Is It Possible To Win 2-Player Agricola Without Taking Wood? A few months ago I visited a friend who'd recently taken up playing Agricola with her husband.  "We think there should be a bigger handicap for going second," she said, "Otherwise the person who keeps taking the wood always wins."  I thought this was rubbish, and took her on in a 2-player game, letting her take wood first every time while I concentrated on a Major Improvements-dominated strategy.  I can't remember the final scoreline but I'm pretty sure I won the game by double figures of points.

I just played a 2-player game on the excellent boiteajeux.net, where my opponent went first, and started as he meant to go on, by hogging the wood space.  I had some really bad Occupations and Minor Improvements: I played the Pieceworker in the first round, but thereafter never had a really big incentive to play another card.  Opponent took some more wood, and eventually some reed, before playing - uh, oh - the Wet Nurse.

I decided in the face of this obviously unbalanced game not to scrabble for 3 wood or the starting player token (I had no good Minor Improvements to play after all), but to cut my foe mercilessly off food whenever possible.  This certainly slowed the pace of his domination of the game, but he still had enough breathing room always to take 6 wood when it was available.  Eventually he made his move and grew his house from 3 to 5 rooms with a full complement of people, with me still on 2 actions a turn.  I continued to make it hard for him to get easy food grabs, but ultimately he was able to build a lot of fences while my farmyard had, in the end, 2 rooms, 5 fields, 1 pasture... and 7 painfully empty spaces.  The ultimate scoreline was 43-30 in his favour, not exactly a rout but not very close either.

My question then is: is it impossible to win Agricola this way?  Do you have to compete for the wood to go under?  Against my married friend I was able to keep her in check by cutting reed to keep her off room building; but this might not work against a more determined opponent.  Should I have resigned myself to the fact that I needed to "waste" an action by taking Starting Player without having a minor improvement to play?  Or to take 3 wood even though this would give my opponent more opportunities to move ahead in other areas and cement his lead?

Or can I just chalk up my loss to the fact that the Wet Nurse is a bit unfair against a player with no good cards of their own to fight back with?

Normally I wouldn't like to answer my own question, but I have played a lot of online Agricola since posting this one, with the specific goal of taking as little wood as possible, so I hopefully have some interesting new information to provide by now...

Wood is a really hard commodity to ignore in Agricola, just because it's so versatile.  You need wood for all the below things:

to have space to grow your family quickly
to grow your house to a good size so you can get big points from removation at the end of the game
to build early stables and/or fences to pursue the animal breeding strategy
to build a giant pasture in the late game to avoid losing big points from unused spaces
many, many good Minor Improvements require wood, as does the Well

When it comes down to it, wood just does more than anything else in this game, so much so that I think it's a bit of an insult that the Joinery also exists: wood does all of this AND you can get bonus points from having a surplus of it too?  (Not that anyone ever buys the Joinery, because in practice there's always something else useful you can do with your wood.)

In the light of all this, how can you do well in Agricola without wood?  Well, here's the big things you can do without it:

get a lot of food

None of the efficient food-getting strategies in Agricola requires a single piece of wood.  And while food-gathering is not an end in itself, it does mean that if your opponent is hogging the wood space, you have every opportunity to cut them off from a good food engine, specifically by taking all the clay for the first half of the game.  When your opponent has no good way of feeding his family (Fishing and Day Labourer don't count), then it's academic that he can grow his family - fear of Begging cards may mean he just can't afford to.  Lack of a steady supply of food also limits the number of Occupation cards he can realistically play - after the first they do start inhibiting the ability of a food-poor player to feed his family!

So would I recommend a food-denial strategy as a counter to a player who remorselessly goes after the wood?  Yes and no.  In the first half of the game you can definitely hold your own against the wood-mad player by trying to starve them.  Unfortunately, you have to be an actually terrible player to stumble blindly into a situation where you can't avoid getting Begging cards; so generally I'd say the food-denial strategy can only contain, not crush, an opponent.  It's not hard, though, to engineer a situation where you have a Fireplace, some grain fields and maybe an Oven too and your opponent has nothing but a lot of wood and a heavy reliance on Fishing and Day Labourer.

The problem is that I don't think this position is sustainable all the way to the end of the game.  You can't cut an opponent off from all avenues indefinitely.  I had a great game where opponent dogmatically took all the wood and I dogmatically took all the reed, every time.  Sadly he finished a few points ahead of me: the sad fact is that, even once I buy the Basketmaker's Workshop, a gigantic pile of reed is only worth 5 points and some food, while a gigantic pile of wood enables, at the very least, the building of a giant pasture that uses up all the empty space in your farmyard and ends up being worth 10+ victory points.  Plus, to add insult to injury, they probably go on to buy the stupid Joinery and totally crush you!

As such, my ultimate conclusion is that, no, it's not possible to win Agricola without ever taking wood.  Not without some ridiculous combination of Occupations and Minor Improvements, at any rate.  There are good ways to attack the players who take wood aggressively at the start of the game, but once you've done this you'll want to make a strategic U-turn and compete for it aggressively yourself starting from about round 7 or 8.

Wood is just too useful for too many things, and if you've played a very miserly, explosive-growth-impeding game, you still need 12 wood at the end to build a 3x3 pasture and save yourself from losing double figures of points at the end.  What's the alternative - ploughing 9 fields?  I don't think so.


In Carcassonne, what is the point of a Bridge in the expansion set? I understand how to use the Bridges (sort of), but I don't understand the strategy/purpose. In almost every expansion set the special rules or powers of the pieces makes sense to me but why would I play a bridge piece? If you are playing with the King set I understand there is a bonus for the longest road but other than that, what is the point of a bridge?

Their primary purpose of bridges is to be able to play a tile that you normally could not because of a road.

You have more options to finish a construction, sabotaging with roads/farms becomes significantly harder.

Second, bridges strongly affect farms. As Nick already pointed out, farms turn out to be massively larger. It's not at all uncommon to have a single, huge farmland that spans the entire map, minus the tiny farms at the edges sealed off by towns obviously.

On the other hand, invading an already occupied farmland becomes a lot easier than before.

For example (assuming only base set + first expansion), without bridges, the only way to cross a street in order to invade a farm was with the cloister + single road tile. For that purpose, the Bridges & Castles expansion not only adds bridges, but also several tiles with broken roads to accomplish the same thing.


When should I activate Man Lands and Keyrunes in order to attack with them? Some lands and artifacts have abilities which allow them to be animated, and turned into creatures until end of turn. Examples include Inkmoth Nexus, Blinkmoth Nexus, Azorious Keyrune, Treetop Village and several others. These abilities can be activated at any time, and  then those permanents can be used to attack that turn.

At what point during the turn should abilities that animate non-creatures be activated so that they can attack?

You should activate them at some point before the declare attackers step on a turn after they enter the battlefield (unless they have haste).
Here's a breakdown of the declare attackers step:

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers.
508.2. Second, any abilities that triggered on attackers being declared go on the stack.
508.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

Clearly, during the declare attackers step, it is too late to activate the abilities (508.3) in order to make them attackers (508.1). However, you are free to do so during your upkeep, first main phase, and beginning of Combat step and it will be eligible to attack.
Note that if you cast a keyrune and turn it into a creature, it cannot attack. This is because permanents that are creatures are unable to attack or use activated abilities with the tap symbol in them unless they have been under their owners control continuously since their most recent turn began (302.6).
It could still be tapped for mana if it is not a creature but as soon as you turn it into a creature it can no longer be tapped to activate abilities the turn it comes into play.
With regards to shortcuts, according to the

A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority
until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise.

In other words, the following exchanges between Aaron the Attacker and Dave the Defender, officiated by Jerry the Judge, have different outcomes
Scenario 1

Aaron: Attacks? long pause
Dave: nods head
Aaron: I activate my keyrune and swing with him for 2.
Dave: Judge!
Jerry: Sorry Aaron, because you passed priority with your "Attacks?" comment, your keyrune was activated too late to be an attacker.

Scenario 2

Aaron: Attacks - I activate my keyrune. long pause
Dave: nods head
Aaron: I swing with him for 2.
Dave: I take 2, I'm at 18 life.
Jerry: I'm going to sip this margarita because I'm not needed here. sips margarita


What order do triggered abilities happen in if multiple things trigger at the same time? I had several humans on the battlefield.

On turn three, I played Triumph of Ferocity. On turn four, I played Descendants' Path. On turn five, during my upkeep, this question came up.

At this point, I need to draw/reveal three cards. If I reveal a human, Descendants' Path will allow me to cast it without paying its mana cost.

So, does it matter when I draw the human?

The static abilities state "at the beginning up your upkeep..." which leads me to believe that those two draws/reveals would happen before my normal draw. If that's the case, does the draw order happen in the same order that I played the enchantments?

In the end, that's how we decided to do it. I drew first for Triumph of Ferocity, then I revealed for Descendants' Path, then I drew for my turn. Did we do it right?

When multiple abilities trigger at the same time (as Path and Triumph did, in this situation) and you control both of them, you can choose to put them on the stack in any order you like.

  603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered
  abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she
  chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and
  resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities
  that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process
  repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no
  abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

Both Descendants' Path and Triumph of Ferocity trigger at the same time, at the beginning of your upkeep. Because you control both triggers, you have a choice of how to put those two triggers on the stack, meaning you can draw a card from Triumph of Ferocity first (put Triumph's trigger on the stack on top of Path's) or reveal the card for Descendants' Path first (put Path's trigger on the stack on top of Triumph's).

Afterward, when you proceed to the draw step, you get your normal draw.

So, your actions were perfectly game-legal. But you could have changed the order and that would be correct as well.

Note that you are not drawing three cards in this situation. Descendants' Path tells you to "reveal" a card and do something with it. This does not count as "drawing" it for abilities that reference that.

For reference, "APNAP order" just means that, if both players have to do something, the player whose turn it is makes the decisions first:

  101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes
  any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the
  player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required,
  followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the
  actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the
  “Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.


Doesn't damage occuring in the damage phase occur simultaneously? I was playing MtG Duels and was up against an opponent who had me down to 2 life.  They had a Perilous Myr so when it died would deal damage to me - sufficient to kill me.
I had a Juggernaut down so was forced to attack, so decided to just attack with everything to see what the rule was (or the game thought the rule was).  I had sufficient damage to kill them regardless of what they blocked.
I was pretty sure it would be a draw (dying/damage at the same time) or loss (their Myr's death would kill me before my attackers did damage) but despite their block and the Myr dying, I was granted the win.

Was this a game bug and am I misunderstanding the stack?
I thought all combat damage was dealt at the same time.

Thanks in advance!

NOTE: Despite being the computer version of the game, I felt people here much more able to help me with the rules (not game) question.  If this is misposted please let me know.

All combat damage is dealt simultaneously. But the damage from Perilous Myr's trigger isn't combat damage, it is an unrelated triggered ability. All combat damage was dealt, which resulted in the Myr dying and your opponent being at 0 health. This also resulted in the Myr's ability triggering, but that trigger never even makes it to the stack, because state-based actions are checked before triggered abilities are added to the stack. When they are checked, your opponent loses for having 0 health.


How many Memory Cards are used with both "Tea Dragon Society" and "Autumn Harvest" card games? We recently received both "The Tea Dragon Society Card Game" and "Autumn Harvest: A Tea Dragon Society Card Game" for the holidays, and we read that the games can be combined and played together.
We want to play with both games combined, but we are unsure of how to set up the Memory Tableau (Memory Card Deck) for a combined game set up.
The "Tea Dragon Society" was made first and does not reference "Autumn Harvest" in its instructions. The instructions for "Autumn Harvest" say this about how to combine the two games:

Playing With More Dragons
There are eight cards contained in this box for use with the original "The Tea Dragon Society Card Game".
[...]
These eight cards allow players to combine both "Tea Dragon Society Card Games" with the Dragons being balanced for play among the full array of Market and Memory cards. This will also allow games with up to 5 players

The phrase "for play among the full array of Market and Memory cards" reads as if you can combine all Memory cards for both games together.
The reason for our confusion is that the game setup section for "Autumn Harvest" only specifies removing Memory cards for the base game, and not the combined game. For example, it says to remove 2 cards per season with 2-3 players (4 cards total), and to remove 1 card per 4-5 players (5 cards total).
Reading this literally for the combined game Memory deck, this would mean that we would remove  remove 2 cards per season with 2-3 players (10 cards total), and remove 1 card per 4-5 players (11 cards total). There are no other instructions about how to combine Memory cards when playing with both games. This doesn't seem right, because you need use up the Memory cards to proceed through seasons to progress the game; this would add a lot of play time to the game if you had to go through more than twice the number of cards per season.
Has this been clarified anywhere? Do you combine decks to get 12 cards and then only take 6 of them and remove according to the instructions (similar to the base game set up)? Or do you combine both decks and remove normally, and have 6 more Memory cards with the combined game (base game setup + 6 memory cards)?
A link to the "Autumn Harvest" instructions can be found here: Instructions for "Autumn Harvest"

A question about combining has been asked on BGG and the designer, Steve Ellis, answered as follows.

Please feel free to mix and match Memory cards as long as you use
select the appropriate number for your player count as referenced in
the Autumn Harvest setup. For the Market cards, shuffling these all
together is perfectly acceptable or you can customize the Market deck
as you see fit with cards from one or both games as you desire.


When rolling a third doubles, do you interact with the space you would land on? In Monopoly, when you roll doubles a third time, you go to Jail.  But do you get to interact with the space first?  More specifically, do you get to do any of the following first?

Pass go
Buy property
Draw a Chance or Community Chest card
Pay Luxury Tax or Income Tax
Gain a second "jail sentence"
Pay Rent

When you roll doubles a third time, you do not move to or interact with the space that the dice would take you to.  Instead you go directly to Jail.  You do not get to do any of the listed examples.

From the rules:

  If you throw doubles, you move your token as usual, the sum of the two dice, and are subject to any privileges or penalties pertaining tot he space on which you land. Retaining the dice, throw again and move your token as before. If you throw doubles three times in succession, move your token immediately to the space marked “In Jail” (see JAIL).


What is the best way to win a game? So the options are a ton of resources, and you can build whatever you want. The advantage of this is that in age III you can build more guilds.

You can go low recourses but use a lot of tech trees. The advantage here is that you can build more stuff in the ages and times where you would normally get recourses.

Or you can balance both, which SEEMS like the best option.

Is it?

There is no one best way to win 7 Wonders. It is a game all about adaptation - adapting to the cards you get and to what your opponent(s) play. Certainly there are different considerations for 3- or 4-player games vs more players (as with fewer players you will get to see the beginning hands in an age again).

Gunning for resources does you no good if the guilds you wind up being able to play aren't very useful - or the other cards you have to choose from need different resources than what you have. On the flip side, having a lot of resources can be a boon if you build some of the later yellow cards. Chain building is good, except when you need to build a guild or some of the blue cards not on the tech tree.

One or two military cards can be all you need, or you might need to play two per age to keep up with opponents. Or you might decide to just throw in the towel on military and focus on other aspects of your city. Military is worth at most 18 points (or a 24 point differential), but if you can at least win in the third age that drops to 8 (14) points. Building a 3-shield card in the 3rd age can be a nice way to offset some of your early losses.

All that said, you do want a few of your own resources available - that's inevitable. Depending on your wonder, the combination brown resources are great for this. Having trading posts can allow you to operate with fewer of your own resources, and the yellow resource cards (Marketplace? Don't have the game in front of me) are a lot more flexible than a single brown or grey resource (plus your opponents can't trade for those resources).

One other aspect is that green cards can be quite powerful, if you can get the right combination (a lot of one symbol or a lot of sets; having 5 cards of various symbols doesn't lead to a lot of points). Unfortunately, your opponents may see that strategy and start to build / bury the green cards before you can get them.

In the end, though, it all comes down to what cards you're dealt and what cards your opponents are playing.


Why does the efficiency of creatures in MTG favor low and high cost creatures, leaving those in the middle much weaker? Here's a stereotypical description of creatures of a certain mana cost where each creature's primary utility is in its power/toughness level and not in its effect. The mana cost is the number furthest to the left:

1/1, some minor benefit
2/2, some minor benefit
2/3 or 3/2, maybe 3/3
3/3, maybe 4/3 or 3/4 with some minor disadvantage
4/4
5/4 or 4/5
5/7,
8/8 with an amazing ability
10/9 with a ridiculously awesome ability

Does anyone else see how the 1-3 and the 7-9 cost creatures tend to be amazing in terms of their mana cost? The (power+toughness) to CMC is definitely greater almost all the time.

Is it intentional that the middle-cost creatures are much less efficient, and this is why there tend to be weenie decks based on weak creatures and control decks based on strong creatures, but very few decks based on middle-cost creatures? What is the overall purpose of the 4-6 cost creatures being comparatively much weaker? How should my decks and strategy take advantage of this?

NOTE: There are links for each of those CMC's for what I thought was a stereotypical creature. All creatures chosen are colorless and either common or uncommon. I understand my list may be biased, and feel free to prove that this efficiency curve doesn't exist, because that is pretty central to the above questions. :D

Eldrazi and colorless artifact creatures serve different roles

I address this first because I think it's the source of some selection bias.

Many sets include fairly weak (colorless) artifact creatures for Limited purposes, as last resorts. The idea is that these are less valuable than similarly-costed beaters in your colors, but serve as a fall-back for a player who doesn't have any better options. For instance, Serra Angel is a 4/4 uncommon for 5 in the same set as Stone Golem — but she's got flying and vigilance.

Rise of the Eldrazi, in contrast, used big colorless beaters as a reward for playing the defensive/rampy "battlecruiser" decks the set was supposed to support. In order to allow you to do that more often than once every couple dozen drafts (when you manage to get one of the Eldrazi mythics), there were big Eldrazi at common and uncommon rarities as well. These weren't auto-win creatures but the designers tried to make them at least a little bit appealing. Note how the set's removal is rigged in the giant Eldrazi creature's favor to make playing them worthwhile: Vendetta, Smother, Oust, All Is Dust, Consume the Meek.

Compare Artisan of Kozilek to uncommon cards like Carnage Wurm, Serra Angel, and Skaab Goliath. It's certainly better, but it also costs more. And how much more specifically is deceptive...

Opportunity cost doesn't scale linearly with mana cost

Assume you're playing a 24-land, 60-card deck. You keep a starting hand with 2 lands. You can count on being able to pay for a 1-drop on turn 1, and a 2-drop on turn 2. You have a decent chance of playing a 3-drop on turn 3: around 65% if you're on the play and around 80% if you're on the draw.

Now, how likely are you to be able to play a 6-drop on turn 6? Well, if you started with 2 lands in hand, that's 4 you need to draw by turn 6. I forget the exact math but you're looking at something like 30% to make it.

As a rule of thumb, in a deck with 40% lands, once you've exhausted your initial lands in hand, you'll only get a new land to play every two-and-a-half draws. That's why decks that want to play 4-drops and 6-drops in a timely manner run ramp cards, lots of lands, and draw-fixing card (e.g. Ponder).

Pretend you and an opponent both have 5 lands by turn 7. She plays Serra Angel. You have Artisan of Kozilek in hand. You "only" need 4 more mana to cast it. In an Eldrazi-focused deck with 60% mana sources, that's still an average of six draws, not four. So it had better be good enough to be worth several turns of waiting for topdecks while Serra Angel bashes your face from the air and holds your weenies at bay with her vigilance.

Limited needs "below-curve" mid-sized commons

Finally, though, there are quite a few below-curve mid-range commons like Siege Mastodon and Amphin Cutthroat. The reasons these exist all revolve around Limited:

They have to establish a baseline that makes uncommons worthwhile (once more, consider Serra Angel).
It's easier to make a playable "below curve" 5-drop (for instance, a 4/3 vanilla Zombie Giant) than it is to make a playable "below curve" 1-drop.
In a removal-light environment, even a slight power/toughness advantage can turn a creature into a powerful blocker or an offensive two-for-one. Bonebreaker Giant might suck in terms of value-for-mana, but he can still trade with two Elite Vanguards.

All of the above would apply to really really big common creatures, too. Most sets just don't have any at common, though (M12, for example: 5/6 Vastwood Gorger in common; de-facto 9/9 Carnarge Wurm at uncommon).

Why are set design decision at low rarities so focused on designing for Limited? In addition to being a popular format, Limited also most closely matches the experience of new or "very casual" players — folks playing Magic with only intro decks or a couple boosters' worth of cards (i.e. a limited card pool, in its own way). Cards for competitive Constructed and "dedicated casual" players generally occupy higher rarities (though you'll see competitive staples and budget options at common and uncommon as well), since the company assumes they'll buy lots of boosters, trade for cards they want, and purchase sought-after singles on the secondary market.


Can outfits other than Law Dogs start with Gomorra Jail? Gomorra Jail is a deed with the following text:

  You may start with this deed in play in place of a Law Dogs dude.

  Controller React, Boot: When another player's wanted dude is discarded during the High Noon phase, this deed gains a permanent control point.

You can have dudes from other outfits in your deck (potentially with an additional upkeep cost, pg. 16), so is there any reason another faction, like the Sloane Gang, can't start with Gomorra Jail? I mean, could they just start with three Sloane Gang characters and have the Gomorra Jail be a "different outfit" dude from the Law Dogs?

From the rulebook, page 14:

  Once players have revealed their outfits, they search their decks for up to
  five dudes—either from their outfit or drifters

(Bold added)

Dudes from other factions can be in your deck, but not your starting posse. Hence if you are playing something other than Law Dogs, there is no way to have a Law Dog in your posse for the Jail to start "in place of".


Does a single 5-color card satisfy Spirit of Resistance? Does Spirit of Resistance require you to have one card of each color or does a single card with all 5 colors satisfy its requirement?

Oracle Text:

  As long as you control a permanent of each color, prevent all damage that would be dealt to you.

If you look at the rulings at the bottom of the linked Gatherer page (again for reference), you'll see the following ruling for this card:

  10/4/2004: A permanent which is of multiple colors counts as each of its colors.


Can I destroy a Whirler Virtuoso in time to stop it making a thopter? My opponent plays a Whirler Virtuoso. Can I Lightning Strike it before its ETB effect to stop my opponent from making a thopter?

You can destroy Whirler Virtuoso and prevent them from making a thopter if they don't already have 3 energy to use.

I'm going to assume you already understand how the stack and priority work. If not, I suggest you read this explanation of those features which helped me understand them when I started.

Usually usage of Whirler Virtuoso would look like this:

Whirler Virtuoso enters the battlefield.
Its ETB ability goes on the stack.
Its ETB ability resolves.
Its ability is activated to produce a thopter.
That ability resolves and they get a thopter.

The time you need to cast a Lightning Strike is between steps 2 and 3. That is the earliest time you can cast a Lightning Strike in response, and the last opportunity you have to stop them getting a thopter. Doing so plays out like this:

Whirler Virtuoso enters the battlefield.
WV's ETB ability goes on the stack.
Your Lightning Strike goes on the stack.
Your Lightning Strike resolves. (WV dies and gets removed.)
WV's ETB ability resolves, still giving the opponent 3 energy.

If they already have 3 energy from something else (maybe a previous WV you destroyed this way), they can still activate that thopter-making ability just after either step 2 or step 3, before the Lightning Strike resolves. You can't stop that first thopter, but you can stop them making a second one.


How do blackjack simulations work? The basic strategy of blackjack has been built using computer simulations. Let's say I program the simulation's "player" to play with a certain strategy, hitting, standing or whatever given certain player and dealer hands. I then run the simulation, having the "player" play possibly millions of hands and then I observe the results.

But how are the results interpreted? I could count how many hands the player won and lost. If the player lost a lot of money, then definitely there was something wrong with my strategy, and I would need to adjust it. But how would I know what to change? There is a large number of possibilities, and I don't know which part of my strategy influenced my big losses and how much. Is there some kind of algorithm for this? I suppose I could just randomize the strategy until I find a one that brings the player most money, but that doesn't seem to be very effective.

Also, how does betting work in these simulation? Is there usually a fixed bet or is there some kind of betting strategy being implemented also?

I haven't been able to find much code or anything that would explain how these simulations work in more detail.

Any simulation is based upon a set of assumptions - the simplest assumption in blackjack is that any card drawn will be of value 10 (i.e., 10, J, Q, K). You run your simulation with that assumption, which drives your strategy (e.g., the simplest being hit if you have 11 or less, stand if you don't). Run a million hands and see how you fared.

If you're not in the hole by a lot, great. Your strategy works reasonably well, and you could stop there if you wanted. If you are down a lot of money, then you need to start modifying your strategy until you find one that works well (enough). And, without some guiding principles based on probability and such, to do that you really do need to test just about every possible strategy you can think of (within reason).

The beauty of this is that computers are really good at running millions and billions of hands, and so running all these simulations is not as bad as it may sound (I would expect a well-written program to be able to simulate 1 million hands in a matter of minutes, so you can run hundreds or thousands of different iterations in a day). If you can apply some math and statistics, you can likely reduce the number of modifications you need to run.

So you start out by modifying your bet (double down if you have 11, for instance), or your hit/stand rules (split Aces), or your assumptions (hit on 12 if the dealer shows 10, because even though you're likely to draw a 10 there's a possibility you won't). The key is to only modify one element at a time. At the end of each run, compare your final chip count. Find the run with the highest and there you go. You could then start to combine some of your highest scoring modifications and see how the combination fairs (double down if you have 10 or 11, for example).

In the end you wind up with a set of rules for how the player should bet and play, to maximize their winnings / minimize their losses.

This is a type of simulation called Monte Carlo simulation, in that it uses a random hand to simulate the play. Run enough times, the randomness can lead to a deterministic answer. In fact, each time you run your simulation, you are trying to calculate the house advantage - if you start with $100 and wind up with $98, the house has a 2% advantage (or something like that). The closer you get to simulating perfect play, the closer you get to calculating the true house advantage.


Who gets the points when calling Muggins in a three-player Cribbage game? If two players call "Muggins" at the same time (in a three-player Cribbage game), and both players call the correct number of points, which player is awarded the points?

I have looked at several sources but found nothing (ACC, Pagat.com, The House of Cards and more).

In the meantime, my friends and I have made a list of 3 possible solutions and we are "evaluating" them:

Both players are awarded the points;
Each player is awarded only half the points (rounding to the upper value);
The player to the left (from the underpegging player) is awarded the points.

Whomever calls it scores it. The rules at American Cribbage Congress do not address muggins outside of 2 player, but the wording requires that it be called before pegging it. Since, in 3 player, there is a dealer, a pone, and another pone, it's simplest to let whomever caught it score it.

Further, in 30 years of playing cribbage, in both 3 and 4 hand, whomever catches it claims the points. This is incentive to pay attention to opponent play and score calls.


Continuous Trap Card Monsters VS Face Down Defense Ruling I run a Continuous Trap Card/Paleozoic Trap deck mix.  When battling an opponent who uses Ghostricks that forces your opponent to face down defense position cards, and my Tiki Curse is out there in face up defense and was flipped to face down defense position.

The player stated the effects are negated and is in face down defense as a monster. So how does it all go?

When flipped summon, it will be a monster retaining effects.
When its flipped face down, (or even face down defense position),
   returns to the spell/trap zone as a set trap card.
When flipped summon, it will be returned to the trap zone as a negated continuous trap card.

These Tiki cards and similar (like Shapesister) can be somewhat confusing.
The ruling on Trap Monsters indicates the following thing specific to this situation (emphasis mine):

... If "Book of Moon" is used against an already active Trap Monster, the Trap Monster is set as a Trap Card again and can be activated and Special Summoned the next turn.

So your Tiki Curse actually returns to your Spell/Trap card zone, set.

Other important details from that link include:

...and are subsequently treated as both Monster Cards and Trap Cards. As such, they take up both a Monster Zone and a Spell & Trap Zone at the same time.

This tells us that they take both a monster and spell/trap zone. Derivated from that fact we have the consequence that they can be destroyed both by effects that destroy monsters or spell/traps (from this other link).

While active, a Trap Monster can be destroyed by effects that affect Monsters and/or Spells/Traps. (You can use either Dark Hole or Heavy Storm to destroy them.)

Finally, if they are negated, they get caught in some sort of "limbo", where they return to their Trap zone:

If they are negated with "Jinzo" or "Royal Decree", they will return to the Spell & Trap Zone as Continuous Trap Cards with no effect, and will remain there even after "Jinzo" or "Royal Decree" are removed.

Some further reference on Trap Monsters on this Konami blog.


Passengers and Fugitives: can they be cashed in at a location, like goods? Just as some Nav cards give you Cargo and Contraband, which you can sell to a contact for cash, some situations result in  you having extra Passengers or Fugitives.

I know they may be useful to keep in case they are needed for a later mission, but is there any way to cash in on them at a location, like you can with cargo and contraband?

Im playing currently with the vanilla Core set of Firefly the Board Game, but will accept answers related to the expansions, if its just not possible to "sell" fugitives or passengers in the core set.

There is no way in either the base game or any of the expansions to "sell" fugitive or passengers. The FAQ describes the only way to get rid of them:

  You may drop Fugitives and Passengers off in any sector with a Planet (you can’t toss them out the air-lock in deep space). This does not use an Action and can be done during another Action, on your turn.

Thematically this makes sense. Goods left over from a failed job or found from salvage still have value to others aside from their intended recipient. People however want to get to a certain place and won't be willing to pay if they wound up somewhere else (would you pay if an airline dropped you off at the wrong city?).


When can you cast Flash after casting Collective Voyage? After you've cast Collective Voyage, do you wait for everyone to pay and then respond with Flash, or do you have to respond immediately?

MtG works by a system of timing and priority. The Active Player, player whose turn it is, can cast Sorceries when the stack is empty during their first or second Main Phase. After casting a spell and paying the required costs, including mana costs, the spell waits on the stack for all players to pass priority, then the top object on the stack resolves.

Casting Collective Voyage for one {G} mana places it on the stack, and then priority is returned to you.

  116.3c If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.

You may choose to cast Flash before Collective Voyage resolves, in response to it, since Instants may be cast anytime you have priority and you have the required costs including mana cost {1}{U} to cast the spell. In this case, it would resolve first.

  116.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time he or she has priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during his or her main phase any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty.

You may also choose to wait until after Collective Voyage resolves, when you will receive priority again to cast spells and activate abilities. In this case, it would resolve afterward.

  116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

  116.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends.

During the resolution of Collective Voyage, players may not cast spells, but may activate mana abilities to search their library for land cards. The order of how much to pay is written on the card, starting with the player who cast Collective Voyage and continuing clockwise. After all players have decided how much to pay, the lands are placed on the battlefield simultaneously and Collective Voyage is placed in its owner's graveyard (having resolved).

  116.1d A player may activate a mana ability whenever he or she has priority,whenever he or she is casting a spell or activating an ability that requires a mana payment, or whenever a rule or effect asks for a mana payment (even in the middle of casting or resolving a spell or activating or resolving an ability).


What would happen if you made Spellskite Hexproof? I would like to know if making Spellskite hexproof would render him useless or make him ultra effective at fizzling spells?

I'm thinking about his activated ability: if he was hexproof, would I be able to pay the cost to change the target to him making the spell fizzle or would it mean I cannot use his activated ability?

Either way this would be a useful thing to know to either use to enhance him and take him out of the game with an enchantment.

You can fizzle a spell, but only once. Here are the two sequences possible:

1. Give Spellskite Hexproof, and then change target to it

Spellskite's ability resolves, and attempts to change the target. It fails because Spellskite is not a valid target. The spell or ability in question continues to target its original choice.

2. Change target to Spellskite, and then give Spellskite Hexproof

First you change the target of a spell (say, Lightning Bolt) to Spellskite, and let Spellskite's ability resolve. Lightning Bolt is now targeting Spellskite, but before it resolves, give Spellskite Hexproof. When Lightning Bolt tries to resolve, it will fail, as its current target is now invalid.

Basically, if you want to do what you're thinking of, you need to change the spell's target to Spellskite, and let the target-changing ability resolve BEFORE giving Spellskite Hexproof to fizzle the spell.

Just to be clear, here's a hard example of the second, more useful case.

Player A controls a Spellskite, and is at 3 life. Player B casts Lightning Bolt targeting Player A. In response, Player A activates Spellskite's ability targeting Lightning Bolt on the stack. Spellskite's ability resolves, so now Lightning Bolt is on the stack targeting Spellskite. Then, Player A casts Blossoming Defense targeting their own Spellskite, which resolves and gives Spellskite Hexproof. Lightning Bolt tries to resolve, and is countered as its target (Spellskite) is no longer valid.


No leader at end of round 1 In the game Two Rooms and a Boom, the leader of a room is the first person to be nominated by another player.  What happens if no one has done this in a room by the end of round one and the room has no leader?

The direct answer to your question is there isn't a rule that covers this eventuality. The rules state however:

  In Two Rooms and a Boom, part of the fun is the lack of rules. Players can say
  whatever they want, do whatever they want, and come up with whatever strategy they
  want.

I think it would be a fairly easy to say a leader must be chosen before people swap between rooms. Otherwise you could ask the question what if someone hasn't been chosen by a leader before rooms must swap? The answer is the game doesn't work. You have to send someone across and so you also have to have a leader by that point.

If your group is struggling in particular with this then maybe you need to appoint a Games Master for the game for a few playthroughs until people get into the swing of it?

We play this game almost every week for multiple rounds at the University game society. We have never had this problem. (In fact it is rare that leader isn't decided within a few seconds of a round starting as nearly always the first question asked is "Who should be leader?")


Damage to player when activating Flying ability after 'Declare Blockers' step If I attack with a Leaping Master and my opponent blocks it with an Alpine Grizzly and I then activate the Leaping Master's Flying ability (i.e. at the end of the 'Declare Blockers' step), the Alpine Grizzly can, presumably, no longer block the (now flying) Leaping Master.

However, would Leaping Master deal damage to my opponent in this case or does rule 509.1h prevent this?

  509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.

My feeling is that Leaping Master's damage is assigned to the player as the Alpine Grizzly is not "removed from combat"?

Flying only creates a restriction on blocking when blockers are declared, once the blocker is declared giving the attacker flying will have no effect.

From the Rulings on Leaping Master

  9/20/2014  Activating Leaping Master’s ability after it’s been blocked won’t change or undo the block.


Identify this game - strange yellow plastic piece We recently purchased the game Cootie second hand (Good Will style), and inside the box we found a piece that we are pretty sure doesn't belong. It's a curved plastic yellow piece that we think came from a different game and was included for some reason in this box.

There is writing on the end: BART INDUSTRIES INC and some other text that I can't make out.

So does this come from another game? Or is it something else entirely?

Edit
Dimensions are approx. 2.5" tall, with about a 1" diameter base (the first photo below is slightly misleading due to the hidden base on the object and the space at the end of the ruler)

It appears to be the tail piece from "Zoo it yourself" Tupperware animal toys.

https://www.amazon.com/Tupperware-Tuppertoys-Zoo-It-Yourself-5-piece-ELEPHANT/dp/B00FN34D34

You can see the individual pieces here:


About the Relinquished I have some concerns about the Relinquished, the effect of which is

  You can Ritual Summon this card with "Black Illusion Ritual". Once per turn: You can target 1 monster your opponent controls; equip that target to this card. (max. 1). This card's ATK/DEF become equal to that equipped monster's. If this card would be destroyed by battle, destroy that equipped monster instead. While equipped with that monster, any battle damage you take from battles involving this card inflicts equal effect damage to your opponent.

Concerns about the Relinquished itself

As I understand it, once the Relinquished has targeted a card it can no longer be used by its original owner. And the equipped monster's original owner can't get his card back. Is that true? If it's true, the original owner won't be able to use the effects of his monster, right? What about the Relinquished's owner? Can he use the stolen monster's effect?

Since the effect of the card mentions that the Relinquished can equip itself with a monster once per turn, I imagine that the monster equipped until then must be returned to its owner. In this case, in what position should the monster be returned to the opponent?

Concerns about the Relinquished against other cards

The Relinquished is a complex card and in some situations I am a little confused.

Against Giant Trunade

Giant Trunade is a Spell card having the following effect :

  Return all Spell and Trap Cards on the field to the hand.

A monster equipped to the Relinquished is no longer a monster but considerated an equip Spell/Trap card. Therefore, it will be returned to the hand. But whose hand?

Against ''if a monster equipped with this card'' effect monster

Like Rider of the Storm Winds, some monster cards have an effect that allows them to be equipped to other monsters. This concern joins the first one on whether the Relinquished's owner can use the effect of the equipped monster. As an example, the effect of Rider of the Storm Winds reads

  You can target 1 Dragon Normal Monster you control; equip this monster from your hand or field to that target. If a monster equipped with this card attacks a Defense Position monster, inflict piercing battle damage to your opponent. If a monster equipped with this card would be destroyed, destroy this card instead.

If the Relinquished is equipped by this card, will it be able to inflict piercing battle damage?

As I understand it, once the Relinquished has targeted a card it can no longer be used by its original owner. And the equipped monster's original owner can't get his card back. Is that true? If it's true, the original owner won't be able to use the effects of his monster, right? What about the Relinquished's owner? Can he use the stolen monster's effect?

A: When the effect of "Relinquished" resolves, the monster targeted by it will be equipped and that monster will be placed in the Spell/Trap zone of the activator of the effect of that "Relinquished". In this case, the current controller of that card(which is now a Spell) is the activator of "Relinquished". Saying that the original owner of the monster can't get control of it again will depend. Obviously, without a card effect to do so, control will not switch over. As far as I know, there's no card effect which can 'steal' Spell cards, however, if "Relinquished" either leaves the field or gets flipped face-down, the Equipped card is destroyed and will be sent to the original owner's Graveyard. Furthermore, the original owner cannot use the effect of the Equip card, because the original owner does not control the card. In addition, all the monster effects that the equip monster has are not applicable while it is an equip card. This is why even if you equip "Gladiator Beast Laquari" with "Relinquished", "Relinquished's" attack will not be 2100, even if "Gladiator Beast Laquari" is treating its original ATK as 2100 through its monster effect. Also, as a general rule, you can only activate card effects if you control a card, unless a card effect says so, like "Extra Net". Being the original owner of a card is not relevant in the general case.

The reason why the card doesn't return to its original owner without a card effect is because "Relinquished" doesn't mention anything about only equipping for a specified time period, unlike "Junk Archer", which says that it banishes the monster until the End Phase.

  A monster equipped to the Relinquished is no longer a monster but considerated an equip Spell/Trap card. Therefore, it will be returned to the hand. But whose hand?

A: The original owner's hand. If a card says return 'x' to the hand, it is always the original owner's hand, unless there is an effect like "Exchange" which explicitly mentions the other player's hand as well.

  If the Relinquished is equipped by this card, will it be able to inflict piercing battle damage?

A: Yes, it gets piercing damage. This can be inferred from the text as well. It doesn't say that the equipped monster has to be equipped by "Rider of Storm Winds" in order to inflict piercing damage, nor to be able to apply the destruction substitution effect. Keep in mind that the piericing damage and destruction substitution effect are not treated as effects of "Relinquished", as any small difference might come up.

Some things to keep in mind:

The equipped 'monster' is treated as an Equip card forever. Whenever a card leaves the field(it is probably more accurate to say after), it is duplicated into a 'new' mechanical card. For anyone trying to understand rulings, this is the most important concept to grasp.

Examples:

When "Sangan" is sent from the field to the Graveyard, even as an Equip Spell card, the reason its monster effect is able to activate is because its trigger effect lays out a mechanism for detecting if it(the physical card you see) "Sangan", was sent from the field to the Graveyard(you can see this will be the case even if equipped by "Relinquished"). It is true that it was an Equip Spell card, but that effect of "Sangan" doesn't activate and doesn't trigger until it is actually sent to the Graveyard, at which point it becomes a monster again.

Before reading "2", please realize that "Reborn Tengu" used to not say explicitly 'face-up', and the rulings for "Reborn Tengu" were still the same; you couldn't activate its effect if removed from the field while face-down. You may think this explanation might be useless because of the card text, but that's fallacious, as if you do not understand "2", you will not understand the difference between "Archlord Kristya" and "Crystal Beast" rulings(i.e. no matter how much card text will not explain why rulings are true, they will just tell you what to do it and when, this is synonymous to math students being apple to apply complex formulas to problems but not understanding or being able to prove those formulas, unlike actual mathematicians who don't need problems in cookie-cutter format in order to be solved..

When "Reborn Tengu" leaves the field, even as an Equip Spell card, the reason its monster effect is able to activate is because its trigger effect lays out a mechanism for detecting if it(the physical card you see) "Reborn Tengu", left the field. Now this is where all the scoffers start saying that I would be taking this rulings matter very far, but "Reborn Tengu" rulings will prove them incorrect, as you are not able to activate "Reborn Tengu's" effect if it was sent from the field(in face-down / set position, even as an Equip Spell card) to the Graveyard. This is yet another reason why understanding what I said above is very important. When "Reborn Tengu" leaves the field in face-down defense position, for example), it is removed from the field face-down, which means that the trigger effect "If this face-up card leaves the field" will not trigger, because that trigger effect will trigger "in limbo"(unofficial term to describe the medium of transit between any two locations in the YGO card game), and since face-down cards have no properties, there's no mechanism for which it can trigger, which is why the effect will not activate. Now at this point you may be wondering why "Sangan" can activate if sent from the field to the Graveyard, even if it was face-down either as a monster or as an Equip Spell. Again, card text will not come to the rescue for you here; you need to understand the rules or you can at least make up models that make sense. It is because its trigger effect requires that it know whether or not it got sent from the field to the Graveyard, and since "Sangan" is public knowledge while in the Graveyard, its effect can activate.

Finally, to explain what happens when you have monsters which activate when removed from the field like "Reborn Tengu" vs effects that apply(do not activate) when removed from the field(like "Grandsoil the Elemental Lord"). Even though both "Reborn Tengu" and "Grandsoil the Elemental Lord" trigger their effects at the same time(immediately after leaving the field), "Reborn Tengu" cannot activate its effect until the next chain can be built, while "Grandsoil the Elemental Lord" applies its effect as soon as possible( i.e. immediately after it leaves the field, before it even goes to its final destination). Thus, if they were equipped on "Relinquished" and "Back to Square One" returned both to the top of the deck when removed from the field face-up, which effects can activate/apply?

A: "Reborn Tengu" will not activate, because it was returned to the deck, and "Reborn Tengu" does not have an innate trigger which detects what happens if it is returned to the deck, so even though its effect triggered, by the time it would've been able to activate, it cannot. "Grandsoil the Elemental Lord" will apply its effects and skip the next Battle Phase, because as I said it applies its effect immediately upon leaving the field, and because it left the field face-up, its effect will trigger, because it provides it a mechanism for detecting if it 'left the field'.

If "Skill Drain" is applying, and "Relinquished" has "Grandsoil, the Elemental Lord" or even "Archlord Kristya" eqipped, will their effects apply if they are destroyed by "Mysical Space Typhoon"?

A: Yes, because they are not monster cards until they reach their destination to which they would be sent to. And even if they were treated as monsters, they left the field anyway so they'd be outside the range of "Skill Drain's" negation.

If "Spell Canceller" is applying, and "Relinquished" has "Grandsoil, the Elemental Lord" or even "Archlord Kristya" equipped will their effects apply if they are destroyed?

A: No, their effects will be negated, because they are Spell Cards until they reach their final destination.

Please note that the "Archlord Kristya" v. "Skill Drain" ruling on the English wiki page is actually incorrect. If "Skill Drain" is applying and "Archlord Kristya" is destroyed in the monster zone, it still gets returned to the deck, because as I hinted many times that effect applies outside the negation range of "Skill Drain", unlike "Crystal Beasts" which apply their effects while still on the field(their effects would be negated). I am not sure how long it has been incorrect but on Jwiki, the ruling for "Archlord Kristya" and "Skill Drain" was last updated 2017 April 6th.

You can check all the updated rulings on Jwiki and the official card database, or on ygo organization database page, which has many rulings translated to their English counterparts. However, what I laid forth previously is just a model to explain why the rulings are true, anyone is free to adopt another model if it makes sense in your head. PM me if you still have trouble on Pojo, username: The Chief.


In Monopoly, Does It Make Sense NOT to Buy a "Second" Property in a Color Group? Most Monopoly players would want to buy at least ONE property in a color group, for defensive purposes.  Money is usually tight though, so it often pays to "cut corners" somewhere.

Could this "corner" cutting come in declining to buy a SECOND property in a group in which you are not interested?  (That is, as opposed to buy it now and mortgage it later for half price.) Does it matter whether or not "house rules" say that it will be put up for auction?  Does it matter whether or not someone else also owns a property in the group, so it is effectively a "third?" And is this as true for railroads as for "color" monopolies?

According to Kaz Darzinskis' Winning Monopoly:

  Buy from the bank any property that
  will give you ownership of two
  properties in any monopoly group,
  unless you already own a killer
  monopoly.

(I believe he refers to a killer monopoly as being the New York group and up, though it's been a long time since I read the book and could be wrong.)

The theory here is that if you do not already have a strong monopoly, angling to get a weak monopoly to bootstrap your future endeavors is not a waste of time.  If an opponent gets the third of the color group, then you have a much stronger trade platform with that opponent rather than if the power is dispersed amongst three players.

Darzinskis frames purchasing the third of a group as having "veto power" over trades in that color group, and gives the following rule:

  Buy the third remaining property of a
  color group owned by two different
  opponents when those same opponents
  share complete ownership of one other
  killer monopoly.

If you can devalue the trade pieces between the two players who could come together and form a strong monopoly, it's obviously in your best interest to prevent that from happening.  If not, then it's safe to let it go up for auction.

Railroads and Utilities are special cases, as they cannot be developed and so the upsides for monopolizing them are lessened.  As such, having only one of a group will, on average, return more than the face value over the game, so there should not be a reason to not buy them.


Does snapping reset the plusses (e.g +4) in uno? I wanted to know if you snap a +4 or +2 does it reset the amount the person picks up?

Chaning/Snapping/Stacking draw cards does not reset the penalty amount. E.G Player 1 plays draw 2, player 2 plays another draw 2, player 3, having no draw 2 cards, must draw 4 cards.

From wikipedia as a part of the house rules:

  Progressive Uno: If a draw card is played, and the following player
  has the same card, they can play that card and "stack" the penalty,
  which adds to the current penalty and passes it to the following
  player.


A board game called PALM BEACH or something to that effect Does anyone remember a board game called PALM BEACH or something to that effect that was played similar to monopoly ? I am looking for a copy or more info.

From what I can remember, The characters all started out with $1,000,000 dollars except "the count" who started out with $500,000 -- that is the most distinct memory of the game I have that might assist someone in remembering.

Does this sound familiar to anyone ?

Also, it was not "palm-beach-opoloy" nor was it a monopoly re-skin - it was a distinct game onto itself.

Followup Q&A:
Q: when did you play it ?
A: it must have been around 20 years back

This must be it.

1976 Board game:  Palm Beach

Source: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/lifestyles/blast-from-the-past-groovy-vintage-palm-beach-find/nWDNK/

Found an old ebay listing with more photos here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1976-Palm-Beach-Game-Complete-Monopoly-Style-Board-Entertaining-Fun-/230915467545?nma=true&si=w8Yhok%252BHv7Zg0Y1acAhEKk1lbZU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557


Split Second or Can not Be Countered Is split second just another way of saying “this card can’t be countered”? To me, it has no other qualities? Once this card is removed from the stack opponents are then free to cast spells. So I’m guessing we just treat this as a can’t be countered spell despite its fancy naming convention or can it do more than what I’m perceiving?

Split Second has uses other than making a spell uncounterable.

As a simple example, say you cast Sudden Shock; targeting a creature with only 2 toughness. If not for Split Second, your opponent could save the creature by casting a spell any spell that does any of the following:

Increases the creature’s toughness
Gives the creature Hexproof
Gives the creature protection from your spell
Regenerates the creature
Prevents the damage

Several ways he could save his creature. But due to Split Second, he can’t respond at all; and the creature will almost certainly die.

Similarly if you cast Sudden Shock targeting your opponent who has 2 life. He can’t cast anything that will increase his own life.

There are all sorts of ways other than countering a spell that you might want to respond to a spell. Split Second prevents all of them.

While Split Second is generally more powerful than “cannot be countered” due to the reasons stated; in some cases “cannot be countered” will work better, such as if there’s a triggered ability that counters spells, such as the emblem from Jace, Unraveler of Secrets.


What is meant by "game mechanics"? What are game mechanics?

Conceptually I think of the mechanics of the game as how it's played but the definition is a little fuzzy.  I don't think rules and mechanics are the same - although I think they're related.  Help me sort this out in my head.

There is a fantastic article on this topic by Miguel Sicart called Defining Game Mechanics, it is mostly related to Video Games, but the the same definitions can broadly be applied to Board Games as well.

Essentially Game Mechanics are actions that modify the game state, and it is this modification of the game state that results in gameplay.
While Game Mechanics can, and should, be defined by rules, they are not themselves rules.

In a more colloquial form, if you're changing anything in the game, whether physical or conceptual, you are implementing a Game Mechanic.


Can a player choose to not pay {0}? I cast a spell, and then my opponent casts Thassa's Intervention targeting my spell, choosing 0 for X.

Can I choose to have my spell countered? Or have I automatically paid {0}. It seems that read literally; the spell will not be countered because I actually have paid {0}; but can I choose either option?

Yes, you can choose not to pay {0}.

Rule 118.5 says

  Some costs are represented by {0}, or are reduced to {0}. The action necessary for a player to pay such a cost is the player’s acknowledgment that they are paying it. Even though such a cost requires no resources, it’s not automatically paid.

In a tournament, {0} costs are paid by default, but you can explicitly declare that you are not paying them. Specifically, one of the tournament shortcuts listed in section 4.2 of the tournament rules says:

  A player is assumed to have paid any cost of 0 unless they announce otherwise.


Is this a split pot? The board shows two queens, a 9, 8, and 7. I'm holding a queen and a Jack. The other player is holding a queen and an Ace. Is this a split pot or does the Ace play?

You each make the best 5 card hand you can. You have QQQJ9, your opponent has QQQA9 which is a higher hand, and so your opponent wins.


Betrayal at Houseon the Hill - Can the Bell move explorers to unexplored rooms? The Bell item card states: "Once during your turn after the haunt is revealed, you can attempt a Sanity roll to use the Bell."

5+ = Move any number of unimpeded heroes 1 space closer to you.

My question is: If moving an explorer one space closer to you means moving them in a direction that would explore a new room, is that legal?

If so, how would it be handled?
Neither The book nor the Avalon Hill Errata explain this.
Would the moved explorer have to agree to move in that direction?
Would the moved explorer deal with drawing Omen, Item or Event cards on the Bell owners turn? Or on their next turn? What happens if they draw a tile that moves their character further than one space?
You could potentially be dealing with turns within turns.

Besides, it seems too powerful to me to let someone with the Bell have their entire group start exploring new rooms. I think the purpose of the Bell is simply too allow 1 extra movement. Not to hand out entire free turns.

While it is true that the book does not say that you CAN'T use the Bell to move explorers to unexplored rooms - it is also true that the book does not say that I can't stand up and shout "We win" and therefore all explorers immediately win the game.
My point is that I do not consider, "Well the book doesn't say you can't" to be an acceptable or well thought out answer here."

Note: I only expect an answer for my initial questions so please no friendly notices about how this site prefers a single question per post.

Thanks

The problem with this situation is that the game doesn't define what "closer" really means, so you or your group will have to decide that for yourself. It could be either of the following (if you agree that only physical proximity is of question here):

move the character so that the linear distance between them and your character decreases (so if the tile inbetween the two of you was a dead end, you would still move them there)
move the character so that it will require less movement to get to them
(as indicated by Samthere in the comments, the Betrayal on House on the Hill FAQ reads: "[a monster] follows whatever path would lead it to the hero in the fewest moves", suggesting that this might be the intended way things work in this case as well)

Deciding between these options isn't all that trivial, as you could consider special tiles that allow extra movement, as well as special movement the traitor has (such as moving up the Coal Chute) or haunt-specific elements such as monsters or the traitor itself being able to move through walls.

Once you've come to a decision on that matter, you can decide whether you count unknown and therefore possible-but-npt-guaranteed pathways as the shortest direction. There are several factors I would consider in making this decision:

if you allow unexplored rooms, you help the side that needs to find a room that's still in the stack (either because the adventure requires it, or because a character is trying to get out of the basement, for example)
you could run into the situation where an unexplored room and the explored route both are equal distance to your traitor, and you need a way to handle that (whether the traitor decides, or you default to one of the options)

There is also the metagame statistics factor: In theory, you could end up at the point where there's no straight tile left in the pile, which you could theoretically know by keeping track of all straight tiles on the board and comparing the list to the total number of tiles in the stack. Therefore, it's possible that you reach the point where it's impossible that an unknown path is the shortest route, because if they do explore that room, it will certainly not provide a direct path to the traitor. The opposite is also true, where you could in theory know that there's only straight paths left in the pile, and therefore be certain that it's the shortest path without being certain which tile lies inbetween.
Now, by all means don't actually keep track of the tiles, but be aware of that possibility and it's implications on your question: There are situations where you could theoretically be certain, but in reality, you won't be. Personally, I would count this as a reason to never let unexplored rooms count as the shortest route, because in order to call them that, you would have to know they are.

Ultimately, though, it's a question that isn't directly answered by the rules and therefore needs to be determined by the playgroup. This is the only real answer anyone can give you prior to further errata being released...


BANG! Where do cards played in phase 2 go when "Abandoned Mine" is in effect In the Fistful of Cards expansion pack for the card game BANG!, the Abandoned Mine card states in both languages used on the card:

  Nella propria fase 1, il giocatore pesca dagli scarti (se finiscono, pesca dal mazzo). Nella propria fase 3, scarta a faccia in giù sul mazzo.

  During his phase 1, each player draws from the discards (if they run out, from the deck). In his phase 3, he discards face down on the deck.

Unfortunately, it never says what to do with the cards played in phase 2.

Argument 1

Some would argue that for the whole round, the discard pile becomes the draw pile and the original draw pile becomes the discard pile. So for example, during your phase 2, when you play a Bang! card, it would go face down on the original draw pile.

Argument 2

However, this card is very specific about stating which "phase" things happen in. Therefore, the other argument (and the one that it sounds like the card seems to say) is that: ONLY during phase 1, and ONLY during phase 3 the draw pile and discard pile are swapped. For example: when playing a Bang! card in phase 2, it would go to the original discard pile (face-up stack). This can get weird at times, because when playing Indians, the card says that all other players need to discard a Bang! card in order to avoid being hit. Since they are "discarding", would those cards go to the face-down pile?

References

Phases are talked about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang!#Gameplay

And the Fistful of cards expansion is talked about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang!#A_Fistful_Of_Cards
(When speaking about the Abandoned Mine, it's language does not use what is stated on the card.)

So, where are cards played in phase 2 actually placed?

The actual answer is a little more complicated and so doesn't match either of the arguments. While the original card's wording (Italian/English) doesn't match the effect, it doesn't affect played cards (like the Bang! you mentioned), nor does it affect other players outside of their turn (so Bang! cards discarded for Indians are discarded as normal).
This is clarified in their official FAQ on the expansion:

Q4. Where I have to place my played cards while Abandoned Mine is in play, especially when I play Wells Fargo, General Store or Stagecoach?
A. There is a difference between "discarded" and "played" cards: Stagecoach, General Store and Wells Fargo are "played", while cards exceeding hand size limit at the end of the turn or by means of a Duel are "discarded". So, discarded cards goes on the draw deck, while played cards go on the discard deck. Draw the cards after Stagecoach and Wells Fargo always from the draw deck. Note that this applies to current player only: all other players draw and discard normally.

For clarification, here's how it works with certain cards. In all cases, the played card will go to the discard pile:

Cat Balou: Unless you play it on yourself, the target will discard it normally.
Duel: The Bang! cards you discard will be put on the deck, but those discarded by your opponent will go to the discard pile.
Indians: All Bang! cards discarded by opponents will go to the discard pile.


The spell temper (old card) effect in combat damage resolution Temper prevents the next 'X' damage and puts 'X' +1/+1 counters on a creature.  Do those counters increase the damage done by this creature in the combat resolution step?
Also how does it interact with an 'Nomads en-Kor' style damage redirection or a Boros Reckoner?

Okay there's two questions here so lets take them one at a time. First though being combat damage only matters for the timing of the damage in the first question, Temper works the same way regardless of how the damage is dealt.

1) Temper will NOT change the damage done by that creature in the same damage step, damage is already assigned in full, and would have been dealt at the same time it was to take the damage being prevented. Making a creature more powerful after damage is assigned doesn't change that. If however the damage prevented was from a first strike source, and your creature does not have first strike, or has double strike, the second damage step will have those counters and will do that extra damage. This is seen more recently with the effect of Drana, Liberator of Malakir every time she hits all attacking creatures get a +1/+1 counter, and she has first strike.

2) If Temper was placed on Boros Reckoner, his effect will not be triggered, he was dealt no damage so his effect does nothing. The en-Kor redirection effects could go either way, assuming one player controls both the effects that player chooses which one applies first and which tries to apply second. The one that would apply second fails to happen, because damage is no longer going to be dealt to that creature. This is covered in the Comprehensive rules:

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

If Temper is cast on the creature that damage is being redirected to, both effects will apply, the damage will be redirected and then prevented.

It's worth noting that Temper still prevents X damage during that turn, unlike some other sources it does not care from where or when the damage is dealt, beyond that it is all in that one turn. So if you redirect all damage from a group of en-Kor creatures being hit by something like pyroclasm it will prevent all of up to X of that damage, and if anything is left be able to prevent still more later in the turn.


Has computer go impacted the discussion about komi? Komi is the number of points added to White's score in Go in order to compensate for his going second. Some fifty years ago, it was 5 1/2 points; then playing experience showed that it was insufficient; so that it was moved up to 6 1/2 points, then 7 1/2 points.

During the same period, computer Go moved from being a curiosity to being able to beat the best human players. That's because today's computers play the game more precisely than humans.

Has computer Go weighed in on the debate about the proper komi (to give Black and White equal chances), and if so, in favor of the status quo (7 1/2), or a different number?

Something to note because many people are confused by this issue...  The skill of the players is irrelevant to komi. Komi is defined as the number of points given to white such that perfect play will yield a tie. (For example, komi on a 3x3 board is known to be 9 using Chinese rules because perfect play will wipe white completely from the board, and it's 9 regardless of the skill of the players.)

Traditionally, an extra half point is given to white to avoid a tie. Therefore, white should have a moderately greater chance of winning than black. (New Zealand's official rules don't do this.)

AlphaGo Teach, which assumes a 6.5 komi (Japanese) shows the percent chance of winning with black having the first move (https://alphagoteach.deepmind.com). Note, that black's best chance is 47.1%. Since white is expected to have a slightly greater chance of winning (because of the extra half point,) AlphaGo backs up the komi.

For Chinese rules komi is necessarily an odd number (because in order for there to be a tie, the sum of both player's scores must be even and there are an odd number of points available on the board.)

Whatever komi is, for Chinese rules there is widespread agreement that it's not 9 points and historically 5 points seems too low which means 7 points is the most likely value. However, without perfect play, we can't know for sure.

-- New information --

I've learned a couple of new pieces of info that relates to this question. Go on a 5x5 board was solved using a computer (not "deep learning" but a computer program none-the-less) and it turns out that komi is 25 points for that size board in Chinese rules. Also, 7x7 Go seems to have been "weekly" solved and it seems that the komi is 9 points for this. I'm not entirely sure about the info about the 7x7 board because the original paper is in Chinese and the derivative English info about it doesn't seem to be in agreement about what the paper actually says. So computers are telling us things about the proper value of komi.


Burial mask drop at critical level What happens to character if sanity is at critical and hands off burial mask?

We assumed the character would die, but we thought there might have been an exception.

If the player is at their lowest amount of sanity after the haunt starts and the item is dropped or stolen they immediately lose the +1 sanity benefit the item gave them and would go insane (die).

I couldn't find any references to this in either Legacy or Betrayal rulebooks but it seems that all heirloom effects belong to that heirloomed item and to benefit from those effects you must have it in your families possession.

I actually reached out to Avalon Hill asking this question and fantastic support rep Frank sent this response:

  If an item grants a benefit and it doesn't specify permanent benefits,
  "discard" or "destroy" this card upon use, then the benefit is lost if
  the item is lost. Benefits granted by items only last as long as you
  have the item, unless otherwise stated. Because of the above concept
  it does seem the character would die if that item was keeping them
  alive i.e. only 1 sanity remained and they lost the item. However,
  keep in mind if the rules are not specified in the rulebook you and
  your group can decide what makes the game most fun.


In bridge, does it make sense to "shade" one's bidding standards with a part score? For instance, most players today bid five card majors, because that's (probably) the best way to get to a major suit game of ten tricks.

But suppose my team has a part score of 40. That means that two of a major or three of a minor will give us game. Under those circumstances, does it make sense to say that a one level bid implies four of a suit, major or minor? Because I no longer see the need for a five card major, and likewise, don't see the need for a "convenient" three card minor. Instead, every bid could be "gamegoing."

Likewise, I prefer strong no trumps. But could a weak 1NT (12-14 hcps) be better if we need to go only to the two level to complete the game?

Are there any systems or experts that advocate modifying one's bids in these, or similar fashions, with a part score?

Against weaker players than yourselves, the opposite is more likely to pay off. Traditionally, strong rubber bridge players deliberately sandbag with a part score, inviting the opponents to save against the game bid and then doubling for penalties. One or two such penalties easily replaces the (possibly) lost rubber bonus, and any others are bonus.

A side benefit is that aggressive slams are not bid, so any slams actually bid are high odds. This is also sound strategy with a partscore.

Against stronger players than yourselves, just bid your normal cards. Strong opponents will quickly note if you are stretching with a partscore, and get their doubling boots on to collect a pound of your flesh.

In the unusual circumstance that you are playing opponents exactly as strong as you, it probably doesn't matter as they will be making the same sorts of strategic mistakes that you are, and it will all be a wash.

If you want to improve as a bridge player, start counting the cards (more thoroughly, more smoothly, more naturally than you already are) instead of looking for silly bidding tricks. This will strengthen the game of both you and partner, without subjecting partner to possible ethical dilemmas about whether or not this is a circumstance in which the two of you have agreed to bid light, or heavy, or normal. It also reduces partner's memory load, which is always beneficial regardless of one's level.


Is Loyal Cathar's ability a "delayed triggered ability"? Loyal Cathar - When Loyal Cathar dies, return it to the battlefield transformed under your control at the beginning of the next end step.

Question reposted from user Zacula:

  I believe that Cathar's ability is not a delayed ability that triggers at End of turn. The ability reads: "When Loyal Cathar dies, return it to the battlefield transformed under your control at the beginning of the next end step." It is triggered upon Loyal Cathar's death! it doesn't say: "If Loyal Cathar dies, at the beginning of the next end step return it... blah... blah... blah...

From the rulings, a triggered ability begins with the words "at", "when", "whenever". Loyal Cathar's aility triggers upon its death, so it is up to the controller of the two triggered abilities (Undying, and cathar's) to place them on the stack any way he/she wishes to. He will of course prefer the Undying to resolve first, hence the result will be the same as everybody else answered to this question.

My question is: am I right regarding the Cathar's ability not being a delayed triggered ability that triggers at the End step?"

You are partially right. Loyal Cathar's ability is actually a triggered ability that creates a delayed triggered ability.

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and begin with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” They can also be expressed as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect].”
Loyal Cathar's ability can be parsed as follows [When][Trigger Condition], [effect]:

[Loyal Cathar dies], - is the Trigger Condition.
[return it to the battlefield transformed under your control at the beginning of the next end step] - is the effect.

The effect of the triggered ability sets up a delayed triggered ability that triggers at the the beginning of the next end step (see example below).

603.7c A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. However, if that object is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won’t affect it. (Note that if that object left that zone and then returned, it’s a new object and thus won’t be affected. See rule 400.7.)
Example: An ability that reads “Exile this creature at the beginning of the next end
step” will exile the permanent even if it’s no longer a creature during the next end step.
However, it won’t do anything if the permanent left the battlefield before then.

The original question that spawned your question still has the correct checkmarked answer. Loyal Cathar's ability will fail to find the card in the graveyard, because Undying Evil already returned it to the battlefield. So, when the delayed triggered ability resolves at the beginning of the end of turn, it will fail to do anything. If Loyal Cathar dies again before the beginning of the end of turn, the original delayed triggered ability will still fail to do anything, because the Undying Evil returned Loyal Cathar is a new object.


What happens in Go if you "take back" a ko before making a ko threat? In Go, there is a potentially repetitive sequence of moves called a "ko." So if your opponent takes a ko from you, you have to make a move elsewhere on the board, called a ko threat, before "taking back" the ko, in order to break up the repetition. But suppose someone "repeats" by taking back a ko, without making a ko threat. What are the penalties?

My understanding is that in a tournament, the penalty will be a forfeit of the game. But I've never seen this rule enforced in informal play. The standard "fix" is that the offender is forced to take back his ko "recapture," and make another move.

Is my understanding of the tournament rule correct? And is there an informal "house rule" that prevents the application of this rule in casual games?

In all official rules that I know this means instant forfeit of the game. Of course, in casual play, mistakes like this can be allowed to take back at the will of the players.

In tournaments I would strongly advise against making such a mistake as well as trying to ask for a take back. If the other player does not seem to allow a take back by his own active will, just resign and promise yourself to not make the same mistake again. Mental strength is part of the game, too, after all (just like time management, i.e. losing on time).

The reason players sometime forget to make a threat is often that after player A took the ko, player B takes some time to contemplate the threats, the board, counts the score, and finally simply recaptures the ko - the need to play a threat slipped out of their mind in the meantime.


Does a triggered ability with no legal target for only some of its targets make it to the stack? Let's say my opponent controls a Spirit of the Hearth, and thus has hexproof.

I summon a Burning Sun's Avatar, and its enters-the-battlefield ability triggers.

I don't have a legal target for target opponent, but I could for up to one target creature.

Does the triggered ability make it to the stack with as many legal targets as possible, or does it get cancelled by not being able to choose a legal target when putting it on the stack?

You cannot choose targets for Burning Sun's Avatar's triggered ability, and therefore cannot put it on the stack, if you have no opponents that are legal targets.
Burning Sun's Avatar's ability says

When Burning Sun's Avatar enters the battlefield, it deals 3 damage to target opponent and 3 damage to up to one target creature.

This means that in the process of putting the ability on the stack, you must choose exactly one opponent as the the first target, and zero or one creatures as the second target. If no opponents are legal targets, then you cannot choose a legal combination of targets for the ability, and it will not be put on the stack.
We have the following rules that describe how to put a triggered ability on the stack:

603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c–d. If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.
601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. [...]

If for one of the targets the spell requires there are no legal choices, then the ability is simply removed from the stack.


In Haunt #43 - The Star Sickness, does any use of the serum on a traitor kill them? For those not familiar with this Haunt, a found a general description of Haunt #43 — The Star Sickness, (although sadly not the exact rule text, so if someone has the rules handy please update).

We played this haunt the other day and interpreted the rules to mean that a traitor was only killed by the serum when it was injected in them by an Alien, because the rule stating they were killed by the serum were in the Alien section of the Haunt description. Thus when a traitor was immunized by a player we assumed it had no effect. But as we played it out, this didn't seem to make sense.

From the link above, it appears the correct interpretation is that when a traitor is injected for any reason they die, and when a player is injected they are cured.

However, this didn't make sense to us either because then a traitor would have to reveal themselves as such when someone wanted to "cure" them. Or is this how it is supposed to work? The best way to root out traitors is to try and cure them?

Yes, the best way to determine if someone is a traitor is to (attempt to) inject them with the serum.

If they are a traitor they are killed by agreeing to the serum, and if they are not a traitor it completely absolves them of any current or future suspicion, plus heals them back to their starting values and stops them potentially taking damage each turn from the physical attack that occurs on the haunt revealer's turn (this is not directly stated, but is implied by the rules).

If they refuse, you then have a fairly good idea that they are a traitor, after which they can then do their best to infect you, or die by other means and become an alien.

As for your confusion over the serum, any explorer can use it, but it would mostly be pointless for a traitor to (the only good case I can think of for a traitor using the serum on another explorer is to redirect suspicion).

Note that on becoming an alien the explorer drops all items and that aliens cannot trade items. This seems to indicate a general intent in the rules for aliens to not be able to use items, but it also specifically says that aliens are treated as monsters only for the purposes of movement and taking damage, thus rules-as-read they are not technically prevented from later picking up or stealing items.


Lab challenge: Can a cure be tested multiple times One of the steps for developing a cure in the "Lab challenge" is to test it. To do it a card of the cure color must be put on the test space and one disease cube of the color can be removed from any city.

Is it allowed to test a single cure multiple times? This would make it possible to treat the disease in a far away city (and reducing the number of city cards available for the cure).

I cannot find anything about it in the rules.

The game designer answered it on BoardGameGeek.

Each cure can only be tested once, because there is only one card supposed to be on each field (although this is never actually stated in the rules). Note that the test card stays in place if the sequence card is exchanged within the color.


End turn by Drawing from Bottom card after Triple Slap? By the rules of Exploding Kitten (Party Pack). If the slapped player put another slap, it will be added. (e.g: player 1 put double slap, player 2 put triple slap, total is 5 slaps to be done by the targeted player)

We had a situation where one of us got 8 slaps, but he ended all the 8 turns by using "Draw from Bottom" card because the field guide says "End your turn by drawing the bottom card from the Draw Pile". While SKIP and REVERSE specifically say "only ended 1 of your turns".

Can someone explain if the "Draw From Bottom" can really end all 8 turns?

I see from the rules that the slap cards give multiple turns, not multiple draws.  Thus, the only cards that will allow you to avoid those extra turns are the Slap cards, which explicitly pass all your remaining turns to your target.

"Ending your turn" in general only affects the current turn, not your next turn or the turn after.


Are there disadvantages to the house rule that you always end before the starting player? Once an end condition is reached, I like the house rule where you play until just before the starting player.  It seems more fair to me.

Are there any counterarguments?  It seems like the game designers have had ample opportunity to amend the rules or suggest this alternative in one of the expansions, and haven't.

The game with all the expansions has 3 ending conditions, all of which require you to keep an eye on the number of cards remaining.

Those endings are:

All Provinces have been bought.
Any 3 (2-4 players) or 4 (5-6 players) piles have been bought.
(New in Prosperity) All Colonies have been bought.

Short version:
It would discourage players from buying the last card to end the game if it's not a Colony or Province.

Long version:
The idea is that you watch the piles as they go down and adjust your strategy to compensate.  For example, if I think my score is good enough to win, it's to my advantage to buy out the last pile needed to end the game, even if it's something I don't want.

Requiring the game to keep going around the table after that would likely discourage me from buying said card; I would rather buy more higher-point cards, hoping that someone else will end the game.


"Beginning of end step" question Situation: I have a Crested Sunmare and a Soul Warden on the battlefield,

I play Lone Rider and gain 1 life through Soul Warden.
I play another creature and gain another 1 life through Soul Warden.
Now the end step occurs. Because I gained life, I get a 5/5 token through "Crested Sunmare".
That token allows me to get another 1 life through Sould Warden.

Does that mean that I now gained three life and can transform "Lone Rider", or did the 1 last required life come "too late" for Lone Rider to transform since we are already in the end step?

OR can I choose which ability is checked first, Sunmare's or the Rider's?

Lone Rider will not transform this turn.

If several abilities go on the stack at the same time (such as at the beginning of end step), their respective controlling players, in turn order, decide the order in which they resolve.

However, this does not matter for your actual question, because the beginning of end step happens only once each turn. All applicable abilities check whether their conditions are fulfilled at that time, and if they aren't, they won't trigger this turn. At the beginning of the end step, you did not gain the necessary 3 life for Lone Rider to transform, so it won't happen, even if you gain life during the end step because of Soul Warden triggering off the Crested Sunmare horse token.


Can Non-Robot Minions be Reclaimed via Microbot Reclaimer? When a Microbot Alpha has been played, it gives an ongoing action of

  [...] All of your minions are considered Microbots.

Does this include minions in your discard pile?

The question came up in a game where a subsequent Microbot Reclaimer was played, which states:

  [...] Shuffle any number of Microbots from your discard pile into your deck.

Does this combination allow for reclaiming minions "considered" as Microbots, even when they are in the discard pile as well as from another faction?

As included in the Pretty Pretty Smash Up rules, page 10:

  "A minion" or "minions" means any minions in play unless stated otherwise.

This means that minions in your discard pile are not affected by an action that states "minions".

So no, minions in your discard pile are not classed as Microbots due to the Alpha as they are not in play.


How to Mitigate Snowball Effect of Events I enjoy the events thematically, but the majority of them seem to be of the general form: Make a [stat] roll. If you succeed, increase [stat], if you fail, decrease [stat].

Because the number of dice you get to roll are based on your current stat value, you're more likely to succeed and increase some stat that you're already good at, and more likely to fail and decrease some stat that you're already bad at.

Especially during the exploration phase, there is little to do except explore new rooms and get hit with unpredictable events which will increasingly cripple you if you have a lower-than-average stat.

Does anyone know of a way to mitigate this snowball effect, so you're not perpetually punished for having a bad roll early?

Edit: More specifically, I was looking for additions to the rules that provide a little more agency/forgiveness than conservative gameplay, which tends to rely on the cooperation of others.

There are a couple of things you can do to make it less likely you'll get crippled:

Pick a character with balanced starting stats - Brandon Jaspers, Peter Akimoto, Jenny LeClerc and Madam Zostra all start with three of their stats on 4 and the 4th on 3.
When a room that boosts your stats (Chapel, Gymnasium, Larder, Library) appears, make your way there immediately if the haunt hasn't started yet (if the haunt has already started you may have more important things to do).

While I love the game it is pretty random and you have to accept that sometimes you get screwed. It's worth pointing out that you can't die until the haunt starts, in case you missed that rule.


Can legions in Cardfight!! Vanguard be broken/un-legioned? I am new to Cardfight!! Vanguard, and I was wondering if legions be broken or become un-legioned?

Yes, although it can only happen as part of the effect of another card - it's not something you can choose to do when your vanguard is in Legion. For example, Star-vader, Blaster Joker can retire one of the opponent's legion mates.

In the case where Legion is broken, the vanguard is no longer considered to be in Legion, and it cannot Legion again. You must ride a new Legion Leader and activate Legion with it.


Giving a 2/1 creature -2/-2 The card Disfigure reads:

Target creature gets -2/-2 until end of turn.

If I used that on Highland Game, a 2/1 creature, would Highland Game still die?

Yes. A creature that has 0 toughness or less will die the next time any would would get priority.

State-Based Actions

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.