Crane Clan ability when they tie, but another faction would win In the situation where the Crane clan partakes in a battle, don't win said battle but still tie due to there being more than one opponent or the province being neutral with a standing defense, do they then win that province? The Crane Clans power reads "When you are tied, you win instead". For example in the following example who wins:

Crane and Scorpion attack a neutral Shadowlands province (which has a plus one defence printed on it), Scorpion with an Army 3 token and Crane with an Army 1 token.

Because Crane has the same value as the province and tie, do they win the province? RAW it would seem to be the case but it also doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me? As if the bonus should only come into effect if the Crane clan is tieing the highest opponent. Is there any kind of FAQ or designer statement that clears this up?

The ability is definitely poorly worded. When you are tied you win refers to tie breaking, so while you would win the tie, that does not guarantee you the province win. The ability is meant to override the standard defender wins ties rules, making it easier for crane clan to win on attacks by simply tying the defense. The tie must be a tie for the win to win the province.

See discussion on BoardGameGeek.


Can Meddling Mage Be Used as a Counter? If a player activated an Æther Vial with two counters on it to drop in a Meddling Mage and named a spell already on the stack, would the named spell resolve?

The spell on the stack will resolve successfully, even if you name it with Meddling Mage.
The rulings for Meddling Mage say the following:

2/1/2006 If you somehow manage to cast this while other spells are on the stack, those spells won't be countered.
5/1/2009 Spells with the chosen name that somehow happen to already be on the stack when Meddling Mage enters the battlefield are not affected by Meddling Mage's ability.

To clarify the old "played" phrasing (which some people confuse with resolve), the Oracle text actually says:

The named card can't be cast.

Since the named spell has already been cast, the existing spell on the stack will still be on the stack after Meddling Mage has entered, and will still resolve.
If you did have a creature that was able to counter or exile a spell on the stack (as opposed to the "named card can't be cast" effect) like Spellstutter Sprite, you could put that into play with Æther Vial and have it work they way you're intending.


Could i run a stormcast eternals body with a head from a space wolf? I was wondering if I could use a stormcast eternals body but use a space wolves head and run him as a terminator? I got some stormcasts from a small local tournament and I run space wolf army so I was wondering if I could use the stromcasts body in place of a terminators?

Definitely you can. The Hobby has a long history of converting models, e.g. head swaps, weapon swaps, extra legs/arms/tentacles etc.

If the conversion is likely to cause confusion, just point out what it 'counts as' to your opponent before the game.


Can I create my own version of Monopoly and distribute it ? Can I create my own version of Monopoly and distribute it online or physically ?

I see that there were patents filed in 1923 . Can I create an improvement on the existing game and sell it online ?

If there is any law/copyright protecting this, is it per country/continent ?

You would likely be more concerned with copyright law rather than patent law in this case, especially given that as you have noticed, the patents have expired.

There is something of a precedent for what you want to do. In 1975, Ralph Anspach made a game called Anti-Monopoly (which, by the way, is a pretty interesting game - we owned it, and at the time, as a kid, I had no idea how significant this was). After a little less than ten years of litigation, Anspach won the right to continue publishing his game. However, Parker Brothers ended up with the trademark, licensing it to Anspach, whose game is still in print.

You will probably need to be aware of how copyright law works where you live and where you plan to distribute the game. (If you're thinking about online distribution, then that may mean laws where your customers live, not just where you live or where the servers are.) If you are planning on making money from this, you should consult with a lawyer to ensure that what you're doing is consistent with applicable laws; advice you get on this site is no substitute for professional advice.


Is there a way to block MTG sorcery spells that view my hand? Sorry if this is an obvious question but I didn't see it asked before and I'm very new to Magic The Gathering.

Is there a way to block sorcery spells in MTG that threaten to view my hand?  For example Thoughtseize from "Theros".  For some reason I don't seem to have a good defense against that.  Can I counter it with a standard "non-creature" counter spell or is something different required?

You can interact with Thoughtseize just like any other card. In particular:

Yes, you can counter it. Use Negate, Dissolve, et cetera.

Note that this doesn't really help that much against the first-turn Thoughtseize unless you've got access to a counterspell that doesn't cost any mana, like Mental Misstep or Force of Will. The closest thing you've got in Born of the Gods Standard is Swan Song when you're on the play.

In my experience, the best answer to a first-turn Thoughtseize is to choose initial hands that won't be crippled by it. And, yeah, that's a rather big imposition. That's what makes the card so powerful.
You can invalidate its target.

Thoughtseize says "Target player reveals his or her hand." If it can't target you, it can't be cast on you. The gold standard for effects like this is Leyline of Sanctity, which is actually faster than Thoughtseize if you get it in your opening hand.

There are no such cards currently in Born of the Gods Standard. :(
You can take your best cards out of your hand.

This happens quite a lot in Legacy:

  "Thoughtseize you."
  "In response, Brainstorm."

Then you put the cards you need most on top of your library, so they're hidden from Thoughtseize but you can draw them next turn.

There are no such cards currently in Born of the Gods Standard. :(

Thoughtseize is a powerful card (basically the best of its kind) and it's seldom easy to deal with. For higher-level strategy tips, I recommend starting with Reid Duke's excellent Thoughtseize guide — this'll help you understand what your opponent's going to be trying to do.


Do you need spare actions available to play Throne Room? The rule book explains Throne Room's effect as follows:

  You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again. The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have.

My question is:

If I played Witch with Throne Room, according to the rules, the second use of Witch doesn't use up another action, doesn't that mean the first use of Witch cost an action?

So in essence, whenever you play Throne Room, wouldn't you need to first play cards that give you additional actions?

Throne Room costs an Action to play; the card you play twice is part of the effect of Throne Room, and neither play of it consumes an Action.

My speculation is that that particular wording was in answer to a complaint encountered during development, something like: "Village gave you two actions, but you just played that Witch two times with Throne Room, so you have no actions left." That's a mistaken understanding of the way Actions work, of course, but everyone was a novice back then.

Other cards that include allowing you to play other Actions as part of the effect include King's Court (from Prosperity), Cultist, and Procession (both from Dark Ages).


If you are fourth seat after a third seat raise, can you make a takeout double with "intermediate" values? If first seat opens, and you are in the second seat, you need opening values in order to make a take out double (that is 13-14 hcps, maybe 12 with 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0 distribution, while short in opener's suit). Even then, you fear that third seat will have an "opening" hand, that is most or all of the remaining points, leaving your partner with nothing.

If you are in the fourth seat (that is the "balancing") seat after and opening and two passes, you can make a takeout double with about a king less, that is, 9-11 high card points. That's because third seat has shown less than 6 points by passing opener's bid. If opener has close to the minimum 13, third seat has 5, you have 9, your partner would have passed in second seat with close to the maximum, 12.

If you are in fourth seat with in third seat raising the opener's bid, you are in an "intermediate" situation. Third seat has 6-9 hcps, basically the intermediate value of the range. If opener has 13, that would leave 18-21 for you and your partner.

I wouldn't want to make a takeout double with 9-10 hcps in such a situation, but do I need 13-14, assuming I have good distribution? Or is an "intermediate" 11-12 sufficient in this "intermediate" situation? Larry Cohen refers to these as "OBAR BIDS." (Opponents bid and raise, balance in direct seat.)

This is a matter of partnership agreement!

The disadvantage of agreeing that you can jump in with 11hcp and a singleton is that opener could have a quite strong hand, and doubling gives opener the option of passing with it.  This gives opponents the option of doubling your partner, and they also gain information that is useful in the play.  Another disadvantage is that your partner knows less about your hand when you double.  (This is particularly disadvantageous when opener re-raises to 3 (note most experienced partnerships will play this as a minimum LOTT bid after the double, since they have a redouble/2N as well as help-suit/strong-suit/short-suit tries to invite with) and partner needs to decide whether to compete further.)

The advantage of agreeing that you can balance with 11hcp and a singleton is that, when you pass and opener passes, your partner now has less pressure to reopen with a marginal hand, because they know more about how unsuitable for competition your hand is.  Also, you have a slightly better chance in finding those 22hcp distributional games in the other major.  Agreeing to double weaker helps you find the game with the 11-11 split in your hcp at the cost of making it harder with the 14-8 split, and the 11-11 split is more likely.

There is a similar question when it comes to how strong you need to be to make a takeout double of a weak 2.  Some play that you can do it on about the same strength as a takeout double of an opening 1 bid, and others play you need a point or two extra.  Again you trade the ability to give more information to partner when you do double with the ability to give more information to partner when you don't double.

To some extent, this decision depends on whether you are willing to play Lebensohl (or some other convention achieving similar purposes) or not.  It may make sense to have different agreements over 2H than 2S, but most partnerships are probably not willing to have that memory load on their system.

It also depends on form of scoring and vulnerability, since getting to -100 (for say 3DX-1 nonvul) rather than -110 (for 2S+2 their way) is much more important at MPs than at IMPs.  (But it depends on form of scoring less than you might think, because conversely getting to +110 (for 3D+3) rather than -110 is worth much a lot more at IMPs than MPs.)


Returning card to hand off Emeria Shephard from Plains trigger If I trigger Emeria Shepherd ability of a Plains, may I choose to place the card in my hand instead of into the battlefield?

Yes, you can. When Emeria Shepherd triggers from Plains entering the battlefield, you target a nonland permanent in you graveyard to return it to your hand. Since it is a Plains, you may choose to return the permanent to the battlefield instead, but you don't have to.


How long does it take to play Diplomacy? I guess this varies a lot from game to game, but I've seen everything from 120 to 360 minutes, and wondered where the average lies.

If it's closer to 360, I don't think I will bother to buy it. I know how rarely Axis & Allies is taken out of its box...

Odds are that you're not going to want to get it (which is tragic, as it's a great game), since it's a long-play game.  I've found that a game typically takes 4 hours or more.

Interestingly, new player groups and experienced player groups will typically take about the same amount of time.  New players take time because they're figuring out the rules, but they're not going to be nearly as Machiavellian.  Experienced players take time because they're creating plots within plots and being devious, which leads to protracted engagements on multiple fronts.

If you really want to make a game of Diplomacy cruise along, I recommend the following:

1) Have an experienced player resolve all orders at the end of each turn.  That helps speed things along.

2) Set a solid time limit for each turn, like five minutes.  Five minutes is very long for the first three or four turns, but by the eighth turn it's barely enough time to write your orders.  Yes, setting a time limit impairs your ability to engage in negotiations, but it'll make the game end in a reasonable amount of time.

Another option:  Play in one-hour (or two-hour) sessions.  Leave the board set up between sessions.  Long ago, I made a copy of the board, mounted it on foam-core, and stuck color-coded push-pins in it to "save" the state of the board between games.  Something nice about this is that you can do all the diplomacy and negotiation you want to, and you can engage in diplomacy between games.  That's a big part of Diplomacy (go figure), and can make for a really fun experience.


Ghost Town - Do abilities of the characters still count? Claus the Saint can draw! 5 cards. He dies. When the Ghost Town is in effect, is he still allowed to come back and use his ability?

Yes he can use his ability.
For reference the Ghost Town card reads:

During their turns, eliminated players return to the game as ghosts.
They draw 3 cards  instead of 2, and cannot die. At the end of their
turn, they are eliminated again.

Note that it states that they are to draw cards, so the ghost's will enter at phase 1, the draw phase.
Clause "The Saint"'s special abillity is:

He draws one card more than the number of players, keeps 2 for
himself, then gives 1 to each player.

From the answer to Q14 on the FAQ for the High Noon from the publisher dV Giochi:

Q14. How many cards Bill Noface and Pixie Pete draw when they enter in play as ghosts  thanks to the Ghost
Town?
A. Bill Noface enters in play with 5 cards, Pixie Pete with 3 cards.

We can see that a players special ability does not suffer from the Ghost Town card being put into play.
However as Claus "The Saint" is not specified in any FAQ that I could find, we do not know if he should have gotten the advantage that the Ghost Town card gives ("adding an extra card to the ghost", and thus giving him 6 cards to draw. So that he would end up with 3 cards for himself.), but seeing that Pixie Pete starts with 3 cards and not 4 (His special ability +1 (for the "extra card" from the Ghost Town), we have to assume that Claus "The Saint" get neither benefits or drawbacks from the the Ghost Town card.


Can you prevent a permanent from untapping with a tapping ability? In a match against someone (a professional), I was faced with a Tyrant's Machine. He tapped my best creature and he said that my permanent never untapped, not even during my untap step. Needless to say, I lost. Was he correct?

No.

All of your permanents untap during your untap step unless an effect has specifically said they do not untap or that you can choose not to untap them. Tyrant's Machine has neither of those effects.


Do Law Offices affect ties you're not part of? If you own a Law Office tile and two other players are tied for a goal (but you are not), do you win that goal?

Do you have to be one of the players that is part of a tie in order to win that tie with Law Office?  From the way that the tile reads, it does not seem to clarify whether it refers to only breaking your own ties, or if you can benefit from goals that any other players are tying.

My base instinct is to assume not, but I was reminded of a similar ruling in Eminent Domain, which had the same situation on the promo card Exclusive Victory (see left card in the image below).

In that game, the card does allow you to win the game if any players tie for first place, even if you're not one of them, resulting in you taking first instead of them.  Online rules clarifications confirm this.

  Effect: If the game ends in a tie, you win the game. (Even if you're not one of the tied players)

Does the Law Office tile in Suburbia work the same way as the Exclusive Victory card in Eminent Domain?

The rules seem pretty clear about this:

  In addition, at the end of the game when goals are being scored, the player with a Law Office scores points if he is tied with another player for achieving one goal (public or his own private goal, which he picks from any of his tied goals) as if he had won it. If two players have the Law Office, they may each score the same tied goal.

(emphasis mine)

So no, it does not let you win a tie that you're not part of. (It doesn't work the same as your example from another game.)


Does paradox engine activate its own ability keeping in mind Paradox engine ruling does it activate its own ability as its played if not explain please. The obvious answer is no but I've been thinking about it and maybe I'm wrong

It does not. Paradox Engine has already been cast and resolved. Its ability, like the majority of abilities1, only has effect while it is on the battlefield which means it cannot see itself being cast and trigger.

The ruling that you're referring to:

  Paradox Engine's triggered ability resolves before the spell that caused it to trigger. The ability will resolve even if that spell is countered.

is just clarifying that its ability triggers on another spell being cast which means the stack will look like this immediately after a player has cast any spell:

Paradox Engine's trigger on top
The Spell being cast

which allows players to respond to either the spell or Engine before either of them resolves.

1:There are some abilities (such as Dredge, Cycling, or Bloodrush; or Bridge From Below to see a non-keyword graveyard Triggered ability) that require the card being in a specific zone to use, e.g. in your hand or in the grave.


In Arkham Horror, are Ally cards treated specially in setup? The rules say this in setup:

  The players shuffle the Common Item, Unique Item, Spell, and Skill decks, then return them face down to their places next to the board. Whenever players draw cards, they draw them randomly from the tops of these decks.

There is no mention of the Ally decks, yet in one bgg contributor rulesheet I found here, it says the following in the setup box:

  Distribute Allies. Assign any Fixed Allies to Investigators. Draw 11 Allies from remaining supply to create the Ally Deck. Assign any Random Allies to Investigators from the Ally Deck

Is there an official reference to what to do with the Ally cards that I overlooked? I didn't see it in the Rulebook or FAQ. I assumed the omission from the rulebook setup text was just an oversight, but seeing this snippet in the contributor rule sheet has me second guessing.

I think the reason for this may be because there's no circumstance I've run into* where you pull a random ally, except in the case of discarding then it specifically says in the rules:

  For every point the terror level goes up, select one Ally card at random from the Ally deck and return it to the box.

So basically, it's not telling you to randomize them initially because there's no point.  The other decks draw from the top and have reasons to look at the bottom as well.
For the record, I generally randomize anyway but admit I end up having to look through during encounters and purchasing (or setup) to find the guy I want then re-randomizing.  So...ignoring might be smarter=)

*: I don't have all the expansions nor have I read every card/encounter etc but I do have 3 expansions and have played this game several dozen times.  But anyway, it's theoretical.


What is this game with multiplying aliens and random weapons? I remember playing a game with my parents when I was a kid (in the mid 1990s) where you played either as the crew on a ship being invaded by multiplying aliens or as the aliens themselves.

The board was a series of rooms on the ship with the crew-members and weapons strewn all over the place. The part I remember most was that weapons had a random effect (picked from a pile), so you never knew if they would damage the aliens or cause them to multiply until you used one.

The goal of the crew was to escape the ship, and obviously for the aliens it was to kill the crew.

Does anyone know the game I'm talking about, or have I got my games mixed up?

The Awful Green Things From Outer Space by Steve Jackson Games


When should a player decide to fold in Texas Hold'em Poker? In Texas Hold'em poker, when it is a player's turn, he tries to make a best hand out of his hole cards (private cards) and the communal cards.

Now my question is: On what factors does he decide to add more chips and play for the next round or fold?

It's a hard question to answer, and depends on the player's style and whether the player likes to bluff, as well as the style and skill of the other players.

If I don't have decent hole cards (low cards or nothing matching) I fold. I might risk it if I'm one of the blinds, but if I'm raised I'll fold. If I have a decent starting hand I usually wait for the flop.

In my opinion you should bet based on the strength of your cards. Generally speaking, the games I've won have always been ones where I've consistently been conservative, and I find the same applies to my opponents. By conservative I mean don't bet unless you're sure the odds are in your favor.

For more on odds, read this article.


In chess, why is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 rarely visited? This opening begins by copying the Ruy Lopez/Morphy Defense for the first three moves, but White branches off with 4 Bxc6.  I've read that 4 ... dxc6 5 Nxe5 Qd4 is effective for Black to recover his pawn - but what if White does not play 5 Nxe5, say 5 O-O instead? In short, why has this opening been largely ignored?  Is there a disadvantage to White after 4 Bxc6?

This is called the "Exchange" Variation of the Ruy Lopez. Not only is there an early exchange of bishop for knight, but it usually soon leads to an exchange of queens on d4.

This queen exchange brings about an early "endgame," effectively cutting out the middle game. Most players are not particularly fond of the endgame, so they don't consider this an advantage, and therefore don't play this variation.

But in a famous game in St. Petersburg in 1914, the world champion, Emmanuel Lasker, played this variation against future world champion Jose R Capablanca---and won. By Capablanca's own admission, "Lasker had no superior in [the endgame]" at the time. On the other hand, he already (and later) feared Capablanca's middle game.


Is there a card that turns +X/+X into X +1/+1 counters? I'm building an Exalted deck, and I've been looking for a card that would completely break the mechanic and make my creatures nearly unstoppable. So far I've had no luck, but here's where I'm hoping you guys can help. I don't know whether it would be an enchantment, creature, artifact, or whatever, but here's a basic description of what I'd like the card to do.

"If a creature you control would get +X/+X, it gets X +1/+1 counters instead."

This would essentially make the Exalted bonus permanent and not just till the end of the turn. If you know of any cards (or combinations of cards, for that matter) that can do something like this, please let me know. Thanks!

This sounds like a very powerful effect. I wouldn't expect it to be easy to muster.

I could find only two cards that come close:  Vish Kal, Blood Arbiter and
 Ooze Garden. Of course, these cards are the ones that get bigger permanently, not the attackers. The Ooze Garden is a bit problematic because it requires the creature to survive combat.

You might find an easier way to abuse the Exalted mechanic is to use something like a  Blood-Chin Fanatic. But really, you're overthinking it. The way to make an exalted attacker nearly unstoppable is to ensure it has hexproof and evasion. Hi  Invisible Stalker!


In Elder Sign, if you need to draw from a deck and there are no cards left, do you lose the opportunity? There don't seem to be a large number of spell cards, and Dexter Drake can accumulate cards very fast.  If the spell deck (or any other deck for that matter) runs out, do players simply lose the privilege of gaining a card in cases that award them?

If there are no cards left, then you do not gain anything.  Ideally, you should be making use of these cards as often as possible to ensure that future gains do not get wasted due to not having cards available.

(Remember that all discarded cards go immediately to the bottom of their appropriate decks -- so you may want to spend spells freely in encounters that have spells at stake -- they'd then be at the bottom of the deck, and available as part of your reward.)

Exact quote from page 13 of the rules:

  After all dice on a Spell card are removed, the player returns the
  card facedown to the bottom of its deck.


Do death triggers still happen if I am at 0 or less life after combat damage? Here's the situation: I'm the defending player and being attacked for lethal damage.  I block with all my creatures but still would take enough damage to bring me to 0.  Among my blocking creatures are two Zulaport Cutthroats.  After combat damage is assigned and I go to less than 0, would I still gain the life from my creatures dying via the Cutthroats?

Here's what happens:

Combat damage is assigned and dealt - no stack
Your life total is set to (less than) 0, creatures that were dealt lethal damage are moved to the graveyard. Cutthroat;s ability is placed on the stack X times, once for each creature that died.
Before Cutthroat's triggered ability can resolve however, you have already died because coming to 0 life or less is a state-based effect. Whatever's on the stack doesn't resolve anymore.


How long does one get to keep the third bean field in bohnanza? Does the third field stay forever once you have 3 coins to buy it? If not when does it disappear? The rules aren't terribly clear (or maybe I should say "are terribly clear").

You keep the third bean field for the duration of the game.  It would be harsh if it was limited as it does cost you 3 gold coins (victory points).

Here is a discussion about when to buy or not buy that third field.  Due to the cost, it is not always the right thing to do to purchase the field.


Question about Sparring Mummy card Sparring Mummy says: "When Sparring Mummy enters the battlefield, untap target creature." Am I forced to untap a target creature?

Can I cast this card if on the battlefield there are no creatures ?
Can I cast this card and choose not to untap any creatures if there are any ?

You can cast the creature just fine, since nothing prevents you from casting the creature here (rule 601.3 specifies when you can cast spells and when you can't, however its triggered abilities aren't part of what govern its "castability").

Its ETB ability isn't optional, but it's still highly unlikely for that to be negative for you. Note that the ability only mentions target creature, not target tapped creature, meaning  that you may target Sparring Mummy itself, or any other untapped creature, with the ability, even though on resolution, if the creature is still untapped, it won't do anything.

In general, keep in mind that you only have to follow instructions in a very procedural manner in MtG, and never have to "look into the future" to determine what would probably happen - the worst that can happen is that an ability will be countered by the game rules (for example because the creature you targeted with Sparring Mummy's ability was returned to its owners hand), but that never keeps you from choosing that creature as a target in the first place, or even casting it.


Am I analyzing the following hand properly? Vulnerable vs. not, N-S are in a 4S contract (South 1NT, North 4H, South 4S, all other bids passed). North's bid was a "transfer."

QJ9832
JT4
A64
5

AKT7
A96
T72
AJ9

Frank Stewart reasonably points out that when West lead the K of clubs (presumably from KQT), South erred in taking A on the first trick. He then ruffed a club on the second trick, which I consider the real mistake.

My theory is that South can still save himself by returning the J of clubs to West's Queen on the second trick (pitching a diamond), win West's diamond return in dummy, go to his hand with a trump, and lead the 9 of clubs to West's T, pitching another diamond. When South regains the lead, he can ruff a diamond (high) in dummy, draw the last trump in hand, and ruff out the last diamond in dummy. In the remaining worst case scenario, South then finesses the Jack of hears "around" East and "into" West. (If East covers with an honor, South captures it with the ace and has reduced his heart losers to one). If West wins, he then has to lead a club for a ruff-sluff or away from a heart honor.

My understanding is as follows:

  1)  The operative strategy is "elimination."
  2)  South needs to keep East off lead to prevent him from leading a heart before the elimination is completed.
  3) The way to achieve 2) is to lose club tricks to West, rather than diamond tricks to East.
  4) The way to achieve 3) is to dump dummy's diamond losers on South's club losers, so that South's diamond losers can be ruffed rather than conceded (loser on loser play).
  5) Switch the club 5 and 9 between dummy and closed hand, and South needs to lose the first trick by playing the 5, because otherwise, there is no guarantee that East won't win the lowest club.

Questions:

Am I correct in saying the first trick "mistake" was still correctable on the second trick in this instance?
Have I analyzed the hand correctly from a strategic point of view?

Only if West has the Club 10. Ducking the first trick makes the location of the Club ten irrelevant (as witness that one ducks it by playing the Club 9 under the King).

So in one sense yes, declarer might be able to recover at trick 2; but declarer is guaranteed to make the contract by ducking trick one. (I guess unless West was dealt 8 clubs.)

You would probably enjoy There must be a Way by Andrew Diosy.

This hand also is interesting from an opening lead perspective. When I was learning Bridge I memorized the opening lead charts that were so popular at the time, which was good, but inferred from the ordering a false preference. These charts correctly identify which card to lead from various holdings, but make no comment on which suit to lead. It took me a while to unlearn that bad habit.

So now look at poor West's opening problem against a Texas Transfer auction to 4S:

S: 64
H: KQ83
D: J85
C: KQT4

That Club lead looks so safe from that strong honour holding, but is one of only two suit choices that allows declarer to make the contract. Perhaps West should think more about the bidding and less about those glossy Opening Lead Charts.

The odds are high that South has at least one of the outstanding honours in both round suits, so those honour combinations are easily compromised by being lead from. So what about the pointed suits?

Leading low from Jxxx is a true beginner move, but from J85 less so. An argument could be made for both the 8 and the 5 as the appropriate lead her, the small lie being told by the former probably not fatal. But the flaw here is that if it works, one risks quickly winning the third round with the Jack, trumps now drawn, endplayed for sure in those round suits. Not enough plus side here, so let's save that lead for later; our Jack suggests that Declarer will not wish to open this suit quickly either unless to rectify the count.

That leaves Spades. Dummy has 6 (not likely 7), West has 2, and Declarer promised 2 with his opening 1NT call. That leaves only 3 outstanding, and the likelihood of partner having a compromisable Queen third very low.

Conclusion: Just lead a spade here, saving a diamond exit for later (if necessary) when we start winning those round honours, and let Declarer struggle to down one like he should.


When to turn your alien power face up? In the rules it states that after each player chooses their Alien Sheet, it is placed "face down" in front of them.

I can't find in the rules when players should then reveal their alien powers. Do players reveal their alien powers after all have chosen one at the beginning of the game, or are alien powers kept hidden until their powers are used?

By default, alien powers are revealed after everyone has one. The rulebook does not make this clear up front, but it must be true since the other option you mention is in the Variants section on p14:

Hidden Powers
In this variant, players leave their alien sheets facedown after
selecting them at the start of the game. While a player’s alien
sheet remains facedown, its power cannot be used. A player
may turn his or her alien sheet faceup at any time in order to
use it. Once turned faceup, the player’s alien sheet remains
faceup for the rest of the game.


Is Mana Weaving ok if it's followed by a thorough shuffle? My friends and I are relatively new to MtG. At some point, one of them introduced us to the idea of mana weaving, and we'd do this to declump our decks prior to a very thorough shuffling. However, at the Theros pre-release, one of us was asked not to do this, and we learned it was frowned upon and ceased to do it.

I just now came across Shuffling Do's & Don'ts, and it sounds like mana weaving's only bad if you use it to leave your deck in an even distribution, and it's OK if your deck is then thoroughly shuffled. In hindsight, the judge may have simply thought my friend wouldn't have shuffled afterwards, but at the time I came under the impression it was frowned upon even if you did shuffle afterwards.

So: is mana weaving my deck OK, if I shuffle it very thoroughly afterwards?

Look at it this way:

If you properly randomize your deck, then its initial configuration is irrelevant. So "mana weaving" is just wasting more productive time.
If you don't properly randomize your deck, then "mana weaving" is likely part of you cheating.

So, there's no upside. "Mana weaving" doesn't actually accomplish anything, unless you're accidentally or purposefully cheating.

Judges routinely prohibit "mana weaving" because the down side of disrupting someone's pointless pre-game ritual is much smaller than the upside of guaranteeing a fairer game.

Some players "mana weave" to "break up clumps." That's based on a mistaken assumption. A truly randomized deck isn't one where the lands and spells are perfectly distributed; it's one where all the cards are in an arbitrary and unpredictable order. That'll mean you sometimes get lucky and sometimes you won't. Bad draws can be frustrating, but some amount of clumping — even the rare incident of really egregious clumping — is perfectly normal. A player who never gets mana-flooded or mana-screwed isn't shuffling properly.

If you're constantly experiencing clumps, especially drawing cards in an order similar to how you played them last game, then it's a sign you're direly under-shuffling. Spend more time shuffling (2-3 minutes before a game is pretty standard) and practice stronger techniques like riffle or mash shuffling.


Which are the ways of discovering? Can an undiscovered hex be discovered only by a ship or can it be discovered in any other way?

In the rules:

Discovering with Ships
To discover new land, you must move one of your ships towards the unexplored areas of the board (example 3 A).
If, after moving a ship, one of its ends (bow or stern) points toward the corner (intersection) of an undiscovered hex, you muist discover that hex (example 3 B).
Turn the hex over. If it is a terrain hex, take a number token from the stack whose color/icon matches the color/icon on the back of the terrain hex and place it, number side face up on the hex (example 3 C).

So this implies that this is the only way to diecover new hexes. The shape of the unexplored island is such, that each hex is reachable by sea, there is even a weird "hole" to enable access to the center hex. So I think this is the way the game should be played.


Would March of the Machines make artifacts trigger creature enter the battlefield effects? I am wondering if I had a March of the Machines in play and played a Boros Signet, would it trigger a 'creature enters the battlefield' effect?

Yes, it would. The Comprehensive Rules say:

  603.6b Continuous effects that modify characteristics of a permanent do so the moment the permanent is on the battlefield (and not before then). The permanent is never on the battlefield with its unmodified characteristics. Continuous effects don’t apply before the permanent is on the battlefield, however (see rule 603.6d).
  Example: If an effect reads “All lands are creatures” and a land card is played, the effect makes the land card into a creature the moment it enters the battlefield, so it would trigger abilities that trigger when a creature enters the battlefield. Conversely, if an effect reads “All creatures lose all abilities” and a creature card with an enters-the-battlefield triggered ability enters the battlefield, that effect will cause it to lose its abilities the moment it enters the battlefield, so the enters-the-battlefield ability won’t trigger.

(emphasis mine)

Your situation is identical to the example but with 'land' replaced by 'artifact'.


Does a daikaiju kill off a player if it appears next to them? According to the rules of Tsuro of the Seas, when a daikaiju moves adjacent to a player's ship, that player is eliminated. What if another player rolls a 6 to put a daikaiju on the board, and the square rolled is next to a player's ship? Is that player eliminated, or are they unaffected and have a chance for the daikaiju to move before their turn?

The official rules are maybe a little vague on the matter, but extrapolating from the context of the other rules, the way I have always interpreted them as is that a player is only eliminated if they are forced to move off the board, into a loop, or onto the same tile as a daikaiju - or, if it's their turn to play a wake tile but they cannot because there's a daikaiju directly in front of them. So my interpretation is that placing a daikaiju adjacent to some who is not the active player is the same as moving them to that space, and they are not eliminated.


What's the most efficient way of determine individual card values for my collection? With an extremely large variety of Magic: The Gathering Cards that exist out there from so many sets and a loose definition of utility and value in the game, it's often hard to gauge a card's individual worth/price without checking it out online. Of course, the rarity is generally a good indicator, but there are plenty of expensive common and uncommon cards too.

My question is What is the most efficient way of determining card value without individually loking up each Magic card?

There are apps out there that can quickly scan cards as you flip through them, and provided estimated prices. Delver Lens is a good one. Not to mention it can keep track of your collection, or export to other collection tracking websites.


When a land is granted a basic land type, what effects does that have? For example, Quicksilver Fountain says

  At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player puts a flood counter on target non-Island land he or she controls of his or her choice. That land is an Island for as long as it has a flood counter on it.

  At the beginning of each end step, if all lands on the battlefield are Islands, remove all flood counters from them.

I imagine this card is useful specifically because it denies the opponent the appropriate color of mana, if they are not already playing a blue deck. If I make a Swamp into an Island, then it produces U instead of B.

But what about with non-basic lands? If I turn Hinterland Harbor into an Island, does that mean it can no longer produce green mana? What about Seat of the Synod? Will that still be an artifact?

Keep in mind that there is a difference between "gaining" a basic land type (Aquitect's Will, "in addition to") and a land "becoming" or "is" a basic land type. When a land becomes a basic land type, it loses its old rules text and gains the appropriate implict basic land mana generating ability. Supertypes and Types are unaffected, so a land that is also a creature or artifact remains one.

  305.7. If an effect changes a land's subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text and its old land types, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn't remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Changing a land's subtype doesn't add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, i keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.


What happens when there are no more mana tokens of a color in the supply? If I am supposed to gain a mana token of a basic color that has run out in the supply, what happens? Am I unable to gain any mana tokens of that color that round, or will I gain imaginary mana tokens?

The base game comes with 12 mana tokens of each basic color. This is just enough for each of the four players to have 3 mana of a single color in their inventory. This leads me to believe that mana tokens are supposed to be infinite. You don't need to physically have the tokens to play your round, only to indicate crystals in between turns. But I can't actually find anything in the rules about it.

There's no component limit on mana tokens.

Use some other indicator (dice or other objects) to track your mana tokens for the turn, if needed.

The game comes with enough tokens for players to store their maximum allowance of mana crystals (page 6 of the rules). However, there's no mention of limits for mana tokens. The game explicitly tells you to gain mana tokens when you've hit your limit of crystals, so it seems unlikely that you wouldn't be allowed to do this just because other players are also holding onto crystals.

Also, based on the mana crystal limit, we expect that the rules writer will make limitations explicit.

While it isn't covered explicitly in the rules, other players have said the same:

  There is no limit to the number of mana tokens you may have, but they go away at the end of the turn whether used or not.


Which tracks on Formula D / Formule Dé has the greatest straight line? On Formula D/ Formule Dé, one's speed is determined by the dices you use. The Sixth dice, allows one player to move to a maximum of 30 spaces. This is the greatest dice available. Formula D/Formule Dé uses the same "tracks" as one can use any tracks of any given edition, it'd work freely.

I'm wondering which tracks has the longest straight line, in order to use this sixth dice.

I don't actually own Formula D so I am relying on the experts over at BGG. The information before relates to the current incarnation Formula D only, Formula De tracks from earlier releases of the game are not considered.

For the purpose of this question two points on the linked thread stand out...

  Baltimore/Buddh
  I particularly like Buddh. The very long straight is the longest on any of the F1 tracks in the Formula D series (F De has several longer ones) and leads into a 1 stopper followed by an in between length to the 2 stopper.

And specifically mentioning 6th gear...

  Sebring/Chicago
  - Sebring: A fun, challenging track, but in my experience, you can get runaway leaders on it if they hit the 1-stop corners just right. You can hit 6th gear easily.


Boggle - Letter distribution and face orientation of each die I am making my own set of Boggle dice (standard 16 cube).  How is the letter distribution set on each face of each die (all oriented the same way and facing you using the standard Boggle letter distribution, below) what letters are on the top face, bottom, right, left, front and back?  The following chart is from Everything2.com

The 16 dice have the following 96 letters on their faces:

 1. A E A N E G      9. W N G E E H
 2. A H S P C O     10. L N H N R Z
 3. A S P F F K     11. T S T I Y D
 4. O B J O A B     12. O W T O A T
 5. I O T M U C     13. E R T T Y L
 6. R Y V D E L     14. T O E S S I
 7. L R E I X D     15. T E R W H V
 8. E I U N E S     16. N U I H M Qu

So, for die #1 if the A is on top where are the other letters in relation to the A?

I believe you'll find that the answer doesn't matter for your specific case:

If we assume every die is a fair die (which means every face has exactly 1/6 chance of coming face up, and is what you should strive for when building the cubes for your version of the game), the position of the letters in each die will not matter, since every face will have the same chance of showing up in your grid, and each die can only ever show a single face.

Therefore, all that matters is the distribution of these letters, which will ultimately affect how many instances of a letter you'll see in your board; and you seem to have found a pretty solid distribution for the standard English language scrabble.


What Is the Preferred Strategy For the US in Axis and Allies? Why? Everyone knows how the United States REALLY won World War II. It concentrated first in North Africa, then the Mediterranean (Italy), and closed with the cross-channel invasion at Normandy that ended in Berlin. That is a viable strategy for the U.S. player in Axis and Allies.

A number of U.S. players build a factory in Sinkiang to stop the Japanese occupation of Asia. The logical follow-up to that is to build (or re-build) a Pacific Navy as a hammer to the anvil of Chinese troops. This plan ends with America's "spoils of war" being Japan, China, and the "ASEAN" countries, while the UK and Russia take down Germany.

About the one thing the US (and UK) DIDN'T try to do in World War II was to try to link up with Russia via Norway. But it is the basis of the simple "shuck-shuck" strategy devised by Don Rae.

This appears to be the preferred option of many AA aficionados: Dump American infantry into Norway in "assembly line" fashion after Russia (or the UK) has captured it, send them through Karelia and Eastern Europe to Berlin if necessary (otherwise transport them across the Baltic for an amphibious assault on the enemy heartland with air support).

Is the real life "cross channel" (and cross-Med) strategy the best one in AA? Or do our strategists know something that America's real life military didn't "know" in favoring one of the others?

What Is the Preferred Strategy For the US in Axis and Allies?

You answered your own question - the simple "shuck-shuck" strategy devised by Don Rae. The reason it works is because infantry are cheap and defend at 2, but only attack at 1. Therefore you can build an impenetrable infantry force that can withstand a large German offensive push and keep Germany hemmed into mainland Europe, freeing Russia and the UK to focus on pushing back Japan and tipping (or keeping) the IPC balance in favor of the Allies.

  Do our strategists know something that America's "real life" military didn't know?

There were many reasons why "shuck-shuck" was not implemented in real life. Among them include:

Geopolitical reasons - remember, the Allies only grudgingly allied with Russia. They were viewed as the lesser of two evils and a necessary ally to help end the war. Also, in real life Finland was attacked by Russia in 1939 in the Winter War. Then, from 1941-1944, Finland allied with Germany and declared war on Russia and aided Germany in attacking Leningrad. Given that they were at war with Russia, I doubt Finland would have permitted the US and UK to march troops through their country to assist in the defense of Russia.
Logistical reasons - moving troops from Norway to Karelia takes "one turn" in the game, but would be more labor and time intensive to accomplish in reality given the topology and climate of that region. Also, I presume the infrastructure to move millions of troops, equipment, and foodstuff was not in place and would need to be built.
Sociological/psychological reasons - how positively would the American public respond to a war strategy that boiled down to, "We send millions of our own boys into the arctic and down into Russia to have a staring contest with the Germans. We'll liberate France when we get around to it. Also don't forget that this was not long after World War I, which was notorious for brutal trench warfare that resulted in pointless, high casualty offensive actions and long standing stalemates. It would be hard to sell the public on a repeat of a "dig in and wait"-type strategy.
Economic reasons - the US has the economic means and raw materials to produce modern weaponry at a scale that couldn't be matched by the Axis powers. The US had not been engaged in warfare for years, suffered bombing runs on their mainland factories, and so forth. It wouldn't make much sense to have the US focus on building a large defensive troop position when they could focus on building battleships, bombers, planes, tanks, and so on. Also, in real life the value of a human being is worth more than 3 IPC. :-)


What actions constitute passing priority? I played in my first PTQ (and got top 8!) a few weeks ago and received a warning for missing a trigger.

The situation was as follows:

It's game 3 of the last swiss round.  I pass the turn with a Krallenhorde Howler after attacking, playing two creatures, playing an Evolving Wilds, and cracking it.  I'm searching through my deck for a one-of basic so since it will take me a minute to find it and shuffle, I tell my opponent what I'm getting and to go ahead and take their turn while I search and shuffle.  They immediately untap, upkeep, draw, play a land, and then pass the turn.  I find the land, finish shuffling, and my opponent cuts.

This is where the issue happens, I put my hands on my lands, look at the board, and before untapping anything, point out that the Howler flipped back to a Duskwatch Recruiter on his upkeep and then said that on my upkeep it's going to flip back again.  I have not verbally indicated passing priority or said anything up to this point.  He called a judge, gave me a warning for a missed trigger.

That was the only warning I got in all of the rounds of that tournament so it didn't matter (and I won that game anyway).  My question is, did I imply passing priority by touching my lands?

In general, what verbal and non-verbal actions constitute passing priority at Competitive REL?

I disagree with the ruling made by the floor judge. I also disagree with upgrading the penalty to a warning.
Ruling
First, let's get some terminology down:

You are the controller of the trigger.
I interpret "action" to mean "game action". For example:

Resting your hands on your lands is not a game action.
Untapping your lands is a game action.
Silence is not a game action.
Saying "Sure." is a game action.

The following is an excerpt from the Infraction Procedure Guide:

Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. During an opponent’s turn, if a trigger’s controller demonstrates awareness of the trigger before they take an active role (such as taking an action or explicitly passing priority), the trigger is remembered.

What this says, quite clearly, is that your opponent cannot cause you, the controller, to miss a trigger by drawing a card, playing a land, or otherwise advancing the game without your active consent. You never assumed an active role before remembering the trigger. Therefore, you didn't miss it.
This is reinforced in the Tournament Rules:

Triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game.

If your opponent had said "Draw?" and you respond with a "Sure.", then you have assumed an active role by explicitly passing priority. In that case, the trigger is definitely missed.
Penalty
Missed triggers should only be upgraded to a warning if the trigger is considered detrimental to its controller. The game state is not a factor in determining this. As noted in the IPG:

Upgrade: If the triggered ability is usually considered detrimental for the controlling player the penalty is a Warning. The current game state is not a factor in determining this, though symmetrical abilities (such as Howling Mine) may be considered usually detrimental or not depending on who is being affected

According to an L2 judge on Reddit, neither side of Duskwatch Recruiter is considered "generally detrimental". It may be situationally detrimental, but according to the IPG, the judge awarding the penalty should not be using the board state as a factor in determining whether the trigger is detrimental.


In the official rules of Monopoly, can you offer immunity to other players in deals? In the official rules of Monopoly, can you offer immunity to other players in deals? Also, what about tournament play, which has different rules again?

For example, it was a common house rule from my childhood that where two players were making a deal, but one of the players was more at risk of landing on the other player's property in the next move or two, the owner of those properties would offer immunity for the next time around the board (or maybe even the next two or three times around the board). So this is a popular house rule, but is it allowed in the official Monopoly rules and in tournament play?

The official rules are here. I can see nothing in the rules that would explicitly prevent one player offering immunity to another player. You only have to pay rent if the owner of the property asks you for it:

  The owner may not collect the rent if he/she fails to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice.

However, you could argue that offering immunity violates the spirit of the no lending rule:

  No player may borrow from or lend money to another player.


In Diplomacy, is it good strategy to have a primary alliance with a country on the opposite of the board? The countries I'm thinking about are England and Turkey (northwest and southeast).  This type of alliance seems unlikely to develop "naturally" in the real world, since they're nowhere near each other, but they have a common enemy, Russia.

I have to assume that more pressing concerns for each are "taken care of" by "natural" rivalries, Italy vs. Austria, and Germany vs. France.

But if England and Turkey succeed in partitioning Russia, can they find "common ground" in a war against say, the Germanic countries, Germany and Austria-Hungary? Or possibly in alliances with them against the "Latins," Italy and France?

Well, having allies is never a bad strategy, whether it is in Diplomacy or in real life wars. But the one thing I've learnt about Diplomacy is that an alliance never lasts long. There is only one winner at the end of the game. If you agree with the other country that Russia will be destroyed and that you will share the remains, it is a good idea. The question you should ask yourself is: "should I betray the other before he betrays me?"

Let me answer your question in a more generalistic way. Whenever two countries are allies in Diplomacy, each part should have these two strategies:

What will I do if we are allied? What do I want from my friend? What do I do when I have what I want?
What does my ally want? What do I do if I am betrayed? Is there a way for me to forsee that betrayal and use it to my advantage?

So basically, yes, it is a good idea to team up with a distant country, but until when?


Trying to understand when to take a deep finesse? This is from Dorothy Truscott Hayden's book "Winning Declarer Play".

                    Dummy
                    AQ9
West                                     East
?                                        ?
                    You
                    752

She suggests first finessing the 9 and then the Q.
Directly finessing the Q gives you 2 tricks only if West has the K.
But doing the deep finesse gives 2 tricks when

West has the King
West does not have the King but has both the 10 & J

This is quite clear, but where do we stop on this? What if Dummy has AQ8 - do we still first finesse with the 8 in the hope that West 9,10,J?

AQ8
JT9x    Kxx
    xxx

If you play small towards AQ8 in dummy, LHO should play one of the J, T, or 9. Then you can only score one trick in the suit. If the position is

    AQ9
JTxx    Kxx
    xxx

then splitting honors does not prevent you scoring the 9 (after J, Q, K, you can come to hand and repeat the finesse).

So the general answer is: only take a deep finesse if it can promote a trick.


Is it advantageous to go first in Dominion? The rulebook says:

  If the highest scores are tied at the end of the game, the tied player who has had the fewest turns wins the game.

What advantages does the first player have over the other players?

Do these advantages overcome the detriment of losing in a tie when the other player has had fewer turns?

What effect does the number of players have on the advantage/disadvantage?

Yes, it is certainly advantageous to go first in Dominion.

There are some good threads about first player advantage on the DominionStrategy forums.

Here is what Donald X thinks about first player advantage.  Donald X actually underrates first player advantage based on faulty understanding of optimal play with a disadvantage (his "proof" seems to require symmetric play, which is not optimal under the asymmetry that first player advantage can induce) and hence he understates the advantage.

Here is an expert player stating the  reasons for first player advantage.

There is also copious data supporting the idea that first player has an advantage.  Here is some data analysis I did that corrects for second player is better confounding problem @Jefromi mentions.  It says that first player advantage is worth about 2 or 3 points overall.


What happens if I gain control of my opponent's Rekindling Phoenix until end of turn, and it dies? If I gain control of Rekindling Phoenix and it dies, I know it goes to it's owners graveyard, which is my opponents graveyard, but does the token get created under my control which means my opponent won't get the phoenix back at his next upkeep?

You get the 0/1 token, but you don't sacrifice it unless you have another Rekindling Phoenix in your own graveyard.
The Phoenix's triggered ability triggers for the current controller of the Phoenix, which is you. Therefore, you put the 0/1 token on the battlefield under your control. The Phoenix, however, goes to its owner's graveyard, which is your opponent.

109.5. The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.
404.1. A player’s graveyard is their discard pile. Any object that’s countered, discarded, destroyed, or sacrificed is put on top of its owner’s graveyard, as is any instant or sorcery spell that’s finished resolving. Each player’s graveyard starts out empty.

While the Phoenix lands in your opponent's graveyard, the ability triggers for you, because you were its last controller before it left the battlefield:

603.10a Some zone-change triggers look back in time. These are leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a card leaves a graveyard, and abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library.

You own and control the 0/1 token, because (in this case, not generally) you controlled the effect that created it:

110.5a The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.

Since the triggered ability of the token requires a Rekindling Phoenix card as a target in your graveyard, if you don't have one in your graveyard, the ability immediately leaves the stack without resolving. It will keep triggering that way on each of your upkeeps. It will not find the Phoenix that has landed in your opponent's graveyard, and the effect will not return the Phoenix.
Note that if you had a Rekindling Phoenix in your own graveyard, for example because you had to discard it, or the opponent destroyed your 0/1 token before you could sacrifice it, the token generated by the opponent's Phoenix would allow you to return your own Phoenix. That's because the token's ability is not directly connected to the Phoenix that created it, and allows you to find any Rekindling Phoenix in your graveyard, no matter how it got there.
The same goes for your opponent. If he took control of your 0/1 token and then later sacrificed it to its ability, he would get his Phoenix back to the battlefield, whether or not the token was generated by a Rekindling Phoenix he owns.


What is the best version of Settlers of Catan for a group of people who have never played before? I am trying to get our family to try out Settlers of Catan, and am wondering which version would be the easiest to begin with.  I figured the original, but some sites say that some of the other ones may be better since there is a fixed board.  Any advice is greatly appreciated, thank you!

The original set will do just fine; it comes with a pre-arranged layout for new players who'd rather not deal with the randomness. If your family has more than four people, you'll also want the 5-6 Player Expansion to expand the board.


If you discard Immortal Phoenix, does it return to your hand? Let's say I have an Immortal Phoenix in my hand, and an opponent casts a Reaper of Night (the adventure, not the creature). If I discard the Phoenix, will it return to my hand?

No, it won't. Dies is a term with a very specific meaning: it means to be put in the graveyard from the battlefield. If it is put there from your hand, the ability won't trigger.

  700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”


If you decide to play for "top or bottom" in duplicate, are you supposed to consult with partner? Sometimes, if a player falls behind in a duplicate tournament, he will try to alter his standing by doing things that the "crowd" would not (e.g. making safety plays), getting a top score if he is right, and a  bottom score if he is wrong. This is unusual behavior, because he is really playing "double or nothing."

Bridge is a partnership game, and partners are supposed to agree on things. So should one consult with partner about "risking a limb to save a life" in this manner during play? On the hand, if one is doing certain other things such as "psyching," even partner isn't supposed to be on the secret. So is this a "consultation" or a "psyching" situation?

Or is it best to consult with partner before the tournament (but not during) about when to play for "top or bottom."

It's neither - it's simply terrible bridge. Good bridge is to make those choices during the play instead of during the bidding, when one actually has enough information to make a sensible risk assessment.
Further, you are talking about a change in partnership bidding style - this is simply not allowed during a session, and the meaning of a call is not allowed to vary depending on which partner makes it:

from Law 40 A - Players' Systemic Agreements (my emphasis)
2 Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls, plays, and conditions of the current deal. Each player is entitled to take into account the legal auction and, subject to any exclusions in these Laws, the cards he has seen.
from Law 40 B - Special Partnership Understandings
1(b) Whether explicit or implicit, an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. ....
2 (a)... the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made.

Remember, the opponents don't know whether you are having a good, bad, or indifferent game; but partner does. To make decisions based on that information, which partner is privy to but the opponents not, is blatantly violating the requirement that opponents have a right to full disclosure of your partnership agreements.
So, if one feels compelled to take a flyer late in a session, one should do it as Declarer when there is no issue of Partnership Agreement. Adopt a second best line of play and cross your fingers. Play for the finesse missing Qxxx, or the drop missing Qxxxx, and see if it works. If one wants to be an improving player, one has to play like one.


Can I add Ogre mercenaries to any army in Warhammer fantasy? In the fluff, Ogres are generally employed as mercenaries, as opposed to an army in their own right.

Can I do the same in the tabletop version?

And if so, does it matter which army? Could both the Skaven and the Empire hire them?

So, it actually depends on the Version you're using. On 6ed et 7ed, mercenary did exist and (at least for 6ed) ogres had a special rules that let them be purchased as mercenary for anyone except Bretonnia. (I do not recall Lizardman beeing able to recruit them, but i've lost my 6ed book..)

Since 8ed, there is no mercenary that exists per se, there is "pacts" you can do with storm of magic (an extension). During End Times, you did not have mercenary but larger army pool. And nowadays Warhammer doesn't even exist.

During the mercenary era, basically, if it wasn't an enemy of Skaven (Like the pirates dwarfs) it could be recruited by them, and if it's not an enemy of the Empire (and even in some cases), Empire can recruit them. These two factions had a lot of mercenaries available, Chaos very less so, Khemri and Vampire counts had a few mercenaries available only for them (but not the same) and for the others, well, it depends.

Hope it helps!


Euchre, four handed, nines through Aces What is the probability in 4 handed Euchre, with each person getting 6 cards, and my having Jack of clubs, Jack of spades and ten of clubs, that any of the three other hands will have 3 or 4 clubs against me?

1 in 6.
Since you're asking about the the possibility of four clubs in another hand, I'll go ahead and state the unstated assumption: you mean that you don't have any clubs other than the Jack and Ten in your hand.
9,T,J,Q,K,A in four suits: 24 cards
Six cards dealt each player: 24 cards
To figure the odds, counts the number of ways to deal what you see and the number of ways to deal the target arrangement. Then divide the latter by former.
Deal what you see
Deal yourself JC, JS, TC and 3 of the other 17 non-clubs.
Number of ways to do so: C(17,3) = 1,330
Deal the other three hands: C(18,6)*C(12,6)*C(6,6) = 17,153,136
So the number of deals that result in you getting JC,JS,TC and no other clubs: 11,664,132,480
Deal the same, but with 3 or 4 clubs in a single other hand
The number of ways to deal JC,JS,TC and no other clubs to you and three or four other clubs to one of the other players:
Deal your hand: 1,330
Then either

deal three clubs exactly to one player: C(4,3)*C(14,3) = 1,456

or

deal four clubs to one player: C(4,4)*C(14,2) = 91

For a total of 1,547 ways to deal 3 or 4 clubs to that player.
The deal the other hands: C(12,6)*C(6,6) = 924
= 1,901,139,240
Figure the odds
The odds are then 1,901,139,240/11,664,132,480
This comes out to about 16.3% or 1 in 6


How fast should a competitive combo deck win? I have a home brew Legacy combo deck that can win by about turn 4-5 reliably. If I change the deck a little to Modern it can win probably on turn 6-7. It is weak to burn and has a few counterspells to protect my assets.

My question is, how fast do competitive combo decks typically win in the various formats? By that I mean in Legacy, Modern, Vintage, Standard, and EDH. Is a turn 5 win slow for Legacy?

Is a turn 5 win slow for Legacy?

Yes.

As of the current meta (from May 24th, 2018), Turbo/Dark Depths is the most represented Legacy combo deck, having around 6% of the field. This specific archetype can combo as fast as "Turn 0" with as few as 5 cards (a land that produces green mana, Crop Rotation, Vampire Hexmage and two Lotus Petal). It can consistently combo on turn 2 or 3, so this is usually what a combo deck should aim for.

The next 4 most represented decks are Storm, Show and Tell, Elves and Reanimator, all of which can consistently combo as soon as turn 2, but usually go off on turn 3-4.

When talking about Vintage, the most represented combo decks are PO Storm and Dredge.
Vintage has a huge amount of 0 and 1 CMC mana accelerants, most of which are artifacts. Since the whole idea of the deck is to go off with Paradoxical Outcome, the PO Storm deck consistently goes off on turn 2, sometimes on turn 1.

Dredge decks don't benefit as much from the 0 and 1 CMC mana rocks, but it can usually go off on turn 2 or 3 with a couple of Bazaar of Baghdads.

The Modern metagame is all over the place, and it's mostly aggro decks, having 54% of the field.

The most represented combo decks are Scapeshift, U/R Storm, GWx Devoted Company and Living End, all of which usually combo on turns 3-6, depending on mana acceleration and card draws.

The current Standard meta has no combo decks. The last time a combo decks had any relevant appearance in standard was during the BFZ-AKH standard, where both Aetherworks Marvel and Saheeli Cat decks worked more in a control role until they could go off. They're considered combo decks because their wincon is a combo, but they were not particularly fast.

Combo decks in duel commander (aka "The French list") are currently much underrepresented. The three most played decks still only represent about 3% of the field.

They're Iname, Death Aspect, which is a control/reanimator deck, and Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, which is a "cast my commander, hit you for 21" kind of deck.

Teferi, Temporal Archmage is represented in both MTGO (9% of the field) and Duel commander (1%) and it is really a control deck that controls the game long enough to cast either Emrakul, the Aeons Torn (in MTGO) or Emrakul, the Promised End (in Duel).

Disclaimer: Every number mentioned in this answer was taken directly from MTGTop8, which really mostly takes MTGO into account when breaking down the metagame, so some of the numbers might be slightly off when talking about physical decks. Also, the information on how long a particular deck takes to combo comes from personal experience playing either with or against said decks and watching tournaments and streams.


Is Parcheesi simply an alternate name for Pachisi? Or are they significantly different games? There are a few board games that are the exactly the same as each other, but have different names. For instance, Reversi and Othello are exactly the same game, but the latter is a trademarked name. Similarly, Star Halma and Chinese Checkers are exactly the same game.

As a result of a recent meta discussion on tag synonyms, I'm wondering: is Parcheesi simply an alternate name for Pachisi? Or are they significantly different games?

My initial searches were inconclusive. According to Board Game Geek, they are the same game. However, there are separate Wikipedia articles for Parcheesi and Pachisi.

In modern, Western usage, they are the same game

Consider these two games:

1981 Pachisi by Whitman Games

1982 Parcheesi by Selchow & Righter (later republished by Milton Bradley)

Both of these have similar boards with only cosmetic differences. They also both use dice, are played individually rather than in teams, and have similar rules.

There are some historical differences

Bruce Whitehill published an article about Pachisi and Parcheesi in the September 2007 edition of Knucklebones games magazine. He defines some clear differences between the two:

Pachisi was designed for team play, Parcheesi for individual play

  Pachisi was designed to be played by four players acting as two teams, unlike Parcheesi, in which each player plays independently; team play significantly raises the level of strategy required for the game.

The boards have a different appearance and sequence of play

  The Parcheesi board still has the appearance of a cross, but the main paths have been moved to form a path around the edge of a square gameboard. Parcheesi pieces begin in individual areas in the corners of the board (one color per area), whereas the “men,” as they are often called, in Pachisi begin and end in the same center square.

Traditional Pachisi uses cowry shells, Parcheesi uses dice

  One more significant difference (there are other minor ones) is that the moves in Parcheesi are governed by dice, whereas Pachisi uses cowrie (or cowry) shells.

However, most modern versions of Pachisi and Parcheesi do not have these differences, as shown above.

I suspect that the differences could be likened to regional variations of the game, or a change of the rules over time. This might be compared to Chess. Over the course of hundreds of years, the pieces on the board and the rules of movement have changed, yet the game was still "Chess". In fact, Whitehill's article lists many alternative names for the game, noting that some contain regional rule variations of Pachisi.

It seems that in this case, the rules of Pachisi have changed over time or had variations, and Parcheesi is just another name for the same game.


Beetle crawling up more than one level Can the beetle crawl up more than one level in a single move? For example, if the beetle is on ground level (level zero), can it move up on top of stack of two pieces (i.e. onto level 2) in one turn? I feel like it shouldn't be allowed to move in top of a stack of n pieces (i.e. onto level n+1) unless it is already on level n, since an actual beetle cannot jump or fly... I'd appreciate an answer, thanks.

Yes it can jump multiple levels.

From the rules here it says as follows.

  The only way to block a Beetle that is on top of the Hive is to move another Beetle on top of it.  All four Beetles can be stacked on top of each other.

There is no reference in the rules to moving one level at a time.  If a beetle was to move on top of a stack of all Beetles (as stated in the rules is possible)  then the Beetle would have to jump (or climb if you feel that makes more thematic sense) up more than one level at once.


What if somebody used counterfeit/proxy basic lands in an official MTG tournament? It seems clear to me that if you use counterfeit nonbasic/nonland cards in an official tournament you're likely to get disqualified or even banned.
But what happens if somebody would play counterfeit basic land cards in his/her deck (assuming the weight and dimensions of the counterfeit card are equal to a official MTG card)?
On the one hand i think it would make no sense to sanction a player for doing so since basic lands have practically no monetary value. On the other hand it's probably in the interest of WOTC to only allow original cards in a tournament.
So basically my question boils down to this:
What would happen if a judge noticed a player using counterfeit basic land cards which are identical in weight and dimension to a original land card while even using sleeves in an official tournament?

The tournament rules only allow official WotC product and make no distinction between basic lands and others. What would actually happen in a sanctioned event is ultimately the decision of the head judge, as there is no explicit penalty for using counterfeit cards that are indistinguishable from real cards.
From the MtG tournament rules, section 3.3 "Authorized Cards" and 3.4 "Proxy Cards", it is clear that only official, genuine cards are allowed in a tournament. A player can alter the card to a degree, as long as the card remains unmarked and essential information remains legible. When a card becomes marked/illegible during a tournament, the head judge may issue a proxy card.
However, the Infraction Procedure Guide only lists the penalty for using marked cards, the consequences for which range all the way from a simple correction to game loss, depending on the circumstances. There is no explicit penalty for using counterfeit cards that would be indistinguishable from the real cards, i.e. when they could not be considered marked.
Since using counterfeit cards is not allowed by the tournament rules, but the IPG does not cover that specific case, the head judge would have to decide on the penalty, depending on the circumstances, so a general answer cannot be given based on the official rules alone.


"Conduit of Ruin" and "Endless One" If I have a Conduit of Ruin on the battlefield and say that I will be casting Endless One for 10 mana, will the cost reduction of 2 mana from the Conduit of Ruin's effect reduce the X so that the Endless One is 8/8 or will it remain 10/10?

My thinking is going with X = 10, but I need to make sure.

Then, expanding on that:

If I have 4 x Conduit of Ruin on the battlefield, could I cast an 8/8 Endless One for "free", using only the total cost reduction of 8 mana (from the 4 x Conduit of Ruins) as the "X" casting cost?

Yes, your interpretation is correct. From the card rulings:

Conduit of Ruin’s last ability doesn’t change the mana cost or
converted mana cost of any spell. It changes only the total cost you
actually pay.
If you control more than one
Conduit of Ruin, the last ability of each of them applies only to the
first creature spell you cast each turn, not to different spells; if you control two Conduits of Ruin, the
first creature spell you cast each turn will cost {4} less.
If the first creature spell you cast in a turn has {X} in
its mana cost, you choose the value of X before calculating the
spell’s total cost. For example, if the first creature spell you cast
in a turn has a mana cost of {X}{G}, you could choose 2 as the value
of X and pay {G} to cast the spell.

So, the value that you pick for X is fixed, the only thing that changes is what you actually pay.


Why can I not place a tile that scores more than 10 points in Kodama: Tree Spirits The the game Kodama: The Tree Spirits, there is a limit on scoring more than 10 points in a single move.
Is there a reason for this given? If so it's not in the rules book so the 2004 edition.

My guess it is to keep the tree growing in many directions and not just along a single path. Since scoring is based on how many icons from the card you played are on other cards in a path to the bottom it would make the most sense to never branch off and victory comes down to who gets the best card draws. With this rule in place there is more strategy to where a card is placed not only to maximize your points but to minimize other players points.
Rules

After placing a branch card, look at the icons on that card. You score 1 point for each instance of those icons in that contiguous line of cards. You do not score points for other instances of that icon if they are not part of this contiguous line of cards.

You only score points based on the icons on the branch card you added this turn. Those icons must be part of a contiguous line of cards with the card you just added. Any other icons elsewhere on the tree do not score points.

The contiguous line of cards extends from the card you just added, continuing down toward the trunk or until the shared icons do not appear on a card.


What do I do if mandatory actions will inherently take a very long time to resolve? (Splinter Twin + Tyrant of Discord example) Basically, if a game is already out of time, and we're within the resolution of a stack, yet the resolution will take an obnoxiously long time, what would the ruling be in a competitive environment where the tournament will have to wait for the resolution? Note that this isn't an infinite effect and thus not a draw, it's not unsportslike conduct - stalling because the game is already at time and that rule is for trying to drag a game to time, and I can pick any number of twins I want, it's my right to use that shortcut to pick an arbitrary number. Don't necessarily focus on deconstructing the example (but feedback on that is welcome), help me out on what the resolution would be.

Here's an example:

Let's say I'm going off with my Splinter Twin combo. I have at least 1 land and a bunch of other permanents. I create a very, very large number of tokens (let's say 10^1000).

My opponent uses Aether Vial to vial in Tyrant of Discord. The resolution of the Tyrant's "enters the battlefield" trigger will take an extremely long amount of time to compute. Consider that we'll be randomly picking copies until a land gets sacrificed, which could mean all my creatures get sacrificed one by one, or possibly none of them do (the land gets randomly picked first).

What are the rules for game time here? Random number generators can't even handle numbers that large, but let's assume we have some way to handle this. I can choose an arbitrarily large amount of Twins to create here. What are the rules for resolving this situation? Even if the game goes to time, 5 turns will not pass, this will take place within one turn's stack, and it's not an infinite loop so the game cannot be declared a draw. Is it acceptable to spend, for example 5 hours, if not several days resolving this effect?

Assume the number is just obnoxiously large enough that it actually takes a computer several hours to spit out a result.

If such situation as described by you really applies, only the judge can help in this situation.

I have various examples how a judge handled alike situation, but most of them had one thing in common: It ended in a draw.

The examples that didn't, had in common that the player determined a way to shorten the "choose randomly" process. Here it becomes quite tricky.

In the end the judge with the right authority does have the last word on this and it cannot be generally determined for all tournaments. This is an example of a gap in between the rules that propably needs some fixing for a fair ruling.


Can I choose the value for X for spells cast with Bolas's Citadel? There is a new card called Bolas's Citadel which says:

  You may play the top card of your library. If you cast a spell this way, pay life equal to its converted mana cost rather than pay its mana cost.

Can use my life to pay for any X spell?

No, you cannot choose any value for X other than 0 when casting cards using Bolas's Citadel.

The phrase "rather than pay its mana cost" or "rather than pay [card name]'s mana cost" is a standard phrase in Magic indicating that the cost specified is an alternative cost. This is stated explicitly in rule 117.9:

  Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.

So if you cast spells using Bolas's Citadel's second ability, you are required to pay an alternative cost of life equal to the spell's converted mana cost. Then rule 107.3b applies:

  If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."

So, you are required to choose 0 for X when casting spells with X in the mana cost.

This is confirmed by an official ruling on Bolas's Citadel's Gatherer page:

  If a spell has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost.


Strategies for playing The Masochist in Cosmic Encounter? Some of the Aliens in Cosmic Encounter have alternate win conditions, some of which are very beneficial as they allow you to simultaneously pursue two paths to victory. However, I haven't really been able to figure out the real benefit of The Masochist's power:

  You have the power to Hurt Yourself. At the start of any player's
  regroup phase, before the offense retrieves a ship from the warp, use
  this power to win the game if you have lost all of your ships. Lost
  ships include those in the warp, those removed from the game, and
  those captured by other players.

  You do not lose this power because of having too few home colonies,
  and you may still win the game via the normal manner.

At first, I thought this would be awesome because all encounters become a win-win situation. If I win, I either get a colony or prevent my opponent from getting one, and if I lose, I lose more ships and get closer to winning. However, the 2 paths to victory seem pretty mutually exclusive, and I haven't really thought of a way to move toward both of them. Obviously moving towards just one is all I need to do for victory, but whenever I try to lose a lot of ships I worry that a Mobius Tubes will destroy all my hard-earned self-destruction, and whenever I play towards getting a lot of colonies I feel like I'm playing without a power.

I suppose the best way to play the Masochist would be to work primarily toward colonies without much deliberate self-destruction, and view any lost ships earned along the way as an added benefit. How do I take advantage of this power with maximum benefit to myself and minimum benefit to my opponents? How do I determine when to deliberately hurt myself? Is it just me, or is this one of the weaker powers?

You should play as if you don't have an alien power, since Masochist's power is diametrically opposed to setting up 5 foreign colonies and it is extremely difficult to send all your ships to the warp.

I will assume that you are playing with the latest edition of Cosmic Encounter by Fantasy Flight Games, because the Masochist is only available in this version. From the rule book, there are 72 total Cosmic Cards (82 with Flares). If you are playing a 5 player game, then there is just a 38% chance that one of the other 4 players does not have Mobius Tubes in their opening hand. You only have a 18% chance of having drawn a Card Zap to prevent Mobius Tubes in your opening hand. Even without a Mobius Tubes being drawn, you have several things working against you.

The Regroup step isn't optional, so every turn you must return 1 ship to your colonies, which means that it would take a minimum of losing 7 Offensive Encounters (I will get to Defensive Encounters in a moment) instead of winning 5 Encounters. In general, your opponents should see you attempting this strategy long before you can actually win with it. They will avoid allowing you to lose ships quicker by preventing you from allying with them (so you cannot lose more than 4 ships a turn). Additionally, when you win your first offensive encounter, you are allowed to take another turn. You do not have the same luxury when losing encounters, so even the 7-5 ratio is a little bit misleading.

Once you have lost a planet in your color home system, all other colors can choose to attack your 0 defense planet in your home system. This means that it is even harder to lose ships on the defense, since any player that hasn't established a foreign colony on your home system can just attack your defenseless planet (the other ships are just bystanders), and not make you lose any more ships. When they do have to attack your home system with ships on it, they can always aim the Hyperspace Gate at the planet with the fewest ships on it.

As for when to hurt yourself, you might consider all the possible Flares, Cosmic Cards, and situations that would benefit/hinder your progress at losing all your ships.

Beneficial

Amoeba Flare: Its ability to allow you to lose up to 8 ships in a turn is useful.
Masochist Flare: Once you have your flare, you put a clock on your opponents.
Clone Flare: returning Plague would be useful.
Kamikaze Flare: Free sacrifice
Loser Flare: Auto losses each turn.
Machine: Two turns, although admittedly, this would be just as good if not better trying to get 5 foreign colonies.
Filch (Classic) Flare: cheat legally, returning whatever card you want from the discard/retrieve from the deck/etc. once per turn, or "lose a ship." I think I like those choices.
Negotiate Cards: These will ensure a loss, or at a minimum a loss of 3 ships if you cannot "come to a deal." Good thing these cards make up 15 of the 82 cards
Warrior Flare: Useful for extra attacks to lose ships after defense.

Harmful

Healer: Healer so definitively makes Masochist a non-power, since it can heal ships removed from the game.
Mobius Tubes: A complete setback.
Reincarnator and/or Flare: Can make you switch powers, whenever you lose.
Sorcerer Flare: Negate your power

You can only be certain of half of the Flares are in the deck, based upon the Aliens your opponents are playing as. The remaining 5 Flares are random. All in all, it is much more likely that your opponents will draw a Mobius Tubes, and you won't have a Card Zap to counter, than you will have a good selection of beneficial flares in the deck that you actually draw. Masochist is one of the weaker powers, and since you are allowed to choose between two different aliens at the start of the game, it might be best to consider which alien race is worse than Masochist.


If I pocket my man and the queen in a single strike, is the queen covered? Suppose there are 3 coins remaining on the board: one man of each colour and the queen. If, in a single strike, I pocket my man followed by the queen, have I covered the queen?

If a player puts the queen and a carrom man of the player's own color in the pocket with one use of the striker, the queen is automatically covered, no matter which went first.

Copied from Wikipedia


Can poison counters be removed? Is there some way to remove or counteract poison counters? Specifically, once you've already accumulated them, not when you are dealt them.

For example, say I already have 9 poison counters. Is there some way to reduce this number?

Counters can be removed.

However, I believe there is only one card that currently removes poison counters, and that is Leeches

  Target player loses all poison counters.  Leeches deals 1 damage to that player for each poison counter removed in this way.

Leeches was in the Homelands set.


Are progress cards awarded if the barbarian strength is 0? If there are no cities on the board, barbarian strength is rated at zero.  So automatically the players have tied or beaten the barbarians.  Are progress cards allocated under these circumstances?  If there are activated knights on the board, can a victory point be achieved?

Yes,
This is answered by the online Catan FAQ.

Can the players win against the barbarians if there is not one single city on Catan?
Yes


When would it be advantageous not apply Training Ground's cost reduction? Training Grounds has an optional cost reduction ability, as indicated by the card-specific ruling:

  You may choose not to apply Training Ground’s cost reduction effect. You may also choose to apply only part of it (causing an activated ability of a creature you control to cost just {1} less to activate).

Why is this conditional?  Training Grounds never co-existed with Mana Burn.  Are there any situations in which it would be advantageous to not apply this ability?

(This is related to Paying more mana for a Flashed creature, but is about why you would not apply the cost reduction rather than whether or not you can.)

You have a Glissa Sunseeker in play, and your opponent has an artifact with CMC {1}. You have 1 untapped Lotus Vale and no other untapped lands or mana in your mana pool.

You want to activate an ability on a creature that normally costs {3} (like that on Walking Wall), and you also want to use Glissa to destroy your opponent's artifact.

After getting 3 mana from Lotus Vale, you need to spend exactly 2 mana in order to have {1} remaining, so that you can destroy your opponent's artifact. So you choose to only reduce the cost if your ability by {1} instead of reducing it by {2}.


Why is there a "no man's land" between 1NT 15-17 and 2NT 20-21? I cannot find any info online or by talking with experienced players about this issue. I assume Goren set this up? Wouldn't this be more logical:

1NT=15-17

2NT=18-19

3NT=20-21

Because the level of 3NT is too high to be supported by opener's values with only 20-21 HCP. Even 2NT is challenging if partner shows up with a bust opposite 20-21.

The appropriate way to show an 18-19 point hand using this style is to open 1 of a minor suit, and jump to 2NT over partner's response, as a forcing rebid.
Part of the challenge in bidding is that the space one might wish to use to describe one's hand also must remain low enough to allow a makeable contract to be reached and agreed.

This is actually a newer style than the original Goren System (or Culbertson), which used 2NT opening to show a balanced 22-24 HCP. The Europeans were the first to realize the advantages of reducing this range, which then was popularized in North America by players such as Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold (Kaplan Sheinwold system) on the East Coast, and Richard Walsh on the West Coast (Two-Over-One Game Forcing system).

Another reason for the change to 2-point ranges above 17 HCP was that 3-point ranges had been found to be too wide for accurate assessment of total partnership value. When NT is first suggested at the 1-level it is possible for one partner to inquire on minimum/maximum in partner's hand by raising to 2 NT. However that option is not available if NT is first suggested at the 2-level. Empirically, it was found that 2-point ranges were both straightforward to implement in a bidding system, and much more accurate in both game and slam bidding.


Does Fires of Invention allow adventure instant and sorceries to be played for free? How does the new Fires of Invention card from Eldraine work with adventure cards such as Beanstalk Giant? Does it allow the adventure to be played for free and if so does it count the converted casting cost of the creature card that's in hand or that of the adventure instant or sorcery?

You can cast the creature for free if you have at least as many lands as the creature's mana cost, and you can cast the adventure for free if you have at least as many lands as the adventure's mana cost.

From the updated comprehensive rules:

  715.4. In every zone except the stack, and while on the stack not as an Adventure, an adventurer card has only its normal characteristics.

This means that if you choose to cast the creature, the CMC is just the creature's CMC.

Also,

  715.3b While on the stack as an Adventure, the spell has only its alternative characteristics.

This means that if you choose to cast the Adventure, the CMC is just the Adventure's CMC.

From the Throne of Eldraine Release Notes:

  When casting a spell as an Adventure, use the alternative characteristics and ignore all of the card's normal characteristics. The spell's color, mana cost, converted mana cost, and so on are determined by only those alternative characteristics. If the spell leaves the stack, it immediately resumes using its normal characteristics.

So while the creature Beanstalk Giant  is on the stack; its CMS is 7; which would require you to have 7 lands to cast it for free.

But while Fertile Footsteps is on the stack, it has a CMC of 3; requiring you to have 3 lands to cast it for free.

Notably, the card is moved to the stack before you ever check to see what the cost is.

  601.2a To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from where it is to the stack.

...

  601.2b If the spell is modal, the player announces the mode choice (see rule 700.2). If the player wishes to splice any cards onto the spell (see rule 702.46), they reveal those cards in their hand. If the spell has alternative or additional costs that will be paid as it’s being cast such as buyback or kicker costs (see rules 118.8 and 118.9), the player announces their intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 601.2f).

And for completeness sake; we know that Fires of Invention creates an alternative cost because:

  118.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.


Can I summon Blue Eyes Chaos MAX from my deck? What if I have Chaos Form in my hand, with the required materials but Chaos MAX is not in my hand. Can I summon it from the main deck?

No you can't.
This simply isn't how ritual summons work. Unless any card states otherwise (e.g. the nekroz ritual spells) you must tribute monsters from your hand or field to summon a ritual monster from your hand.

In general you cannot interact with cards in your main deck, unless another cards specifically states otherwise.


Can a pawn move to the last line in chess as part of a promotion even if the square is blocked by an opponent's piece? My reason for asking is I believe the promotion to be instant: As the pawn's toe crosses the line into the square, it transforms into the promotion piece's toe...
Meaning that even though the route was blocked for a pawn, the promotion to a queen (for example) would allow the move to proceed.

No. A pawn gains no special movement rules when on the penultimate rank. Often in end-games the opposing King will be in front of the pawn to prevent it from being promoted.