Infectious Curse vs. Tree of Perdition and Triskaidekaphobia This is mainly a question about APNAP order, so my opponent taps their Tree of Perdition at the beginning of their upkeep  in response to Triskaidekaphobia's triggered ability. So my question is as the non-active player can I cause Infectious Curse to activate between the tree and 13 phobia going off.

Sounds like you already know how to figure out the answer. APNAP means active player, then non-active player. The active player's triggers go on the stack first, so they resolve last.

I'm guessing your opponent is the one with the Triskaidekaphobia, since they're playing Tree of Perdition. If that's the case, and your opponent is playing well, then:

Triskaidekaphobia's triggered ability (controlled by the active player) goes on the stack.
Infectious Curse's ability (controlled by you, the non-active player) goes on the stack.
Infectious Curse's ability resolves, you gain 1 life, and your opponent loses 1 life.
Your opponent activates Tree of Perdition's ability.
Tree of Perdition's ability resolves, and your life total is now 13.
Triskaidekaphobia's ability resolves, and you lose.

If you control the Triskaidekaphobia, both triggers are yours, and you get to choose what order they go on the stack. But still, however you stack it, your opponent can wait until Triskaidekaphobia's triggered ability is on the top of the stack, activate Tree of Perdition, and you'll lose.

The only way you can save yourself from that is if you have an activated ability that you can choose when to activate. Infectious Curse doesn't help here, because it's a triggered ability.

If your opponent is playing badly, sure, they might activate Tree of Perdition before Infectious Curse's ability resolves, and end up with you at 14 instead of 13 when Triskaidekaphobia's ability resolves. But that's not really something you can count on!


Rules about claiming a tunnel in Ticket to Ride Switzerland I just want to be clear about how to claim a short tunnel route in Ticket to Ride Switzerland.

Say I am taking a tunnel that requires only one card (red, for instance). If I turn over a red card I need another red card (or a locomotive) to match it. But if I turn over 2 further red cards (i.e. 3 red cards in all) do I need further red cards (or locomotives) to match?

It would seem strange to have to use 4 red cards in total to claim a one route.

You must have an additional Train Car card of the appropriate color (or a locomotive) for each card of that color that gets flipped over.

From the Ticket to Ride: Switzerland rules (emphasis added):

  When attempting to claim a Tunnel route, a player first lays down the number of cards required. Then the 3 top cards from the Train Car card draw pile are turned face-up. For each card revealed whose color matches the color used to claim the Tunnel (including locomotives), an additional card of the same color (or a locomotive) must be played to successfully claim the Tunnel.


Do Spirit races persist in decline indefinitely? In the game Small World, do races with the Spirit special power persist in decline indefinitely, or do they get bumped off the board after the player has two additional races go into decline?
Here is the situation we faced in a 2-player game I just played. I started the game with Spirit White Ladies, grabbed and managed to hold five spaces through my opponent's turn, and pushed them into decline on my third turn. Because White Ladies cannot be conquered while in decline, these five spaces were unassailable and significantly shrunk the board. My second race--Hill Tritons--suffered heavy attrition and went into decline fairly early, but the Spirit special ability kept my White ladies on the board. When my third race--Flying Dwarves--went into decline near the end of the game, the question arose as to whether the White Ladies and the Tritons should be removed from the board, or just the Tritons.
I think under most circumstances this wouldn't be an issue because most races can be eliminated in decline and opposing players normally would try to quickly wipe out the Spirit race in decline. However, in this case the White Ladies' racial immunity to conquest in decline prevented them from being eliminated as I sent two more races into decline after them. So should my White Ladies have stayed on the board after the Dwarves went into decline and the Tritons bowed out?
(In this game, we ruled that the White Ladies stayed and I won thanks in large part to shrinking the board and easily controlling the three spaces the White Ladies had blocked off with Flying Dwarves... but was it the right call?)

Yes they will stay on the board because the spirit power overrides the rule that prevents them from being removed while in decline. The White Ladies are unlikely to have a lot of territory as other players are likely to target them strongly before you have a chance to put them in decline.
https://www.ultraboardgames.com/smallworld/special-powers.php

When the race tokens associated with your Spirit Special Power go into Decline, they never count toward the limit stated in Entering In Decline regarding having a single In Decline race on the map at any given time.


How many units do you use to attack a dead zone in Axis and Allies? How many units do you use to attack a dead zone territory? Is there a formula or computation that can be used to discover the optimal number of units to attack with?

Consider the Eastern European front with Russia holding Karelia and Germany holding Eastern Europe, with the Ukraine as a dead zone (3 IPC). Presume Karelia has sufficient infantry support to resist a German invasion and vice versa, and that the only sort of attacking that's going on at this stage in the game on this front is the tit for tat taking and retaking of Ukraine.

Now, say it is Russia's turn and that they have, say, 25 infantry in Karelia and 2 fighters and Germany has one infantry in Ukraine. How many troops does Russia attack with given two fighters? What if Germany has two infantry in Ukraine? What if Russia has only one fighter?

I'm curious if there is a general formula for ascertaining the optimal attack ratio. Using a calculator like this one seems a necessity, but what sort of likelihood of winning the attack do you aim for? 60%? 80%? Higher?

Thanks

If I'm attacking a dead zone I won't use tanks. So I determine the attacking force structure by determining the number of aircraft available for the attack and then adding infantry until my gut (or a battle calculator) tells me I'll have enough to occupy the territory.

Often, I'll find that absent these dead zone attacks my planes wouldn't have anything else to do anyway, so more often than you might expect dead zone attacks utilize overwhelming airpower.

Against 1 infantry with 2 fighters: I'd probably send two infantry because this almost guarantees I can capture the territory (with one fighter I'd still only send 2 inf--stranding 3 inf in a dead zone is too many and the odds of winning are still decent). If I'm stretched thin I might only send one, but I'd prefer occupying the territory with two infantry than not taking it at all. If you take it you get 3 IPCs that turn and you make the other side answer the more difficult question of how many inf they send to re-take the territory.

Against 2 infantry: the problem is more difficult. Typically in this scenario I'm almost resigned to not capturing it with high probability and only want to make sure I take enough infantry that there's no chance of taking fighter damage. So if I can afford it I'll attack with 3 inf, knowing that I'm going to retreat before any combat round when I don't have at least as many infantry has he does.

As for specific probabilities I target in my attack structure, that's all game dependent and balanced against the opportunity cost of those units elsewhere on the board. My key metric in planning dead zone attacks is minimizing downside (i.e. the risk of losing fighters and/or stranding more than 2 inf in the dead zone).


Chess with Sudoku limitations The past few months I was working on a fun project which basically uses the traditional chess pieces and their move sets. On top of that I added Sudoku limitations to restrict movements. In order to make that work I also changed the board size to 9x9. In the following images you can see an example of how the restrictions affect the movements of bishops. Note how either of the bishops can't be in the same 1) row 2) column and 3) square as the other one:

Now, finally, my question:
Can anyone think of a good initial setup for all pieces? The traditional chess setup obviously doesn't work here thanks to the Sudoku restrictions.

To make this answerable: the accepted answer will be the one closest to the traditional setup.

On the one hand, I'd like to keep it as close as possible to the traditional setup. On the other hand, feel free to bring in your own ideas. Anything is possible! (Even placing pieces on the opponent's side of the board or multiple queens. Just saying...)
The one exception: there can only be 1 king of course (or maybe not?).

Quick link to Wikipedia chess rules

I don't have an exact answer for you here. Like any game in development you should test and iterate through different ideas in the search for the best one.

I'd come up with a solution you think is suitable, then go and play that game a few times. Does anything feel overpowered or wrong, then change it. You repeat this process until you get an ideal solution to the sitation.

Also well done for coming up with a really unique take on chess. For a game over 1000 years old it hasn't changed much since its origins, so it's impressive to see an honestly interesting take on a game that has such a well set up structure.


What does hut wording mean? Here are some relevant threads on BGG:

The hut
The Hut = Most Pointless Card in the Game?!
Hut – explanation needed

Here is the hut card wording from the rulebook:

  In the trader phase, the owner of a hut draws one card from the supply if no good was sold by any player during this phase.

The last linked thread and this post in the first linked thread ask the question I'm going to ask, but I feel that no satisfactory answer was given.

Let's say Alice sold no goods in a trader phase. She is definitely a player, and thus falls under "any player" description. Which would mean that the hut rule should trigger. If the rules meant to say that it would trigger if no player sells any goods, they would probably have said just that.

Yet, most of the posters in the threads above, feel that the trigger is only when no selling occurs at all, not just by Alice, a player, but by all players.

I'm looking for a clarification referencing an authoritative source. I understand that it's likely that there is none, but I have been surprised before.

The hut owner only draws if none of the players sold a good.

So the rules say the following:

  [The hut owner draws] if no good was sold by any player during this phase.

The check uses the passive voice.[1] Let's change it to use the active voice so it's in terms of players, not goods.

Unfortunately, the use of "no" complicates things. So let's work with the opposite check.

  The hut owner draws unless any good was sold by any player during this phase.

This is easy to convert to the active voice

  The hut owner draws unless any player sold any good during this phase.

So if a player sold a good, the owner of the hut doesn't get to draw.

In case that's not clear let's negate the check again to remove the "unless".

  The hut owner draws if none of the players sold any good during this phase.

All of the above instructions are equivalent.

If they wanted to check to see if the hut owner had sold goods, they could have used the following:

  if no good was sold by this player during this phase.

  if this player sold no goods during this phase.

  if this player didn't sell any goods during this phase.

("Them" and "they" could be used in lieu of "this player.")

"X was verbed by Y" means the same thing as "Y verbed X".

The former phrasing is called "the passive voice".

The "the passive voice" is what people call the former phrasing.

Using the passive voice is usually weaker than using the passive voice. Notice how I was able to hide who calls that phrasing the passive voice in the former? With the active voice, I was force to say who did calls it the active voice, and this reveals the fact that was hiding the authority, hiding that it's English grammaticians that call this the passive voice.

You might have noticed this if you used grammar checker while composing a document. They will frequently suggest replacing the use of the passive voice with the active voice.

However, using the passive voice focuses on the thing on which the action was performed (by placing it first in the sentence) rather than focusing on what performed the action, and that can be an advantage.


If Possession is played while executing another Possession, who takes the next turn? In Dominion: Alchemy, you can play Possession to "possess" the player to your left and effectively take over his next turn.  What happens if he has a Possession in his hand, and you play it during that possessed turn?

Example

(Turn order is Alex, then Bob, then Carl)

Alex plays Possession.
He controls Bob's next turn, and plays a Possession from Bob's hand.
This means someone will possess Carl on the next turn - but is it Bob, or Alex?

If Bob plays Possession, even if he is currently being possessed by Alex, Bob will control Carl's next turn.

This basically means if you are possessing someone, you should not have them play Possession.  Especially in a 2 player game.

(Note that sometimess you can't avoid playing a Possession - for example if you play a Golem, you might end up being required to play Possession as well.)


How to deal with Enchantments outside of G/W? I have done gatherer searches for "destroy" and "exile" target enchantment with White and Green excluded. Are there any options, save counterspells, for dealing with them?

Enchantments are permanents, so they can also be destroyed by spells or abilities that destroy permanents

There are several non-G/W cards that destroy certain types of permanents, rather than enchantments specifically: Gatherer

You can also make your opponent sacrifice certain types of permanents, although that of course leaves some degree of choice for your opponent, depending on the board state: Gatherer

Generally, you should accept the fact that enchantment destruction is firmly inside the G/W part of the color pie, and you should look to less direct ways of dealing with enchantments.

As for direct answers, your best bet outside G/W are Blue counterspells and bounce effects for tempo, and sweeper artifacts.


What are "Implied Odds" in Texas Hold'em Poker? What are "Implied Odds" in Texas Hold'em Poker?

Implied odds or implied pot odds are calculated the same way as pot odds, but consider future betting. You figure implied odds in situations where you expect to fold in the next round if you don't make your draw. You lose no more bets if you miss, but can expect to gain extra bets if you hit the draw.

An example. Say you see the flop with 2 other players acting before you in a NL game. You flop a gutshot straight draw. The first player bets and the second calls and now the pot is laying you 7:1. For a gutshot you want 10:1 or better; however, if you hit your straight on the turn, you stand to stack off one or both of your opponents. Thus your implied odds are considerably greater than 7:1, so you call.

Implied odds with a flush draw can be dicier. Namely because you can hit your flush on the turn and that kills the action. And your implied odds.

The example is a very simple one. If you were in the same scenario, but 2nd to act instead of last; you would be in a much different situation in that the last player could raise and ruin (or not) your implied odds. Additionally, stack sizes matter. If your opponents are short stacked you may not have the odds for the call. So, when considering implied odds be very aware of the situation.


Is an old edition of Cinder Wall able to attack? The most recent iteration of Cinder Wall has the creature type "Wall" and has Defender. However, the Weatherlight print of this card stood by the old rules where Wall creatures couldn't attack, so it doesn't have the Defender keyword.

If I use a Weatherlight edition of this card, can it attack, or does the fact that its errata gave it Defender mean that older prints would also have it even if they do not say so?

No; Oracle is the authorative source of card wordings.

From the Comprehensive Rulebook:

  108.1. Use the Oracle™ card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.

The official text on all versions of Cinder Wall is:

  Defender
  When Cinder Wall blocks, destroy it at end of combat.

"Wall" specifically is mentioned in the Glossary:

  Wall

  A creature type with no particular rules meaning. Older cards with the Wall creature type but without defender had an unwritten ability that precluded them from attacking. Those cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to have defender. Some older cards that referenced the Wall creature type have also received errata. See Defender.


In Axis and Allies, how do you choose which player plays which country? Can players choose because there enough diversity of interest so that everyone can get their first or second choice?

Do you use a bidding system where players "bid" for a country by specifying the "handicap" there are willing to take to play it?

Do you "draw" for country as in diplomacy?

Is there a consensus that the "newest" players play the U.S. (or Britain) while the more experienced players play the harder countries?

Whatever works for your group. Only if multiple players want to play the same country is a "method" even necessary. Until your group knows the game well, handicapping is extreme; use random selection, but even then only to break contentions


What strategies can you use as a Renegade in 4 player games to maintain your cover? So in 4-player Bang!, there is a Sheriff (wins when all others are dead), a Renegade (wins when all others are dead) and 2 Outlaws (win when the Sheriff is dead).  So your typical game opens with the two outlaws shooting the Sheriff, the Sheriff shooting the Outlaws, and the Renegade being forced to shoot the Outlaws so that they don't kill the Sheriff too quickly.  This has the effect of telegraphing to all players involved who the Renegade is; the resulting game devolves into a shootout with no subtlety or strategy;  everyone knows everyone's situation and there are no surprises.  Are there better or more optimized strategies for these situations?  Or does the game only hit its stride with more players involved?

I'm not sure Bang! is really about maintaining cover, anyway. Even for big games, it seems like ideal Bang! strategy is...

1) Outlaws try to spike down the Sheriff roughly ASAP, though they can sometimes wait until most players have long-range guns before exposing themselves.

2) Once the Outlaws are dead, the Renegade immediately tries to kill the weakened Sheriff before he gets time to recover.

The only subtlety I see is that, if the Outlaws are having a tough time, the Renegade should stop shooting them.

You're right, though, that in 4-player, because the range is so short, Outlaws don't even need to wait until long-range guns are out. And there's no moment of wondering who the Renegade is -- in larger games, that moment is brief, but it does exist.


Name of card game similar to crazy-8s or Uno I would like to know if anyone on here has played or knows the name of a card game similar to hearts.

The object of the game is to get rid of all your cards. If a player doesn't have a card that is played, he can play any card just like hearts. In this game there's no points system.

When 2 players remain in the game, the player who has more cards than the player who has one remaining must play a lower card to extend the game. The cards are then laid out and the player with no cards must pick a card from pack of cards which have been played and pick a card lower than the other players cards to win. The other player obviously has to clear his cards.

You can also request to take another players cards.
I believe it is an Asian card game but wondered if it had an English name and if many people play it.

Thanks.

This sounds like it might be a form of Minnesota Whist.

Even if it is not, I'd suggst starting with a cassification resource like: Pagat and seeing if anything else jogs your memory.


What happens if you run out of cards in Streaking Kittens I know this question has already been asked, but this situation is different because we use the Streaking Kitten expansion of Exploding Kittens.

The streaking kitten expansion introduces the streaking kitten card, it allows a player to keep one (and only one) kitten in her hand:

  Streaking Kitten 1 Card

  While this card is in your hand, you can also secretly hold 1
  Exploding Kitten without exploding.

  But...

  If the Streaking Kitten leaves your hand for any reason, the Exploding
  Kitten in your hand will explode.

  If another player steals or receives an Exploding Kitten from your
  hand, they explode. They must defuse it or lose the game.

  If you take any action causing you to play an Exploding Kitten from
  your hand into the Discard Pile, you explode. You must defuse it or
  lose the game.

  IMPORTANT - Streaking Kittens and Exploding Kittens can not be used
  with the 5 Card Special Combo. This means you can't use either of them
  in your collection of 5 cards, nor can you remove either of them from
  the Discard Pile.

  Why? Because it breaks the game. Don't break the game...the game loves
  you.

If for example, there are 4 players. Using streaking kittens expansion, the deck has 4 kittens. The moment you are running out of cards, 4 kittens must have been played of which at most one is streaking at one of the players. The other 3 kittens must have been exploded eliminating 3 players. So there is only one player left who is the winner.

This can only occur if something went wrong:

You put 3 kittens in the deck. This expansion adds one kitten for each player.
A defused kitten is discarded. Defused kittens are put back in the draw pile.
The player with the streaking kitten card collected more than a single kitten. A streaking kitten card only let you keep one kitten.
The streaking kitten card was stolen, enabling an other player to collect a kitten, but the original kitten "forgot" to explode. If you lose the streaking kitten card while holding a kitten, it explodes.


How is Pandemic Legacy impacted by playing with two characters? What are the mechanical/strategic differences in playing Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 with just two characters, as opposed to three or four?

If discussing Season 1 spoilers is unavoidable, please remember to use the spoiler notation (>! hidden text) and clearly mark them.

The biggest spoiler-free Legacy-specific difference is probably in the end-game upgrades: if any given character gets half the player turns instead of a quarter, buffing a character becomes comparatively more powerful. By the same logic, the amount of damage a single Scar can do to a smaller team is greater.

However I think the most important differences are the same as those of the base game (and are covered in this other question).


Does Republic of Rome usually generate one or more wars per turn, leading to a loss even when cooperating? I have played Republic of Rome several (4?) times with a group (usually 4-5 players) without studying the rules myself. We have always started in the Early Republic period, and even when we try to cooperate just to survive the period, we have always lost, generally to an onslaught of wars, often more than one per turn. We always end up facing at least one Punic War and usually four or more in total, and get overwhelmed by one thing or another as a result. The others have played it many more times than I have with them, and they say they have NEVER made it out of the Republic period, due to losing one way or another.

Are we playing the game wrong? I think the main cause is overwhelming random events, specifically accumulating wars. Each game turn, each player draws at least one random event card, and this can and in our games has often resulted in one or more new war about every turn. Does the game have a rule we are missing that at least limits the number of random wars entering play to one per turn at most?

Also, from a historical perspective, it seems like the time scale must be abstract and a bit off. It feels like each game turn is a year, but then obviously there were never new wars coming up every year historically.

You really do need to read the rules, more thoroughly than it sounds as if the rest of the group has done. If you do, you will find that RoR is not a common-or-garden multiplayer game where an ally is somebody you have no reason to attack at present; it is designed so that the players all have to genuinely co-operate to keep the state going, and the winner is the one who can use each successive crisis to best advantage. The designer's notes say "I designed it for those who find Diplomacy too tame", and you need to be a born politician to find the game easy. But the notes also include a page or two of suggestions, and here are one or two of my own.

The object of the game is not to preserve the Republic; it is to have yourself declared Emperor (or some near-equivalent). One of my favourite winning conditions is being in rebellion when the state goes bankrupt; presumably the Ancient World Bank then puts you in charge of rebuilding, Monti-style.
The Early Republic scenario is well-known to be the hardest to survive; if you don't like it, try the Middle or Late Republic scenarios, or even the optional one where you shuffle all the cards together and use the top fifty or whatever. But bear in mind the reason (mentioned in the rulebook) that not every year is represented by a turn: a year when nothing happens is a year when nobody has a chance to affect the game. If you are not versed in the subtle politics going on around you, a game without wars is going to seem quite dull - until someone else suddenly wins.
There are precisely six random events each turn, and a lot of possible wars. When you include the enemy leaders then yes, you are going to have to do a lot of fighting; at least one war a turn. You can't afford to say "I'm not voting to give that general a chance to shine", or "I'm not contributing to the treasury unless everybody does"; rebuild the army, and send it out to fight.
Setting the terms of the debate is a huge advantage: if the HRAO (think President) has done his job, you have an unpalatable choice between everybody losing and making someone else's victory easier. But of course you may be HRAO yourself next turn...
You need to think quite seriously whether you would rather have somebody else win or everybody lose (see this question). Of course, if you are winning, you need to consider that the other players are also thinking this, and won't give you an easy ride. A lot of Early Republic games end in one climactic battle; if the army loses, the state collapses, and if it wins, the general has enough prestige to win the game. But he might be killed while winning the victory, which would give others a chance, so it's worth voting to send him out; now, how many legions do we send to maximise the odds? Unless you think this way every turn, you won't be a good RoR player; be consoled by the fact that you are probably a nicer person for it.


Corner enclosure after playing star point As fas as I know the corner is fully closed after adding two more stones to 4-4

But what will happen if I simply play 3-3?

Can I consider my corner closed or not?

It's true that you get the corner territory by adding the stone at 3-3, but the reason this isn't considered an enclosure is that you could have gotten the same territory by playing the 3-3 stone in the first place.  This means you're not getting full value for the 4-4 stone - you've gotten the outside influence that it gives you, but none of the territorial benefit.


How to reduce total screw-overs in Ticket to Ride so there's always a potential path toward victory? My family and I have very much enjoyed playing the original Ticket to Ride, but I've noticed one issue that keeps coming up. It is very easy to be cheated out certain critical routes that could easily cost you 30+ points if they stopped you from completing a big destination card. In the American map every city has a least 3 ways out of it, but losing a critical route, even one that's only one train long in the case of Portland, can force you to use alternatives that are over 9 trains long, IF they are even available.

I understand part of the strategy of the game is making sure you get the critical routes you need, but its gotten to the point where people want to quit if someone takes the last route out of a major city they needed as they now have almost no chance of winning. A good strategist will try to avoid this at all costs, but it seems unfair that if you get a tiny turn of bad luck at a critical point you're basically doomed to compete between last or second to last place.

I've found in most other games, like Settlers, Citadels, Dominion, etc., even if you get a streak of bad luck you can usually find some path that will lead you to victory...if you can find it. This doesn't seem to be as true with TTR. When I was in this situation I started to focus on blocking everyone else and getting as many points as possible through 6 car routes, but I was only able to squeak out 100 points for 4th place, only beating the least experienced player.

Have I just not played the game enough? Is there always a path to victory in TTR that will out-weigh whatever bad luck you've been hit with, be it bad train cards, terrible destination combos, or loosing critical routes? What can I do to reduce these total screw-overs to make the game slightly less cut-throat and luck based if I'm playing with new gamers? This is currently one of the few things holding TTR back from being one of my top choices as an intro game.

Here's some of my ideas:

You can create a duplicate route between any two cities that can only be claimed with the same number of locomotives. This would help if you lost that critical one-train route, but would still make you pay for not claiming it earlier.
You can always create new routes by using twice as many cards of the required color. This still makes claiming long routes normally important, but lets you snag that other one you needed in proportion to how difficult it was to take from you.
add trading to the game. I know TTR was not designed with trading in mind and doesn't have the most conducive environment toward it, but it would make for a very different game and allow more ways to catch up. I'll probably start a different question for how specifically to add trading to the game and keep it as playable and well-balanced as possible.

In my opinion, there shouldn't "always be a potential path towards victory".  I've never found it a big problem to get my routes finished - though obstacles and impediments are often flung in my way!  There are a few things you should be doing to ensure that you always have the best chance of success, though:

(1) Obviously, don't overcommit.  Know how far 45 trains can actually get you.  Also, when calculating how many trains a route is going to take you, don't count up the optimum route.  Leave yourself plenty of wiggle room if a colour you were banking on doesn't become available... or worse, if another player starts building routes that you were planning on being the backbone of your strategy.

(2) Don't start building too soon!  My wife often does this, starts methodically building her cross-country route from point A, slowly and steadily towards point B.  This only succeeds in giving me plenty of warning where we are likely to come into conflict in the middle.  As such, I usually have plenty of time to save up for and grab those routes, she gets mightily teed off, and I get to sleep on the couch YET AGAIN.  But really, if she didn't telegraph her plans, I wouldn't find it so easy to thwart them!

Obviously, you can't fall too far behind the other players' builds, you don't want them to run out of trains way ahead of you.  But extra information is often a lot more valuable than being first out of the starting gate.

(3) Conversely, if a route really is essential to your plans, don't hesitate, grab it straight away.  This is particularly important in variants like Nordic Countries, where there are several key one-train routes linking the left and right halves of the board.  It's no accident that you get dealt some train cards BEFORE you have to choose which routes to take on; quite often I will only keep a route that relies on getting from one side of the board to the other if I have the right colour to snap up the link in my first turn.  Don't take risks on the really important stuff.

In general, I think you may be overvaluing routes.  Huge cross-country routes are worth a lot of points because they are hard to pull off without a hitch!  One of the players in my group has what I think is a possibly better, and certainly funnier strategy: she takes a few short, simple routes at the start of the game, that can't possibly give her any trouble.  She builds those and as many random obstructive long routes as she can, bringing the game to a speedy conclusion.  Very funny when this results in people getting -50 instead of +50 points, because all their destination tickets were too ambitious in the light of this playing style...

I know we've said "Ticket to Ride is a well-balanced game, don't mess with it", in response to your questions before, and you haven't really appreciated it, but I really do believe it.  There's more going on delicate-game-balance-wise than I think you appreciate, and I think you should try to learn to love it for a bit longer before you tamper with it!


Is the Catapult expansion as cool as it sounds? I've often heard of the Carcassonne Catapult expansion, and I'm wondering, is it actually cool to use, or is it one of those novelties that will quickly wear off? Please give me your experience with this expansion. Thanks!

I have seen it demoed before, and I have no intention of getting it.

It definitely seems like a novelty, or at least for a younger demographic.  Judging by the reviews and ratings on BoardGameGeek, I'm not the only one who feels that way -- on their 1-10 scale, the Catapult expansion is rated a full 2.5 stars lower than the main Carcassonne set itself.

Personally, I don't like the idea of adding dexterity to my strategy games, and the new tiles look overly cutesy, but I could see kids getting a big kick out of it.


Should I Use A "Negative Double" Over a Possible "Short Club" Bid And Overcall in Bridge? Playing Standard American, partner opened 1 club. Right hand opponent overcalled 1 spade. I raised to 2 clubs with:

♠xx ♥Axxx ♦JTxx ♣Qxx

Everyone passed. Partner had 13 points and a "short" three card club suit and we went down one (not doubled, not vulnerable), because of our club shortness. Our system allows us to bid short minors, although most of the time we have have four, or even five of the minor. But switch the club and heart suits, and I would have gladly raised to two hearts with Qxx because we were playing five card majors.

Someone suggested that I use a "negative double" instead of raising one club because of the potential short club problem. What exactly is its meaning and purpose, since partner already bid? It's not exactly a takeout double, but it seems to have the connotations of "I don't like your suit, could you bid another one." Or does it?

And, in fact, is a negative double the best action in this case since I have only seven points? (What little I was taught about this bid was that it showed 8-10 points.) I'm actually quite happy with the result because we shut out a one spade bid that would have made, perhaps with overtricks.

Your options are:

Double

Double would suggest that you have at least 6 points and that you have at least 4 of the unbid major suit (hearts). I think this is the best bid as it accurately describes your hand. Now that your partner has this information he can decide how best to proceed. If your partner has hearts he can bid them, if he has a strong club suit he can rebid that.

With 10+ points you could still double, but it's often preferable to bid something that shows the extra strength.

2 Clubs

You would normally need 4 clubs to bid this, so this is not a good bid if you only have 3 of them. It happened to work out OK for you on this occasion, but you could easily have ended up in 3 clubs (possibly doubled). There's obviously less risk with this kind of bid when non-vulnerable, but even then it's very unlikely that this is your best option.

Pass

This isn't a particularly poor bid, but double is better. If you'd passed it's quite likely your opponents would have ended up in 1 spade which presumably they would have made.

If you'd only had 6 points and were vulnerable you might prefer this over doubling.


If I have 8+ coins and no Gold, should I buy a Gold or a Province? When playing Dominion, I have developed the habit of buying a Gold the first time I can afford one, even if I could afford a Province instead. Is this a good rule of thumb?

My reasoning is that if I manage to hit 8+ coins without a Gold in my deck, I have probably managed to hit a lucky hand. Having at least one Gold makes it much easier to hit 6+ or 8+ coins in the future, whereas having a Province sitting around just makes it harder to buy that first Gold.

If buying the Gold is indeed better most of the time, under what circumstances would it be worse?

Generally you want to get a Gold before you buy a Province in order to sustain your Province buying.

Exceptions include:

Situations in which you are using action chains for money (e.g., Minion, possibly Conspirator) because the Gold does not contribute to your chain in a significant manner.
When your Treasure Maps hit. If you have 4 Golds from TM, you should have the coin density you need for the game.
If there is a trash-for-benefit card on the board that you can exploit (e.g., Salvager, Expand especially if there are Colonies in play, possibly Apprentice). This will be situational; you need to make sure that you're going to be able to stay ahead of your opponent if you trash the Province.
If the game is ending quickly (e.g., your opponent is rushing Gardens or Duke/Duchy and the game is going to end on piles before you work all the way through your next shuffle).
If you have cards that let you discard for substantial benefit (e.g., Horse Traders is probably enough; Cellar is definitely not), you might be able to avoid some of the penalty for greening your deck early. But, this is a higher variance strategy—sometimes shuffle luck will make you successful, and sometimes the shuffle gods will not be amused.


On-attack triggers and removal for attacking or tapped creatures My opponent controls creatures with on-attack triggers (e.g. Ulamog, the Infinity Gyre with its Annihilator trigger or Edgar Markov with its buff trigger).

I have in my hand instant-speed removal that is concerned with (or targets) attacking or tapped creatures (e.g. Settle the Wreckage or Seal Away).

My opponent attacks me with said creature(s). I think it goes as follows:

my opponent declares attacks
the creatures become "tapped" and "attacking", at the same time the on-attack triggers enter the stack
Case 1: I cast Settle the Wreckage, nothing else happens, the creatures are exiled and their triggers leave the stack, everything else resolves.
Case 2: I cast Seal Away, nothing else happens, the targeted creature is exiled, its triggers leave the stack, everything else resolves.

Is that correct? Or do the on-attack triggers somehow come together with the attack before I get priority?

their triggers leave the stack

That's where your reasoning goes wrong. Once an ability is on the stack, it's 'separated' from the original object:

  112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

(Emphasis mine)

Removing the source of the ability does not help countering the ability or removing it from the stack. You'd have to remove the player (see rule 800.4a) for something like this to happen. Of course, you can counter the abilities with cards like Stifle because you do get priority before they resolve.


What are the differences between American Megafauna and Bios: Megafauna? The idea of a detailed board game simulating evolution sounds awesome. I understand that Bios: Megafauna is a more recent reworking of American Megafauna, but I'm quite unclear on the differences. From my limited reading, it also sounds like these games are part of a larger gaming arc, since I've heard mention that it's possible to combine these games with others by the same designer. That's all I know though, and I'm interested in picking one of these up for Christmas. So:

What was the intention with the reimplementation?
What are the principal differences?
Are there specific reasons to prefer one over the other?
How can these games be combined with others, or expanded?

In both games you are playing a phylum of either mammals or lizards (250 million years ago or so).  You place your creatures on an ever-changing board, seeking out biomes that (a) have food you can eat (including other creatures) and (b) give advantages to your genetic advantages (such as being amphibious, being fast, having armor, etc).  You acquire these genetic advantages during the course of play (more later on that), and you can spin off new species that share some of the genetics of the parent species.  The world is not a stable place, though, and the board changes frequently, generally becoming harsher (i.e. you need more of these genetic advantages to remain viable).  Placement is governed by proximity to your existing creatures and size (bigger creatures can move farther).  Tangentially, I note that in both games we have found the rules to be poorly-organized and somewhat confusing to learn.

In American Megafauna, genetic advantages ("DNA") come out one at a time and players bid on them.  When you spin off a new species you inherit all of the DNA of the parent (I think).  You have 14 counters for each of four species, and the game supports four players (five with the expansion).  So the board can get fairly crowded.  DNA is tracked by little cardboard tents on a playing mat, which are pretty hard to see across the table.  The winner is the player with the most creatures on the board when the game ends.

Bios Megafauna makes several changes:

The bidding mechanism for DNA is completely revamped.  Several cards are dealt out on the table; the cards represent a mix of DNA and opportunities to start new species.  A player can take the first card for free, pay one for the second, pay two for the third, and so on.  If you take a card with payment tokens on it, you get them.  Tokens are quite limited.  Cards are replenished, coming in at the end.

There are two ways to spin off new creatures.  One is similar to the earlier game, but you choose which traits to inherit and indicate them with a limited pool of tokens.  So, for example, you may have one "nocturnal" chit that you can use for this, and once it's gone it's gone.  The other way is with cards.  A species card will indicate several genes, and to play it you must match at least half of them with an existing creature (which will be the parent).  So if you have a creature that's marine, nocturnal, and doubly speedy, and the card has marine, speed, armor, and insectivore, you can use it.  The new creature has the DNA on the card.  New creatures can therefore have DNA that you didn't previously have represented, which is handy.

Presumably because of the connection to other games (which use the same idea), Bios Megafauna adds non-DNA characteristics that you can also acquire through cards (things like manual dexterity, language, and a couple others I'm forgetting).  These can give some additional advantages, but in our games they haven't really been well-integrated.

When tiles (mostly biomes) are removed from the board they go into a pile that will eventually turn into victory points.  Points are distributed multiple times during the game based on population at that time -- so instead of "biggest at the end wins", you have several checks and players' fortunes can ebb and flow.

There are many fewer creatures in play.  You get eight tokens (wooden counters now rather than cardboard tents) per species (still four of those), and you have to spend some of them on "tracks" -- one to indicate your current size, and one for each of the "roadrunner" DNA (nocturnal, speed, armor, marine).  So yeah, go ahead and acquire those traits, but you do it at the cost of board position.  In our games it has not been uncommon to have only one or two tokens of a species on the board.  (In both games, if you go to zero that species is extinct -- flush the cards, reclaim your tokens, and carry on.)  The game supports up to four players.

Regarding physical aspects, the biome tiles are larger (so easier to see) and the annoying little tents are gone.  However, DNA for any given species is now represented by the combination of counters on tracks, DNA on cards, and the chits used in spinning off creatures.  Add to this that the counters for the different species are not that visually distinct from a distance, and we have found that it's just as hard to see what that tasty morsel you're considering eating has in place as it used to be, but it's differently hard.  In both games players are constantly having to ask each other questions like "how speedy is that guy again?" and "does that have armor?".

Anecdotally, I have heard that "total party kills" -- that is, world-destroying events that end the game -- are much less likely in the new game, and that this was one motivating factor.  Beyond that I don't know why the author reimplemented the game.

The new game is designed to fit into a family of games in ways that aren't entirely clear to me.  We have played one of these, Origins: How We Became Human, once; it shares the non-DNA traits of Bios Megafauna but the rules are very different.  As the name implies, it is set later in time.  I haven't played it enough to make further connections.

How to choose between American and Bios?  Both have merits and both can make play difficult in different ways.  It seems to be easier to recover from misfortune in Bios and the cards provide more options; American is a harder and I think harsher game, which may be what you want sometimes.


Does the Visionary's Mass Levitation power apply to Scum and Villany? In the Sentinels of the Multiverse card game, the Visionary has an ongoing card Mass Levitation with the power:

  Until the start of your next turn, reduce damage dealt by environment cards by 3.

The Scum and Villany environment card from the Rook City expansion states:

  At the start of the environment turn, the villain character card deals each hero target H minus 1 melee damage and destroys this card.

So, if I had four heroes, Scum and Villany would result in all of my heroes taking three melee damage.  Can Mass Levitation's power prevent this damage?

My assumption is that even though the environment card triggers the villain card dealing damage to the heroes, the villain card is the actual source of damage for calculating effects, damage reduction, nemesis damage, etc.  Is this assumption correct?

Mass Levitation does not apply in this case, for exactly the reason you expect.

The key word here is "deals": Mass Levitation prevents damage dealt by the environment. The environment card doesn't deal damage though - it actually causes the villain to deal damage - so Mass Levitation has no effect here.


Additional/Made up roles in Resistance or Resistance avalon My friends and I have started making up new roles for resistance when we get tired of using the basics like Merlin, Percival Mordred, Morgana and Oberon.

I know Mordred can hide from Merlin, Merlin knows who is evil(except Mordred), Morgana appears as Merlin, Percival know who is Merlin (and who is Morgana, but not which one is which), and Oberon is evil but he doesn't know who else is evil and they don't know who he is.

So far one variation we've played with is where Oberon knows who his evil team mates are, or they know who he is. He is evil, but knows nothing about who else is good and evil but his evil team mates will know who he is. Or he knows who all of them are, but they don't know who he is.

We've also played with "Nice Friends" (The name is a work in progress). Where two Loyal Servants know the identity of each other but nothing else, they don't know who any of the evil people are. And at the end of the game if the evil team can correctly guess both Nice Friends they win. Usually if we play with nice friends at least Percival is removed.

Has anyone made up their own roles, used any other variations or are there any that already exist that aren't in the traditional version of Avalon?

Here's a few we like to play with. Names are a work in progress, and you do have to think through how you combine these roles, some combinations can be unbalanced. Also, for some reason most of these are Good Characters.
Oracle (Nimueh)
Ability: Once per round, (or once at the start of the game), can look at a single characters card.
Best In: Large games, where 5 cards isn't enough to know everything.
Options:

If Evil kills Nimueh instead of Merlin, it's a draw.
Instead of looking at a card, can look at one token a player in a mission has put.
Could be an Evil player as well. Note: This requires some balancing, because otherwise seeing Merlin's card is an instant win. Best is Oracle has separate win conditions: Wins by Failing Enough Missions, but Loses if Merlin dies.

King Arthur
Ability: At the start of the game, reveals his card. Is a Good player.
Best In: Smaller games, where his help in winning missions is cancelled out by making it easier to guess who Merlin is.
Options:

Limited number of missions he can take part in. (One or Two is best)
If he is on a losing mission, can no longer join missions. (Or, Good loses)

Witch
Ability: Once per game, can change a Fail token to Success. However, the next turn, one Success Token is changed to Fail
Best In: Any game, but can be a bit OP in combo with Arthur.
Options:

Sees tokens first, then changes.
Can also change a Success to Fail first, and then change a Fail to Success at any later turn.
Is an extra assigned role, meaning may be a Good or Evil character, or and one with another Role.

Cupid
Ability: At the start of the game, chooses two people to be lovers. Lovers see each others Character Cards. If Good falls in love with Evil, then the Good player wins if Evil does.
Best In: Any game
Options:

Instead of a Cupid character, start with a random pairing.
Evil converts to Good because of love.

Sir Robin
Ability: Is a Good Player, but can only play Fail Tokens.
Best In: Random Roles, i.e there may or may not be a Sir Robin in the game.
The Rat
Ability: Is an Evil Player. When included in a mission, after all tokens have been played, the rat can look at the tokens and change his if he wants.
Best In: Medium to Large games, where he won't be able to use his ability too many times.


Can I use the Axe weapon more than once? Once I find the Axe card, can I continue using it to "solve" all locked puzzles I find or is this a one time use then discard card?

You can use it multiple times to pass any Lock Puzzle as long as you can pass the test of strength.

Note that the Axe cannot be used on Rune or Wiring puzzles.  (We played this wrong for several games before figuring it out!)


In Pandemic, can the Containment Specialist remove more than 1 cube (without the action of treating) in a cured city? In Pandemic, when there are 2 or 3 cubes of the same color on a cured city, does the Containment Specialist remove only 1 cube when he lands or all of the cubes (like when treating) since it is cured?

The key verb here is treat.

From the game base rules (emphasis mine):

  Treat Disease:

  Remove 1 disease cube from the city you are in, placing it in the cube
  supply next to the board. If this disease color has been cured (see
  Discover a Cure below), remove all cubes of that color from the city you
  are in.

The Medic can remove all cubes from a cured disease simply by entering it but it's his role privilege, other roles still have to spend a second action to cure all the cubes

  MEDIC

  The Medic removes all cubes, not 1, of the same color
  when doing the Treat Disease action.
  If a disease has been cured, he automatically removes
  all cubes of that color from a city, simply by entering it
  or being there. This does not take an action.

For instance, the containment specialist drives to Atlanta where there are 3 blue cubes (1 action). By doing so, he removes a cube for free, but only one since it's not a Treat action. Then he treats the blue disease thus removing the remaining two cubes (1 action)

  CONTAINMENT SPECIALIST

  When you enter a city with 2 or more cubes of the same color, remove 1 cube


When the ancient one awakens, do we pass the first player token? Since the token passes at the end of the turn, and the awakening goes immediately to the awakening, do we skip passing the first player token for the first attack?

The rules for The Final Battle (page 22 of the rulebook) state that the first player token should be passed at the start of the turn, when the investigators refresh:

1. Investigators Refresh
At the beginning of a round of combat with an Ancient One, the investigators may refresh their cards, use any character abilities, and adjust their skill sliders as though it were the Upkeep Phase. Next, the first player marker should be passed to the left. Finally, they may trade items among themselves as if they were in the same location (see “Trading Equipment” later in these rules).

(Emphasis mine)


How do I interrupt a loop after multiple iterations? This is a question regarding infinite loops and shortcuts at Competitive REL.

Here is a potential scenario.

Both my opponent and myself are at 20 life each.
I have no creatures on the battlefield.
My opponent has a  Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker and a  Warstorm Surge on the battlefield.
I have a  Rakdos Charm in hand.
My opponent plays  Deceiver Exarch and begins a loop where he uses Kiki-Jiki to copy the Exarch, and uses each new Exarch to untap Kiki-Jiki, dealing me 1 damage every time he does it.
If I cast  Rakdos Charm when the 18th Exarch token's trigger is on the stack, I win.
If I cast it at any other time, I lose.
If my opponent knows that I'm going to cast it than he won't make the 18th token, and he'll simply attack and kill me.

Now, the question is:

If my opponent proposes a shortcut, saying

  "I'll make 500 tokens and kill you."

Can I accept the first 18 iterations of that shortcut and react by saying

  "After the 18th token enters the battlefield and its ETB trigger goes onto the stack, I cast Rakdos Charm."

, or do I have to propose a new shortcut for the 18 iterations, potentially giving my opponent information?

Yes, you can accept only the first 18 iterations. After he proposes the number of iterations for the loop (500 here), you can choose a lower number of iterations, and both players have to abide to those iterations.

The rules for this are described in 719. Taking Shortcuts. A few quotes from that section:

  719.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players,
  that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the
  predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a
  non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified
  number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross
  multiple turns. It can’t include conditional actions, where the
  outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The
  ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has
  priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.

  719.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or
  shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice
  that’s different than what’s been proposed. (The player doesn’t need
  to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place
  becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence.

  719.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the
  last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the
  shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened
  from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make
  a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that
  player.


When using the Research role, does the symbol on the role card count towards meeting the cost? If I select Research during the role phase, does the symbol on the role card count towards the requirements for the technology I acquire or not?  In other words, if I want to acquire "Improved Survey", do I need 3 Research cards in my hand, or just 2 (assuming I have no other research symbols)?

YES

As per the Rulebook:

  You may Boost the chosen role by playing any number of cards from your hand with symbols matching that role. Symbols on face up planets in your Empire may also be used to Boost the Role. Cards played during the Action Phase do not contribute to Boosting the Role.

All the role cards have one symbol on the card which counts towards the effect of the role.

Therefore, if you take a Research Role, you need only two more research symbols on either the face-up planets in your empire and/or cards in hand in order to acquire Improved Survey.


Gloomhaven - are monster abilities in effect prior to their turn If a player with the lowest initiative attacks a monster, is that monster’s shield or retaliate in effect yet?

It depends on how the monster obtained the Shield or Retaliate.

Shield and Retaliate on a monster's stat sheet are intrinsic abilities. As such, they are always active.

Shield and Retaliate on a monster's ability card are actions that grant a benefit once the action is taken. As such, they only become active at the card's initiative, and only if the monster isn't stunned at that time.

Ability cards with a Shield or Retaliate action usually have a low initiative in order to make them effective.

From the FAQ:

If a monster has bonuses like "Shield" or "Retaliate" on their ability card, is that active for the whole round?
No, bonuses only become active once the monster takes their turn based on the initiative on the ability card. It then lasts until the end of the round, where it will either get shuffled back into the deck or replaced with the next round's ability card.
If a monster has bonuses like "Shield" or "Retaliate" on their stat card card, are they always active?
Yes, and they are unaffected by Stun.
How are ability bonuses (shield and retaliate) affected by stunning a monster?
Note that the bonuses are not simply given by the monster ability card. Monsters would have to perform a "Shield 1" action to gain the Shield 1, so these bonuses only activate if a monster is not stunned on its turn. However, abilities listed in the monster stat card are unaffected by stun as they are continuously available.


Treefolk Mystic and destruction effect timing This is a fairly basic question, but there's some underlying rule or principle I think I'm missing.
What happens if Treefolk Mystic blocks an attack from a land enchanted with Living Terrain?
I think that since the land counts as a creature, the Living Terrain card is simply destroyed and therefore the land is removed from combat.  So that if Treefolk Mystic were given trample, it couldn't be blocked by Living Terrain (or rather, it could be blocked, but the damage would end up being dealt to the player anyway).  Would Treefolk Mystic live through the combat?
How about if Treefolk Mystic entered combat with Grizzly Bears enchanted with Armor of Thorns (so it was 4/4 at start of combat)?  Would they both die, or just one?  Which one?
I'm pretty sure a buffed up creature (e.g. with Armor of Thorns) works differently from a creature enchanted with Venom, since the latter sets up a delayed trigger effect which takes effect even if Venom itself is destroyed.  But how does this interaction work, anyway?
I'd love to get a clear blow-by-blow layout of the sequence in which everything would happen in these examples.  Again, I know this is a basic question, but I appreciate the clarity on this site.  :)

So that if Treefolk Mystic were given trample, it couldn't be blocked by Living Terrain

Well, it would be blocked by the creature enchanted with Living Terrain, not Living Terrain itself.

How about if Treefolk Mystic entered combat with Grizzly Bears enchanted with Armor of Thorns (so it was 4/4 at start of combat)? Would they both die, or just one? Which one?

When I first saw "entered combat with", I though you meant "were both declared attackers", but after reading your question more, I presume you mean "blocks or was blocked". The official terminology doesn't refer to creatures blocking each other as being in combat "with" each other.

I'm pretty sure a buffed up creature (e.g. with Armor of Thorns) works differently from a creature enchanted with Venom, since the latter sets up a delayed trigger effect which takes effect even if Venom itself is destroyed. But how does this interaction work, anyway?

Yes, because the effect of Armor of Thorns is to change the power and toughness of a creature, and the effect of that is to change the amount of damage it deals, and damage is dealt after blockers is assigned. So it doesn't end up affecting the game until later, as opposed to Venom, which creates an effect on the stack immediately. If the rules were rewritten so as that when one creature blocks another, an effect of "Damage equal to the current power of each creature is dealt to the other creature" were put on the stack, then Armor of Thorns could cause Treefolk Mystic to die. (There may have been a point where something like this existed in the rules, I'm a little fuzzy on that point.)

I'd love to get a clear blow-by-blow layout of the sequence in which everything would happen in these examples.

For Treefolk Mystic blocking Grizzly Bears (Grizzly Bears blocking Treefolk Mystic plays out pretty much the same way):

The Declare Attackers step begins.

Grizzly Bears enchanted with Armor of Thorns is declared an attacker.

The Declare Blockers step begins.

Treefolk Mystic is declared as blocking Grizzly Bears.

Treefolk Mystic being declared as blocking Grizzly Bears triggers its ability. "Destroy Armor of Thorns" goes on the stack.

Once everyone passes priority, "Destroy Armor of Thorns" resolves.

The Assign Damage step of combat begins.

The game looks at the power of Grizzly Bears. It sees that it is 2, so 2 damage is assigned to Treefolk Mystic. Barring other events, Treefolk Mystic survives.

For Living Terrain:

Declare Attackers step begins.

Treefolk Mystic is declared as attacker.

Declare blockers step begins.

Land is declared as blocker.

"Destroy Living Terrain" is put on the stack.

Living Terrain is destroyed.

The land ceases to be a creature and is removed from combat. Treefolk Mystic remains blocked ("Attacking creatures that are blocked but have the blocking creature removed from combat before the Damage Assignment Step deal no combat damage. Attacking creatures with Trample may deal combat damage to the defending player in this case." https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Combat_damage_step)


Can a space marine chapter consist of marines from other chapters? I'm new to warhammer so I wanted to know if I could run a custom space marine chapter and then use soldiers from other factions

For example could I run a space marines chapter that included soldiers from the grey knight or space wolves faction?

Yes.

The requirement is that your army all share a keyword, for space marines that could be simply Adeptus Astartes, but you could go further than that to use any Imperal troop or vehicle. You cannot mix beyond that, no adding Eldar to your imperial force, they do not share any keywords.

There are downsides to this. As more chapter specific codices are released, you could find some of the choices only really benefit your say Space Wolves, but not your Ultramarines. You could have options that only benefit your Adeptus Astartes, but not your Imperial Guard.


Playing a creature with devotion Short question about devotion. If my devotion to red is less than five, and I play Purphoros, Bronze-Blooded, does it enter the battlefield as a creature and stops being it immediately or enters the battlefield as an enchantment? And does this ability work in a greveyard?

It will never be a creature at any point, assuming that your devotion is not high enough.

From the rulings on Purphoros:

  As a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color will determine whether any replacement effects that affect creatures entering the battlefield apply to that God. Because replacement effects are considered before the God is on the battlefield, the mana symbols in its mana cost won’t be counted when determining this.

and

  When a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color (including the mana symbols in the mana cost of the God itself) will determine if a creature entered the battlefield or not for abilities that trigger whenever a creature enters the battlefield.

So if Purphoros itself brings your devotion to red to 5, then triggered abilities that trigger upon a creature entering the battlefield will trigger, but replacement effects that happen as a creature enters the battlefield will not.

It isn't clear which ability you mean by "does this ability work in a graveyard"... if you mean the "As long as your devotion to red is less than five, Purphoros isn’t a creature." ability, then no, this doesn't function outside the battlefield. But that doesn't matter, because something cannot be a creature until it is on the battlefield anyway.

  604.2. Static abilities create continuous effects, some of which are prevention effects or replacement effects. These effects are active as long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in the appropriate zone, as described in rule 113.6.

It may sound like this is a characteristic-defining ability, which would function outside the battlefield, but it's not:

  604.3. Some static abilities are characteristic-defining abilities. A characteristic-defining ability conveys information about an object’s characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on that object (such as in its mana cost, type line, or power/toughness box) or overrides information found elsewhere on that object. Characteristic-defining abilities function in all zones. They also function outside the game.

    604.3a A static ability is a characteristic-defining ability if it meets the following criteria: (1) It defines an object’s colors, subtypes, power, or toughness; (2) it is printed on the card it affects, it was granted to the token it affects by the effect that created the token, or it was acquired by the object it affects as the result of a copy effect or text-changing effect; (3) it does not directly affect the characteristics of any other objects; (4) it is not an ability that an object grants to itself; and (5) it does not set the values of such characteristics only if certain conditions are met.

It wouldn't have any meaning outside the battlefield anyway, because a card not on the battlefield is never a creature:

  109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.


Why do cards use the "(ability) / Other creatures you control have (ability)" wording? The card Bellowing Tanglewurm has the following two clauses...

  Intimidate
  Other green creatures you control have intimidate

...and Felhide Petrifier has these two clauses...

  Deathtouch
  Other Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch

It seems to me that the two above cards are needlessly wordy. Instead of Bellowing Tanglewurm's two clauses, I'm thinking it could just be shortened to

  Green creatures you control have intimidate

since Bellowing Tanglewurm is also a green creature.

Same would apply for Fellhide Petrifier,

  Minotaur creatures you control have deathtouch

since Fellhide Petrifier is also a Minotaur creature.

Is there a reason that the former two wordings are used instead of the latter two? Is there some rule I'm missing that requires the former two be used instead?

The current template is easier for players to understand
From the horse's mouth:

What the point of making creature with "Trample. Other creatures you control have trample" when you can just put it as "Сreatures you control have trample"?

The former has proven to be less confusing to a larger number of players. Remember, the number one goal of templating is comprehension, not brevity.


Clarification of "spirits" on "Devouring Greed" card Devouring Greed states:

  As an additional cost to cast Devouring Greed, you may sacrifice any number of Spirits. Target player loses 2 life plus 2 life for each Spirit sacrificed this way. You gain that much life.

Does this only apply to cards that have a type/class of "Creature - Spirit" or does it include cards with a class of "Dragon Spirit" or "Demon Spirit"?

I have tried to research this but can't figure out the correct terms to search for.

After a little more research and finding some loosely related info on another question here I found the following in the rules.

  302.3. Creature subtypes are always a single word and are listed after a long dash: "Creature -- Human Soldier," "Artifact Creature -- Golem," and so on. Creature subtypes are also called creature types. Creatures may have multiple subtypes. See rule 205.3m for the complete list of creature types.
  Example: "Creature -- Goblin Wizard" means the card is a creature with the subtypes Goblin and Wizard.

If a creature has a subtype of "demon spirit", it is a "demon" and a "spirit" which I believe satisfies the "spirits" requirement of "Devouring Greed".


Lavinia, Azorius Renegade ruling So my opponent is playing Jodah, Archmage Eternal, and they attempt to cast Omniscience for WUBRG. In response, I flash in Lavinia, Azorius Renegade.

What happens to the Omniscience since it's already on the stack and Lavinia says "each opponent can't cast noncreature spells with converted Mana cost greater than the number of lands that player controls"

Nothing. Lavinia, Azorius Renegade has no effect on it, so it resolves normally.

To cast a spell is to put it on the stack, to make some choices (mode, targets, how the cost is payed, etc) and to pay its cost.

  601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a–d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f–h). [...]

Specifically, resolving a spell is not part of casting it. To respond to a spell is to do something after it has been cast but before it resolves, so Omniscience has already been cast by the time you get to respond to it.

Lavinia's static ability only affects spell that are cast while Lavinia is on the battlefield. It doesn't affect spells that have already been cast. What's been done is done. Nothing has a retroactive effect in Magic.[1]

Similarly, Lavinia's triggered ability only triggers for spells that are cast while Lavinia is on the battlefield. It doesn't trigger for spells that have already been cast.

Two exceptions:

In the extremely rare situation in which a spell becomes uncastable in the middle of the process of casting it, the game reverses to when the spell started being cast. (This isn't the case here because the player has finished casting Omniscience.)
When an error is made, the judge may undo certain actions in certain circumstances.


Arkham Horror -- multiple investigators assisting in a combat? Despite Arkham Horror being a cooperative game, one of the glaring holes I noticed the first time I played was that it doesn't appear that multiple investigators can attack a single monster, and vice versa.

I've read the rules a couple of times, but wanted to make completely sure:

If two investigators are in the same space as a single monster, Investigator A has to either Evade the monster or pass a Horror check, then fight until they either win, flee or die.  If Investigator A flees or dies, Investigator B has the same option to either Evade or pass a Horror check, and fight as normal.  At no time can they somehow gang up together and add their Combat together against the monster, correct?

That is correct. With the exception of the Final Battle, all combat is one-on-one. Investigators cannot team up against monsters, and multiple monsters in a single location do not team up against an investigator.


Pandemic on the Brink expansion in different language than the main game I have original Pandemic in my local language (Greek).

I want to buy Pandemic on the Brink but i cant find it in Greek.

I don't mind having mixed languages, but is there any other kind of problem that prevent me from having Brink in different language?

If all the players know the expansion language well, there will be no problems.

Otherwise you may need a reference, paste-ups, or some other solution.

There should be no gameplay differences* between versions in different languages, if that's your concern.

*barring translation errors


In Poker, what happens if paying a blind puts a player all-in? I have a question regarding increasing blinds in Texas Hold-em poker. I am developing a poker website. During tournaments players are not allowed to buy chips. Each player starts with 1000 chips to play. We always keep all amounts on the table (player pot, player bet, table pot etc.), in multiples of the smallest denomination, i.e. small blind.

But when blinds are increasing automatically, what should I do in the case when a player is left with a chip smaller than the small blind? Should that player be able to continue the game, or are they busted immediately (and lose the tournament)?

Example : In a tournament of four players, all players begin with 1000 chips to play. After some time, one of the four players remains with 10 chips in the pot, and blinds reach to 500/1000 (SM/BB). What should I do with that player?

If a player cannot cover a blind, that player is all-in and the bets are handled just as if that player had gone all-in on an ordinary bet. The main pot gets an amount of money from each player who bets equal to the all-in player's stake. Any further betting goes into a side pot, which the all-in player is ineligible to win.


In Commander, if a player causes all of my cards to become a color other than the colors of my commander, do I lose the game? There are some cards in MTG, such as Painter's Servant, which allow you to change color identities of permanents. If I were use this card while the commander isn't in play, all the cards in play would become the color I chose. If I chose a color outside my opponent's commander's color identity, then all the cards they had in play would become illegal. Would that cause them to lose the game?

The color identity rule in Commander is a deck construction rule. This means that it limits the set of cards that can be used to create the deck. Once a deck is created, it is either legal or illegal based on deck construction rules, and that does not change after a game begins.
In addition, the color identity rules specifically say the following:

903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).

903.4a Color identity is established before the game begins.

There are currently no cards that can change the listed attributes that determine color identity, not even Painter's Servant. And even if they could, color identity does not change during the game.


Is there a reference sheet I can print for the characters? I think Citadels is an awesome game, but playing our first game last night, I found many of us frequently wanted to refer to the character sheet in the rules to get an overview of all of the abilities.

I wish they'd included this information as a reference card.

Is there a PDF I can print with this info? Ideally it will be a nice small size.

Good rule of thumb: when looking for a reference for a board or card game, always check BoardGameGeek. Here's the most popular Citadels reference available there:

https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/18772/universal-head-citadels-reference

And you can find a ton more in the Files section of the Citadels detail page.

(I believe you have to sign up for an account to download files off BGG, but if you're into board games it's totally worth it.)


How does Accelerated Aging effect Lenara Kahn with an Engineering Pad My opponent has a Lenara Kahn (whose first listed skill is Astrometrics) in her team, together with an Engineering Pad (which gives all Engineers, like Lenara, Astrometrics).

On a mission attempt I play Accelerated Aging (which makes the first listed skill unusable).

Now its unclear to us what happens:

Either the Padd goes first (that means she had 2 Astrometrics) and the Aging removed that skill from her list (so she had none left).
-> This argumentation says that as she already had the Padd with her on the mission attempt, the addition must come first.

Or the Aging goes first which removed her Astrometrics and then the Padd which gave it back to her (so she ends up with 1 Astrometrics).
-> This argumentation says that the Padd is active only when required, so it adds an Astrometrics in the end.

From this ruling we read (emphasis mine):

When a personnel gains a skill that is not printed on his or her card, that skill is not inserted anywhere into that personnel's listed skills and is therefore unaffected by Accelerated Aging.
However, if a personnel gains an additional level of a printed skill he or she already has, that printed skill can still be affected by Accelerated Aging.

Given that Lenara Kahn already has Astrometrics (that is, it's already printed on her card), it seems that Accelerated Aging will affect her.
Disclaimer: I was not so familiar with this game, but did quite some reading and searching. Still, open for suggestions.


What is a good Pokemon deck ratio? My son really likes Pokémon, and owns a lot of cards. He mostly plays the video games and reads the books, but wants to build a Pokemon deck to play as well. We understand the basic rules. I know decks can only have four of each type of card (except basic energy) and must have exactly 60 cards total.

What I would like to know is if there is a recommendation for how many cards of each type to have in a deck. I've played Magic: The Gathering, but applying the same logic used there doesn't seem to work because energy behaves differently than mana. I've read some web sites that have recommendations, but when we play with those ratios it seems like I never draw enough basic Pokémon.

We have been trying to adjust things, but I thought I would see if there were some recommendations from people who are currently playing Pokémon.

I play regularly with my kids.  The energy card count depends heavily on the pokemon you use.  I have gone as low a 8 in a deck where all the pokemon had effective attacks at 1 energy and a retreat cost of 0 or 1.  I have gone as high as 28 or 30 when the deck was based on pokemon that discarded energy to attack and/or took 3 or 4 energy to have an effective attack.

When building a new deck we usually start at 16-18 energy adjusting up or down by a few as outlined above.   Then we tweak after some playing games.  My kids, who have more time than I do, will often build a deck then "goldfish" it.  ie play out a game solo to see if the needed energy arrive as fast as they can be played.


Can I keep multiple goods of 1 type if I have multiple warehouses? In Harbour, the rules for the warehouse symbol state:

  When shipping goods, a player can keep 1 good of 1 type for each warehouse symbol they own.

If I have 2 warehouse symbols, can I keep 2 goods of 1 type? Or must I keep 1 good each of 2 different types?

From the Harbour FAQ on BGG:

When using warehouses, how many goods can you store?
You can keep up to the number of goods you have warehouse symbols. However, you cannot use warehouses to increase the amounts of goods to higher than they were before shipping.
Example: You ship two stone and four wood and have three warehouses. You can save two stone and one wood, one stone and two wood or three wood. You cannot "store" three stone since that is more than was shipped.

Based on this, you are allowed to store multiples of the same type of good, you just can't store more than you currently have (i.e. no making things out of thin air.)


Do the benefits of going second in Yu-Gi-Oh! outweigh those of going first? I currently have YuGiOh Duel Generation. Recently, I have noticed that some characters prefer to go first. Why would one do this?

If you go second:

You get to attack first
You get to draw another card

If you go first:

You get a lead in development

Do the benefits of going second outweigh going first, or does development really mean so much?

Well, one reason is because they are computer characters, thus they were programmed that way. But your question goes beyond that.

  Obviously, the benefits of going second outweighs going first, or does development really mean so much?

This will depend on the type of deck  and strategy you play.

But generally speaking, many decks (specially control or combo decks) prefer to go first, as this gives them a head start in development, as you pointed out. In the current format this is perhaps more favorable compared to one extra card or attacking first turn.

Now days one card is not as big a difference as some years ago; it is now not so greater advantage, as many cards now have abilities to search or special summon.

Also, following a greedy strategy by attacking on first turn may not be such a good idea (by that I mean go all in, not greed as in avarice). As your opponent had lead in development surely some nasty traps or effects await you, thus attacking first is also not such a great advantage anymore.

Another aspect is that some decks "need" to go second/first, as per an intrinsic or key part of their strategy. Say you play a Lava Golem deck, you will need a monster on your Opp side to play your Lava Golem, so going first may not be such a great idea. Or say you play some control deck, or play with Traptrix. In that case you surely want to start to lay out your traps and control mechanisms ASAP.

So, to sum it up: in the current format starting with one card or attacking first is less advantageous than before (now many cards search from deck or special summon), except for those decks whose strategy requires or benefits from going second.


Would Pillar of Flames get rid of a Blightsteel Colossus? Blightsteel Colossus is indestructible. The rules for indestructable says:

  700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can’t destroy it. (See rule 701.6, “Destroy.”) Such permanents are not
  destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the lethal-damage
  state-based action (see rule 704.5g). Rules or effects may cause an
  indestructible permanent to be sacrificed, put into a graveyard, or
  exiled."

The rules for destroy says:

  701.6. Destroy
  701.6a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.
  701.6b The only ways a permanent can be destroyed are as a result of an effect that uses the word “destroy” or as a result of the
  state-based actions that check for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g) or
  damage from a source with deathtouch (see rule 704.5h). If a permanent
  is put into its owner’s graveyard for any other reason, it hasn’t been
  “destroyed.”

Now, the crux of the matter. Pillar of Flame reads:

  If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it
  instead

Now, from my understanding of these rules, since the Colossus wouldn't die since it's indestructable, if they got enough lethal damage on it with Pillar of Flames being used on it, the colossus wouldn't be exiled since it would not die.  Is my understanding correct?

You are correct. The answer to the problem is no, the Colossus would survive.

The reason is within the Pillar of Flames' text:

If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead

This works as a replacement effect that places the card in exile instead of the graveyard.

Blightsteel Colossus is indestructible, so it would not be destroyed by damage to begin with and never trigger the replacement effect.


Does Argothian Elder and Maze of Ith really produce infinite mana during the attack phase? According to a comment in the discussion of Argothian Elder:

  Argothian Elder plus Maze of Ith provides infinite mana during your attack phase.

How is that? In order for Argothian Elder to attack it has to tap, per rule 508.1f, and if Argothian Elder is tapped it can't be tapped again to activate the ability.

If you could attack and tap to active abilities simultaneously, it'd work, but I don't think you can.

So is the comment wrong or am I wrong?

You don't need to tap them simultaneously for this to work. Once you have declared Argothian Elder as an attacker, you can do the following:

1: Tap Maze of Ith to untap Argothian Elder

2: Tap Argothian Elder to untap Maze of Ith and another land.

3: Tap that other land for mana.

4: Repeat as much as you want.


Damage and insult//injury I play Insult, then attack with my 4/4 and my opponent blocks with their 4/4.
Do both creatures die?  Damage cannot be prevented, does that work both ways?

As GendoIkari mentioned in a comment, the way you've asked your question makes me wonder if you may misinterpreting what Insult does. It does two things:

Stops damage from being prevented this turn, if anything would otherwise prevent damage
Doubles damage dealt by sources you control, if any source you control would deal damage

Without Insult's effects, when you attack with your 4/4 creature and your opponent blocks with their 4/4, your creature would deal 4 damage to theirs and theirs would deal 4 damage to yours, killing both. But what actually happens instead, taking into account Insult's effects, is this:

Insult stops damage from being prevented, but nothing is preventing any damage, so that effect doesn't do anything
Insult doubles damage dealt by sources you control, so the 4 damage your creature would deal to your opponent's is doubled to 8

Thus your creature deals 8 damage to your opponent's, and your opponent's creature deals 4 damage to yours, meaning that they both die.

Insult's first effect, which stops damage prevention, is only relevant if someone plays a spell like Djeru's Resolve, controls a permanent like Protection of the Hekma, or activates an ability like the +1 loyalty ability on Gideon, Ally of Zendikar. All of these may normally cause some damage to be prevented, which you can tell because they include the phrase "prevent...damage".1 Insult stops these kinds of damage prevention effects from working.

1It can happen that damage is prevented without something explicitly saying "prevent...damage", such as with the protection ability, but I don't believe any recent cards (current Standard) have that ability.


What should I prepare for a Star Wars X-Wing tournament? Next week I am participating in my first Star Wars X-Wing tournament. The tournament will be from 10am with up to 16 participants and three to four games. I have played Star Wars X-Wing with a friend for a couple of weeks now and collected a considerable amount of Empire ships. I have planned to bring the following things:

Ships plus cards required for my build plus tokens
Five printed copies of my build
Bottled water and snacks
Good mood

Additionally, I want to prepare the following things until the day of the tournament:

Fly my build a few more times
Read the FFG rules used at the tournament

Do you have any additional tips or did I forget anything?

UPDATE: So I finished my first tournament last Saturday (1:3 W:L, Place 9 out of 14). Here is my experience regarding the things I brought:

Too much copies of the build, three are enough (one for the TO, one for the opposite player, one backup)
More bottled water
Pain killers (lack of oxygen after the third round got me head aches)
Pen is always useful
Marked my tokens on the evening before (there is some chaos on the table sometimes and I am sure I lost 1+ tokens regardless)

Additional things I should/could have brought:

One guy broke his K-Wing, so next time I will bring glue to help out

One guy forgot his damage deck, but I think that would be too much to bring more than one for these cases (he played with an old damage deck from somebody else's collection).

Additionally, there is a good collection on tournament things on reddit:

Tournament Prep
Tournament Etiquette


Do continuous effects stack? Does Kragma Warcaller stack with the +2/+0.
Lets say if i have a 2/3 Minotaur and I play 2 Kragma Warcallers- does that 2/3 Minotaur become a 6/3?

Yes. All continuous effects are applied at all times they are active. If a continuous effect grants +2/+0, it means it raises the creature's power by two. So if two continuous effects grant +2/+0 to a creature, the creature's power will be raised by 4.


Why do some decks run only one of a card? This Death and Taxes deck, for example, has 1x Cavern of Souls, 1x Horizon Canopy, and 1x Ancient Den. Since it's a 60 card deck the odds of drawing any one of them is 1/60. ie. quite slim. So why do they include cards they likely won't be drawing? Why not run 4x of each card? Gives you less versatility, I suppose, but what good is versatility if you don't draw the cards you need?

The lands that that deck only has one of are generally nice to have if you can get it, but not clearly better than the alternatives.

The deck is entirely white, so Cavern of Souls' second ability is only useful to generate white mana, and that mana can only be used to cast creature spells of a predetermined type (probably Human, given the makeup of the deck). It can be nice to be able to cast uncounterable creatures, but the drawbacks mean that you don't want to have too many, and you probably don't need to cast two uncounterable creatures on the same turn in most cases.

Similarly, the deck color makes Horizon Canopy's mana generating ability significantly worse. It can be very nice to have a difficult-to-counter instant speed draw for one mana, but you can only use it once per land, so it's not worth having too many of them.

In this deck Ancient Den is basically a Plains. However, if you side in Enlightened Tutor, you can tutor for it. It barely hurts the deck, and it's not worth using a slot in the sideboard for it, but non-basic lands are more susceptible to land destruction, so you don't want too many.

The other cards that the deck only has one of are the equipments, but that makes sense because Stoneforge Mystic can tutor for them and put them into play from your hand, so all you need is one somewhere in your deck.

It's also worth noting that this is a control deck; it's designed to slow down the game. Longer games make it more likely that you'll get any particular card eventually, and it's not as important to get some cards quickly.


How can I find all cards with flavor text from a certain set and colour? How can I find all the cards from the Khans of Tarkir block (Khans / Fate Reforged / Dragons of Tarkir) that have flavor text? Preferably, I'd like to search just red and black cards.

A gatherer search for the vowels in flavour text with the block and colors you want selected in the gatherer advanced search feature will find you what you're looking for, since all english words must contain a,e,i,o,u or y. Here are all 146 red and/or black cards with flavour text from Khans block.

Note that the colors are added as OR, meaning it has to be at least red or at least black, if they were added as AND it would only find colors that are both. The no other colors is added using the exclude unselected terms more color option. (so it won't find cards that are black and blue for instance)

UPDATE - gatherer does have an issue in it's matching on empty spaces and block vs set matching. updated image and link for better


Hardened Scales + Champion of Lambholt + Token Generator Champion of Lambholt: Gets a +1/+1 counter whenever a creature enters the battlefield.
Hardened Scales: Whenever 1 or more counters are put on a creature, put one more of those counters on that creature.
Gather the Townsfolk: Put two 1/1 human tokens on the battlefield.

If I play Gather the Townsfolk, does Champion get 3 counters or 4?

Four.

When the two tokens enter the battlefield, Champion of Lambholt's triggered ability triggers twice. It will be placed on the stack twice. When the topmost instance resolves, it would add a +1/+1 counter to Champion of Lambholt. Instead, it adds one extra, so two. When the other instance resolves, it will also add two, so a total of 4 +1/+1 counters are added to Champion of Lambholt.


Who has the winning hand in this Texas-holdem scenario? The table cards were A,K,K,8,3.
All four suits were on the board.
Player one had A,8.
Player two had A,3.

Is this a split pot?

Yes, it is a split pot. Both players have AAKK8. You always make your best 5 card hand from the cards available. From Wikipedia:

  A hand always consists of five cards. In games where more than five cards are available to each player, the best five-card combination of those cards must be played. Any cards not included in the hand do not affect its ranking. For example, if player A holds 3♠ Q♦ and player B holds 3♣ A♣, and five cards 4♣ 5♦ 6♦ 7♠ 10♥ are available to both players, the players hold equally ranking 3-4-5-6-7 straights despite the fact that the player B's ace ranks higher than the player A's queen.


Mutual Identification mechanics in a deduction game I'm thinking about a deduction board game idea for at least five players where there are two Spies who don't know each other (Spy A and Spy B).

Their mission is to accomplish mutual identification during the night phase (when other players closes their eyes) but totally secretly. After the identification attempt only the following outcomes are possible (publicly known by all players):

Both Spies failed identification
Spy A successfully identified Spy B (Spy B doesn't know who identified him)
Spy B successfully identified Spy A (Spy A doesn't know who identified him)
Both Spies successfully identified each other

In case of an unsuccessful attempt, they can try again to identify each other in next rounds, but all other information should stay hidden (e.g. which civilian(s) they tried to identify).

I had a lot of ideas for the mechanism, but none of them worked with easy setup.

It would be easy with a game master, but I want to make it an everyone-can-play type. What kind of a mechanism which uses cards or items might make this work?

Hmmm... the best I can come up with would be need 4 types of tokens: 2 that everybody has in front of them to tell whether they are a spy or not, and 2 that are in the center of the table and tell whether each of the spies found his target.

Everybody has two tokens (blue for spy, red for not spy) with the same background. Before the night phase, they place the fitting token in front of them (face down, ofc). Spy A awakes, looks at one of the tokens of another player. If that player was the other spy, he flips over the "spy B found" token in the center of the table. Then spy B wakes up and does the same.

There are some drawbacks:
-) you might be able to see whether tokens were moved. You can handle that the same way one night werewolf does.

-) people need to sit very closely, so it does not work for larger groups.

If you want larger groups you will need smartphone support or a solution that includes the spies walking around, which will very likely be very obvious.

Ps: what keeps the spies from just being very obvious about being the spies during daytime? ;)


Can you choose to discard a card you don't have? In "Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle", sometimes there are effects that say: "each player chooses to either discard an item card or else take two damage".

If you don't have an item card, can you choose to discard an item card and not suffer ill effects?

If you're stunned, can you choose to take two damage and not suffer ill effects?

From the game designer

  If you do not have an Item to discard, you must choose the other option, and lose 2 HEALTH.