Can you retreat with Attacking Infantry in Axis and Allies Original - 2nd Edition This has been brought up a few times in our group.  Infantry can only move one space, so if they move in to attack, they pretty much have to fight until they're eliminated or the defending player is eliminated?  They can't move back one space, correct?

"Retreat" is not counted as a move. So the attacking infantry can move "back" to their original square. Or maybe a better way of looking at it was the attacking infantry moved to the border between its original square and the defending square, and then was stopped at the border.

It is the defender who cannot move or retreat during an attack. The defender has to beat off the attack or lose every piece (except for submarines). But the attacker always has the option to stop the attack.


Who gets to use a reanimated Gamekeeper's ability? I was playing a clunky Gamekeeper build of mine against a Legacy Reanimator deck when the following situation occurred:

I had a Leyline of the Void in play (don't know if it's relevant). I had a Gamekeeper in my own graveyard which my opponent reanimated with Animate Dead. I destroyed the Gamekeeper with a Slaughter Pact.

Who gets to use Gamekeeper's ability?

Your opponent. Leyline of the Void has no bearing in this situation, because the Gatekeeper is going to your (its owner's graveyard).

  400.3. If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its owner’s corresponding zone.

When an object refers to you, it means its controller.

  Card Text: When Gamekeeper dies, you may exile it. If you do, reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card. Put that card onto the battlefield and put all other cards revealed this way into your graveyard.

  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.


Can a single card have multiple activations on a stack? For further context, it has to do with Ghost Town in my landfall deck. It has the ability "0: Return Ghost Town to owner's hand."
If I activate it during an opponent's upkeep and they respond by destroying it(such as Field of Ruin), is there a rule preventing me from activating Ghost Town's ability again to keep it on the top of the stack?

Yes, you can do this.
There is no limit to the number of times you can activate an ability other than being able to pay the cost. It doesn't matter if the other activations are still on the stack or if they have resolved already.
Some activated abilities have a built-in limit, where they say something like "activate this ability only once each turn". An example is Aggressive Mining.

117.1b A player may activate an activated ability any time they have priority.

602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

If things do happen as you suggest, then the stack will look like this:

Ghost Town's ability
Field of Ruin's ability
Ghost Town's ability

First Ghost Town will resolve and return to your hand. Then Field of Ruin's ability will fizzle and leave the stack without resolving because it has no legal target anymore. The searching for land part will not happen. Finally the original Ghost Town's ability will resolve, but it will not do anything upon resolving because it cannot find the Ghost Town on the battlefield anymore.


How does the RATUKI card work? A relative has given us a Hasbro card game called Ratuki - the rules for which can be found here.

I just can't decide how the RATUKI cards are meant to work though.  In normal play, a stack must be started with a 1 card, and a stack can only be added to with a card one higher or one lower in value than the current top card.  If you play a 5 card to the top of a stack, you shout "RATUKI!" and claim that stack.

A RATUKI card "counts as any number you like" - so you can start a stack with it, and play it onto any stack.

My question is, does a RATUKI card once played keep the value it was played "as"?  e.g. if you start a stack with a RATUKI card, is the only valid play on top of that a 2 card?  If a RATUKI is played on top of a 2, do you have to specify whether it is a 1 or a 3 and does that information persist (possibly quite a challenge to enforce, in this fast paced game).

The other option is that a RATUKI card can be played as anything and immediately counts as anything.  But if this is so, can you essentially slam a RATUKI onto any stack, immediately shout "RATUKI!" and claim that stack?  If you start a stack with a RATUKI card, can you immediately claim that stack at the same time?

Are there any card games with an analogous mechanic that shed any light on how the designers probably intended this game to be played?

It should play the same as a Skip-Bo card in Skip-Bo.

It's just a wild card - and no, it shouldn't "retain" its value in later plays ... how would you remember which Ratuki card had been played with what value?


Can Grave Betrayal give me a Mutavault? Would Grave Betrayal give me a Mutavault? I'm guessing no, but enough rules have changed since Onslaught that I'm not going to guess.

Yes, you get a Black Mutavault with a +1/+1 counter on it. It will not be a Zombie because non-creatures cannot have creature subtypes.

Detailed Explanation
First, you need to know why Grave Betrayal triggers.

603.6c Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone [...]
603.6d [...] Leaves-the-battlefield abilities will trigger based on [an object's] existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward.

Mutavault was a creature prior to death, and so Grave Betrayal will trigger. The trigger doesn't care what Mutavault becomes after death. Second, you need to know how Grave Betrayal can still find the Mutavault in the graveyard even though it is a new object.

603.6 Trigger events that involve objects changing zones are called "zone-change triggers." Many abilities with zone-change triggers attempt to do something to that object after it changes zones. During resolution, these abilities look for the object in the zone that it moved to.

Third, you need to know why lands cannot have creature subtypes.

205.3d An object can't gain a subtype that doesn't correspond to one of that object's types.

Lastly, here is how the events actually unfold:

An opposing Mutavault creature dies.
Grave Betrayal triggers.
Grave Betrayal's trigger resolves. It looks for Mutavault in the graveyard and finds it there.
Mutavault returns to the battlefield under your control. It gains the color Black and a +1/+1 counter. It won't be a Zombie because Zombie is a creature subtype and Mutavault is not a creature at the moment.


Does Seedborn Muse untap Time Vault Time Vault has the following ability:

  Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.

Is Seedborn Muse able to untap Time Vault?

Yes.

Time Vault only prevents itself from being untapped during its controller's untap step. It doesn't hinder attempts to untap it at any other time.

There's a ruling about this on Seedborn Muse:

  Other effects can prevent a permanent from untapping during an untap step. You do need to look carefully, however, as many effects say that the permanent does not untap during its controller’s untap step, and this card’s ability occurs during other players’ untap steps. If a card does say this, then Seedborn Muse can untap it. But some other abilities are not written this way and can still prevent a card from untapping.


Should the barrel being discarded when hit - Bang In case the barrel card get hit and accomplish his goal, is it supposed to be discarded or not?

Same question, in case the barrel doesn't get hit, can be used to face further bangs?

As you can see in this answer on BGG, the barrel stays until it is removed by another card.

Also, from the official rules:

  Blue-bordered cards are played face up in front of  you  (exception: Jail).  Blue  cards  in  front  of you are hence defined to be “in play”. The effect of  these  cards  lasts  until  they  are  discarded  or removed somehow (e.g. through the play of a Cat Balou), or a special event occurs (e.g. in the case of Dynamite). There is no limit  on  the  cards  you  can  have  in  front  of  you  provided  that  they  do  not share the same name.

The Barrel is a blue card. So you can use it as long as it is on your side of the table.


Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece? Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece?

Yes, and it's not particularly hard to do. Here's one solution.

I found this by placing the pawns first (because they are much more limited in their attack/defence potential), and then adding the pieces one at a time. Using this simple manual approach, it took about 15 minutes to find a solution. As an added constraint, I avoided placing the kings in check.

There are undoubtedly many alternative arrangements that would also work. It would be quite straightforward to write a computer program to search for valid configurations. A simple brute-force backtracking algorithm would probably suffice.


Why are the boards not square? I noticed gobans are not square, but rectangular. Why is that, and what is the correct orientation of the board when playing?

The design of Go components is all about symmetry.  Because perspective shortens the vertical height of the board, the boards are made taller than they are wide.  This way they appear to be square when you're playing.  Another similar issue occurs with the stones.  Black stones appear to be smaller than white stones, so the black stones are actually made slightly larger than the white stones to counter this effect.

Related and awesome: How many squares are there on a Go Board?


What is the meaning of OMP, GWP, OGP? I am using mtgarena for my tournament organization.

What do OMP, GWP and OGP mean? Does anyone know what they stand for?

Example:

Player  Points  OMP     GWP      OGP
1           9   33.33   100      31.11
2           6   66.67   60       69.44
3           6   44.44   75       42.22
4           6   22.22   66.67    22.22
5           3   72.22   20       80.56
6           3   50      20       53.33
7           3   33.33   0        36.11

These are percentages, used by the DCI as tie-breakers. From Section C4 of the Tournament Organizer's Handbook:

OMP - Opponents’ Match-Win Percentage. A player’s match-win percentage is that player’s accumulated match points divided by X
times the number of rounds in which he or she competed, or 0.33, whichever is greater.
GWP - Game-Win Percentage. Similar to the match-win percentage, a player’s game-win percentage is the total number of
game points he or she earned divided by X times the number of games played.
OGP - Opponents’ Game-Win Percentage. Similar to opponents’ match-win percentage, a player’s opponents’ game-win percentage is
simply the average game-win percentage of all of that player’s opponents. And, as with opponents’ match-win percentage, each opponent has a minimum game-win percentage of
0.33.


Does the spell cast with Yahenni's Expertise resolve before state-based effects are checked? The recently revealed card Yahenni's Expertise states:

  All creatures get -3/-3 until end of turn.

  You may cast a card with converted mana cost 3 or less from your hand.

The situation is this:
There is one 2/2 creature on the battlefield. I cast Yahenni's Expertise, then chose to cast Living End with the second effect. Will the 2/2 creature die from the Expertise before the Living End resolves? (and thus be brought back to play by Living End). Or will it die after the Living End finished resolving?

Your 2/2 will be returned by Living End.

The "cast a 3cmc or less card for free" is part of the resolution of Expertise, not a trigger like other cards/abilities (like Cascade).  Even though you cast it as part of the resolution, the free card does not immediately resolve, instead it is put on the stack. At that point SBA are checked and then it can be responded to.


What happens to Element cards spent when acquiring a new Element card? In the co-op game The Big Book of Madness, the rules say the following about when you acquire a new Element card:

  As long as one is available, you can acquire 1 Element card of value
  2 or 3 from the middle of the table. You must spend Elements of the
  same type as the Element card you wish to acquire. [...] When you acquire an Element card, place it in your discard.

So you spend several Element cards to acquire a new Element card of the same combined value. The new card goes in your discard.

Do you destroy the spent Element cards or do they go in your discard as well?

You place the cards used in the discard pile as stated in the action phase section of the rules.

  During the Action phase, you may use your Element and
  Spell cards to try to vanquish the Monster and keep it in the
  Grimoire. Five actions are possible:
  • Activate a Spell
  • Learn a new Spell
  • Acquire an Element card
  • Destroy a Curse
  • Cure one of your Madness cards
  You may take as many actions as you wish, in any order, as many
  times as you like, as long as you have the Element cards to pay for
  them. Each action costs a number of Elements, which you must pay
  by discarding Element cards from your hand or from the support
  pool or a combination of both.
  Whenever you pay an Activation Cost, you must discard enough
  Element cards to produce at least as many Elements as required
  for the action. Excess Elements spent on an Action are lost. They
  cannot be used for another Action.
  A single Element card cannot be used for multiple Actions.


How does Perplexing Chimera work with multiple triggers on the stack? Perplexing Chimera is a new card in Born of the Gods. It reads as follows

  Enchantment Creature - Chimera

  Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may exchange control of Perplexing Chimera and that spell. If you do, you may choose new targets for the spell. (If the spell becomes a permanent, you control that permanent.)

  3/3

As I understand it, the following can happen if I have a Chimera on the battlefield:

My opponent casts some spell (say Shock), and it goes on the stack.
The Chimera's ability triggers. It is put on the stack.
My opponent really wants his Shock to resolve, so in response he casts Lightning Strike on my Chimera to kill it before its ability resolves. This is put on the stack.
The Chimera's (which is still under my control) ability triggers again. It is put on the stack.

At this point, nothing else happens and we start resolving the stack.

The Chimera's ability resolves. I choose to perform the swap. I choose my opponent as the target of the Lightning Strike. My opponent gets control of the Chimera.
Lightning Strike resolves. My opponent takes 3 damage
??????

What happens next? Does the ability on the stack fail to resolve? Who (if anyone) gets to choose to use the Chimera's ability on the stack?

Quoting directly from the Born of the Gods Release Notes:

  In some unusual cases, you may not control Perplexing Chimera when its triggered ability resolves (perhaps because the triggered ability triggered again and resolved while the original ability was on the stack). In these cases, you can exchange control of Perplexing Chimera and the spell that causes the ability to trigger, even if you control neither of them. If you do, you'll be able to change targets of the spell, not the spell's new controller.

Note that, because both Perplexing Chimera and Shock are controlled by your opponent when the first triggered ability resolves, exchanging their control doesn't change anything by itself, but it does give you (yes, you, even though you still don't control anything) the option to change the Shock's target.

I'd also like to quote another item in the section on Perplexing Chimera which addresses a misconception you seem to have:

  You make the decision whether to exchange control of Perplexing Chimera and the spell as the triggered ability resolves.

That is, the triggered ability goes on the stack regardless of whether you want to make the exchange at that time; you don't decide whether or not to do the exchange until the ability resolves.


Settlers of Catan edition? I have a version of Settlers of Catan that I can't seem to figure out. It is a family edition, but doesn't match anything I can find online. I recently bought an expansion for the 5-6 players, but the pieces were too big for my smaller pieces to be compatible. I'd like to get an expansion that matches mine, but can't find anything other than 5th editions

There is no expansion for the Family Edition.

From the Catan website:

  This version of Catan is not expandable and not compatible with the regular expansions of the Catan base game!

You will need to get a regular edition (not family edition) of Catan to play with more than 4 players.


What happens if the legend rule doesn't apply to only one of a pair of legendary creatures with the same name? Brothers Yamazaki has the ability

  If there are exactly two permanents named Brothers Yamazaki on the battlefield, the "legend rule" doesn't apply to them.

So, say I control two Brothers Yamazaki (and there are no others on the battlefield), a Grizzly Bears, and a Leyline of Singularity, and I have a Spy Kit attached to one of the Brothers.

Spy Kit has the ruling

  The set of names the equipped creature has includes the names of all nonlegendary creature cards in the Oracle card reference, including the back faces of double-faced cards. Notably, the equipped creature won’t gain the names of tokens, such as Zombie, Goblin, and similar. It also won’t gain the names of noncreature cards that have become creatures, such as a Wandering Fumarole that has become a creature.

So, the overall result here is that I have 3 legendary creatures:

One named "Brothers Yamazaki"
One named "Grizzly Bears"
One with many names, including both "Brothers Yamazaki" and "Grizzly Bears"

Then because of the ability on Brothers Yamazaki, the "legend rule" applies to creature number 2, but not to creature number 3. What exactly does that mean? What happens to creature number 2?

You get to keep all 3 creatures.
The legend rule reads:

704.5j If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”

The Brothers' ability makes the legend rule not apply to them as long as there are exactly 2 of them on the battlefield. What "not applying" means can be derived from the rulings for Mirror Gallery or Sakashima of a Thousand Faces:

Mirror Gallery removes the “Legend rule” while it’s on the battlefield.[..]

While the “legend rule” doesn’t apply to permanents you control, you can control any number of legendary permanents with the same name and none of them will be put into the graveyard.

While Mirror Gallery is on the battlefield, the game is played as though the legend rule did not exist, or, put differently, the legend rule check is disabled for all permanents.
Accordingly, while exactly two Brothers Yamazaki are on the battlefield, the legend rule is not checked for either of them. Any legend rule check that would compare either of the Brothers Yamazaki to any other permanent for name identity is not performed at all. That means the Grizzly Bears is also safe from the legend rule, because the one check that could get them killed (with the Spy Kit'ed Brothers) is not performed.
Therefore, it does not matter whether or not either of the Brothers shares a name with Grizzly Bears or yet other permanents. As far as the legend rule is concerned, the two Brothers do not exist on the battlefield at all.


Domaine - How does the Chancery work? When a player takes a card from the Chancery, can he only take the top card, or can he look through the entire pile from the Chancery and picks a card he wants (except the one he just sold).

From the full rules on Mayfair Games site:

  Note: If you sell an action card, you may not chose to draw that card when you refill your hand to 3 cards at the end of your turn.  You may chose any other card in the Chancery, or draw from the action deck.


War of The Ring (SPI, 1977) In a three player game, can two players actually win at the same time? This question is about the old game called 'War of the Ring', released by SPI in 1977, not the later game that shares the same name.  I did not include that tag, which is meant for the other game.
The game can be 2 or 3 players.  In a 2 player game Sauron and Saruman are controlled by the same player, in a three players they are played by separate people.  The rules for victory conditions in the 3 player game are noted below.

Dark Power Player.
To win the game, the Dark Power Player must have the Ring brought to the Barad-Dur hex.
Or he may win a military victory by controlling the citadels of Barad-Dur, Durthang, Minas Morgul, Dol Guldur, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth, Helms Deep and Isengard, plus the hexes containing Hobbiton and Thranduil's Palace.
Fellowship Player.
The Fellowship player must destroy the Ring to win the game.
Saruman Player.
The Saruman Player must control all existing Nazgul, plus the citadels of Isengard and Helms Deep and the town of Edoras.
Note: that if either Aragorn or Gandalf becomes a semi-ringwraith, the Dark Power Player wins automatically, unless the Saruman player has worn the Ring and is still in existence, in which case the Saruman player wins.
More than one player may win the Three-Player Game, but it is unlikely that this will occur.

This question is about the last line, I saw the question asked on another forum, where no one could figure how it could happen and I don't see it either, but I also don't have a lot of experience with the game (one person guessed it may have been that the rules went through a number of last minute revisions, that this was going to be possible but they removed the method and forgot to remove this line at the same time).
I'm asking in case something was missed that I/they could not see, or if there was some known rule revision that would confirm the other person's guess.

Subsection W.2 of the rules gives the procedure for Saruman to gain control of Nazgul.  Halfway through the first paragraph it says:

... If Saruman loses the Ring, the Nazgul that he controls remain with him. ...

Saruman's victory condition requires that he control all surviving Nazgul.  If he does that and subsequently loses the ring, then he would retain control of the Nazgul he had captured.  Therefore, if he also held Isengard, Helm's Deep, and Edoras he would fulfil his victory condition, even if the Fellowship player managed to destroy the ring.  Note that in this unlikely scenario, Saruman himself would be dead, since section M.1 provides (emphasis original):

A Ringbearer may never voluntarily surrender the Ring.  The only way a different Character can become the Ringbearer is if the first Ringbearer is killed.

This restriction is reaffirmed for the three-player game in subsection X.2.
Note, however, that if all of the Nazgul were destroyed, then Saruman could fulfil this part of the victory condition without ever having possessed the Ring, and could therefore be alive for a shared victory.  That is, it appears to be possible for Saruman to ally with the Fellowship player and play explicitly for a joint victory.
The only remaining question is whether it's possible to have these events happen simultaneously without the game ending first.  Section U gives the victory conditions for the Campaign Game, but it is vague about when those military victory conditions are checked (for ring victory conditions, Section U references the Character Game victory conditions in section O, which state that the Fellowship ring victory condition is checked at the beginning of the Ring Phase). Section O does state in its preamble (outside of any subsection) that in the Character Game, the game ends immediately when a victory condition is met, but since section U references subsections O.1 and O.2, but not section O in its entirety, it's unclear whether that provision applies in the Campaign Game (the three-player option is only available in the Campaign Game).  Section Z, which gives the modified victory conditions for the three-player game, does not clarify this matter.
In summary, a joint Fellowship-Saruman victory appears to be possible, provided that satisfying military victory conditions does not end the game immediately.  The fact that the rule writers explicitly called out the possibility of a joint victory suggests, albeit indirectly, that this is the intended interpretation.


Dominion Dark Ages: Ruin Strategies With Dark Ages cards only in play, what are some strategies for dealing with a deck clogged with ruins (assuming that each player has an equal clogged deck)?

The only strategies that seemed effective in playing DA is using a Storeroom (only promising a minimum of $4), Altar (which is nice because it trades Ruins for Duchies or good actions, but can be hard to raise the $6 with a clogged deck), or Beggar (when you have 5 coin in hand, using a Beggar adds 3 Copper immediately to the hand, giving you $8 for that province).

Any other ideas for effectively dealing with ruins, with only Dark Ages cards in play?

The strategies used against Cultist and Marauder, the two offensive Ruins-giving cards, are similar to the strategies used against Curse-givers in other sets. Ruins are not quite as bad as Curses, since the cards have a little bit of utility and don't carry a VP penalty.

That said: Dark Ages has lots of light trashing to help you handle both unwanted Coppers and Shelters, and any Ruins that might come your way. Hermit is a dynamite Ruins-trasher, since you don't actually have to line it up in the same hand and it can give you Silver (or more Hermits) to overcome deck dilution. Junk Dealer cleans your deck up and provides a bit of buying power too. Forager doesn't usually give much buying power, but it's cheap.

A little more obliquely, Procession can give you a benefit and clear out the Ruins as well, although you'll want other targets for it. Death Cart inflicts Ruins on yourself--but $5 is an incredible chunk of change, and you won't lack for targets if your opponents are giving you Ruins as well. If you have lots of junk, Sage can help you wade through the bad stuff to find your Junk Dealers or Altars. Count can clear a lot of junk from your deck at once; put the only good card on top of your deck, then choose the "trash your hand" option. And Catacombs deals with junk by letting you discard it and draw something else.

You brought up Beggar and having two Silvers is pretty great. The gain-three-Coppers option, if you don't get attacked, depends a lot on the deck. It's great for Duchy and alternative-VP rushes (Gardens, of course...); less so if you have Provinces in mind for the endgame.

One last note: Rats looks like an attractive trasher, and it is powerful in that regard, but then you have to get rid of the Rats! I think Rats combines best with trash-for-benefit cards like Apprentice, Bishop, and Salvager, and not so well with most Dark Ages cards.


Does a book of 3's in Hand and Foot work? My wife and I play Hand and Foot from time to time. We have toyed with the idea of allowing a book of 3's to count positive, with the caveat that they are only positive if the book is closed and clean. If the book is not closed and clean then each of the 3's has their usual negative score.

We have not found this particularly effective because if a player attempts it then the state of that book determines the winner of the game.

My question is if anyone else has tried a book of 3's in Hand and Foot and if they have found a way to make it work.

Assuming you're playing with the Red (100) Black (5) variation (there are not official rules for hand and foot), then the purpose of the 3's is to add a bit of randomness to the game to offset player ability.  If your goal is to remove this randomness, then you can simply treat all 3's as normal cards and the game will 'work' just fine.   I have played that particular variation.

I'm not sure by which rules you're playing, but if you're allowing threes to hit the table singly, and also allowing the bonus for making a book of them, it's a bit of an unfair advantage to that random chance.

Pagat - Rules to Hand and Foot


Block creature then remove from game Simple question, yet unclear to me:

Someone attacks with a spirit creature, let's say a 2/2. I block with lets say two creatures, each 1/1.

Then the attacker plays Essence Flux, removed his attacker from the game to return it as a 2/2 mi a +1/+1 counter on it.

Will the attacking spirit survive because of the +1/+1 counter?
Will it still kill the two blockers?
What if it wasn't a spirit and is removed and returns - will it die because of the damage from the blockers?

When the creature returns to the battlefield it has no memory of anything that happened earlier in the game. This means that it is no longer attacking, and thus is no longer being blocked by the defending player's creatures. This also means that it will neither deal nor receive combat damage, so neither it nor the defender's creatures will die.

  400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are nine exceptions to this rule: [none of the exceptions apply to this case]


Does Increasing Devotion create 10 tokens if cast from the graveyard without flashback? Increasing Devotion creates 5 tokens, or 10 tokens if it is cast from the graveyard. While the "normal" way to cast this from the graveyard is with its own flashback ability, do I still get 10 tokens if I cast it from the graveyard in some other way, for example with Yawgmoth's Will?

Yes, you get 10 tokens if you cast it from the graveyard in any way.
If the alternative effect only happened on casting the spell through flashback, the card would say so by making an explicit reference to its flashback ability. There are no flashback cards that do so, but presumably it might read "if you cast this spell for its flashback cost", similar to the wording of the Mutate ability.
Since it doesn't make a reference to flashback, it happens if you cast it from your graveyard in any way. There are several more flashback cards that use the same template.


When a card modifies how many copies of that card a deck can have, does that affect the sideboard? I'm using MTG Cardsmith to design custom cards for a casual tournament with friends. My goal is to design some cards that make sense within the current rules of the game, while still being flavorful and interesting; one of my ideas is for a card that can only be played as a singleton (one copy per deck), in any format. But I'm not sure how best to write the rule text when sideboarding is taken into account.

I thought I'd follow the wording of Persistent Petitioners, which reads:

  A deck can have any number of cards named Persistent Petitioners.

The problem with this is that it's ambiguous whether "a deck" is inclusive of the sideboard or not. It doesn't really matter for Petitioners, because if the point is you can play as many as you want, a) you don't really need the sideboard and b) if you wanted to somehow side into Petitioners, it would be inconsistent with the spirit of the card not to allow you to add 15 of them.

But if you're limiting the card to one copy, then it becomes important to know whether that's one copy in the main deck plus another one (or three) in the side, because of things like wishes.

I check the comprehensive rules and it seems they define a deck as follows:

  100.2. To play, each player needs their own deck of traditional Magic cards, small items to represent any tokens and counters, and some way to clearly track life totals.

  100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates their own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. A constructed deck may contain any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.
  100.2b In limited play (a way of playing in which each player gets the same quantity of unopened Magic product such as booster packs and creates their own deck using only this product and basic land cards), each deck must contain at least forty cards. A limited deck may contain as many duplicates of a card as are included with the product.

And a sideboard as follows:

  100.4. Each player may also have a sideboard, which is a group of additional cards the player may use to modify their deck between games of a match.

  100.4a In constructed play, a sideboard may contain no more than fifteen cards. The four-card limit (see rule 100.2a) applies to the combined deck and sideboard.

(And so on.)

The implication of "combined deck and sideboard" in 100.4a is that the word "deck" technically refers to what we more loosely call a "main deck" and is exclusive of the sideboard.

Furthermore, the four-card limit of 100.2a explicitly applies to the "combined deck and sideboard." However, 100.4a does not explicitly state that any restriction on the number of copies of a card that may be played is necessarily applied in this way.

So, my gut feeling is that the rules text of the card should be worded like this:

  A deck can not have more than one card named [this card].

If Wizards were to print a card with that wording today, would the limitation apply only to the (main) deck as defined by 100.2, or would it apply to the "combined deck and sideboard," consistent with 100.4a? Is there some basis for an official ruling here, even though the wording is essentially hypothetical? Or should I resign myself that this needs to be interpreted as a house rule?

Rule 100.4 clearly distinguishes between the deck and the sideboard, by using the word "also". That is, a player must have a deck of minimum size and may choose to have a sideboard of maximum size.
Rule 100.4a again makes this distinction, and clarifies that the deck and sideboard together may contain a maximum of four copies of the same card. This ensures a person cannot "accidentally" end up with more than four copies of the same card when making changes between deck and sideboard, or "accidentally" mix up the two sets of cards to disguise excess use of one card.
Rule 100.4c gives further insight into the separation between decks and sideboards, by telling us that all cards not in the decks of either player are in the sideboard. A card cannot both be in the sideboard and in the deck, therefore the sideboard cannot be part of the deck.
Consider the outcome of counting the sideboard as part of the deck: someone could pick just 45 (or 25!) cards for actual use in the match, shuffled to form their library. If this was intended, the rule writers could, and given the clarity of the Rules as a whole, assuredly would, have said so.
All told, this would mean a card that says "You may only have one copy of [Card Name] in your deck" would not disallow having three copies in the sideboard as well. However, none of those other copies could be brought into the game by an effect that accesses the sideboard (if such an effect were to be written). To avoid the loophole, the card should say "... in your combined deck and sideboard".


How will using counters to represent money instead of facedown cards change the game? We've played several games of Bohnanza as a family, and one thing I quickly realized was how important it is to keep an eye on what cards have been taken out of the game as money for harvesting. Usually the cocoa and garden beans, as they are worth the same number of coins as beans, disappear from the game fairly early and never show up again. This makes the second time through the deck fairly different, and the third time is drastically different since so many cards are gone.

This got me thinking: How would the game change if we used counters to represent obtained money instead of facedown cards? It would obviously keep the game more consistent across rounds, leading to less variation and a more continuous game.

Would doing so 'ruin' the game? Are there any other consequences I should be aware of? What other possible variations are there on how to keep score?

It would sort of ruin the game for me, I think.  One of the things I like about Bohnanza is that superficially it's a pretty easy game: certainly you can bring it out with non-gamery types or children and it will be a hit, due to the colourful cards and the social aspect of the trading.

However, there are strategic undercurrents to Bohnanza that set it apart from, I don't know, Uno and the like.  And one of the main ones is the fact that, if you're paying attention, you can realize that, as the game progresses, the value of beans is changing as cards leave play to become gold coins.  If you are paying more attention than other players, you can be planting the most advantageous beans remaining while they carelessly plant beans most of whose brethren are sitting in people's coin piles.

If you remove the facedown cards rule, you still have a fun game, but I think it's a game that's almost totally ruled by charisma.  If you're the sort of person that people like trading with, you'll probably win.  (The ladies in our group are less cutthroat than the guys, and quite often do very well at Bohnanza, simply because we are obviously checking values of beans and saying "no, no, that's not a very good trade for me, I'd need another card" - so they stop trading with us!)  So it makes me much happier that there's an element to the game which allows good sense of which beans are in and out of the deck at any given point to make a profit.  I like that having some smarts can allow you to maximise your chances against the luck of the draw.

Having said that, Bohnanza is above all a supremely fun game, and when I sit down to it I quite often don't bother to obsessively card count, or go into "analysis paralysis" over my moves.  You could change the money-representing mechanism and I'm sure I'd still enjoy Bohnanza about the same: I'd be sad that the potential for some cunning and counting had disappeared, on some level, too though.

One final thing that you want to watch for is that the game will last a lot longer if cards aren't being removed from the deck in each pass.  I really like the fact that the first pass is a pretty leisurely affair, while by the third pass people are saying "holy moley, is the game that close to finishing?"  It adds a lot of tension to proceedings.  In fact, the ability to cash in or to hold up from cashing is a way that players have to control the pace of the game and the constituency of the deck: that's another way that changing the rules would adversely effect players' chances of being "clever" in the game!

In short, I think Bohnanza is a spectacularly well-designed game with a lot of depths that you might not notice on your first few games - as you'd expect from the great Uwe Rosenberg.  I personally wouldn't tinker with it, I think it would lose a lot.  But if you want a longer, more carefree, more socially-oriented game then it could be worth a try anyway!


Is the Mystery Train expansion for Ticket to Ride available in sizes matching the 1910 expansion? I have a set of Mystery Train expansion cards that I printed and laminated myself (they're not the most pleasant to play with, but they work). Since I got the 1910 expansion for Ticket to Ride, I haven't really used the Mystery Train expansion because the cards' sizes don't match. The destination tickets from Mystery Train are included, but I'm looking for the character cards (Engineer, Tycoon, Inspector, Station Agent, and the blank character card).

Is there a professionally-printed version or a printable PDF for the full-size cards?

I found this in my digging through the web (posted Friday, May 7, 2010 4:48 pm):

  The other day I was following some links and clicked on the URL for the Mystery Train expansion: http://www.daysofwonder.com/tickettoride/en/mystery/

  I noticed that the page for this was no longer valid (though it had been live just a few months ago)

  Curious about this, I wrote Customer Support at Days of Wonder, and they replied:

    Thank you for your request.

    Support for this expansion has been discontinued.

    Best Regards,

    Yann Corno - Customer Service -  Days of Wonder - Come out and play!

  Now, luckily, I had archived the old Mystery Train pages before they disappeared. My mirror of that site can be found here: http://www.tannerworld.com/mysterytrain/

There are statements on two other pages on BoardGameGeek (1 and 2) that say there's no such thing available.

One workaround would be to resize the cards (and fix the images so they look okay at the new scale), but distributing the modified PDF could be copyright infringement.


Can I deal just one card at a time in Klondike? I installed Microsoft's Solitaire Collection, but in Klondike I cannot set any option to deal only one card in every 'turn'.

Is it possible somehow?

Update: Ian Hutchinson pointed to an important thing: in the game there is two different "Settings" menu. One is available from the front page, after you logged in (automatically) and game chooser menu is displayed. The second one is available only after you already started a game (Klondike in this case). So, if you want change, it will generate a loss in the statistics if you do not finish a 3-card game.

Press F5 or go to the upper right corner and click Options (the gear) while you are in a Klondike game. The draw and scoring options are under Game Settings, which will either be an option to click or be the option that comes up.


Mindslaver vs. the Pact cycle Last turn, player A casted a Pact spell, and then a copy of Mindslaver's ability, controlled by player B, resolved while targeting player A.  In player A's untap step, player A untapped 5 basic lands of the type that corresponds to the Pact spell's color.  Tapping those lands for mana is the only way to tap those lands, and paying for the Pact spell's delayed triggered ability is the only way for player A to spend the mana which those lands can produce.

Can player B nonetheless choose to have player A not pay for that triggered ability?

The Pact spells do not make the payment optional, but there is precedent for players not being forced to pay costs.  (See the two sentences with the word "forced" in that link.)

Player B can choose to not tap the lands, and thus be unable to pay the cost.

Rule 117.3c says

  Activating mana abilities is not mandatory, even if paying a cost is.

So, when the ability resolves, player B can choose not to tap the lands, then player A fails to pay the cost because they do not have enough mana.


Can't cast an instant after my opponent declares attackers in Arena If I have an instant that gives a creature +1/+7 (Aegis of the Heavens) until end of turn, I should be able to cast this after my opponent declares their attackers, right? Because the game hasn't been giving me the opportunity.

Yes, declaring attackers happens during the Declare Attackers step (rule 508). After declaring attackers (508.1), the active player (your opponent) gets priority (508.2) but you'll get priority thereafter and should be able to cast an instant.

Unless there are other effects in place barring you from casting spells, it seems to be an Arena bug.


Would a Cloudshift targeting Zada, Hedron Grinder also target tokens? Zada, Hedron Grinder copies instants and sorceries that target him only for all the rest of my creature that the intant or sorcery could target. If I cast Cloudshift, targeting Zada, would it create copies that target the token creatures I control?

Yes, if you cast Cloudshift targeting your Zada, Hedron Grinder, Zada will make a copy of Cloudshift targeting each other creature you control, including tokens. Cloudshift says

  Exile target creature you control, then return that card to the battlefield under your control.

So, any creature you control is a valid target.

Note that when the copies resolve, any creature tokens you control will be exiled and they will not return, because of rule 110.5g:

  A token that has left the battlefield can’t move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.


Why is "All that remains" banned from Android: Netrunner World Championships? The Android: Netrunner tournament rules say the choice of banned cards is up to the tournament organiser.  With the single exception of banning "All That Remains" at world level.

  Authorized Cards

  All Android: Netrunner cards produced by Fantasy
  Flight Games are legal for tournament play (unless banned). No other
  cards or proxy cards are permitted. In North America, cards are legal
  upon their release. Competitors outside North America should check
  with their TO to determine which cards are tournament legal.
  Exception: All That Remains is not legal for the World Championships

What's so special about "All That Remains"?

There is nothing banned in All That Remains.

This exception was added in the update to the Tournament Rules for the World Championship to clarify that because it was being released so close to the Championship, it would not be legal (since players would not be able to adequately play with it first).

I expect this exception to be removed in the next update now that the World Championship has concluded.


A board game with astronauts? When I was younger my parents bought a few board games and left them at my grandparents for us.

There was one game which had a plastic space ship mounted on a stick over the board, and it had a pump to propel the astronauts into the spaceship. You moved around the board and then when you got to the end you could pump your astronaut(s) into the spaceship.

I think there was a spinner similar to the one in the Game of Life, and the astronauts were green, blue, red and yellow.

Does anyone have any idea what game this might be?

I've been trying to figure this out for the longest time and I finally just did! I loved this game as a kid and couldn't remember what it was!! It's KooKooNauts!


House Rule for Minor Improvement/Occupation distribution? I'm in a group that regularly plays together. We love Agricola, but we tend to play the family version because we feel the minor improvements and occupations are a bit too unbalanced. Or sometimes one player gets great combinations and other players are left cold.

What options are there for distributing the minor improvements and occupations such that we can minimize that variation?

The back page of my set of rules has several systems to try to sort this out.  Appendix 6 of the rules (from here) says:

3:1 Exchange

At any time, a player may discard any 3 cards from his hand and draw the face-down card at the top of either the Minor Improvements or the Occupations deck. This card is placed in the player’s hand.

10-3

Each player draws 10 Occupation and 10 Minor Improvement cards and discards 3 of each.

Mulligan

At the start of the game (and only at the start), a player may discard all 7 Occupations and/or Minor Improvements and draw 6 new cards of that type. (If the player is still unhappy, he can keep trying this, always drawing 1 card fewer than he discards).

Draft

Before the game starts, each player receives a hand of 7 Occupation cards as usual, then chooses one and passes the rest to her left-hand neighbor. Each player chooses one of the 6 new cards and passes on the remaining 5. This continues until each player has 7 cards. Repeat this process with the Minor Improvement cards. This variant allows players to create better combinations of cards than with a purely random distribution. We recommend that each player should have played Agricola at least 4-5 times before trying this variant.


What happens if a player has 5 cards and forgets to exchange them in Risk? We had a situation where a player had 5 cards but forgot to turn them in at the beginning of the turn.  Other player noticed after first player had already attacked and conquered at least one territory.  Is there an official rule for this?  If not, is there a good house rule?

There are cases where cards can be turned in during a turn; for example, if conquering another player results in the victor having more than four cards. In this case, the rules say the cards should be redeemed immediately, the new armies placed, and the turn continued.

I think if someone has started their turn and failed to redeem cards they were required by rule to redeem they should have to do so immediately upon someone noticing. This could provide an advantage because they’ll have the knowledge of how a couple if rounds went, but often armies are all stacked in a giant group.

If they finish their turn and no one notices,  when they do ultimately redeem I say they should get the number of armies they were originally entitled to and not a larger number—which would be the case if other players have redeemed since then. The reason is that sandbagging turn ins to get higher army counts is why turn-in at five cards is required in the first place.


Canasta Going Out with Stock Exhausted and Only One Card in Hand and Discard Pile If the Stock is Empty, it's my turn, I have one card in my hand and there is one card in the discard pile, can I take it if I can add the discard pile card to an existing meld and discard my remaining card or add it to a meld also, then "Go Out", or is taking the last card in the discard pile never allowed when I have only one card in my hand?  Thanks!

No, you cannot.

Whether the stock is exhausted or not, a player with only one card in hand cannot take a discard pile that only has one card in it.

Quoting from multiple rules since with Canasta, like many card games, certain rules can vary depending on the source.

Rule source 1:

  A player with only one card left in his hand may not take the discard pile if there is only one card in it.

And they also clarify that this doesn't change when the stock is exhausted:

  If the last card of the stock is not a red three, play continues as long as each player in turn takes the discard, and he must do so if it matches a meld on his side and the pack is not frozen. (The only exception is that a one-card hand may not take a one-card discard pile).

Rule source 2:

  You may not take the up card if there are no other cards in the discard pile, and you have only one card in your hand.

Rule source 3:

  Taking a discard pile that only contains one card is never allowed if you only have one card in your hand.

If playing Viennese Canasta, you can do this but only if you could legally go out otherwise.

  A player with only one card in his hand may take a one card discard pile under the same conditions which would entitle him to take a discard pile of two or more cards. (Since the player will necessarily have no cards in hand at the end of the turn, this can only be done if the team has a canasta and is therefore entitled to go out.)


The sheep and the wolves When I was a child, I was playing a game such as the following:

The game is played on a standard chessboard, but only on the black squares.
There are two players: the white player has a single white pawn which is the "sheep"; the black player has four pawns which are the "wolves".
The players start at opposite sides of the board, and make a single diagonal step each turn.
The goal of the wolves is to capture the sheep - surround it such that it cannot move.
The goal of the sheep is to escape the wolves and get to the opposite side of the board.

Recently I tried playing it again, but found out that I do not remember the exact rules. Specifically:
* Is the sheep allowed to go backward, or only forward?
* Are the wolves allowed to go backward, or only forward?

We tried to play this game with all four combinations. In each combination, the game turned out to be too easy for one side and too difficult for the other side.

What are the rules that make this game sufficiently challenging for both sides?

It sounds like you're describing Fox and Hounds here:

The four Hounds can only move forward diagonally.
The Fox can move forward or backwards diagonally.

There is no jumping or capturing involved; the Hounds win when the Fox can't make any legal moves, and the Fox wins if it reaches the far rank (where the Hounds started).

This game is inherently unbalanced; with perfect play on both sides, the Fox (aka the Sheep, in your case) cannot win. I find it likely that, as a child, finding the game "sufficiently challenging for both sides" was more due to your inexperience in recognizing the optimal plays than in any house rules that actually balanced the game.


Robber in fishing version of Settlers In the fishing addition to Settlers of Catan the robber can be removed from the board by using two fish. The question then is can a knight from the pack of Development cards be used to bring the robber back into the game by putting it on an opponents resource?

My question is not answered by the first respondant as in the fish game the desert is replaced by a lake and the robber is move completely off the board with two fish. The question then is can the knight bring the robber back into play from this position?

The rules (here) actually state that for two fish you may:

  Move the robber back to the desert (do not steal any cards)

It isn't removed from the board, but is placed on the desert (where it has no effect). A knight may still then move it as normal.


Where can I sell my Magic: The Gathering cards? I played for quite a few years and have a ton of cards that I want to get rid of. I have a mix of all editions before 2007. 7th, 8th, etc...

So the question is where can I sell them effectively. And if it is better to just get all rares out, and then sell the rest as a lot at a common hobby store.

Thanks for the feedback!

To get the most money for your cards, I recommend that you do the following:

Separate out any valuable rares -- anything worth more than a few dollars -- and sell them individually.
Sell the rest of them in bulk. Generally speaking, commons and uncommons only go for about $.01, unless they're especially valuable in one of the non-Standard formats.

As for where to sell them, you have basically three options.

Sell them to your local game store. This is probably the most convenient option, but be aware that the local store is likely to offer you less than you could get in other venues, and they're usually flooded with commons and may not agree to buy your old commons and uncommons at all.
Sell them yourself on eBay. This is what I did when I needed to get rid of a few thousand old commons, which I sold in a great big unsorted box. You'll probably get a higher average price per card this way, but you'll have to handle the hassle of shipping yourself. And be aware that big boxes of cards can be heavy, and therefore expensive to ship.
Sell them to an online game store that buys cards. This is probably the least attractive option, since they will usually only offer prices similar to those you get selling to a local store, but you still have to ship them.


How do you configure the people playing Werewolves to not give each other away? Werewolves, if you're not aware, is a group game played with hidden roles. It's also best played with a fairly large group -- 10, 15 or more.

During various stages of the night, people need to do certain things. However, both noise and movement can give certain things away. (Reaching across a table, or walking across a room, to flip a card, etc.)

One solution we've come up with is to play very loud music during those times. This helps to mask a lot of the secret play.

Unless, however, you're in a very large space, too, you can often feel the person near you move regardless of how loud the music is.

So, does anyone have any good ideas to such issues with this game? I realize it's also up to the players to "play fair" -- otherwise there's no point. But you also don't want to be accidentally handed the answer.

Thanks!

I played this recently and the group I played with had established the practice of having everyone repeatedly smack their hand on the table while heads are down during the night phase. The table smacking creates enough noise and vibration to mask movements. The only caveat is that people need to remember to keep smacking while they point with the other hand. :)


What edition of Empire Builder do I have? My family has an old edition of Empire Builder by Mayfair games, and the box I have isn't listed on Boardgame Geek's edition list.

I found an image of the box on that site. It is pre-fourth edition, as it doesn't have Mexico in it, and very little of Canada. The rulebook lists a copyright of 1982. It comes with a bunch of metal trains, the rule book is black and white, and the cards are black and white front with red 'M's on the back.

The linked picture is the first edition

The 1982 copyright suggests it may be a later printing of that edition (2nd edition was 1984)


Scope of "Finger of God" In "Monty Python Fluxx" the wording on the "Finger of God" Keeper is a bit ambiguous. Can its special power be used on another player's cards?

  If you have this on the table you may smite (i.e. discard) any Creeper.  After smiting, you must put this card back into your hand.

The Finger of God is a Keeper which, if in play in front of you, allows you to "smite (i.e. discard)" any Creeper, at the cost of returning Finger of God to your hand.

The question here is what "smite (i.e. discard)" can possibly mean.  If you're technically-minded, "discarding" in Fluxx would seem to refer to the act of discarding a card from your hand.  In this case, the use of Finger of God would be: when you draw a Creeper, instead of putting it directly into play, you have the alternative option of putting it into the discard pile (and presumably drawing another card as usual).  Under this reading, it's very difficult to see how you could use the Finger on other players' cards.

Fluxx though isn't really a game that benefits from the players getting too technical about the rules, in my opinion.  I'd suggest that "discarding a Creeper" should be interpreted as "move a Creeper card that's in play to the discard pile".  This is much more satisfyingly SMITEY, after all.  BOOM!

Can this divine smiteage be employed against the Creeper of another player?  Well, as any God-fearing knight would be able to tell you, the good Lord our God Jehovah is omnipotent and as such can smite any evildoer He likes.  If you want to argue that He is limited to targeting some Creepers and not others then ON YOUR OWN HEATHEN HEAD BE IT.


Identify a card game where you discard playing cards based on die rolls I am looking for rules to a card game I played as a child, which we called "Polish Poker". However, when I search for the name online, the rules I get don't match what I played, so I guess it must go under other names.

I recall that we used a standard deck of 52 cards and took out aces, sevens, kings, and jokers. On your turn, you roll two dice. If you have a card in your hand matching the roll (Jacks are 11 and Queens are 12), you discard it. If you roll a seven, you put a penny (or whatever you are using for chips) from your supply into a pot in the center, which the winner gets at the end. I don't remember what happened if you rolled a card you didn't have.

I think the whole deck of cards might have been dealt to each player in their hand, but I'm not entirely sure. Does this sound like a game that might have more complete rules, perhaps under a different name?

I played the game like this in the mid 1970's

Equipment:

2 Dice (d6)
1 Pile of pennies for each player, or tokens of your choice
1 Cup or bowl
1 Deck of playing cards for every 4 players

Example:

1-4 players = 1 deck
5-8 players = 2 decks
etc...

Setup:

Remove Jokers, Aces, Sevens and Kings and put them aside as they are not used.
Remove any extra cards starting with the Queens to ensure everyone gets an even number of cards.

Examples:

3 players = 1 deck. ( 40/3 = 13 ), remove 1 Queen
6 players = 2 decks. (80/6 = 13), remove 2 Queens
etc...

Place cup/bowl in center of the table.
Shuffle the cards.

Game Play:

To start the game, each player picks a card, the player with the highest card deals and starts.  If 2 or more pick the same high card, all others are out and the tied players pick again until only one gets to start.  If more than one game is played, the winner of the last game deals and starts the next game.
Game play is to the left.
Roll the dice.
If you roll a 7, you throw a penny in the pot and pass the dice to the left.
If you have the number thrown (for example you throw 3+5 = 8 and you have the 8 of hearts), you toss that card on the pile and pass the dice to the left.
If you don't have the number thrown, you throw a penny in the pot and pass the dice to the left.
If the person before you did not have the number matching the dice, and you have more than two cards remaining, you may throw a matching card yourself and then roll the dice as stated above.
You must roll the last two cards yourself. So you can't throw one of those if your neighbor fails to play a card.
The game ends when a player has no more cards.
They are winner and collect the pot.


Any ideas on how to get a 'sudden attack effect' in a board game? Imagine a table top like game, where you have a map/battlefield you play on with your units moving turn based. Can you think about a way to make an illusion of a sudden attack? Sure, you could do something like your opponent has to leave the room while your turn or close his eyes but this is not a good solution.

For further explanation an example: player one is setting up an ambush. Player two would never walk into it with his units because he knows the players position.

The only way i see is moving your opponents attention to another point but easier said than done.

It's hard to answer this without understanding the core mechanisms of the game you're talking about.

However for reference maybe you could try playing Star Wars: Rebellion.

In that game you have the Empire vs the Rebels and the Rebels pick a planet to be the rebel base.  The base is one of the planets on the map but also has a separate space on the board to represent units stationed at the secret location.

The game is card driven, each turn you play missions from cards, as well as move / attack with units.  Some of those cards are things like launching surprise attacks which come in 2 forms:

Units from the rebel base can appear on a planet suddenly, if the Empire is present they resolve a combat.
Units can be deployed from reserves on a chosen planet and resolve a combat if the Empire is present.

This system works in a game which is card driven, or has some kind of ability system as well as one where units can be deployed to the battlefield during a mission.

That being said you could adapt something similar by having units teleport to a location as a surprise attack, the rationale could be something like their armies had bad intelligence on your army, perhaps you could have it so only a small number of units could ambush at once.

You would need to decide if your game was one of perfect information, ie the current state of play is known to all players at once, I'm sure you could come up with some clever form of trap in a system of perfect information but its going to be a lot harder than something like this.


How to play the Harbinger card in Dominion If I play a harbinger card, I draw from my deck and then have an action and am able to take a card from my discard and put it onto my deck.  Am I able to draw a card, then put one from my discard onto the top of my deck and then play an action card that allows me to draw that card right off the top and play it or do I have to wait until the very end of my turn to move the card to my deck?

Short answer: yes, you can draw it immediately with, e.g., another action card.

Long answer: the golden rule in Dominion is to follow a card's text entirely, top to bottom, before moving on to your next play. In this case, you:

Play the Harbinger.
Draw a card from your deck, shuffling it if empty.
May optionally put a card from your discard pile on top of your deck, if there are any cards in your discard.
Play subsequently another action card, such as a Village, to immediately draw that card.


When retreating from a compromised territory should you always leave one infantry? In his seminal essays, Don Rae suggests that a retreating player always leaves one infantry in the territory she is retreating from:

  Retreat and regroup when faced with overwhelming odds against your forces, always leaving at least one infantry defending in a territory - give them NOTHING for free.

I agree this advise makes sense if the opponent has tanks adjacent to the territory you are retreating from and can capture two territories in one turn, or reach an otherwise un- or under-defended territory through the vacated territory, but that aside, why does it make sense to leave one infantry in a territory you're retreating from?

In other words, if you know your enemy will attack (and conquer) a territory whether you have one infantry in it or not, why would you leave one in there? That's one less infantry you have to help defend the territory you just retreated to.

In answer to your subquestion of "why does it make sense to leave one infantry in a territory you're retreating from?"

The core of the analysis around this hinges on the assumption that you will be trading back and forth over the contested territory with small numbers of units- that you have a large, constantly growing stack in A, your opponent has a large, constantly growing stack in C, and you keep trading off B between the two territories with as small stacks as you can manage. Each player has a steady supply chain providing new troops from the factory. The reason why you do this is because if you move your large stack into the territory, it will be missing the current turn's set of reinforcements, and be unable to use your planes for defense, and your opponent can attack with their whole stack and use all their planes for offense. This is the whole idea of Dead Zones. You want to control them because they're worth IPCs, but with as few units as possible because those units will be destroyed by a counterattack next turn.

So why leave a lone infantry there? Because if it's empty, your opponent can take it with the bare minimum of units, and their planes are free to attack elsewhere. If it isn't, they are forced to commit some of their planes to it, and it's economically in their interest to send 2 infantry. Even if that is a good trade for him (you will lose your 1 infantry for only a 33% chance of killing one of his) the next turn, you will be able to kill both his infantry, an even better trade for you!

So then what about the title question: Should you always leave one infantry?

No. Almost always, but not always. If your opponent will move in with his whole stack next turn (because it's big enough that yours is no longer a threat) the lone infantry is no longer economically in your favor. You will be trading an infantry for a 33% chance to kill an infantry, which is not effective. You might still do it to prevent a blitz but it's no longer automatically good.

Also, if the territory is only worth 1IPC. Generally, the territories you have these big-stack standoffs over are worth more than 1, so this doesn't come up. For a 1IPC territory, it no longer makes your opponent want to send in 2 infantry. The expected value for him attacking your lone infantry with 1 infantry + 1 fighter will be approximately 7/6, while the value he'll get from just waltzing into the territory uncontested will be 6/6. You might still do it to block a blitz or just to force the opportunity cost of him using his planes. But if he has more planes than he knows what to do with and no blitz threat, you wouldn't want leave the guy there.


How Is the Magic Core Set 2015 "Deck Builder's Toolkit" Different From Other Core Set Offerings With Respect To Cards? I'm getting ready to invest in the 2015 MTG Core Set and I'm confused by some of the offerings.  What is the difference between:

Magic: the Gathering - 2015 Core Set Deck Builder's Toolkit
Magic: the Gathering - 2015 Core Set / M15 - Sealed Fat Pack (9 Booster Packs & More)

The sealed fat pack seems to have other accessories like deck boxes (which I'm not really interested in).  I'm mainly just curious about the cards themselves.

Does the toolkit have inferior cards compared to the fat pack? If I were to compete with just cards from the deck builder's toolkit, would I be at a horrible disadvantage?

It depends on what cards you have and what you are interested in becoming.

If you are a beginning Magic player (i.e., you have no cards at all) then I would suggest getting the Deck Builder's Toolkit. This includes plenty of cards from all 5 colors, and you can easily craft a (fairly weak) deck from what you get out of it.

It should also come with 4 booster packs, which is nice, and the 100 lands, which you will really need. However, you will probably only get 4 rares out of the kit (the 4 rares from the booster pack).

If you at least have a collection of Magic cards, and want to get powerful rares, I would suggest getting a fat pack. They include 9 booster packs, so you are guaranteed at least 9 rares, though you have a good chance at getting foil rares or mythic rares (or both!). You will also get 80 lands, which is nice.

  Does the toolkit have inferior cards compared to the fat pack?

The toolkit will come with 5 rares in the fixed card pool, plus 4-5 rares from the booster packs — and you will get a good amount of decent uncommons and commons to work with. The fat pack will come with at least 9 rares with a high chance of pulling a mythic rare, and will also include 27 uncommons.

  If I were to compete with just cards from the deck builder's toolkit, would I be at a horrible disadvantage?

It all depends on who you are playing with. Just playing kitchen table Magic, you should be fine if you play with people who buy basic decks. However, at a tournament, you will get eaten alive by pretty much everyone. (Even some casual players with decent decks will destroy you.)

Also note, buying a fat pack is not really a good way to start, either, because although you will get those powerful cards you need in a deck, you won't get the "backbone" that your deck needs to survive. For example, you may get a powerful late game card from the fat pack, but if you don't have the cards to stay alive that long, that card is pretty much worthless in your deck. The Deck Builder's Toolkit has cards to help you in that circumstance.

In conclusion: it all depends on your circumstance. If you have no cards at the moment, buy a Deck Builder's Toolkit. If you have a good base of cards to work with, buy a Fat Pack. (If you have the money, I would suggest buying both!)


In Checkers/Draughts, can a King jump multiple pieces and end up where it started? title pretty much explains it, is the move depicted in the paint drawing I made legal?

I don't really see why it shouldn't be as it should theoretically follow all the conventional rules of checkers but I haven't really read anything specific about this situation and it's really hard to test it using online checker engines.

(English/American checker rules)

Nothing disallows this sequence of jumps. Pieces do not need to end on a different space to which they started the turn, kings are allowed to move and capture in any direction of play, and multiple jumps may be made if they are additional captures.

Further, if these were the only pieces on the board, or if no other pieces could have been captured off the square instead of continuing around the square: this move is not just legal, but mandatory.

If at any point there was an option to capture off the square, for example by continuing past the bottom corner to capture again in a straight line, the player moving the king may choose which capture to make, but they must make one of them.


In The Crew, if I do not have a color, do I have to play a rocket? The Crew – Quest for Planet Nine is a trick taking game where cards can be number of colors or rockets acting as trumps.
If in my hand, I do not have the requested color but I do have a rocket, do I have to play it or can I play anything from my hand ?
Going through the rules, it does not seem to tell that the rocket must be played but as this principle is in most trick taking games I know of, I'd like a confirmation.

Looking at the rules here it says (emphasis mine).

There are five card suits: pink, blue, green, yellow, and rocket
cards. Following suit means that each player must "follow" the suit
choice of the first player; i.e., you have to play a card of the same
type. Only if you do not have a card of this suit may you play a card
of a different suit.

and later is says (emphasis mine)

During a color-suited trick, a rocket may only be played if a card
in the color suit cannot be played.

Reading this sounds like it follows expected playing of trick taking is option.  If you can not follow suit you may play a card of a different suit.  You may only play a rocket if you can't follow suit.
Neither of these situations say must so if you can't follow suit and have the choice of playing a rocket card or not that is a free choice.


Self-Referencing Effects when a Monster is Destroyed Keep the general implications in mind but, in particular, consider "Banisher of the Radiance".  Its effect reads, "Any card sent to the Graveyard is removed from play instead."   So does this monster go to the Graveyard or is it Removed from Play instead?  As another example, suppose a monsters' effects read "If a monster on your side of the field is destroyed, you may pick a monster on the field and add DEF to it equal to the ATK of your destroyed monster."  If this monster was destroyed, could you add its (non-zero) ATK to another monster's DEF?

Banisher of the Radiance wouldn't banish itself, it would go to the Graveyard.  Banisher of the Radiance has a Continuous Effects, which is only active while it remains on the field face-up. (Rule book page 14).

Continuous Effect
This effect is active while the Effect Monster Card is face-up on the field. The effect starts when the face-up monster appears on the field, and ends once that monster is gone or is no longer face-up; there is no trigger for its activation. These monsters are most useful if you have a strategy to protect them while they are on the field.

This is supported by previous rulings:

If "Banisher of the Radiance" and "Sangan" are destroyed simultaneously by an effect like "Lightning Vortex", then both are sent to the Graveyard and "Sangan's" effect activates normally.[5]

Destroy means to send a card from the field to the Graveyard. Banisher of the Radiance prevents that from happening, so the hypothetical Card that you described would have no effect.

Destroy - A card is destroyed when it is sent to the Graveyard due to battle between monsters or by an effect that destroys a card. [...]

(Note: These TCG rulings were issued by Upper Deck Entertainment and have since been deemed unofficial by Konami.[6] They were previously considered official and can still be correct, as long as they follow the official gameplay rules, or unless Konami has issued a ruling that says otherwise.)


Would hypnotizing your opponent be against the Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament rules? In the Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's anime episodes "Return to the Spirit World", Part 1 and Part 2, Professor Frank hypnotizes his opponent, Luna, during a Duel Monsters tournament duel. In addition to having an ulterior motive of getting her to access repressed memories, he uses that hypnotic influence to get Luna to play her cards in a certain way that benefits him.

In the real world, would it be against the Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament rules to hypnotize your opponent during a tournament duel in order to get them to play tactically in your favor? Is there any rule that would actually prevent this*, or would it entirely be a matter of the judge using his discretion to call out bad sportsmanship?

* I'm not expecting a rule that says "You cannot hypnotize your opponents", but am instead wondering if there might be a rule that covers this sort of behavior, like perhaps one that says you can't interfere with your opponent's decision-making.

From a link on the page that ConMan so helpfully provided:

  Penalties are carried out in the event of rule violations which may cause hindrance to others and/or disruption of the event.
  Please note that the penalties listed on this page is not exhaustive, and the actual penalties enforced may vary depending on severity.

  The Official Tournament Rules & Regulations will be used as a guideline for Judges to determine the penalties to be issued, including its severity. Heavier penalties may be issued for Duelists caught repeating these violations.

  Duel/Match Fixing

  Deciding the winner of a match without dueling (e.g. Rock-Paper-Scissors)
  Penalty: Disqualification

  Bribery involving money, cards, or any other means
  Penalty: Total Disqualification

Hypnotizing your opponent would most likely be considered a type of match fixing, leading to a disqualification or a total disqualification.

Additionally, note the verbiage I bolded at the top.  Judges are given broad authority to exercise their own judgement in determining misconduct and applying penalties.  The fact that "there's no rule" against hypnotism would not prevent any competent judge from slapping the misbehaving player with a heavy punishment.

Now, if the judge has been hypnotized too...


How do you start playing? We totally don't understand how to start playing Shadows over Camelot. I only have three total players. We each have a die, 5 white cards, 1 loyalty card, and a coat of arms & have placed our respective miniture at the round table & have placed each a white card from our individual hands face up on the round table. All display fight 2 are numbered 2 and the other is number 1. What do we do now? We are all first-time players.

It's a cooperative game.  So, the first thing you need to do is decide, as a group, how to distribute the three white face-up cards among the group.  You could decide that all three go to one person, or you could decide any other division.

This decision is often made based on which characters are in play.  For example, if you're playing with Sir Galahad, you all might choose to put all special whites into the middle face-up and give them all to Sir Galahad (remember everyone starts with a Merlin, so everyone will have at least one special white), since Sir Galahad can play them for free on his turn.  Likewise Galahad might play a high fight card to give to Sir Kay, since Sir Kay is more likely to do combats (e.g. for the armor, which is a good first quest to attempt).

You likely wouldn't want to give Sir Gawain any cards, since his special power is to draw an extra one, so he can fill up his hand at Camelot faster (the 'heroic action' at the round table is to draw more white cards, and he gets an extra)

Since this is your first time playing, especially with only 3 players, the rules strongly encourage not playing with the loyalty cards/potential traitor.  I agree with this.

If King Arthur is in the game, he goes first, else the youngest player starts.

First you 'progress evil' by drawing a black card and doing what it says.  Let's say that it's a Picts card, so you place a Picts miniature on the Picts battlefield.  Now the player gets to do one thing.  This can be to move away from the round table to a quest (place the miniature in a/the small circle of that quest), draw two cards (this is the 'quests heric action'), or play a special white.

I'd recommend option two for the very first turn, as it's unlikely you have enough cards to sucessfully complete a quest.

The goal is to be able to 'finish' a quest, and not waste a lot of time moving around.  This means having two pairs of fight cards, a run of 1-5 fight cards, etc. to correspond to the quest (black knight or picts/saxons in those two cases).  Strategy-wise, I suggest the group gets someone with a 'full house' (two of one fight card and three of another) and then go to the Lancelot's Armor quest, as the armor's power makes the game much easier.

Feel free to ask clarifying questions (comments) if you need more help.


Where did the "can't build next to the robber" house rule come from? Several people I've met play Settlers of Catan with the house rule "you may not build anything that isn't a knight next to the robber". As far as I can see, it's not in the rule book.

To clarify: this means that you can't place a road, settlement or city next to the robber. When we play, city improvements and the merchant are unaffected. On the rare occasion we combine with seafarers, we say the robber prevents land building, and the pirate prevents ship building/movement.

I actually prefer this variant, but this question isn't about that. My question is:

Where did this rule come from? Was it in an earlier version of the rules, or was it used for some tournaments? I've met a number of unrelated players (in Australia/Germany) who have heard of this rule, so I wondered if it came from somewhere other than word of mouth.

I'll also accept "this isn't in any of the published rule books and isn't used for tournaments" if that is the case (I only have the latest rule book to hand, so I can't check).

In the seafarers expansion, you cannot move or build a ship to or from a hex containing the pirate. This could be where the house-rule applying to the robber too came from, by blocking land-based building rather than sea-based building.


Does the robot's 6-cost development counters count towards Galactic Federation? During solo-play, if the robot successfully places Galactic Federation, do each of the 6-cost counters earned by the robot also earn the additional 2 VPs from Galactic Federation?

This is from the Gathering Storm expansion to Race For The Galaxy.

No.

  Add the robot's VP chips and tableau VPs, scoring each 6-cost development card or counter as 6 or 9 VPs, depending on the selected game difficulty.

Galactic Federation, as well as any other such development card, will always count for 6 or 9 VPs.  Don't try to count based on the contents of the tableau.


How to score the play of this Cribbage round? Two players kept the same hands: 2 threes, 1 four, 1 five.
The play went as follows (count is in brackets, scoring was quickly beyond us)

Player 1 led with a 3             [=  3]
Player 2 followed with a three    [=  6]
Player 1 followed with a three    [=  9]
Player 2 followed with a three    [= 12]
Player 1 followed with a four     [= 16]
Player 2 followed with a four     [= 20]
Player 1 followed with a five     [= 25]
Player 2 followed with a five     [= 30]

How does one score this round? (Counting the crib and hands are irrelevant to this, just the play, please.)

3
3 scores 2 for the pair
3 scores 6 for the triple
3 scores 12 for the quadruple
4 scores nothing
4 scores 2
5 scores nothing
5 scores 2.
And then that last play also scores 1 for being the last card played to that series, since the opponent has no cards to play and must say "go" at that time.

None of the plays scores a run, as there are other (foreign) cards that interrupt the runs.
Bicycle rules:

it is important to keep track of the order in which cards are played to determine whether what looks like a sequence or a run has been interrupted by a "foreign card." Example: Cards are played in this order: 8, 7, 7, 6. The dealer pegs 2 for 15, and the opponent pegs 2 for pair, but the dealer cannot peg for run because of the extra seven (foreign card) that has been played.


Small World: Do Spirit Ghouls Score When Active Race Declines? So I already understand that when Spirit Ghouls are the already-in-decline race, they cannot make any conquests on the turn that the active race declines, but do they score victory points for the territories they already hold?

Yes,

From the Spirit description in the Rule Book.

  You may thus end up with two different races In
  Decline on the map at the same time and score for them both.


How do I play Z.O.D.? As someone with a 3d-printer and a love of board games I was really excited when I found Z.O.D. by Ill Gotten Games.

The pieces looks great, and I have always wanted to try miniature figure gaming. But how do I play it? I have looked everywhere and I cannot find any rules or anything else on how to play it.

I did have the suspicion that as suchiuomizu answers the pieces are meant to be used with some other established rules/game, so let me modify the question a little bit: How do I play with the pieces? What kind of ruleset or other game can I use them for? Where to start?

You don't.  The site you linked to explained they are meant to be used for other games.  There aren't any rules specifically for these pieces.

  We designed these 3d-printable files to be optimized for home printing and cover a wide (and expanding) variety of themes and genres. Whether you use them for RPG dungeon-delves, wargaming scenics, or anything else, these tiles print and assemble fast and easy and come off your build plate ready to paint!


When are players obligated to tell their opponent that the storm count is wrong? Nathan and Alice are playing a Modern tournament at Competitive REL. Alice is playing Storm, and keeping track of the storm count using a spindown. "Storm count" is shorthand for "the number of spells cast this turn".

Alice casts Pyretic Ritual and copies it with Pyromancer Ascension. She announces that the storm count has increased by two, and adjusts her spindown accordingly. This is incorrect. Spell copies created by Pyromancer Ascension do not contribute towards the storm count.

When is Nathan obligated to inform Alice that the storm count is wrong? Must he inform her immediately, or can he wait until she casts a spell with storm (e.g., Grapeshot) before explaining the storm count is actually less?

Nathan is not obligated to inform Alice that the storm count is wrong until Grapeshot's triggered ability resolves. In the section of the rules regarding player communication, there is no rule that says that players are at any time obligated to volunteer information spontaneously.

However, the rules also say "Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly" and "Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information." According to this forum post Rainbolt found, storm count is free information. So if Alice asks what the storm count is, Nathan must give the correct answer.

Once Grapeshot's triggered ability resolves, the two players must agree on what spells are on the stack, which means that Nathan must then inform Alice of the actual number of copies of Grapeshot created. That is because, if Alice put the wrong number of copies on the stack, that would be a Game Play Error, which means that if Nathan lets her do it, that would be a Failure to Maintain Game State.


Can a Bristling Hydra activate Hexproof when an instant is cast? I summoned the Bristling Hydra and it was killed instantly before I declared I was making it Hexproof. Could I have prevented it's death if I had said it was Hexproof before the other player cast his spell?

The additional reason for asking this is due to the energy production of the card and the energy requirement for playing the ability.

When bristling hydra resolves it provides 3 energy and the ability requires 3 energy therefore this question has some additional implications about how the spell could potentially resolve i.e. does the energy resolve in time for the player to use the ability or do you need an additional source of energy

Bristling Hydra is a bit tricky, because it has a triggered ability for when it enters the battlefield, that gives you energy. Making it hexproof also costs energy. If you had no energy before summoning it, your opponent could kill it in response to the "Enters the battlefield" trigger, and you wouldn't have the energy to activate its ability and make it hexproof in response.

However, if you had gotten energy from a different source earlier, you could activate its ability to make it hexproof in response.

(Also, if your opponent waited for the ETB trigger to resolve and give you energy, THEN cast a spell to kill it, you'd be able to pay energy to make it hexproof in response, although it seems unlikely that they would do that, seeing as it's a pretty bad play).


What does a Breakthrough gun do? I'm a little confused as to the rules for a Breakthrough gun in Flames of War.  Unlike the bunker buster it doesn't have a dedicated section in the rule book that I can find.  It is mentioned as not allowing infantry saves like a bunker buster, but the rule book doesn't state if it follows the other rules for a bunker buster.

The Breakthrough Gun rules are not covered in the Flames of War 2nd Editon or earlier rule books. This is supported by the comments in the FoW 3rd Edition Q&A:

When will you be updating Arsenals to reflect the new rules like Breakthrough Gun and mortars being able to shoot as well as bombard?
A new publication, Know Your Enemy, will be released soon. It includes a complete Late-war arsenal to update all Late-war books. We will be updating Mid-war and Early-war books to match over time. Meanwhile, you can use the Late-war updates to guide you on which weapons are rated as Breakthrough guns and the direct-fire capabilities of mortars.

There is a small blurb on the Battlefront Minature's Flames of War website.

Breakthrough Gun
Some weapons are just so powerful that there is no chance of surviving a hit from them. These heavy guns are often mounted in tanks and self-propelled guns designed to break through enemy defensive lines.
Infantry teams, Gun teams, and Unarmoured vehicles automatically fail their Saves when hit by a Breakthrough Gun or a Bunker Buster. This does not apply to Artillery Bombardments.

An example of a unit with the ability is listed just above this on the same page:

The 12.8cm K81 Gun in Flames Of War

    Weapon              Mobility Range     ROF Anti-tank Firepower Notes
    12.8cm K81 gun      Immobile 48"/120cm   1        17        2+ Breakthrough gun.
    Firing bombardments          104"/260cm  -         4        3+

The Hammer and Sickle supplement also mentions the Breakthrough Gun rule. It also fails to mention any additional information about the rule, which leads me to believe that there isn't much more to the rule (although it isn't definitive proof without access to a 3rd Edition rule book, or the Know Your Enemy publication.

The Heavy Breakthrough Gun rule also returns and applies to the IS-2 and ISU-122. Infantry, Gun tams and Unarmoured vehicles are vulnerable to these massive rounds and automatically fail their save if hit by one.


Different between Capsa, Big two and Daifugō Is there any rule difference between Capsa (Indonesia), Big two (USA) and Daifugō (Japan)?
Can someone explain it to me?

According to Wikipedia, Cap Sa and Big Two are the same game while Daifugo has slightly different rules. I could scrutinize those pages and try to summarize the differences here, but I think there's no point: based on this list and my experience, there are so many variations of these games that you will likely never find two people who play by the same rules anyway. So while it helps to have a general idea of how this class of "shedding" games works, if you're playing with someone new you'll have to review all your rules or learn all theirs regardless of which game you are nominally playing.


How does Zap work in "Chameleon the game"? When reading through the rules to "Chameleon the game" there is an action called zap which sends the opposing players piece to the start. I read the rules but cannot quite work out the mechanics of the steps.

The rules indicate the dice are used for Zapping but do not clearly indicate how.

Front of the box

Back of the box

Board and pieces

Rulebook

It seems that this version of Chameleon the Game is an English reprint of a French game called Le Chameleon.
Unfortunately the Australian company that printed this game, and the original French company both seem to have gone defunct.

Luckily we have part of the French rules, and a semi-established terminology for "Zapped";
Zapping is the act of moving by exact roll onto a space occupied by an opposing piece, and thereby removing them from the game-board, and placing them into their original starting position.

What's still unclear though, is if you are able to "Zap" a piece using the optional move distance allowed when rolling a 6 (or Chameleon).


Remove card from game go in trash in Dead of winter? By removing a card from your hand from the game. Does the card go in the trash pile or do we remove it from the game?

No, every card that you would put in the waste pule says for it to be placed in the waste pile.

A good example of this is resolving a crisis as you don't add those cards to the waste pile when you are done. Here is the online rules

  Resolve Crisis: Shuffle the cards that were added face-down
  to the crisis during the player turns phase. Reveal them
  one at a time. Each item card added that has a symbol
  matching a symbol in the prevent section of the crisis
  is worth 1 point. Each card that doesn’t have a symbol
  matching a symbol in the prevent section of the crisis
  subtracts 1 point. After revealing all of the cards, if
  the combined point total is lower than the number
  of players then immediately resolve the crisis. If the
  point total equals or exceeds the number of players
  the crisis is prevented. Additionally, if the point total
  exceeds the number of players by 2 or more the colony
  gains 1 morale. After resolving the crisis, remove all
  cards added to the crisis from the game. See Example:
  Resolving a Crisis to lef


Can I block with Myth Realized if I attacked with it on my turn? Myth Realized lets you pay {W} to turn it into a creature until end of turn. My question is...  if I turn it into a creature on my turn and attack, can I also block with it on my opponents turn?

No.  As a creature, it still taps to attack, so barring some other action, it will remain tapped (turning it back into a creature will not untap it) and can't block on your opponents turn.


How do you determine which Dominion sets to play with? I'm well aware of the randomizers available for Dominion, but how do you determine which sets to include in a randomizer?

For example, I own Base, Intrigue, Seaside, Prosperity & Dark Ages. Lately, I've been using a randomizer between all the sets but I feel like I'm losing out on the built in interactions. How do you do it? Do you choose a handful of sets? If so, how do you determine which ones and how many?

Thanks

There is no general way to pick the sets besides picking ones that you like.

I generally restrict myself to 2-4 sets of cards because I like to play with at least 2-3 cards from each set I am playing with (this is especially true if playing with alchemy).

In my opinion, the only 2 sets that I have found to clash, and its not even that bad when they do, are dark ages and hinterlands.

You might also consider reading this question: Does mixing Dominion expansions lessen the power of card combinations in random kingdom setups?


Why does an open pinfu get 2 extra fu added to the score? In riichi mahjong, a concealed pinfu hand is worth 20-fu if it goes out on a tsumo.  However, a hand with no points that has been opened gets a 2-fu bonus for no reason other than being an open pinfu.  Even if the hand has another yaku to go out on (since yaku is only given for pinfu if it remains concealed), the final score is calculated with a minimum of 30-fu (due to rounding) when going out on a tsumo.

One effect of this is that it is impossible to make a 20-fu 1-han hand, since any hand that goes out with 20-fu would be guaranteed two yaku: one from menzen tsumo (1-han) and one from pinfu (1-han).

Other than that, I can't see any reason why open pinfu should be getting those two extra fu.  Is there any actual reason for it, or is it "just one of those things" that's lost to the history of this game?

I wonder is it related in any way by the fact that it is the lowest possible score?

  THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE SCORE Many charts won’t have a value for 20 Fu, 1 Han. That’s because you just can’t make a hand that cheap.

  What happens if you make an open Tanyao using Shuntsu only, a Ryanmen wait, and win by Ron? Should be worth 20 Fu, 1 Han right?

  Actually, such a hand is called “kui-pinfu” or open pinfu, and will be scored as 30 Fu, 1 Han. Since a kui-pinfu is the only way to get 20 Fu, 1 Han, we can thus say the lowest possible score for a hand is 1000 points.

  Unrelated to kui-pinfu is the 30 Fu, 1 Han hand won by Tsumo. Such a hand is called “gomi”, because of the payments (500, 300 = 5, 3 = go, mi), and because “gomi” means “trash”.

Wikipedia has this to say, since a no-points hand must be self drawn, add 1-han yaku of self pick to the hand.

  The reason why there are no scores in the 1 han/20 fu cell is that such a hand is impossible. The only 20-fu hands are the no-points hand (pinfu, 平和) where the winning tile is self-drawn.However, since a no-points hand must be closed, making the win via a self-drawn tile automatically adds 1-han yaku of self pick to the hand. Therefore, a 20-fu, 1-han hand cannot possibly exist.