Is an ability that can only be activated once per turn still considred activated if it gets countered? Stifle counters activated abilities. Quirion Ranger has an activated ability that can only be activated once each turn. Does the ability count as being activated for the turn if it was stifled?

Yes, the ability was still activated even if it gets countered.

Activating the ability is merely the process of paying its costs and putting it onto the stack, completely independent of what happens after that:

  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. ...

All that has to be done before anyone gets priority and is able to Stifle it. Countering it merely causes the ability to be removed from the stack without any of its effects occurring; it doesn't rewind the game and undo it being activated in the first place.

  701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard.

Similarly, once you cast a spell, it's been cast, even if it subsequently gets countered.


Mutate and Commander status So, the new mutate abilty reads :

  As a mutating creature spell resolves, instead of entering the battlefield, it merges with its target into one creature. Its controller chooses to put the resolving mutating creature spell on top of its target or underneath it. You'll end up with a pile of cards that all represents a single creature. That creature will have all the characteristics of the top card, and it will also have the abilities of every card underneath.

If my commander is on the top of the pile I'm pretty sure the pile will be my commander (and will be able to deal commander damages) but that happen if it's not on the top?

The closest think I can think of is meld, but I'm not sure it applied to mutate.

  903.3bIf a player’s commander is a meld card and it’s melded with the other member of its meld pair, the resulting melded permanent is that player’s commander.

Eli Shiffrin's response to this question in a Reddit AMA:

  If any card in the merged permanent is your commander, the whole thing is your commander.

(Eli Shiffrin is the MTG Rules Manager)

Link to the answer


How do I deal with 'take backsies', particularly in Twilight Imperium? I was playing twilight-imperium with an opponent who would often 'take back' or 'adjust' moves.

In general I'm OK with this if:

The player is new to the game
It is a minor tweak on a part of the board that doesn't effect me directly (e.g. changing your mind on what planets to exhaust to pay for units)

The problem is that this player doesn't satisfy either of my criteria, because:

The player actually owns the copy of twilight-imperium that we're playing
The 'take backs' involve changing how many units to commit to battle after that combat has been resolved

During the game I expressed my displeasure, which was heard by the table. It's the only time I've seen a player be eliminated from the game. Obviously the player didn't like this, so 2 of the 6 players didn't have a great time.

So, my question is how can I encourage a 'no take backsies' policy in the game?

You need, however annoying it may seem, to formalize a policy that deals not only with minor 'take back' adjustments, but with mistakes that were not noticed at the time. Before the next game, ask the group for a rule on which everyone can agree.

Some possibilities are:

No changes after the dice have been rolled (for any reason). This has the advantages that it is clear, and if you forgot to take an action before you rolled the dice, you have nobody to blame but yourself. It has the disadvantage that the sort of player you describe may well miscount the numbers in a combat (accidentally or otherwise), announce the wrong odds, and roll the dice before anyone has a chance to object; does the result stand?
To avoid this (and other results of haste), no changes after the next player has rolled the dice. Even this is vulnerable to cheats (see The Bum's Rush in Monopoly), but it gives a reasonable period for checking.
Any changes you like, any time during your turn. It sounds as if you would hate this; but if you put it forward as a possibility, saying "That's what we were playing last time", the player in question may realize that other people can do it to him, so perhaps it's not such a good idea.
Whatever other players suggest in your particular game, including extra leeway for new players. Since this is a house rule, there is no 'correct' solution; but apparently two of you were playing by different house rules, so the table needs to agree. I would strongly advise against "a reasonable time" since that will be open to interpretation, and both sides of the argument will think the other is trying to cheat. Even "Five minutes after the action" is unlikely to work except in one of those games with an eggtimer or chess clock running at all times.


How long does the copyright for a game last, after it is out of print? I was digging round trying to see if the copyright for Warhammer Fantasy Quest was still held by Games workshop who stopped producing the game 14 years ago. I don't know how long the copyright would last even if it was still held, in the UK.

Who owns the copyright for a boardgame that is out of print?

How long will copyright last for?

As previously pointed out, just because a copyright holder has stopped producing a game doesn't mean they stop owning it.  GW still own the rights (unless they have sold them; you could write and ask them if this is more than curiosity).  Games are usually covered by copyright in the rules, characters and concepts though there may be patents on mechanics; whichever feature you are specifically interested in, there will be a law stopping casual copying unless GW's lawyers were totally incompetent, which seems unlikely.


Energy Chamber and Armageddon Clock Can Energy Chamber be used with Armageddon Clock? I.e. are the counters on Armageddon Clock "charge counters"?

No, putting counters on Armageddon Clock with Energy Chamber will not allow you to deal damage with Armageddon Clock.

Energy Chamber's ability places "Charge Counters" onto Artifacts, whereas Armageddon Clock's ability instructs you to deal damage equal to the number of "Doom Counters" on it. While you can combine counters with the same name, counters of different names are not interchangeable.

  121.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. Counters are not objects and have no characteristics. Notably, a counter is not a token, and a token is not a counter. Counters with the same name or description are interchangeable.


What is the effect of the "1 for last card" score on tactics in cribbage? In most sets of rules for Cribbage [1], you score a point for playing the last card.

My first impression is this tends to nullify the "point for go" - if you manage to win "1 for go", probably the other player then has an extra card than you and is going to get "1 for last card". Of course if you get "2 for 31" you come out ahead.

Then I wondered if the point of forcing go is perhaps you get to play at least two cards in succession (e.g. you have a pair of twos, 2H and 2D; you arrange it so you plays 2H for "28"; opponent is blocked so "go"; now you can play 2D for a pair).  But the the opponent would have the same advantage at the end when they get last card (admittedly they will have played some cards before you forced go so have less chance of this opportunity.)

So, I have got as far as "if you don't have the '1 for last card' rule, it is worth winning 1 for go, and 2 for 31 is even better; if you have the rule, it's just more difficult to score over the opponent.

But I imagine there is more to it? So my question is What is the effect of the "1 for last card" score on tactics in cribbage?

[1] Closely related question - to my limited research it seems '1 for last card' is less common in British books than American books or websites.  Is it a regional variation, or more a 'house rules' thing?  Or are rule sets missing this rule just wrong?

I believe you are misreading the rules. As this set points out, the one for last card is just an alias for the minimum go guaranteed to Dealer for playing second.

Update:
Tactically, the guaranteed go for Dealer really only affects end-play as both players approach 121 points. at other times in the game, worrying about a single point is just not important enough.

For example: Consider a situation where Dealer is at 106 and Non-Dealer at 112 with 7 points in hand. Non-Dealer would like to peg at least two points to guarantee the win with first count, but must be wary of sequences that allow Dealer to peg a 2+12, followed by the guaranteed go. Non-Dealer should not lead with a low pair hoping for a triple, as the 6 is insufficient compared to Dealer's possible 2+12. Better to try to get a 15 and give up a possible 6 to Dealer, as that is enough with first count.


Where can I get my Magic the Gathering play critiqued? I started playing Magic again last year right after the release of Dark Ascension after a long hiatus. I decided to get more serious in trying to win, but I've hit a roadblock in my play. I go x-1 in my FNM booster drafts regularly, but also regularly lose to the top players at my store.

I also play the Swiss draft queues  on MTGO, but while I do win the tournaments there sometimes, many times I feel that I am not drafting the right archetype, missing signals, or not really playing well. This also applies to my deck building and play for Constructed as well (mostly Standard).

Is there a place where I can get my deck building choices and technical game play critiqued so that I can get better?

Interesting question. I would generally say that there's not much point having your play critiqued in general - you want to be critiqued by people who are better than you.  But the real pros are generally too busy winning drafts to offer commentaries on other people's (they'd be in serious demand if they weren't).

I therefore have an alternative suggestion: forget about other people discussing your play, just go to a good pro draft videos site like channelfireball.com and try to understand the choices they make (and discuss them with others in the comment section if you don't understand them).

That alone is a bit of a non-answer to your question, I guess.  If you really want to create transcripts of your drafts and offer them up for others to analyse, I'd recommend the MTGSalvation Limited forum.  Not that you can guarantee that people will be interested in going through your picks with a fine-toothed comb and debating them, but you stand a better chance there than in most places, I'd have thought...


What is the "En passant" rule in chess? How useful is that rule and how many times we can use that in one game?

Under what conditions can the en passant rule be used?

How often does it come up and is it a good idea to use it?

En Passant is when an opponent's pawn is two ranks away from your pawn row (either 4th or 5th rank depending on color), and you move your pawn two spaces forward with one move, so that is is next to his pawn.  You are allowed to make your first move with a pawn two spaces, but the En Passant capture allows your opponent to capture you just as if you had moved one space.  Note, that this capture is only allowed as the very next move.  This prevents you from being able to sneak pawns by your opponent's pawns.

It's not only useful, but chess would be a completely different game without it, since everyone would have to be very concerned about moving a pawn to the 4th or 5th rank, knowing that a pawn could get past them.  The main way you could change it so that the game wouldn't change radically is to disallow 2-space moves by pawns, but that is still a substantial change from the way's it been*, and would eliminate the majority of standard openings. A less tumultuous change would be to simply prohibit double movement in the cases where an en passant capture would be possible. This would have almost the same exact effect as the en passant rule, since it happens more often that the threat of an en passant capture is enough to make an opponent not move two spaces, and actual uses of the move are rare.

* unless you go back to the 15th century, when the ability to move pawns two spaces was added to the game.


How many monsters should be drawn in a 5 player game during an encounter? When playing with 5 or more players, you should draw 2 monsters when opening a gate during the Mythos phase. Should you also draw 2 monsters when an encounter says that "a gate and a monster appear"?

No. The draw 2 rule for 5+ players only affects the number of monsters placed on newly opened gates in the Mythos Phase.

It does not affect the number of monsters drawn at any other time in the game.

The actual rule from the Arkham Horror rulebook (page 10) states:

  Exception: If there are five or more investigators playing, then draw and place two monsters instead of one.

Note that while the rule itself is worded vaguely enough that it could be misread as affecting other cases where you draw monsters, the placement of the rule within the rulebook is specific - this exception is only ever stated within the section that explains the Mythos phase, and is never repeated elsewhere.

The entry in the Arkham Horrom FAQ (page 2) is even more specific about this:

  When opening a gate in a location where there is no elder
  sign or gate, if there are five or more investigators playing,
  then draw and place two monsters instead of one.

This passage refers to the page where the Mythos phase is explained, thus it is only ever applied to drawing monsters when placing Gate markers during this phase.


In the card game "War", what happens when a player plays their final card in a War? For the card game War, what happens when a player plays their last card as part of the war?

When their last card is the first card of the war (face up), before the three face down cards are dealt
When their last card is one of the three face down cards

It depends.

The linked Wikipedia article has this to say:

  Most descriptions of War are unclear about what happens if a player
  runs out of cards during a war. In some variants, that player
  immediately loses. In others, the player may play the last card in
  their deck as their face-up card for the remainder of the war.


Secret Hitler: is asking another player to choose which card to discard "cheating?" To signal one's allegiance to the Liberals as President, one could say to another player, "all my cards are Fascist and it matters not which one I discard! Tell me which card of the 3 to discard!"

Similarly, the Chancellor could hold out two cards to another play and say, "all my cards are Fascist; choose one to discard" and also pass the choice onto another player, again signaling trustworthiness.

Is this kind of move allowed (or should it be allowed)? Is it in any way "cheating?"

Yes it is cheating and called out in the rules.

Rules

  Verbal and nonverbal communication between the
  President and Chancellor is forbidden. The
  President and Chancellor MAY NOT pick Policies
  to play at random, shuffle the tiles before
  discarding one, or do anything else clever to
  avoid secretly and intentionally selecting a
  Policy. Additionally, the President should hand
  both Policies over at the same time, rather
  than one at a time to gauge the Chancellor’s
  reaction. Attempting to telegraph the contents
  of your hand using randomness or any other
  unusual selection procedure violates the spirit
  of the game. Don’t do it.

Additionally

  Discarded Policy tiles should never be revealed
  to the group. Players must rely on the word of
  the President and Chancellor, who are free to
  lie.

Simply put once the election is over the President and Chancellor should stop all communication and move to quickly enact a new policy by following the rules and this should be done in a timely manner as to not give any hidden meanings from the actions.

President draws 3 policies
President discards one and hands the other two over at the same time to the Chancellor
Chancellor discards one of the policies and then enacts the other one.
At this point and only this point can the President and or Chancellor make claims about what policies they had to chose from

As a side note one very important thing to remember is that no matter what side someone is on they are going to make a claim about having no choice if a fascist policy is enacted. Also a claim can easily be made that the Chancellor was given a choice when a fascist policy was enacted and it was just a fascist President trying to make a liberal Chancellor look bad. The key point here is that the claims of what cards each player had to chose from need to be taken with a large grain of salt as you can easily lie about them.


Clarification about Caylus favours According to the rules book, the 3rd column of favours is available after the scoring of the dungeon. My question is, when scoring the dungeon, is it still considered as before the scoring? In other words I can't move my marker up to the 3rd row to collect 3 points or build a stone building, with the favours I've earned right after scoring the dungeon, correct?

Right: you can't move my marker up to the 3rd row to collect 3 points or build a stone building, with the favors I've earned right after scoring the dungeon. See the example on the last page of the rules:

Orange has just gained a favor during the Dungeon scoring. He chooses the first line (prestige points), on which he already advanced in a previous phase. However,
since the Dungeon is being scored, Orange can’t advance his marker. He leaves it on its space and gains 2 prestige points.


Zombicide Black Plague Spawning Question If the setup requires you to have certain zombies in locked rooms from the start, when you open the door to that room do you still draw a card to add even more zombies to that room on top of what setup told you to put in it? (Example being the tutorial quest 0 where it has a fatty in a locked room alone, when you open the door to him do you spawn more?)

Yes, because the spawned zombies represent the unknown ones being revealed, e.g. the ones hiding under the bed!

  Opening a closed building for the first time reveals all the
  Zombies inside all rooms of the building

Source: Page 20 of the rulebook. Emphasis is mine.


Help identify card game with teams and secret signals? Years ago I played a card game with a Swedish friend with a standard deck of cards and two spoons on the centre of the table. There were teams of two, with the team members sitting opposite each other.

I can't remember what had to happen for you to be 'out', I think it was that you had to get a pair, but then you had to make a predetermined, secret signal, say pulling on your ear lobe, to your team mate. When it came around to your go again you both grab a spoon from the centre of the table each, but if a member of the other team guessed you had made a signal they can intercept it and win the game.

Any idea of the name of the game? I would love to remember the rules properly?

Sounds like a variation on what the internet tells me is called Kemps. (Edit: The specific variation being Spoons related but while Spoons has similar bluffing aspects it lacks the team aspects in common with Kemps

There is a more modern board game (Wink) that has a similar mechanic of getting your partner to announce you have the victory via secret signals I'll see if I can find it.


What happens when both players run out of cards with Gideon of the Trials and an emblem in play? Gideon of the Trials is a planeswalker card from Amonkhet with the following abilities:

  +1: Until your next turn, prevent all damage target permanent would deal.

  0: Until end of turn, Gideon of the Trials becomes a 4/4 Human Soldier
  creature with indestructible that’s still a planeswalker. Prevent all
  damage that would be dealt to him this turn.

  0: You get an emblem with “As long as you control a Gideon
  planeswalker, you can’t lose the game and your opponents can’t win the
  game.

My understanding of "can't lose" effects like the third above ability is that they prevent any loss except for a voluntary concession (since the player who concedes simply leaves the game with all cards they own). So, a player who has this Gideon on the battlefield and an emblem would ignore the rule that you lose if an effect would make you draw a card from your library, but your library has no cards in it. (This method of losing is known as "decking.")

Normally board stalls and the like are decided when one or the other player loses by decking but in a two-player game where both players control a Gideon of the Trials and have used his emblem ability, neither player can win and neither player can lose. In addition, each player can use their Gideon's +1 ability to ensure their opponent's Gideon can't kill their own.

What rule applies in the situation where both players run out of cards in their library and can't (or don't) remove their opponent's Gideon?

As a follow-up, are cards in hand relevant? Either player could hold onto cards to bluff having an answer. Maybe one or both players holds an instant-speed answer but wants to play it in response for the best chance of winning (if both have Anguished Unmaking, both want to respond).

The board state isn't necessarily an exact loop because both players can be plussing their Gideons before passing the turn.

There are no specific rules to handle this kind of situation. If both players can't lose the game, play just continues as normal until one player can lose and does, or somebody concedes. The tournament rules do allow for player to agree to declare the game a draw, and doing so may be an attractive option in the situation you describe.

In addition, in a tournament, if a game does not end, eventually the tournament organizers will announce that time for the round has ended, and that games can proceed for a total of five more turns. If the game has still not ended at the end of those turns, it will be declared a draw.

If a player resolves an Anguished Unmaking targeting their opponent's Gideon, then the next time that opponent would lose the game, they actually lose the game.


Immortal Coil & State Based Actions I don't think I understand State Based Actions (SBA) and how they work with Immortal Coil.

I understand that at ANY time I have Immortal Coil on the battlefield with no graveyard, I lose.  I understand that I cannot "cast a spell" and have it resolve in time to be put in the graveyard.

However, I saw this question about Sacred Mesa and responding to the trigger by tapping mana, which made me think about Immortal Coil and how I can respond to it.

If I have a Bazaar Trader in play, and play Immortal Coil with no graveyard, can I respond to the triggering of the SBA and tap Bazaar Trader to give it to my opponent?  Or do I lose before I can respond to it, because I have no graveyard?

That is not a State Based Action; it is a State Triggered Ability, so it goes on the stack, and you have a chance to respond before it resolves. However, the ability will still be there after you respond, so you still lose the game. Rule 603.1 defines triggered abilities:

  Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and begin with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” They can also be expressed as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect].”

The ability on Immortal Coil says

  When there are no cards in your graveyard, you lose the game.

so it matches that description.

Rule 603.8 describes state triggered ablities:

  Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They’ll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren’t the same as state-based actions.) A state-triggered ability doesn’t trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.

Once the Immortal Coil is on the battlefield, as soon as your graveyard is empty, the ability will trigger. At that point, giving it away with Bazaar Trader won't help, because the ability will still be on the stack, and you will still lose when it resolves.


Can I sacrifice an enchantment when it is going to be destroyed? My opponent had an Elvish Lyrist and activated its sacrifice to destroy my Seal of Fire. I sacrificed Seal of Fire after that. Would my Seal still do its 2 points of damage?

Yes you can sacrifice the Seal of Fire to do 2 points of damage.

When the Lyrist activates its ability, that ability doesn't happen right away, it's put on the stack. While on the stack, you have the chance to respond, and so you activate Seal of Fire, doing 2 damage.

Then Lyrist's ability tries to resolve, but since the enchantment isn't around anymore, it fizzles, but the costs stay paid (mana and sacrifice).


Does Coat of Arms work on various Artifact Creatures? So I decided that it would be fun to start an artifact deck, and was wondering if I could use Coat of Arms to give +1/+1 to an Artifact Vehicle and an Artifact Creature Construct if they were the only artifacts/creatures on the battlefield?

Artifact isn't a creature type, and Vehicle is an artifact type not a creature type, so Coat of Arms has no effect on a Vehicle and Construct. You'd need multiple Constructs.

You can find the full list of creature types in the rules (205.3m, reproduced here), but a creature's creature types are always printed after "Creature" on the type line, never before, and will never include things like Artifact, Enchantment, or Land - those are types, not creature types. (And outside of some corner cases, everything after "Creature" on the type line is a creature type, assuming you're looking at the Oracle text in Gatherer or a sufficiently recent printing.)

(Technically creature types are subtypes, but for convenience they're referred to as creature types.)


Do I lose two levels just for choosing to fight King Tut? I am really new to Munchkin and I had a question about a card.

The King Tut card says "Will not pursue anyone of Level 3 or below. Higher-Leveled characters lose 2 levels, even if they escape."

Does this mean that as soon as combat starts with King Tut the player loses 2 levels?  What if someone joins in the fight, do they lose 2 levels as well?  And what if someone plays a card that cancels the combat (for example switches the monster)?

No, the loss of 2 levels is part of the bad stuff that happens when you normally fail to escape, or since the card specifically states it, "even if they escape." From the World if Munchkin FAQ,

Q. King Tut and the Wight Brothers say "Characters of higher Levels [than 3] lose 2 levels, even if they escape." Does that mean you lose two levels even if you defeat those monsters?
A. No. But if you cannot defeat them, then you must try to run away, and you'll lose the 2 levels even if you do escape. If they catch you, of course, you do suffer the Bad Stuff from those Monsters. (But you don't lose the two levels twice!)


King of Tokyo: Dice resolution -> Yield -> Card buying? when exactly must a player choose to yield Tokyo? Today we had a game and the player in Tokyo took 1 attack and decided to stay in Tokyo. The player whose turn it was, then bought a card that dealt two damage to all other players. The player in Tokyo now decided to yield Tokyo.

I feel like the player must make this decision based on the dice resolution's results and not be able to change their mind after a card if purchased.

The rules are awfully unclear on this but do specify that a player can not decide to yield tokyo based on taking damage from a card.

This is what the rules have to say:

  If you are attacked while in Tokyo
  and you don’t want to be there
  anymore (and who can blame you
  – it can be rough!) you can yield
  to the Monster that attacked (he
  has to take your place). You still
  take the damage, however.

And close by:

  Warning: A Discard card that
  deals damage to you is not
  an attack

Does he think he can leave at any point in the turn after he is attacked?

The rule says "if you are attacked", not "if you were attacked". Everyone with whom I've played has understood the first paragraph I quoted to mean one can only choose to cede Tokyo as one is attacked. There is no chance to leave Tokyo at any point until the monster in Tokyo is attacked again.

Does he think taking damage from a card is an attack?

The second paragraph I quoted makes it clear it isn't.


Stinkweed Imp + Rancor and a flying 3/3 blocker Does Stinkweed Imp with Rancor get the extra trample damage if a 3/3 flyer blocks? Is Stinkweed's text is the same as an actual deathtouch?

No.

If a creature has been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked, that creature is destroyed. The damage itself leads to the destruction.

But that's not the case for Stinkweed Imp. Its damage does not leads to the destruction, a triggered ability eventually does. It must assign damage normally, so it must assign all three of its damage to the flyer.

Here's the key difference: One can respond to Stinkweed's Imp's ability. It can even be countered.


How many mono-red damage doubling effects are there? So I'm making a commander meme deck based around Kumano, Master Yamabushi. I was wondering how many damage doubling effects are there in mono-red. The current ones I can think of are: Furnace of Rath, Dictate of the Twin Gods, Angarath's Marauders, and Gratuitous Violence. The goal of the deck is, along with Heartstone, be able to one shot people for just a red with Kumano. I would welcome any other suggestions for ways to increase Kumano's damage output or decrease the cost.

10 that apply to your commander. (11 if you're willing to do hijinx with Goldnight Castigator.)

Magic: the Gathering has highly standardised ways to word its effects, so when you see an effect you like and want to find more of it, you should search for the words you find in the effect that look like they're fairly unique to that effect. (Recognising which words those are can take some experience.)

You can search in either Gatherer (the official search engine), or a third party search engine like Scryfall or MagicCards.info. I find these second two are far easier to compose searches in. I'm going to be referencing Scryfall below since it's my personal favorite.

If you search only for o:"double that damage" (within a color identity of red, and within the Commander format) you'll find 17 damage doubling effects.

The following don't actually work for your commander:

Charging Tuskodon and Goblin Charbelcher only double their own damage.
Fire Servant won't interact with Kumano.
Blind Fury, Impulsive Maneuvers, and Inquisitor's Flail only interact with combat damage (which won't count Kumano's ability).

Goldnight Castigator doubles damage to you, but works if you you give it away with Harmless Offering or a similar spell.

We can eliminate the ones that definitely don't work from the search results by name for our perusal.

You may also be interested in damage increasers, of which Tok-Tok, Volcano Born and Embermaw Hellion apply. (You can & should apply these before any damage doublers.)


Bludgeon Brawl & Puresteel Paladin I have Puresteel Paladin and Bludgeon Brawl in play.  I play an Ichor Wellspring.  How many cards do I draw, one or two?

Puresteel Paladin says

  Whenever an Equipment enters the battlefield under your control, you may draw a card.

Bludgeon Brawl says

  Each noncreature, non-Equipment artifact is an Equipment with equip X and "Equipped creature gets +X/+0," where X is that artifact's converted mana cost.

and Ichor Wellspring says

  When Ichor Wellspring enters the battlefield or is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, draw a card.

At first I thought you would only draw one card. But I think the rules have been tweaked on this since I last did dastardly stuff like this…

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

Thus the Bludgeon Brawl enchantment only refers to noncreature, non-Equipment cards already on the battlefield. It's a continuous effect. Note it does not affect cards in your hand or spells on the stack. That's why I thought maybe you'd only draw one card.

But here's the relevant rules. Emphasis is mine.

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

603.6b is confirmed and reframed by 611.3c:

  611.3c Continuous effects that modify characteristics of permanents do so simultaneously with the permanent entering the battlefield. They don't wait until the permanent is on the battlefield and then change it. Because such effects apply as the permanent enters the battlefield, they are applied before determining whether the permanent will cause an ability to trigger when it enters the battlefield.
  Example: A permanent with the static ability "All white creatures get +1/+1" is on the battlefield. A creature spell that would normally create a 1/1 white creature instead creates a 2/2 white creature. The creature doesn't enter the battlefield as 1/1 and then change to 2/2.

Therefore, guess what Johnny? When Ichor Wellspring enters the battlefield, due to the continuous effect of the Bludgeon Brawl, it thinks that it has always been an Equipment and triggers Puresteel Paladin's ability! You get to draw two cards!


Where can I find the rules for 7 Wonders and its expansions? Are the rules for 7 Wonders and the expansions available online?

Yes, you can find them on the offical website of Repos Production (rprod.com):

7 Wonders base game

http://rprod.com/index.php?page=download-2 (there you can find the Quick Rules, too)

Czech (PDF)
Danish (PDF)
Dutch (PDF)
English (PDF)
Finnish (PDF)
French (PDF)
German (PDF)
Greek (PDF)
Hungarian (PDF)
Italian (PDF)
Japanese (PDF)
Korean (PDF)
Norwegian (PDF)
Polish (PDF)
Slovak (PDF)
Spanish (PDF)
Swedish (PDF)

Leaders expansion

http://rprod.com/index.php?page=download-3

English (PDF)
French (PDF)
German (PDF)

Cities expansion

http://rprod.com/index.php?page=download

Dutch (PDF)
English (PDF)
French (PDF)
German (PDF)
Japanese (PDF)
Spanish (PDF)

Wonder Pack extension

http://rprod.com/index.php?page=download-12

Dutch (PDF)
English (PDF)
French (PDF)
German (PDF)
Spanish (PDF)

Babel extension

http://rprod.com/index.php?page=download-18 (there you can find the Quick Rules, too)

Dutch (PDF)
English (PDF)
French (PDF)
German (PDF)
Italian (PDF)
Japanese (PDF)
Polish (PDF)
Spanish (PDF)

Official FAQ

English (PDF)
French (PDF)


When is it worth adding nonbasic land or artifacts to your deck over basic land? I'm having trouble choosing a basic land over something like Orzhov Guildgate or Gruul Cluestone. Why and when would you want one of these in your deck and would it replace a basic land or augment the deck?

There are a variety of reasons that your would choose dual lands or basics or mana rocks, it largely depends on the specific deck. In general all dual lands (other than the originals like Tropical Island have some sort of downside compared to basics, usually entering the battlefield tapped (though sometimes with a way of getting around that limitation). Mana rocks again depend on the deck, but generally unless you are running a ramp deck, or at least have a specific thing you are ramping to you generally will not run them.

For reasons to run basics, obviously if you are just running a single color you are going to want all or mostly basics. If you are running cards like Grim Lavamancer  that care about cards in your graveyard you might run fetches along side them, and you could always choose to run utility lands like Ghost Quarter, but the only time in a mono-colored deck you would want to run any dual lands is if you have cards in your sideboard that are off color and you don't want to have too many lands in the sideboard too.

Another reason to run basics over duals is if you are running an aggro deck and all or most of the dual lands in the format enter the battlefield tapped. Exactly how many lands that enter tapped you are willing to run depends on a combination of the color requirements of your deck and the speed of the format. For example with Theros-Khans standard you might decide that with a Red/White aggro deck the only land that enter tapped that you can run is Temple of Triumph and adding Wind-Scarred Crag would slow the deck down too much.

The final main reason that you would choose to run basics is if there are cards that care about basic lands (or basic land types assuming neither original duals nor shock lands are available). For example currently with Khans of Tarkir there are fetch lands that get a land with one of two different basic land types, since there are no lands with basic land types other than basic lands in the format at the moment you would need to run some number of basic lands for the fetches to find. Other things that might care about basic land types are cards like Sunblade Elf and cards with the Domain mechanic.

Now for reasons to run dual lands, the most obvious reason is that you are running multiple colors and you need to have all of your colors consistently. For example if you are running Titanic Ultimatum and want to consistently cast it on turn 7 or 8 you are going to need to run a lot of dual lands to make sure you have all of the colors you need, but if your turn 7 play is instead Devout Invocation since it is much easier to cast color wise with only a single {W} in the cost you can get away with fewer duals.

Another reason to use duals is because they have some other ability in addition to making mana that you want, for example in Theros-Khans Standard there are the lands that Scry 1 when they enter, and the lands that gain you 1 life when they enter, if either of these are abilities your deck needs you might choose to run more of them than you would basics.

For mana rocks you generally only want to run them if there is something specific that you want to ramp into, and you have a time frame that you want to ramp into it by. For example in Zendikar-Scars Standard there was a deck that wanted to ramp into Primeval Titan by turn 4, to do this they need to ramp twice by turn 3 to help make this more consistent they ran Sphere of the Suns as some artifact ramp. In general though unless you have something specific to ramp into though playing mana rocks is taking time and mana away from playing spells that will actually advance your game plan and help you win.

For the question of whether to run duals or mana rocks in addition to or in place of basic lands it again depends slightly. For lands in your average deck you probably want 22-24 (possibly more or less depending on the specific deck, but that is a good place to start). From that starting place you would replace basics with dual lands to a point, there are very few decks that want to run no basics, just because having all of your lands entering the battlefield tapped means you are essentially playing the game a full turn behind your opponent. For artifacts you generally want to run them in addition to the lands you are running, this is because you are probably running a ramp deck and you want to make sure you hit everyone of you land drops in addition to the ramp you are playing, and if you don't hit your land drops your ramp is actually just keeping you where you should be if you had played a land instead of getting you ahead.


Corner variation which is not in Josekipedia $$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a 0 4 8 . |
$$ . . . . . 1 5 6 . |
$$ . . . . . . 9 7 . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

My opponent played this sequence. I was sure that I could play a in the game, but it finished horribly. What should I play?

This question may look simple at first, but refuting the deviation is pretty difficult - there are no original sources on this to my knowledge.

Not answering the hane directly

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a 0 4 8 . |
$$ . . . . b 1 5 6 . |
$$ . . . . . . 9 7 . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

First off, let's try a different answer to white 6. Black could consider playing 7 at a or b, but I believe the result would be bad. It can be considered, though, if the board is right.

Hane at a could lead to a complicated fight, probably involving an exchange, but I could not tell if it is better for either player.

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 3 O O . . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . a . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

The idea of b is to either magari-turn at 3 if white connect on the right, switching to the top instead of the right side all of sudden. This would be very unusual after blocking at 5 initially, and locally white gets a superior result. I presume that (apart from extending on the top) black would like to add a stone at a later to enclose white and get a reasonable outside shape. Either way black is not thick.

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . a 2 O O . . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . 3 . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If white instead opts to push from behind on the third line once more (at a) before returning to play 7, it is better than joseki for black. If white attempts to resist by jumping to a, black will not hane at 3 next, but push through at 2 and cut, involving a ladder.

In conclusion of this section, while an option to consider, I would not regard a different answer to the hane a refutation at all.

Reverting to joseki

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 2 . O O O . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

After the deviation is played out, black could nobi at 1, with white jumping at 2. Seemingly, this is even because we returned to joseki.

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O O 1 . |
$$ . . . . a X X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

However, instead of the usual move at a, black might consider playing at 1 instead. This leads to a different joseki, with emphasis on territory on the right edge. Losing this option is a loss for black. This in effect means that white's early hane is superior to joseki, which is impossible by definition. Accordingly, returning to joseki is not sufficient as a refutation of the deviation.

$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . a O . . |
$$ . . . . . X X 1 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

As a side note, the hane is sometimes played by white in a similar shape precisely when white is afraid of a black hane there instead of the usual nobi at a. This is an (uncommon) joseki.

So sum this up, we still have not found a viable refutation.

Hane

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . b 1 O O O . |
$$ . . . . a X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Another option is to hane at 1. In this shape, white has the options of cutting at a or clamp at b. Hane underneath is impossible since black would be most glad to just nobi-extend.

$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 4 2 . . . . |
$$ . . . 1 X O O O . |
$$ . . . . 3 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O a . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

After the clamp, descending at 2 is very dangerous. The sequence to 4 is the basic pattern likely to follow, but the fight is easier for white since black has no good response to a.

$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . X O O O . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If white cuts, a fight involving a ladder will follow, possible leading to an exchange, as explained in a different answer. This can get pretty messy if both sides keep playing the strongest moves.

Leaping ahead

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . a 2 . . . . . |
$$ . . c 1 b O O O . |
$$ . . . . . X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Black is not forced to hane, he can consider a keima, too. Usually, white would attach at 2, leaving black with the options of a, b, c or tenuki. Since white was lowered to the second line, I consider this a superior for black.

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . c . . . . . |
$$ . . . 1 2 O O O . |
$$ . . . b a X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

In case white plays 2 instead, bumping against the black single stone, black should consider either covering at a or the strong nobi at b.

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . b . . . . . |
$$ . . a X O O O O . |
$$ . . . c 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

In case black covers at 1, it is difficult to clamp at a, because white lacks an as effective attack on the 5 (instead of 4) black stones.

Crawling on the second line at b once or maybe twice is an option, in both cases probably leading to white gaining sente. Locally, the result is very bad compared to joseki, but white finished in sente twice, which is very valuable, too.

There is also the option to cut at c. This fight should be acceptable for both.

$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ . . 3 2 . . . . . |
$$ . 5 . X O O O O . |
$$ . . . 1 6 X X O . |
$$ . . . 8 7 . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

In case black plays strongly, white will aim to exploit the increased cut aji, likely starting with the hane at 2. This way, white gets life while getting enclosed by a thin black group.

However, black can consider different moves (e.g. 5 at 6, or even 3 at 6).

$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X a O O O . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

As per the comments, there is a very strong variation with white cutting immediately. If black cuts at a, it will return to the situation that requires a black ladder.

$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X 3 O O O . |
$$ . . . 4 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . 5 2 . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Without said ladder, black will have to hane from the outside at 2. The sequence to 5 will follow, leading to a fight. Black's shape seems relatively poor so this should be carefully examined before playing the keima.

Conclusion

If black specifically wants to avoid a fight, he can always chose to play the simple nobi (6 in the previous diagram) to revert to the usual joseki.

On the other hand, despite the vast number of possibilities that arise from the keima, I believe this to be the best option in case black wants to resist and does not mind a fight.

So we could say that black has gained far more options than he lost by white's deviation, thus refuting white's move.

However, likely the early hane is a only tiny mistake.


How do you tell the difference between Alpha and Beta Star Trek CCG? The 1994 Decipher Star Trek CCG Premier/1st Edition cards were released in black border limited and in white border which I've only recently found described as both alpha and beta releases.

I'm processing a huge lot of these cards, is there any way to distinguish between the alpha edition and the beta edition?

I know it's a trivial value issue, but I strongly prefer to put the right collections together.

The white bordered alpha edition was produced in 1994 and bears 1994 on the copyright line.

The white bordered beta edition was produced in 1995 and bears 1995 on the copyright line.

The sets are otherwise indistinguishable.  Additionally there is a silver bordered collector's edition that was distributed in a metal container.

The cards with changes between Alpha and Beta are:

ARMUS - SKIN OF EVIL — changed lore from "Malevolent being formed when the inhabitants of Vagra II rid themselves of all the evil they have inside." to "A malevolent being was formed when the inhabitants of Vagra II rid themselves of all the evil they had inside."

DISTORTION FIELD — changed "prevents any beam down here" to "...prevents beam down/up here..."

EMERGENCY TRANSPORTER ARMBANDS — changed "Beam Personnel up or down at any time, even during a battle before the winner is determined." to "Beam your Personnel up or down at any time, except during a dilemma (unless specifically permitted). May be used during battle before the winner is determined."

EVACUATION — changed "Strength" to "STRENGTH"

FIRESTORM — changed "... unless thermal deflectors present. Discard dilemma." to "...unless thermal deflectors present OR Away Team escapes using emergency transporter armbands. Discard dilemma."

GIUSTI — corrected misspelling of "consol" to "console"

**INVESTIGATE TIME CONTINUUM — corrected misspelling of "Dividia" to "Devidia"

KHITOMER RESEARCH — changed from Romulan to Romulan and Klingon mission

LWAXANNA TROI — corrected misspelling of "Lwaxanna" to "Lwaxana"

MENDON — corrected misspelling of "specialist" to "specialists"

'T'PAN — added MINDMELD skill

THE JUGGLER — corrected misspelling of "Lwaxanna" to "Lwaxana"

TORAL — changed "...bidding of half sisters, Lursa and B'Etor." to "...bidding of Duras's sisters, Lursa and B'Etor."

TSIOLKOVSKY INFECTION — added "(Not cumulative.)"

U.S.S. OBERTH — moved staff icon to center of art block.

WESLEY CRUSHER — removed apostrophe from "Protege' of the Traveler." to read "Protege of the Traveler."

WIND DANCER — corrected misspelling of "Lwaxanna" to "Lwaxana"


Can I use treasure to pay for a counterspell? Many cards, including Depths of Desire, produce colorless Treasure artifact tokens with "{T}, Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool."

I have three Treasure tokens and a Cancel in my hand. My opponent plays a creature - can I sacrifice a Treasure token to pay the cost of the Cancel?

The way I see it, the Treasure token's abilities would go on the stack after the creature spell does, so I wouldn't have the mana for Cancel until the stack resolves and the creature is summoned. The only way to play it would be to sacrifice the treasures preemptively before my opponent tries to play the creature. Is that correct?

Yes, you can do this, for 2 different reasons.

First, as mentioned in Drunk Cynic's answer, treasure tokens' activated abilities are mana abilities, just like tapping a land for mana is.

  605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets all of the following criteria: it doesn’t have a target, it could add mana to a player’s mana pool when it resolves, and it’s not a loyalty ability. (See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.”)

But also, you seem to be incorrectly thinking that once the stack begins to resolve, it finishes resolving all the way. This is not the case.

Each player gets priority after each thing on the stack resolves. This means that even if your only way of getting mana was from something other than a mana abiltiy (such as needing to activate an ability that would get you treasure tokens), you could still do that.

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

So you could activate a non-mana ability that gets you mana in some way, then when that resolve, you can then cast your counterspell, while the spell you are still trying to counter resolves.


Domaine - Can you expand into an opponent's domain if your domain and his have no knights? According to the Domaine rules, you must have more knights in your domain than your opponent's domain to expand into his.

If both domains have no knights, does it mean that neither domain can expand into each other?

Yes, that is correct.

If your domain has no knights it can only expand into territory that is not part of any domain.  In this case you should get some knights into your domain and take advantage of your neighbor before he does the same to you!


Respected Citizen rewards In Encounter 2 of the Respected Citizen quest of the Shadow of Nerekhall campaign the rewards include:

If Bertram is present during the quest and not defeated, during the next Shopping step of the Campaign Phase, the heroes reveal one additional Shop Item card per hero.
If Bertram is defeated, the overlord receives “The Scoundrel,” Corrupt Citizen card.

The setup for Encounter 2 includes:

If the heroes won Encounter 1, they place a villager token in an empty space adjacent to a hero figure. This is Bertram.

The heroes win Encounter 1 “if Bertram is knocked out”. Otherwise the overlord wins by moving him off the map.
Questions

Do the heroes get their Bertram reward if the overlord wins Encounter 1?
If the overlord wins Encounter 1, can ze not get zir Bertram reward?

Under the Victory section of Encounter 1 it reads:

  If the overlord wins, he immediately receives “The Scoundrel” Corrupt Citizen card.

So the answer to the second question is no. If he won Encounter 1 he already has it.

The answer to the first question: they probably meant encounter rather than quest; otherwise your interpretation is correct and the “If” is redundant.


Am I forced to choose targets for "may" abilities? Lets say my opponent is attacking with Necropede and Phantasmal Dragon. There are no other creatures on the battlefield. I cast Doom Blade on the Necropede. Is my opponent forced to choose a target for Necropede's triggered ability even if he or she does/will not plan to put a -1/-1 counter on it?

Regardless of whether or not the "may" ability is chosen by Necropede's controller, a target still must be chosen for Necropede's ability (assuming one exists).  Thus, Phantasmal Dragon will be chosen as a target and must be sacrificed, and Necropede's ability eventually fizzles.  See the following:

  603.5. Some triggered abilities’ effects are optional (they contain “may,” as in “At the beginning of your upkeep, you may draw a card”). These abilities go on the stack when they trigger, regardless of whether their controller intends to exercise the ability’s option or not. The choice is made when the ability resolves. Likewise, triggered abilities that have an effect “unless” something is true or a player chooses to do something will go on the stack normally; the “unless” part of the ability is dealt with when the ability resolves.
  114.1. Some spells and abilities require their controller to choose one or more targets for them. The targets are object(s), player(s), and/or zone(s) the spell or ability will affect. These targets are declared as part of the process of putting the spell or ability on the stack. The targets can’t be changed except by another spell or ability that explicitly says it can do so.


Strategies for playing Fido in Cosmic encounter? I've played about 7 games of Cosmic Encounter, and by now I've learned that you need to adjust your strategy to take full advantage of your alien power in order to get the best odds of winning. Most of the aliens had powers for which it was clear both why it was good and how I should use it to its maximum potential.

However, I still haven't been able to figure out how to best play my very first alien, Fido:

  You have the power to Fetch. After encounter cards are discarded at the end of an encounter, you may use this power to retrieve one of the discarded cards and offer it to another player. If the card is refused, you may keep it. If the card is accepted, the other player keeps the card, then you may either retrieve one ship from the warp or draw one card from the deck.

If I offer bad cards, I get stuck keeping them. If I offer good cards, my opponents keep them and all I get to do is draw a card. If I offer mediocre cards, I get a result somewhere in the middle. How do I take advantage of this power with maximum benefit to myself and minimum benefit to my opponents? How do I determine what cards to offer to whom? Is it just me, or is this one of the weaker powers?

It's not one of the strongest powers, but it's well suited for diplomacy.  First, some general principles of Cosmic diplomacy that apply with this power:

Diplomacy is active.  Don't wait for compromise cards, get out there and make pre-emptive deals.  Arrange to be everyone's offensive ally whenever possible.
Powers are not all equal.  If the game has a dominant power, strengthen other players against it - it's good for you too.  If not, Cosmic shifts the attacks and alliances every encounter, so re-evaluate your advantage constantly.
Form defensive alliances for extra card draw when you think the defender has a good shot - this is vastly overlooked, especially with Fantasy Flight's new 'reward' deck.
Always hold back one good encounter card, if remotely possible.  You don't want to be on 4 colonies with no chance to win by yourself.

Now some specifics about Fido:

Don't underestimate the value of steady resource gain.  Fido should gain a card every single encounter.  Your aim should be to offer the lowest-value encounter card that a player might actually accept; in the long run your constant draws will pay off with just a few useful cards - which is all it takes in CE.
Offer strong cards to players who are down to 1 card (or who you think are out of encounter cards).  Redrawing is a big deal in Cosmic; they'd often be better with a whole new hand than taking the card.  Whether they take it or give it to you, you're up on the deal.  (Obviously, does not apply if player has 4 foreign colonies and a turn coming up!)

Against Anti-matter, Tripler, or other powers that hate high cards, you're golden.  Scoop up and offer them the highest cards, all the time.  (Don't give the Tripler 8s or 9s!)  Consider offering 5-7 to the Tripler or negatives to the Anti-matter, but not if they're already in a good position to win.

Offer medium cards to players who've shown several useful flares.  They're probably low on encounter cards, and don't want to redraw and lose the flares.  So they have reasons to accept.

If any other power has good trade / support uses for excess cards, make them your favoured trade parter.  Philanthropist, etc. all have good reasons to accept your excess card whatever it is, so you can bid low and still get a draw.

In negotiations, trade for a good flare if you don't have one, even giving up strong cards.  Because your power lets you draw cards reliably, you should take a long time to redraw your hand, if ever, so a good flare is better than usual for you.  (Does not apply with Mayfair-style flares.)
Make people promise to invite you as offensive ally in exchange for good cards during or after.  That's a win-win for you - with a good card in hand, they can win the battle.  (Repeat four times with different players and you only need one good card in hand to win.)

Obviously, don't do this with players who are ahead of you in foreign colonies, except at the very start.
Important subtactic: When allied offensively, get the player to play his best attack card, not a medium-to-good one.  Promise to retrieve it and offer it back after the encounter.  You greatly improve the odds of a challenge win, find out a player's best attack, leave the cards no worse for you than they were at start of turn, and are paid a defender reward for it.

In smaller games, use cards as bribes to restrict alliances too.  If you make yellow promise not to invite red as offensive ally on a winning fight, then do the same in reverse next time, you've slowed them both up for a turn compared to the scenario where they cooperate.
Try to talk the other players into house-ruling that Fido can make the extra draw from the reward deck.  (This is a common and reasonable house rule, given the wording of the power is the same as a defensive reward.)

Fido is one of the powers that was a popular homebrew before FFG brought it in to the new edition, and there are reasons for that.  It's not a great power for solo wins, but it's not at all terrible.  It's a reasonably good power for arranging joint victories in 5-6 player games.  It does require practiced judgement and persuasive diplomacy to use well, though - if that's not your play style, ask your group for a mulligan rule!


How does a renege that is discovered later in a bridge game affect the scoring? In a recent bridge game, the contract was 2C doubled.  The contracting team discovered, at a point in the game after a trick had been played that the opposing team had reneged.  They assert that there should be a two trick penalty, and that those two tricks should be scored below the line.  Since the contract was made, with two overtricks, the result would be that the contracting team earned a game since the renege gave them two extra tricks below the line, and that was doubled.  Opposing team argues that they did not double the contract into game, and the four should be treated as overticks.  I had never heard that a renege was a below the line penalty...this is new to me.  I cannot find any information regarding this.  Can you help?

Everything below still stands, but it now occurs to me that it may not address the correct aspect of the question.

The renege having been noted, and the appropriate penalty adjustment made as described below, the play of the hand is completed.

At this point the deal is scored according to the contract as originally bid, with the trick results as played and adjusted for the renege. If the contract is made, points below (and possibly also above in the case of overtricks) the line are scored by Declaring side; otherwise points above the line are scored by Defending side.

In this sense, if the determination of made or set was decided by the penalty adjustment for the renege, then said tricks can be said to be properly scored below the line. This may be the confusion that OP is originally inquiring about.

The Laws or Rubber Bridge (2014) clearly state:

  Law 64 – Procedure After Establishment of a Revoke

  When a revoke has become established,

    A. if the offending player won the trick on which the
    revoke occurred, (penalty) that trick and one of
    any subsequent tricks won by the offending side
    are transferred  to the non-offending side (if no
    subsequent trick was won by the offending side,
    only the revoke trick is transferred).

    (For the scoring of transferred tricks see Law 77.)

  Law 77 – Transferred Tricks

    A trick transferred through a revoke penalty is reckoned for all scoring purposes as though it had been won
    in play by the side to which it had been awarded.

      Example:

      Declarer plays in 3♥ and takes eight tricks. A revoke by a defender is found to have been established, with the penalty determined to be two tricks. Two tricks are transferred from the offenders to declarer, who therefore has 10 tricks. Since he bid only 3♥, he scores 90 trick points, which count toward game, and 30 premium points for the overtrick.

Note that Law 77 and accompanying example clearly states that the transferred tricks are transferred only in regards the play; not in regards the contract. This is consistent with the scoring described in Law 72 (my emphasis):

  Law 72 – Points Earned

  The result of each deal played is recorded in points,
  which fall into two classes:

    A. Trick Points. Only declarer’s side can earn trick
    points and only by fulfilling the contract. Only the
    value of tricks named in the contract may be scored
    as trick points (see Law 81). Trick points mark the
    progression of the rubber toward its completion.

    B. Premium Points. Either side or both sides may earn
    premium points. Declarer’s side earns premium
    points by winning one or more overtricks, ....


Cribbage Scoring Difficulties We ran into a friendly argument while playing cribbage today and we're stumped as to how to count this hand.  How do you count 3 Sixes, 1 Seven and 1 Eight?

First of all, there's only one fifteen: the seven and the eight.  That's two points.  (Note that the sixes can't participate in 15s at all)

Next, there are three runs of three: each six in turn, the seven, and the eight.  That's 3*3 = nine points.

Finally, there's the trio of sixes, worth six points (or equivalently, three pairs of sixes).

So the final score for the hand is 2+9+6 = 17 points.


If you have more than one face-down development card in Settlers of Catan, do you have to keep them distinguished? For example, if you buy a development card on turn 5, and then another one on turn 8, do you have to keep them distinguished?

When you play a card, if it was one you got more recently, it may be a clue that the other card is a victory point, since it hasn't been played. If you played the one you got a while ago, then there is no doubt what it is.

In all my games I've played, however, everyone just keeps them out in front of themselves, so it's not too hard to keep track if you pay attention.

I am building an AI for the game (to get some insights out of it, as well and possibly determine fairness of certain map configurations), and while this is a minor point, I would rather be technically correct when constructing the rules for the game, since I plan on using some degree of hand information to describe the board state for the AI.

The rules, section 3d, say "Keep your development cards hidden (in your hand) until you play them, so your opponents can't anticipate your play."

In games I've played people tend to stack cards in front of themselves rather than completely conceal them. Even so, long as they don't play a card on the turn it was purchased, there is nothing stopping them from stacking/ordering cards in whatever way they choose.

So, yes, players can certainly mentally keep track of how many development cards someone may have picked up, there is nothing requiring them to be visible to other players after that point.


In Tiny Epic Galaxies - when do you get your new ships? In Tiny Epic Galaxies you can follow people's moves on their turn, and one move might be to upgrade your empire, upon which you'd gain a new ship.

Or similarly you might upgrade at the start of your turn and gain a new ship.

The question is - when do these ships arrive for the purposes of:

Being able to move them
Counting them toward receiving energy/culture.

Ships come in play as soon as you take/follow the "upgrade your empire" action.

In the rules

on page 8:

  If you gain a ship, immediately place it on the center of your Galaxy Mat. This ship can be used on the same turn.


What was this Mouse Trap-like game with a basket, stairs, and metal parts? It was similar to Mouse Trap but it had metal parts vs. plastic. It may have been more of a maze but there was a basket & perhaps stairs. It's been driving me crazy because I loved it & want to find for my kids. I played with it in the mid 80's  so it could be from that point back.

I'm not sure if it ever included metal parts, but that sounds like it could have been crazy clock

Other than that possibly Flying Finnegan or Grape Escape


What should you do if the surplus worker level limit is exceeded? What happens if, after exploring, you have to increase the surplus workers level beyond the board limit (level 26)? Should you increase the rebelion marker by the same amount that exceeded the surplus workers level? Make the exploration fail? Do nothing?

Following the suggestion given by user @Oltarus, I contacted Ludically and got the following answer from Christophe Boelinger, the designer:

  Do nothing.

  When The surplus worker reaches the max level then it stays there no matter if any effect would require to go higher, and in such a case nothing else happens than leaving the marker at the max level. Which is already not a very helping situation anyway.
  And this no matter if it is in a solo game or multi player game.


Rummikub - Replacing Jokers 3 of us were playing with older Rummikub rules where if you want to use a Joker that is on the board, you must replace it with a tile from your rack of the same color and value. One player made this move, replaced the joker and used it elsewhere, and then, during the same turn, removed and reused the tile they had replaced the joker with. We contended that if the Joker has to be replaced, then the replacement tile must be in the Joker's spot at the end of the turn. Which is correct?
For demonstration:
 beginning of turn: Rack = [O1] [O2] [R1] [Blu1] Board = [[J] [R2] [R3] [R4]] [[Blk1] [Blk2] [Blk3] [Blk4]]
 halfway through turn: Rack = [Blu1] Board = [[O1] [O2] [J]] [**[R1]** [R2] [R3] [R4]] [[Blk1] [Blk2] [Blk3] [Blk4]]

 where the **[R1]** replaced the Joker.

 end of turn: Board = [[O1] [O2] [J]] [[R2] [R3] [R4]] [[Blk2] [Blk3] [Blk4]] [**[R1]** [Blu1] [Blk1]]

Certainly in the new rules, the Joker would already be cleared and there would be no issue, but in the Joker replacement rules, it seems that a tile would have to be in the Joker's place at the end of the turn.
Thanks!

I am not clear on the distinction you are making.  In Rummikub, you can completely revamp the entire board on every turn.  Every tile can be "moved" and put into different runs/configurations.  All that matters is that the Joker is replaced with a correct tile from your rack, which is what was done.  The "correct" tile can end up anywhere after that.  At least via my understanding of the rules.


What happens when you are hemmed in? If the only way to expand your network is through an occupied city before you reach the stage that allows you on it, what happens?

You can just "jump over" other cities. From the rulebook, p. 5 (emphasis mine).

  A player may add any city (if there is room in the city for the
  player) to his network, regardless of its distance from his other
  cities. The player may build through a city without placing a house
  there if he wants or (more likely) if there is no room in the city.

edit: naturally you have to pay any incurring connection costs to the city you are going to. The game does not retain memory of the connection costs that you've paid, so you might have to pay some connection costs twice.

example: consider cities A -- B -- C, with the connection costs being $3 for A -- B and $4 for B -- C. Alice is in city A, Bob in city B, nobody in city C.

Alice may built in city C! She has to pay $10 for being the first to connect there, plus $7 for the incurring connection costs (A to B, B to C), for a total of $17.
When step 2 kicks in, Alice wants to connect to B. She will pay again the connection costs of $3 between A -- B (because it's cheaper than paying $4 for C -- B) plus $15 for being the second to connect there, for a total of $18. Even though she had paid earlier the connection costs for A -- B, the game does not remember it, so she pays again for it.

NB: originally commented by @GendoIkari, added here with an example for completeness.


Does the tea card in sushi go apply to other tea cards if it's the largest set, including itself? I had three tea cards in sushi go and my next largest set of cards were just two. Does this mean, I should count my tea cards as a set, or do I use the set of two yellow cards as my main set? (I argued that the largest set of colours that I had was the three tea cards, therefore I would score 9 pts)

TL;DR = Tea cards are a set.  You scored 9 points.

From the Rules here

  End of the round: Count the number of cards in your largest (or tied
  largest) set of cards with the same background color. Tea is worth
  1 point per card in that set.

  Example: Chris has 1 wasabi, 1 squid nigiri and 2 salmon nigiri. These
  4 yellow cards are his largest set. His tea is therefore worth 4 points.

There is nothing in those rules that excludes tea from being the largest set.  If tea was prohibited from counting then it should be stated here.  It doesn't say that tea is not counted.

The key to your debate however is defined in the set up rules and the definition of 'set'

  Take all the other chosen sets of
  cards and shuffle them together to
  form a face-down deck which is also
  placed near the board.

All the group of cards in the game are defined as being in 'sets'.  This therefore this must include Tea.  As Tea cards are collected in a 'set' then it's entirely possible that your largest set is Tea. So if you have 3 Tea and your largest set is Tea then you scored 9 points.


Do you LOSE points for uncompleted destination tickets in Ticket to Ride Japan? In the base game the instructions specifically say you lose points for uncompleted destination tickets. But the Japan instructions say "The game then ends and players calculate their final scores adding points for their Destination Cards and the Bullet Train Bonus described as follows." See the last sentence of the first column on page 3 here. It does not say you lose points. It seems arbitrary to change the rule, but that's what it says. Maybe it's a typo/oversight? Which understanding is correct?

Yes, you do.
Although it is not exactly specified in the Japan rulebook, the beginning of the rulebook does say this:

This rules booklet describes the game play changes specific to
the Japan Map and assumes that you are familiar with the rules first
introduced in the original Ticket to Ride. This expansion is designed
for 2-5 players

So this is only the rulebook for the expansion specifically; any rules given by the base game rulebook still apply normally.
Another thing worth noting is that if you did not lose points for uncompleted routes, then you would never want to return any routes at all. The rule that says "He must keep at least one of them, but he may keep two or all three if he chooses." would make no sense, as you would simply always choose to keep all of them.


Can I use Heroscape-style tiles in my own game designs? I'm in the the very early stages of coming up with a game with some coworkers. I remembered how well the Heroscape tiles locked together. However, I'm not able to find any information regarding intellectual property protections on the tile design. Would I be able to make similar and compatible tiles without issue?

A Heroscape landscape is pictured below.

Many games have a playfield made up of hexagons. Some games also contain interlocking tiles/sheets that are made up of hexagons (e.g. Clans of Caledonia, Wombat Rescue).

I'm not aware of any that use plastic sheets, other than Heroscape. Nor am I aware of any that use an interlocking mechanism like Heroscape used. But it's interesting to note that the size of Heroscape's hexes is a very common size -- I have not checked this for my answer but I remember them being almost exactly the same size as Memoir 44 terrain tiles?

I'm not a lawyer, and frankly this is definitely the kind of thing I'd suggest a lawyer for, but in terms of prior-art I'd say:

Cardboard hexes/hex sheets are completely safe
Plastic hexes/hex sheets are probably safe
Plastic hexes/hex sheets the same size/shape as Heroscapes, with the same hex size, and the exact same interlocking mechanism is a no-no.

So you'll be able to design and produce your game using similar tiles with no legal issues. And you'd need to consult a lawyer about producing "Heroscape-compatible" tiles.


Does a Yeld spyrer's fly ability work just vertically, or on a hypotenuse? From the Yeld wings entry to the Necromunda rulebook (1st ed):

  The Yeld's wings allow its user to fly up to his normal Movement characteristic in a turn, or double that if he charges or runs (flaps). Since the Yeld's wings allow it to glide well rather than truly fly the Yeld must land at the end of his move. Flying upwards counts as 2" for every 1" moved; flying downwards counts as 1/2" for every 1" moved.

Now consider a Yeld on top of a building as in the diagram. He can either:

Fly vertically downwards, or
Fly along the hypotenuse

Clearly the distances are not the same.

My question is, which scenario is correct for the Yeld's movement?

You measure from the base of your starting position to the base of where your movement ends. The movement must finish at an appropriate point (it cant be mid air for example). If that end point is higher than your starting point then its 2", if its lower its 1/2"

So for example, if you have movement 8, you have three options

Complete a move up to 4" ending above your starting position.
Complete a move up to 8" horizontally (normal move)
Complete a move up to 16" ending your movement below your starting position.


Mechanics for interactivity in card games I am creating a fantasy collectible card game and one if its aspects is mage battles. I have been a bit stumped on how to make it highly interactive.
I am familiar with Magic: The Gathering and I enjoy the increased depth due to the stack and the ability to act during your opponent's turn.
I have also played several online card games. Maybe I had simply missed those, but reactions to spells and effects do not seem to used.

I would like to, in some ways, replicate the interactivity that can happen on the stack. I am reluctant to simply copy it. I feel like I need a new perspective for inspiration.

Are there any other ways to evoke back-and-forth mage battles?

Magic's popularity is a bit of a curse because it feels a lot like any reasonable way of letting players act during the other's turn is a rip-off of it.

This isn't out-of-sequence play but it does allow counterplay: have certain cards take a turn to carry out their effect (kind of like Magic's suspend ability). I "cast" a spell, then pass the turn. On my opponent's turn, they can counter my casted spell or do whatever they want, then pass back to me. On my turn, the casted spell now takes effect if it hasn't been hit.

More powerful spells can take longer to come out, you can have spells that come out immediately (like most counterspells wouldn't have to wait a turn to work), you could have quicken or slow type effects that add to the turn-counter for spells, there's a decent amount of untouched design space there.


How does the stack work for the item "Device"? Relevant card text:

  You may discard this card to add 3 dice to your attack roll, but you may only use that attack to steal something.

How would this work in terms of the stack - for declaring attack and attack intention?

Is it legitimate to roll dice with the intention of making a regular attack, to see that the pip total is lower than desired, and to then discard Device to add those 3 dice and attempt to steal an item instead?

Thanks for reading!

Yes, you can discard Device after rolling.

You don't have to declare any sort of intention about your attack; stealing isn't something you "attempt" to do. When you attack, if you inflict 2 or more points of physical damage, then you can choose to steal an item instead of doing the damage. You don't have to declare before you roll whether you are trying to steal or not. Stealing is an option you have if you roll high enough.

Simply read literally, Device seems to imply that you can use it after rolling. It simply says "discard this card to add 3 to your attack roll". It doesn't give a restriction on when you can do that. So I make the attack roll, and then I can use Device if I want.

Although the wording on Device by itself does not make it completely clear if you need to discard it before or after rolling, we can look at other items to get an answer. Adrenaline Shot says "Before you attempt a trait roll you can use this item to add 4 to the result of that roll." So it specifies that it must be used before attempting the roll. It is a safe assumption that if Device intended you to have to use it before the tole, then it would have similar wording.


How do I resolve inconsistencies between the rules committee Commander rules and the comprehensive rules? I've heard mention that the MTGCommander rules committee maintain the rules for Commander, not Wizards. The comprehensive rules simply mentions that they maintain "additional resources", not that they maintain the rules.

There is an inconsistency between the two's rules defining color identity. MTGCommander states:

  3. A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's colour identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects.

The comprehensive rules say:

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

According to the former, Blisterpod has a colorless color identity, because it has no colored symbols in its rules text to add to its color (which is none, due to devoid). According to the latter, the color identity is green, because you check each section for color, not the card as a whole.

The fact that there's a difference means we need to decide which one takes precedence. The comprehensive rules refer to the "independent rules committee" of MTGCommander, giving them some rules credibility. MTGCommander says "These are the official rules for Commander."

How should such inconsistencies be resolved/who actually controls the Commander rules?

How to Resolve Inconsistencies
First, try to determine whether there are actually any inconsitancies. For example, the mtgcommander.net forums have their very own thread discussing the matter of Devoid specifically. The most concise explanation seems to be the one from Carthain:

(...) Colour Identity is the culmination of colours + colours of mana symbols on the card. It's a purely additive situation, you can't "lose" or "undo" adding a colour to a card's colour identity.
Devoid says that a card is colourless. It it's a characteristic defining ability that sets a colour (colourless is not a colour); it's not any of the mana symbols that define a colour; it's not a colour indicator on the card; Therefore, it doesn't have any impact on the colour identity of the card.

Sheldon Menery writes:

Color and color identity are two different (but related) things. Colorless-ness is not part of either.

Therefore, Blisterpod is colorless and has a green color identity, according to both sets of rules.
This being only a single case, it raises the question whether one set of rules does generally take precedence over the other, and which one does. So...
Which Rules are the "Official" Rules?
In an effort to solve this question better than with a guess, I decided to take the time and write something up that explains the historical events as well as their implications as best as I'm able to. Because there's no set-in-stone answer to be found anywhere, I encourage you to read through all of it, even though I have my own conclusion all the way on the bottom.
The EDH Era
Without going too much into historical matters here, this article will tell you a whole lot about the history of the format. In any case, the format has existed under the name EDH long before WotC took it up as Commander, and dragonhighlander.net (now mtgcommander.net) is the original web page where the rules were first made available online in order to reach a greater audience.
This doesn't really help answering the question directly, however it disproves the first paragraph in CyberClaw's answer, which states that mtgcommander.net is meant merely as a "short quick explanation without any kind of deep rule (or care on their wording)."
The Commander Era
WotC eventually incorporated the format into their franchise by announcing the first Commander set along with the name change from EDH to Commander, and the respective WotC announcement mentions several important factors to the question at hand:

(...) we recognize the importance of keeping the format as player-run, even after we produce products that officially endorse it. To that end, we worked closely with Sheldon Menery and the rest of the EDH Rules Committee (we're lucky to have one of them, Scott Larabee, in house) to make sure our product adhered to their rules and stayed true to their spirit.

And further down in the article (emphasis theirs):

And finally ...
Wizards of the Coast and the DCI are not "taking over" the format! We will not be managing the rules or the banned list of the Commander format, instead leaving it in the capable hands of Sheldon Menery and his rules team. They deserve all the credit for this format's popularity and we don't want to mess with a good thing!

Conclusion & Implications
WotC still considers the Commander Rules Commitee as the maintainers of the rules, as evidenced rather clearly in the aforementioned sources directly from WotC. I haven't been able to find any evidence disputing what was said in those articles, or a change of mind at a later point in time.
The Commander Rules Commitee is in charge of maintaining the rules and the ban list and therefore the technically official source for rules, while WotC is incorporating those rules into the CR in a way suiting the style of the rest of the document, and likely being more precise as a result of that, making the CR the source probably best suited to resolve rule questions.
They aren't meant to be functionally different though, and if there were differences, they would likely be mistakes and the Commander Rules Commitee rules would have to take precedence (which has happened before, as acknowledged in an announcement about former rule 903.4 about color identity).
Knowing all of the above, keep in mind that Commander is a social format - in the end, what your player group wants to play should decide which cards you're allowed to include in your deck, whether it's a Blisterpod in an otherwise colorless deck, or a Spell Counter (just maybe keep some alternative cards around, should you meet a group who does not like the idea).
This means that ultimately, your playgroup is the final authority on each and every rule.


Magic: the Gathering, EDH/Commander - Official Rules List? Where are the official rules for playing EDH/Commander, including the banlist? An EDH-specific rules question recently arose in my play group, and I couldn't find a definitive answer (the question has since been answered).

There's this question that specifically refers to the banlist, but how do I find the official rules list? Specifically, this is for regular Commander, not 1v1/duel Commander.

The rules for Commander can be found in the Comprehensive Rulebook section 903. The comprehensive rules are officially published by Wizards here. The banlist for Commander can be found in a section of the official Banned and Restricted list. Rule 903.1 indicates that MTGCommander.net is also an official source for information about Commander, and both the banlist and a summary of the rules can be found there.


Black card ability - all players exile a creature - does it work on the one with protection from black Let's assume I have black card with "player must exile a creature" and one of mine opponents have only one creature on the battlefield, but it has "protection from black".

Does mine card affect his?

Yes, it does. Your card does not target the creature, so its protection ability does not help here.
Remember that protection can be summarized with the mnemonic acronym DEBT:

The object with protection cannot be:

Damaged by sources with the specified quality. (All such damage is prevented.)
Enchanted or equipped by permanents with the specified quality.
Blocked by creatures with the specified quality.
Targeted by spells with the specified quality, or by abilities from sources of that quality.

Your card might target the player but it'll never target the creature directly.


How To Trap Meeples In 2-Player Carcassonne? During the past couple of weeks I got a bit addicted to online 2-player "ranked matches" of Carcassonne on my XBox.  After a few humiliating losses against the local sharks, it became obvious to me that optimal strategy is probably not to concentrate on building your own features, and hope you come out ahead in the final points tally; but to aggressively trap the opponent's meeples in disadvantageous, or preferably completely inescapable, positions - until your usable men outnumber theirs enough that you can dominate the game.  That's if they haven't managed to trap your guys first, of course!

My problem is that I have a hazier idea of what constitutes a good trap than what some of my better opponents do.  I'll be thinking "aha, you'll never find a tile with three road sides and one city side", and obviously they draw such a thing straightaway.  Conversely, when they see me making an obvious attempt to block one of their guys in, they'll quickly box themselves in in such a way that it's easy for them to draw the right piece to escape.

So: is there a list of the different tiles in the basic game of Carcassonne? What positions are impossible to extract a meeple from, and/or what are the easiest spots to draw a good tile to escape from? Help me become as evil and dastardly a Carcassonne player as my opponents!

The first question is straightforward.  Yes, there is a list of the tiles.

It is much easier to discuss places where no tile can be placed, rather than meeple traps, although they are obviously related.  The basic game has no tiles with the (unordered) edges {pasture, pasture, road, city} or {pasture, road, city, city}.  It also has no tile with the ordered edges (city, road, city, road).

I tend to use these facts to try to create unfinishable holes next to my opponent's features.

If you're on the ball you can also use the fact that some tiles have already gone.  I usually only use this for spotting whether farmland can easily become connected or not, by keeping track of the six monastery tiles (i.e. the pieces with the most 'pasture connectivity').  In theory you could use this to keep track of other types of tiles too.

One last thing - when my opponent has a large city on the go, then it's worth putting in effort to ensure it doesn't get completed.  This can mean adding tiles to open out their city. It is more usual to be trying to create unfillable spaces though, and this is best done by placing tiles to try to hit one of the three combinations above.

Note: This applies to the base Carcassonne set.  I played enough with Inns and Cathedrals to learn that set too, but as you add more sets learning the distibution has diminishing returns.  Here is a full list of the expansions and their tile distributions.

All the tile edge combinations exist in one set or another as there are only 24 (until you start including river tiles).  There are plenty more tiles designs than that (e.g. two city edges may or may not join on a tile), and they've probably all been done in one expansion or another by now!


What is the best opening in Hansa Teutonica? What opening move should I prefer in Hansa Teutonica with 3, 4, or 5 players, and why?

As the first player in a 4 or 5 player game, I like to play a merchant (disk) and a trader (cube), one on each road into the action city. In the crowd I play with, these roads are highly contended, so I will likely have 3 additional pieces on the board before my next turn. This will leave me in good position to become the third player to get a third action, or perhaps the first to improve the movement or refresh skill, or to get the "remove 3 pieces" bonus marker. In short, I find it maximizes my flexibility while getting additional pieces onto the board.


How would Progenitus affect the game as a commander? I recently purchased Progenitus with the intent to use it as a commander. However, it has been long enough since I’ve played the commander format that I do not remember how commanders and their abilities affect gameplay.

His protection from anything works the same as it always does. His second ability can be avoided, because anytime that he would be going to your graveyard, you have the option to send him to your command zone instead. You could choose not to do so and then his second ability would take effect, shuffling him into your deck. That would generally be less helpful than having him available in your command zone, but there might be exceptions. One advantage would be that if you were able to draw him from your deck, you could play him again without having to pay the extra cost associated with playing him from your command zone for the second (or more) time.


Can you look at a Bonus Marker before placing it on the board? In Hansa Teutonica, I know that for the initial three golden Bonus Markers (I think that's the right term for the English version), you place them on the specified beginning locations face down, then flip them up. When you claim a route and take the Bonus Marker that is on that route, you immediately draw one from the pile of Bonus Markers, where they lay face down.

Are you allowed to look at the Bonus Marker before you place it on a new route on the board? Our group couldn't find anything in the rules explicitly addressing this, so we've been playing under the assumption that we're allowed to look at it before deciding where we want to place it, but I'd like some confirmation, as it would impact tactical play.

We're playing the Dutch version (Hanzesteden), in case that may account for a missed translation or somesuch.

My group has always played that you could look, but while digging through the rulebook to support that decision, I've come to the conclusion that the opposite is true and that you cannot look.

From the English rules:

  For each bonus marker a player obtains during his turn, he should draw
  a new bonus marker from the supply and put it face down on the tin
  plate on his player mat without looking at it. Before the next player
  starts his turn, these bonus marker(s) should be placed next to any
  route(s) of the player’s choice that meet the following three
  conditions: (i) no bonus marker is already on that trade route, (ii)
  no resource is located on that trade route (i.e., all fields need to
  be empty) and (iii) there is at least one available (i.e. open) Office
  space in an adjacent city to the route.

You could still argue it's up for debate since it doesn't explicitly state that you cannot look at it before placing it, but based on the fact that you can't look at it when you receive it, and it never states that you can look at it, I think the implied answer is that no, you cannot look.


Looking to identify a particular form of solitaire played in-hand, not on a table Back in college I had a friend teach me a different way to play a solitaire-like game.  It was played in-hand which meant you could play it while standing in line or any time you were bored and had a deck of cards handy.  Here's the rough idea of what I remember of the rules:

Cards held face down in a stack.
4 cards drawn from the bottom of the deck, flipped and put on top
Goal was to match the outside 2 of the top 4 cards (cards 1 and 4 if you number them from the top)
Matching may have been based on suit or card number
Might have been matched as all 4 of the same suit or outside matching by number, I can't quite remember
There were rules I can't remember that let you rearrange the top cards
If top 4 cards can't be matched then you draw from the bottom until you can match
When a match was made it was moved to the bottom of the face-up cards to get it out of the way

One nice feature of the game was that it always stayed in a stack other than fanning out the top cards.  If you have to stop playing you just collapse the fanned cards, put the deck back in the box.  Later on you can pull out the deck and start right where you left off.  It was a fun way to burn time while waiting for something.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?  I've looked for the rules but I have no idea what the game is called and I haven't been able to find anything similar.

It sounds like you're describing One-Handed Solitaire, or a variant of it. Here's a second description of the rules. It's actually possible to play several solitaire games in this way, where you use the top of the deck as a kind of compressed tableau, and store the discards in the draw deck itself.