asking" hand.  The asker is captain, deciding what the ultimate contract is, and the responder just answers questions. Often conventions are structured so that the eventual declarer is captain - because that way defense finds out the least information possible about that hand - but not that's always possible.
There are cases where it's handed off - like in the sequence

S
W
N
E

1S
P
3C
P

3H
P
?

There, South has made a help suit game try, and is giving control to North - asking if North thinks 4S is worth considering.


Sorry! question regarding moving within safety zone Scenario:
Red has two pawns in home and two in the safety (pawn-a on 5, pawn-b on 2). Red draws a 3.

Question:
Must red move pawn-a up to pawn-b, thus killing pawn-b, or is Red allowed to forfeit this turn?

Rule 6: Moving Pieces
Once pieces have been entered they are moved forward in the direction of the arrows on the board, unless otherwise directed by the cards.  Pieces may pass each other, whether or not they are of the same color.  The occupied square counts like any other.  Pieces of the same color may not occupy the same space.  If a player is unable to make a move, for this or any other reason, he forfeits his turn.  However, a player MUST make any move directed by the cards drawn if possible, whether or not this is to his advantage.  A player may move 1 piece (or divide his move among 2 pieces if he draws a "7"), or enter a piece at each turn as the cards allow.  When a move ends on a square occupied by an opponent the latter is sent back to his START.

Red's turn would be forfeited according the the rules on hasbro.com since they have no legal moves.

Rules

  Two pawns of the same color may never occupy the same space. If your only possible move would make you land on a space already occupied by another of your own pawns, you forfeit your turn.


Which "enters the battlefield" effects happen first, cards that are entering, or cards already on the battlefield? A couple scenarios:

Cloudfin Raptor with evolve is at 0/1
Satyr Grovedancer (1/1) enters the battlefield causing Cloudfin Raptor to evolve to 1/2
Put the counter from Satyr Grovedancer on Cloudfin Raptor making it 2/3

or

Cloudfin Raptor is already at 1/2
Satyr Grovedancer enters the battlefield and I put the 1/1 counter on it making it 2/2
Cloudfin Raptor evolves to 2/3

Are either or both of these scenarios valid and why?

First Scenario

When the Satyr Grovedancer enters the battlefield, the Grovedancer's ability goes on the stack unconditionally and the Cloudfin Raptor's ability goes on the stack because it has lower power than the Grovedancer, and these abilities go on the stack in any order you choose. The order is important, though:

If you put the Raptor's ability on top of the stack, it will resolve first. When it resolves, it checks that it has lower power or toughness than the creature that entered (the Grovedancer). This is true, so you put the counter on it. Then the Grovedancer's ability resolves and you put another counter on the Raptor

If you put the Grovedancer's ability on top of the stack, it will resolve first and you put a counter on the Raptor. Then the Raptor's ability resolves, but by that time it doesn't have lower power or toughness than the Grovedancer, so it doesn't get a counter

Second Scenario

In this case, when the Grovedancer enters, its ability goes on the stack like before, but the Raptor's ability does not go on the stack because the condition for putting it on the stack (it has lower power or toughness than the entering creature) is not true. Then only the Grovedancer's ability resolves, so you get to put a single +1/+1 counter on either creature.

The primary rule that governs how both of these scenarios play out is 603.4:

  A triggered ability may read "When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect]." When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn't true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the "intervening 'if' clause" rule. (The word "if" has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an "if" that immediately follows a trigger condition.)

Note that this rule applies because the exact wording of the Evolve ability is

  Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, if that creature has greater power or toughness than this creature, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature.


Can you shoot and use upgrades on the reboot token if you arrived there without rebooting? Page 15 of the rules says

  You can be shot or pushed by an active robot while on a reboot token, but you cannot shoot robots. You also may not use upgrades.

This seems like it is supposed to apply to robots rebooting, as that makes narrative sense.  Should robots that simply move onto that space without rebooting be allowed to shoot and upgrade?

No.

As you mention, the rules don't allow it. They take effect based on the robot being on the reboot token, not based on how it got there. Regardless, it would be easy and reasonable to house rule.


How many times can Proxima Cenatauri Scholars use its owner benefit? I am a bit confused about the owner benefit for Proxima Cenatauri Scholars.

The Scholars may not place or removemore than one field generator per turn. Does this mean :

a) the Scholars can only place one generator, or remove one generator - ie use the benefit only once per turn

OR

b) the Scholars can remove and place a generator as many times as they like, as long as it is the same generator each time? eg pay 6 fuel,  place the repulsor on the Rev to get an agenda victory point, remove the repulsor, then place it on another territory?

Thanks very much

The answer is Option A: you may make one placement or removal (not both) per turn. Your suggestion of spending 6 fuel to score an agenda is quite creative, and almost certainly not anticipated by the designers – there's normally no benefit at all for moving a single field generator multiple times (except, I suppose, to destroy the Relic Ship with the Isolation Field).

I do not have any specific rules text to back me up, but the Alien Frontiers rules are intended to be as straightforward as possible and allow useful, but not crazy, interactions. There are a handful of weird combinations that were not prohibited by the rules, but were disallowed in later errata. Here's a few examples:

Ain't no rule that says you can't use the Plasma Cannon's discard power to destroy a player's fourth ship while they have one ship sitting on the Terraforming Station (and thus they'll be down to two ships on their turn).
Ain't no rule that says the ships on the Raider's Outpost matter if you remove one with a Plasma Cannon.
Ain't no rule that says you can't discard the Plasma Cannon to destroy a player's third ship when they also own the Relic Ship. (Have you noticed that the Plasma Cannon has the most weird interactions?)

The point is, you get full points for creativity, but you're stretching the spirit of the rules pretty badly and that's exactly the kind of thing that gets errata'd in Alien Frontiers. The creators run an Errata thread over on BoardGameGeek, if you'd like to ask them directly: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/572710/rule-book-errata/page/2

(My logical fallacy is: Appeal To Authority. I've played Alien Frontiers with Randall Bart, the designer of the Alien Frontiers: Outer Belt expansion and early playtester of Alien Frontiers.)


What are legal ways to use the Dispatcher's special ability in Pandemic? I don't quite understand what the person playing the Dispatcher role is allowed and disallowed to do.

If the Dispatcher wants to move i.e. the Medic's pawn, does he need the approval of the owner or can he do it against the Medic's will?
When making a flight with another pawn, does the Dispatcher use his cards or the player who's pawn is flying?
Can the Dispatcher move his pawn to the city with another pawn or does this only apply to moving other pawns?

From the Pandemic Rules:

  The Dispatcher may move other player’s pawns on his turn (using any of the available Basic actions) as if they were his own pawn. He may also spend an action to move a pawn to any city that contains another pawn. He may only move other players’ pawns if they permit him to do so.
  Note: For the Charter Flight action, the Dispatcher must play the card corresponding to the current location of the pawn he wishes to move.

The questions:

  If the Dispatcher wants to move ie. Medic's pawn, does he need approval of the owner or can he do it against Medic's will?

No, he can only move pawns if they permit him.

  When making a flight with another pawn, does Dispatcher use his cards or the player who's pawn is flying?

Uses his cards.

  Can the Dispatcher move his pawn to the city with another pawn or does this only apply to moving other pawns?

He may move any pawn to any city that contains another pawn, so he can move himself to where another pawn is.


Can I cast Kheru Spellsnatcher's spell after it leaves the battlefield? Kheru Spellsnatcher's morph ability is a good one. Suppose I've turned it face up and exiled a spell with its triggered ability, then Kheru Spellsnatcher dies. May I play the exiled spell still even if Kheru Spellsnatcher isn't around anymore?

Yes, you may cast the exiled card whether you control Kheru Spellsnatcher or not.

Kheru Spellsnatcher's ability creates a continuous effect (with unlimited duration) that modifies the rules of the game. Specifically, it allows you to cast the exiled card from exile.

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

The effect does not specify whether or not Kheru has to be on the battlefield, and indeed does not reference Kheru at all. Therefore it does not matter what happens to the Kheru that exiled the card. All that matters is that the card remains exiled.

There are similar effects that require the originator of the effect to remain on the battlefield or some other condition, but they either specify so, such as Awakener Druid, or the ability that allows you to cast those cards are a separate ability, such as that of Nightveil Specter that naturally disappears when the Nightveil Specter does.


What does "menace" mean? I've got a Weldfast Monitor, an Artifact Creature — Lizard. For one mana, it "gains menace".  What does "gains menace" mean?

Menace means "This creature can't be blocked except by two or more creatures."

This means when it comes to blocking, your opponent either assigns 2+ creatures to block it or none at all.

You'll see its reminder text on cards from other editions like Insolent Neonate, but it looks like none of the Menace cards in Kaladesh had reminder text for the ability. Menace became a keyword ability during the Origins set.


Small Expansions for Eldritch Horror In Eldritch Horror do the small expansions with no board just add on to the first game?

All of the expansions for Eldritch Horror add content to the base game and require the base game to be played regardless of whether or not they include a new board.

Each expansion with the exception of the latest, Masks of Nyarlathotep, contain content that is usable with just the expansion and the base game and their content is independent of the other expansions (though there are some duplicate components; for example focus tokens).

Masks of Nyarlathotep contains Personal Mission cards for every character in every expansion. The Personal Mission cards are only usable if you have the expansion that includes the character of the Personal Mission. There is also a campaign mode introduced where you can use Elder Gods from other expansions. Everything else in Masks of Nyarlathotep does not require the other Eldritch Horror expansions.


Do any successful draft formats exist for Android: Netrunner? It's still early enough in Android: Netrunner's lifecycle that using the full cardlist to build decks isn't too overwhelming, but as time goes on, it could well be, and archetypes will become increasingly prevalent.

So, I like the idea of a draft-based game, in which I show up without a deck and build one on the spot. I think it would be really fun and probably improve my deck-building technique.

Being asymmetrical, there would be complications (you'd have to do two drafts) and there are other obstacles like influence and identities.

With that in mind, are there any Android: Netrunner draft formats that people have tried and have found successful?

(Bonus marks for formats that can work with as few as two players)

FFG has now released an official draft format.

To participate in draft play, each player needs two components:

A draft starter pack, which is a fixed set of cards (Armitage Codebusting, Crypsis, PAD Campaign, Priority Requisition, special draft identities). These cards are "private" to each player, and can be reused for multiple drafts.
A draft pack, which contains a random selection of 40 cards of either runner or corp. In order to draft for both sides, a draft pack for each side is needed. These are the cards used for the draft. Draft packs are not indended to be reused, but the cards are legal for normal play unless otherwise noted.

The draft is done in 4 rounds of 10 cards each. Each round, each player starts with the top 10 cards of their draft pack. If drafting both sides, draft Corp decks first. After drafting, each player adds their draft starter pack to their pool of cards available for deckbuilding.

There are a few rules differences between draft play and normal play:

All players use the special draft identities, which are both neutral with a 30 card deck limit and unlimited influence. The Corp identity can use agendas from all factions.
Decks may include any number of copies of each card, instead of the normal maximum of 3 copies per card.
Games are played to 6 Agenda Points instead of the normal 7.

An informal introduction video can be seen here.


If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? There is a funny modern deck where you play Treasure Hunt, but you really need to have it on the starting hand. How many mulligans should I take, if my deck contains 60 cards and contains 4 copies of Treasure Hunt?

If you “need” the card in your starting hand and there is no other option—you take as many as you need until you have it, then stop. If you don't have it when you've mulliganed to 1, you concede and hope for better luck next game.

Granted you also need lands for mana, so you probably concede if you don't have it and an island when you mulligan to 2.

However this is a bit of a fragile fragile game plan: you're going to lose about 1 in 8 games simply for not having the card in your opening hand and conceding. 1 in 8 chances can also happen multiple games in a row.

Odds of finding that card in your mulligans

From How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand?, we can calculate the odds of having it by each mulligan.

If you have a 60-card deck, the chance of starting with at least one 4-of in your opening hand is about 40%. That's from this calculation that finds the odds of not finding that one card:

  (56*55*54*53*52*51*50) / (60*59*58*57*56*55*54) = ~0.6005 or ~60%

Chance of finding the card in each separate hand

Let's run that calculation for each of your hands:

7 cards (first hand): 0.60 → 40% chance of finding the card
6 cards: (56*55*54*53*52*51) / (60*59*58*57*56*55) = 0.64 → 36% chance
5 cards: (56*55*54*53*52) / (60*59*58*57*56) = 0.699 → ~30% chance
4 cards: (56*55*54*53) / (60*59*58*57) = 0.75 → 25% chance
3 cards: (56*55*54) / (60*59*58) = 0.81 → 19% chance
2 cards: (56*55) / (60*59) = 0.87 → 13% chance
1 card: (56) / (60) = 0.933 → ~7% chance

Chance of finding the card by a certain mulligan

To get this, we just multiply the mulligan results together.

Chance of finding the card by your second hand of 6 cards: (0.60*0.64) = 0.38 → 62%
By your third hand (5 cards): (0.60*0.64*0.699) = 0.265 → 73.5%
By your fourth hand (4 cards): (0.60*0.64*0.699*0.75) = 0.20 → 80%
By your fifth hand (3 cards): (0.60*0.64*0.699*0.75*0.81) = 0.16 → 84%
By your sixth hand (2 cards): (0.60*0.64*0.699*0.75*0.81*0.87) = 0.14 → 86%
By your seventh hand (1 card): (0.60*0.64*0.699*0.75*0.81*0.87*0.933) = 0.13 = 87%

In 87% of your games, you'll find your card in one of your mulligans if you mulligan all the way down to 1. In 13% of them, or 1 in 8 games, you'll just never find it and you'll concede.


Can a 4-length road ever be Longest Road in Settlers of Catan? Suppose I have an 8-length road and Longest Road, but later someone splits my road in half with a settlement, leaving me two 4-length roads.

Assuming no one else has a longer road than me, do I lose Longest Road, given that my road no longer has a length of at least 5?

You lose longest road; by definition, none of you have a road with a length of at least 5.

From the rules:

  Set the “Longest Road” card aside if—after a longest road is broken—several players tie for the new longest road or no one has a 5+ segment road. The “Longest Road” card comes into play again when only 1 player has the longest road (of at least 5 road pieces).


Should Commander Farsight's crisis suit be blue instead of red? In the Warhammer 40k novel Crisis of Faith by Phil Kelly, O'Shoh (aka Commander Farsight), the main character, is asked why he painted his battlesuit red. He replies, "It is to honour the Arkunashan dead. Their blood is on my hands, and I will not forget it." (The Arkunashan dead are fallen Tau soldiers.)

Under this assumption, red would be an appropriate color for a human who is seeking to avenge his fallen comrades, but according to the Tau Codex, Tau Lexicanum, and RPG-SE, Tau blood is actually blue. Meaning that Farsight's hands were (figuratively speaking) stained with blue blood.

Why is it then that he paints his modified Crisis Battlesuit in red, and not blue. Do any of the Warhammer 40k supplements or general lore explain this discrepancy, or is this just an honest mistake? Note that GW depicts Commander Farsight in a red Crisis Suit.

For now I'm assuming its an honest oversight of the novel. Still, I haven't been able to find a single reference to why Farsight and his enclave wear red. According to the Tau Lexicon, the fire caste wars armour the same color as their sept's (home/main planet's) surface. But I don't believe all septs in the Farsight enclave are red. Fluff/lore -wise, there must be something behind it. Or did GW just choose red at random?

In a recent article on the Warhammer Community page author Phil Kelly puts a footnote to the effect that T'au blood has always been red.

  It’s been red from the first ever account of the sacred ta’lissera blood bond. We tried different coloured blood for our alien races – Orks had green blood at one point – but it just didn’t look right on the miniatures, nor in the art.


After my Nil bid was set, should I try to take or duck? In Spades, when someone is forced to takes a trick on a nil bid, some-times, players keep giving away their high cards.

In which situations it is better to try to take tricks and in which it is better to avoid taking more tricks?

It's perfectly possible that having failed in the nil, your hand is still pretty weak in trick-taking value and plays better by trying to sandbag your opponents rather than trying to make them fail their bid (particularly if the hand was grossly underbid). Your partner presumably needs little assistance to make his.


Revealing an effect of a card after player makes their choice I'm working on designing a money management board game that features different event cards where players must make choices. The trouble I'm having is that I can't figure out how to reveal the effect of a player's choice without having the player know about the effect beforehand. For example, say you have a scenario like this:

Your phone bill is due today. You can choose to:
A) Pay the minimum ($30)
B) Pay the full amount ($100)

If the player picks choice B, then their credit will improve (+1 Credit) because they have paid the bill in full.

How do I reveal the effect of the player's choice until after they have made their decision? If I wrote it as
B) Pay the full amount (+1Credit) then everyone would pick Choice B because it is so obvious.

Btw, this is a serious game so players should be able to learn something from it.

You could borrow from the "Crossroads" idea used in Dead of Winter and Gen7 - in those games there's a deck of Crossroads cards, and on your turn the player to your left draws one of them, and if its condition triggers they read it out and let you know what the choices are.

So you could have it that cards are drawn by the next player in turn order, and there's a part they read out, followed by a part that triggers only when the choice is made. Note that there's a risk that the players will learn what the effects are unless you either have too many cards to memorise or near-duplicate cards with slightly different effects.

Alternatively, you can just let the player make their decision based on the full text of the card, but make it so that the decisions aren't obvious choices. For example, make money a scarce resource so that while it would be nice to pay $100 to get +1 Credit it might put you at risk of not being able to afford something else; or make it so that paying the full amount gives 0, 1 or 2 Credit based on some other factor so it isn't a uniformly good bonus.


Monopoly Deal - Rent beyond a complete set In monopoly deal it is possible, due to wild cards, to have more than a complete property set for a single color.

Given that fact, and the text of a rent card:

  Choose one of these colors. All players pay you rent for all Properties you own in that color.

Are other players required to pay you for the sum total of all property sets of that color, or simply the rent from only your largest property set of that color?

Let me preface with the warning that Monopoly deal is not a game with a rigorous rules set, so we need to infer from what we have.

The rules state:

  Each card shows how many properties there are to collect in that color-set.

The rules also refer to a complete set as a "full set"

Finally, each card only itemizes the rent paid for numbers of properties up to the full size of the set.

From this, we can conclude that you cannot use wilds to charge extra rent by "overcompleting" a set because there is no defined rent for doing so.

I would further argue that the terminology "full set" implies that you cannot "overcomplete" a set for any reason (such as to make them immune to Sly Deal).


Must all three men be on the back line at once in Little Wars' "Blow to the rear" Variation? On page 56 of Little Wars, Wells writes,

  The Blow at the Rear game is decided when at least three men of one force reach any point in the back line of their antagonist. He is then supposed to have suffered a strategic defeat...

Do all three men have to be present at once? Or can two arrive, be killed, and one more arrive later in the game (or some other variation where the three all arrive, but are not all present at once)?

Little Wars is not by any stretch of the imagination likely to constitute a watertight ruleset (give it a break, it was the first of its kind!) so I think we have to apply a bit of common sense to ruling on this issue.  I quote from the text:

  Moreover, in our desire to bring the game to a climax, we decided that
  instead of a fight to a finish we would fight to some determined
  point, and we found very good sport in supposing that the arrival of
  three men of one force upon the back line of the opponent's side of
  the country was of such strategic importance as to determine the
  battle. But this form of battle we have since largely abandoned in
  favour of the old fight to a finish again. We found it led to one type
  of battle only, a massed rush at the antagonist's line, and that our
  arrangements of time-limits and capture and so forth had eliminated
  most of the concluding drag upon the game.

This seems to indicate that "three men on the back line" constitutes something of "strategic importance".  In my mind, this suggests that the three soldiers have struggled through the enemy defences to capture the opposing HQ, or something of that sort.  It's hard to see three men reaching the back line only to be shot down as constituting that sort of victory.

So I'd definitely be inclined to think that you have to have three men reach the back line alive to reasonably "capture the enemy flag", or whatever else such a victory condition is meant to represent.  What's the alternative?  That covering the distance of the battlefield is in and of itself a victory condition?  That doesn't sound much like a "Little War" - more like some kind of running race :)


Does a card have a keyword if it has the same effect as said keyword? I was looking at Contingency Plan and found the effect surprisingly similar to the keyword Surveil. To compare, first the wording of Contingency Plan and then the wording of the Surveil keyword:

  Look at the top five cards of your library. Put any number of them into your graveyard and the rest back on top of your library in any order.

And

  701.41a To "surveil N" means to look at the top N cards of your library, then put any number of them into your graveyard and the rest on top of your library in any order.

They quite clearly are the same, so can I assume the card states "Surveil 5" instead? And if so, does it trigger abilities which state "Whenever you surveil ..."?

so can I assume the card states "Surveil 5" instead? And if so, does it trigger abilities which state "Whenever you surveil ..."?

Nope, the Oracle text is leading. In general, cards from earlier editions don't retroactively get 'keyworded'; the only exceptions so far have been evergreen keywords like lifelink, vigilance, and shroud; block-specific keywords like surveil only apply to cards from that block.


Question about Liliana's Influence card Liliana's Influence

says: "Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature you don't control. You may search your library and/or graveyard for a card named Liliana, Death Wielder, reveal it, and put it into your hand. If you search your library this way, shuffle it."

Can i search for a card named Liliana Death Wielder even if there are no target creatures for put -1/-1 counters on them ?

Yes.

You can't cast spells without being able to choose a legal target for each target it requires. Liliana's Influence, however, doesn't require you to choose any targets.

  114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn’t make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word “target” in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it’s not a target.

Because of that, you may cast the spell even without any creatures on the battlefield, likely ending up putting a -1/-1 counter on zero creatures.

In the same way, you can cast this card without a card named Liliana, Death Wielder in your deck - you will still have to shuffle your library if you choose to search for her, though.


Can a unit use a markerlight token to fire a seeker missile at BS 5 after jinking? The rules say that skimmers who have jinked can only fire snapshots (BS 1) on the next shooting phase. On the other hand, the markerlight seeker rule says that one can spend a markerlight token to have a unit carrying a seeker missile fire that missile, resolving the shot at BS 5 and not counting as having shot a weapon.

If my skimmer has a seeking missile and had to jink in the previous opponent turn, will it still resolve the seeker missile shot at BS 5 if I spend a markerlight to use the seeker rule and fire it? Don't I have to fire the missile as a snapshot because the skimmer jinked?

The Seeker Missile is resolved at BS5, as per the rules and the latest Tau FAQ*

  Q: If a Tau Vehicle is forced to make Snap Shots fires a seeker missile using a markerlight counter, what Ballistic Skill does this shot use?

  A: Ballistic Skill 5. If the target is a Zooming Flyer, resolve the shot as a Snap Shot as normal, unless it is fired by a vehicle with a velocity tracker, in which case the missile can use the Skyfire rule if you wish.

The Markerlight entry details the exact mechanics required for a Seeker missile to be used (Codex: Tau Empire, p122). It describes how it is used, and how it differs from the normal shooting rules, and the key part (in relation to this question) is "is resolved at Ballistic Skill 5". This is important because regardless of the normal BS of the model firing the Seeker, it is resolved at BS5. This means that no matter what the normal requirements are for a to-hit roll (and any modifications to the targets base BS) it is resolved at BS5. (So if it helps, think of it as not the model firing the missile, but the missile guiding itself).

It's a case of a specific rule trumps the general rule. The general rule is that jinking models can only fire Snap Shots (as per the BRB). The Specific Rule is that Seeker Missiles fired due to Markerlights are resolved at BS5. It's a similar function to the Counterfire Defence System (Overwatch at BS2 instead of BS1) or the Dark Angels detachment/formation bonus to Overwatch.

**Please note that this links to the BoLS article. GW are in the processing of "releasing" a lot of "draft" FAQ's that, while not appearing in the normal repository, are found on the official FB page, where all these images are from.


How many copies did Risk's original 1959 version sell? How many copies did the original version of 1959 of the board game Risk sell?

I found this article stating that it sold more than 100,000 copies in its first year. However there are no sources given from where this information is from.

La Storia di Risiko! e l'Anello Mancante, book by Roberto Convenevole and Francesco Bottyone, estimated 40.000.000 copies sold worldwhide from the beginning to the release of their book, which was in 2002.


Aggro Token and the First Activation Token So, I recently came across the realisation that we were not using the Aggro token correctly.

To begin with, we were actually using the First Activation Token in it's place, assuming the other one was for a separate game mode (Like hardcore, or something). But upon reading the rules again, it mentioned the use of both. We were unclear about how they operated, but I think I have come to a conclusion - though I would like to clarify.

So, the way I believe these tokens work:

The aggro token is passed around each turn. Enemies activate, player activates, pass on the token - enemies activate, player activates, repeat.
The First Activation token never moves, until players open enter a new room. Players decide who should take the First Activation token, to begin the initiative order, and potentially, to see who should draw "aggro".

By that, I mean certain enemies have particular icons determining who they attack:

In these two cases, the icon determines the target of the attack. The Cathedral Knight moves toward the player with the FA Token, and attacks them. The Deacon on the other hand, attacks the player with the Aggro Token, then moves away from the player with the FA Token.

Am I correct in this interpretation?

For the core set, enemies will either prioritise the player with the aggro token or the closest player.
The skull icon represents aggro. The circle represents closest player. See the Enemy Activations section in the rule book (pg 24) for more details.
The first activation token is just used to identify who will go first at the next encounter based on the fact that they were next in line when the previous encounter ended.
From the official rules:
First Activation

No matter whether the encounter ends in victory or defeat, give the
First Activation token to the player who is next in turn order after
the last player who activated their character. The player with the
First Activation token will activate their character first in the next
encounter.

Aggro Token (emphasis added)

When a character starts their activation:
They gain 2 Stamina.
They gain the Aggro token.
They may swap items between their backup slot and hand slots (see ‘Equipment Cards’, p. 12).

The Basics p.19 (emphasis added)

Once you’ve set up the enemies, terrain, and traps, place the
character models on the entry nodes beside the door aligned
with the tile the party moved from. Remember that a node
cannot contain more than three models.
Next, choose which character led the way into the encounter
and place the Aggro token on that character’s model.
Then the battle begins!

However, when you first enter any encounter you may determine which player 'lead the way' independent of the first activation and give the Aggro Token to that player.
Note that for the first encounter, the players decide as a group which player goes first. After that play goes around the table in a clockwise fashion.

During the very first character activation, the players can activate
the character of their choice. From then on, the order in which
characters activate goes clockwise around the table.


Good Go practices for a beginner? I am looking to learn Go.  I learned the rules a few years back, but there is a mindset that the game rewards.  I want to try to capture that mindset.

I have read many Go books, but they are static.  They certainly have a place in my plan for learning go, but they are not everything.

I intend to play in the online Go communities, and that is where my question is focused.  What is the best way to practice Go in a competitive community?  Obviously I can play on varying board sizes and try to constantly win while they try to win, but is there a better way?

I play Starcraft 2, and follow the advice of Day[9].  He recommends practice games where one focuses on a particular aspect of the game (such as being observant, never slowing down your economy, or constantly attacking).  This focus allows one to practice small aspects of the game independently, then put them together when you actually wish to perform (as opposed to practice).

Are there recommended ways to practice Go in this sense?  I am looking for the kind of practice approaches which may hurt my chances of winning but increase the likelihood that I learn something.  I have less use for practice techniques that are dependent on a willing partner, for most of my partners I expect will be out to win.

That is what I do and I think it works quite well:

play games - review them afterwards
If you don't review your games you wont learn as much since a bad move in go can have consequences many moves later and you probably won't pick it up during the game
Have a stronger player review your game (if you can) this helps a lot (try not arguing with them too much especially if they are much stronger than you)
Play go varieties like single colour go on 9x9 it helps a lot to improve your
reading without looking at the board
Learn joseki fuseki tesuji do life and death, this is probably a bit dull and boring but it helps :D, you might just do the joseki you saw in the last game and see if you cold done anything better, maybe you can review a group you killed? was it actually dead?
watch other people play at your local go club if you have one or online, there are multiple streamers and yt channels with lectures and games with commentary I watch these: dwyrin, Nick Sibicky, Haylee

Hope that helps!


Does Karmic Justice Trigger if a Planeswalker dies from combat damage? If a creature deals enough damage to my planeswalker and destroys it does Karmic Justice trigger if I have it on the field?

No, Combat damage is not "a spell or ability an opponent controls".
It's not a Spell:

112.1. A spell is a card on the stack. As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, “Casting Spells”), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone it was in, which is usually its owner’s hand. (See rule 405, “Stack.”) A spell remains on the stack as a spell until it resolves (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”), is countered (see rule 701.5), or otherwise leaves the stack. For more information, see section 6, “Spells, Abilities, and Effects.”
112.1a A copy of a spell is also a spell, even if it has no card associated with it. See rule 706.10.
112.1b Some effects allow a player to cast a copy of a card; if the player does, that copy is a spell as well. See rule 706.12.

It's not an Ability:

113.3. There are four general categories of abilities:
113.3a Spell abilities are abilities that are followed as instructions while an instant or sorcery spell is resolving. Any text on an instant or sorcery spell is a spell ability unless it’s an activated ability, a triggered ability, or a static ability that fits the criteria described in rule 113.6.
113.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” A player may activate such an ability whenever they have priority. Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.”
113.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and include (and usually begin with) the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”
113.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They’re simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, “Handling Static Abilities.”


How do draw effects during the discard phase work? What happens if discarding one or more cards during the discard phase triggers an effect that draws me cards?

The instance I have in mind is having The Gitrog Monster on the battlefield and more than seven cards in hand at the end of the turn.

What would happen when I discard one land card? Do I keep the card drawn or do I have to discard again?

The 'discard phase' doesn't exist anymore, it's part of the cleanup step:

Cleanup Step

514.1. First, if the active player’s hand contains more cards than their maximum hand size (normally seven), they discard enough cards to reduce their hand size to that number. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

The Gitrog Monster's ability may trigger as a consequence of discarding land cards, so 514.3 applies:

514.3. Normally, no player receives priority during the cleanup step, so no spells can be cast and no abilities can be activated. However, this rule is subject to the following exception:
514.3a At this point, the game checks to see if any state-based actions would be performed and/or any triggered abilities are waiting to be put onto the stack (including those that trigger “at the beginning of the next cleanup step”). If so, those state-based actions are performed, then those triggered abilities are put on the stack, then the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. Once the stack is empty and all players pass in succession, another cleanup step begins.

(emphasis mine)
So there will be another cleanup step, where (if your hand size exceeds 7) you again must discard cards in order to reduce it.


Question regarding the new custom chapter rules So recently this year, games workshop has added the addition of custom chapters to Warhammer, and while building my army I realised that I was going with a space wolves kind of army. However while painting and lore building I was making the chapter a salamanders successor.
So what I was gonna ask is, how do custom chapter rules work regarding chapter specific units, could I say that they're a successor chapter to the salamanders and use some data sheets specific to the space wolves like thunderwolf cavalry and fenrisian wolves, while abandoning salamander specific data sheets.
Do I have to use salamander units specifically now that I've made them salamanders in paint scheme and lore.
Or can custom chapters just flat out not use chapter specific units. (I don't know too much on the custom chapter rules so I apologize if I'm being dumb)

You have three options for a battle-forged army.
Firstly, you can have a Space Wolves successor chapter that is painted green and fiery. You can take datasheets that have the SPACE WOLVES keyword (such as thunderwolf cavalry and fenrisian wolves), and pick two successor chapter tactics (or Inheritors of the Primarch for Hunters Unleashed). You could use Space Wolves stratagems, your Warlord could take a Space Wolves warlord trait, and/or take Relics of the Fang. Your "super doctrine" would be Savage Fury.
Secondly, you can have a Salamanders successor. You can't take thunderwolf cavalry and fenrisian wolves, but you can take a pair of successor chapter tactics (or Forged in Battle). Then you can use Salamanders stratagems, warlord trait and relics. Your "super doctrine" would be Promethean Cult.
Thirdly, you take the SPACE WOLVES (successor) units that you want in one detachment, and SALAMANDERS (successor) units in another detachment. Each detachment gets it's own chapter tactic. You don't get either Savage Fury nor Promethean Cult, as those require your whole army be SPACE WOLVES or SALAMANDERS respectively.


Can you play Dixit cooperatively with only 2 players? My son (age 5) enjoys Dixit, but often it's just the two of us. I've come up with my own variant, below, but I want to hear more from the community.

We play with a hand of four cards, and we take turns as active player. The active player gives a hint, as normal, and plays a card face-down. The other player plays, and then two cards from the top of the deck are added to the mix before we shuffle and deal face-up. We play co-op, aiming to have us both guess correctly what the other player chose.

That doesn't sound too bad, except that the drawn cards could be really off.

Alternatively, you could try to play a cooperative variant.
These two are interesting:

  The game is cooperative. Each player is the storyteller five times for
  a total of 10 turns and you go for a high score. The highest possible
  is
  70.

  Neither player has a hand. Each turn, the storyteller makes up a story
  without seeing any cards, and then six cards are flipped over from the
  deck and arranged. Both players (must?) vote for two cards that they
  think best match the description, and color matters: use the red peg
  for your 1st vote, and the green peg for your 2nd vote. Then players
  reveal their votes.

  For a card where you both voted red, you get 4 points. For a card
  where you both voted green, you get 3 points. For a card where you
  both voted but the colors didn't match, you get 2 points. For a card
  where only one player voted for it, you lose a point.

Source: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/700350/2-player-cooperative-dixit

  How to Play

  Deal cards to each player as usual.
  Pick a scoring marker for the players (just one marker) and another as a failure marker.
  Pick a player to be Storyteller first. I'll refer to 'Storyteller' and 'Player 2'.
  The Storyteller picks a card from their hand and gives a clue or tells a story about it, then places the card face down.
  Player 2 picks a card from their hand to try to match the clue.
  Add 4 random cards from the deck to the chosen cards.
  Shuffle them out and places them on the table as usual.
  Each player now secretly makes a guess. The Storyteller wants to find Player 2s card. Player 2 wants to find the Storyteller's card.

  Reveal your guesses!

  If you both guessed the other player's card correctly, cheer and
  advance your scoring marker 1 space.

  If either or both of you guessed wrong, pout and advance the failure
  marker one space.

  Each draw a new card. If you still have 4 cards left in the deck, swap
  who is Storyteller and proceed to another round.

  Try to have more points than failures at the end of the game!

  What does this mean? When you are the Storyteller, you want Player 2
  to guess your card. This is easy. You could just say "A city made out
  of eggs", and your partner is sure to guess it.

  But...you also want to guess Player 2's card. Give a clue too
  specific, and your partner won't be able to play any card you can
  recognize!

  You need to give them enough room to play a card you recognize,
  without making it too easy to be fooled by a random card.

  Spirit of the game: No giving "double" clues that are meant to
  describe your card and the card Player 2 is supposed to play
  separately. ("My card is a scarecrow, but your card has plants").

  No setting up codes.

  No repeating clues.

  Remember, you are trying to play a 4+ player competitive game as a 2
  player co-op. Try to break the game and it will break. Go with it and
  have fun and it should provide some amusement. I've tried to make it
  resistant to "casual" abuse at least.

Source: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/676496/2-player-co-op-dixit-variant


Can I play unequipped on-the-table cards in combat? Players can put cards down on the table unequipped. If they have a one-shot card on the table, such as a loaded die or a type of grenade, can they use those cards during combat? Or, can you only play cards that are on the table when you are not in combat?

One-shot items you are "carrying" can be used just like ones in your hand. From the rules*:

  All Items you have in play are considered “carried.” Items that are actually
  giving you a bonus are “equipped.” You should indicate Items that are not
  equipped by turning the cards sideways.

  A Treasure card that says “Usable once only” is often called a “one-shot”
  Treasure. Most of these are used during combat to strengthen the munchkins
  or the monsters, and may be played from your hand or from the table.

  Cards in play may not be returned to your hand.

Thus the main things that change when you put a one-shot card in play are

Pro: it doesn't count against your hand limit.
Con: other players can see you have it and can e.g. target it with steal-an-item effects.

Finally, I notice you are using the word "card" everywhere instead of "item", so I want to make sure you know the difference: an "Item" is any card with a gold cost (including "No Value"), and only Items may be carried. So if your hand is overfull with monsters and stuff, you'll have to give them to charity or find a different way to get rid of them.

*those are the base game rules, but to my knowledge none of the many other versions and expansions significantly change the rule in question.


Can Net Shield ability be triggered "in response"? When runner has Net Shield installed, can they wait until they are about to receive net damage before they decide to trigger its ability?

If the answer is "yes" (or even "no") could you please also explain how it falls into the timing structure of Android: Netrunner?

In Android Netrunner anything with "prevent" or "avoid" is triggered outside the normal timing rules as the thing it wants to prevent or avoid is about to happen.

This means whenever you are about to take net damage for the first time in a turn, you can pay 1C to activate net shield and prevent 1 of that damage.

From the rulebook (PDF) page 21:

  Prevent or Avoid

  Some card abilities use the words “prevent” or
  “avoid.” Prevent or avoid effects are the only effects which can
  disrupt another effect. A prevent or avoid effect states what it is
  preventing or avoiding, and an effect that is prevented or avoided is
  not resolved. Prevent or avoid effects can be triggered whenever the
  effect they are preventing or avoiding is resolving.


Does a Go variant on an infinite board exist? I've just read the paper Better Computer Go Player with Neural Network and Long-term Prediction which seems to make a big step in direction of getting a better algorithm playing Go than any human.

Source: xkcd.com/1002

Now I was wondering how the game could be changed to something which is well-defined and where humans are still much better than computers.

Does a Go variant on an infinite board exist?

One would have to play it with a computer, of course. Having such an infinite board (of which only the parts which were looked at are calculated, of course) isn't really a programming problem.

As the boundaries seem to be important, one could add random borders to the game. The winning criterion could be an absolute / relative difference in points. What would be the implications of such a game?

Another idea would be to make a (pseudo-)fractal board.

There are variants like 3 dimensional Go, which may be interesting to you.  However, from personal experience as well as seeing higher dans struggle, I'd guess humans are far worse at them than computers :)

I'm not aware of any kind of "infinite" Go that is even remotely playable. The basic problems are ladders, which need to end, and counting, which requires complete separation of space.

As far as I can tell, infinite Go could be achieved via a sequence of spaces that interact, either hierarchically or flat. You could define that a ladder may not leave its subspace etc. Play could either be simultaneous in all subspaces, or in only a selected (number of) subspace(s). While this seems borderline theoretical computing science, I believe it would provide a gameplay quite similar to the original, just with certain additions that make turns a lot more complex.


Too many Tech-Victories seen in 2-player rules for Civilization I have been playing Civilization The Board Game some times with my girlfriend, but each time, the game quickly becomes a race for the tech-victory. Since it is a large advantage to research tech in general, this victory is easy, and we do never even attack each other, since the tech victory is easier.

Can you propose some alternative rules which would change this behavior? We thought about just removing the possibility to win by tech, but my prediction is, that this will just make culture-victory the new tech-victory.

For simplicity, I will focus on the base game (Sid Meier's Civilization the Board Game, as published in 2010) without any expansions because this is what I assume you are currently playing.

Tech victories are common while learning the game rules.  This is because the Research phase acts as a sort of timer; if everyone acquires approximately 1 technology per turn, then someone's tech victory is likely to happen close to the 15th turn regardless of other game events.  Tech victory is what eventually happens if the empires are grown without focussed strategies, or if opportunities to advance are often missed (fewer strategically useful actions per player per turn).

However, after the learning phase is over, you will see that tech victories are not at all that common.  In fact a tech victory is quite a feat for anyone except Russians, whose espionage is the easiest way to speed up research.

And some speed up is very much necessary.  Games played between seasoned players are won around the 11th turn in one way or another.


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

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

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

Worldbreaker's cast trigger says:

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

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

However, for the return ability:

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

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