How can we make Don Bell more balanced? With Don Bell having 4 bullets and the ability to get an extra turn after the first (on a draw of a heart or diamond), he can become an overpowered character very quickly. He is likely to get 1 more card and shoot one more bang then Lucky Duke, who can draw a third card on a heart or diamond, and always has a shot at a second turn, unlike Vendetta which is one round only and only for hearts.

Because of this my normal group doesn't play with him because he is deemed unbalanced and overpowered. Some house rules that have been suggested have been lowering him to a 3 bullet character and making the extra turn only work on hearts, or leaving him at 4 bullets but needing to sacrifice a life in order to draw for an extra turn.

I was wondering anyone had any ideas on house rules that can make him a more balanced character.

We independently came up with @thesunneversets' idea, and found it a bit unsatisfying - it ends up being "Don Bell sometimes gets to use an extra Bang! card during his turn or can use a green bordered card immediately".

It's a fairly weak ability: since it's random, Don Bell can't plan for it and neither can any other player; even if he does get the chance, there's only a few "active" green cards for which this is useful in the first place (most of them are Missed! or Dodge equivalents); and players end up forgetting to use the power half the time anyway since he's the only character who regularly draws after the end of his turn.

The chance at an extra Bang is pretty good, but Doc Holiday already does that more reliably (and he pays any two cards instead of one Bang).

We decided that the interesting and unique part of his power was the interaction with green bordered cards, so we flat out changed his power to:

  Don Bell may play green bordered cards from his hand as if they were brown bordered cards.

This lets him use the various green misses when he's being shot at, along with doing things like using a Buffalo Rifle as a lower-cost Springfield or a Pony Express as a Wells Fargo. He still can't use the Canteen as a holdout beer, though.

It gives Don Bell interesting decisions to make (do I discard some cards and keep this green in my hand where people don't know I have it, or do I play it so I can keep more cards in hand?), and it gives other players interesting decisions to make related to him (do I play this Pony Express, or do I keep it in my hand since he would want to Panic it from me and use it immediately? Do I take the Conestoga from the general store even though I don't really want it to deny him?)

Finally, from a design standpoint (because this matters to us for some reason) it also provides a certain symmetry with Delgado's ability to interact with blue cards.


When can a guild be cloned based on Olympia's B stage 3? I think I know the answer here, but I just need confirmation.
Main question
Olympia B third wonder stage allows you to clone a guild from a neighbor. Does this happen before or after the military conflict of age 3?

I assume "after the military conflict", but....

What spawned this question
Scenario:
Player 1 plays with Olympia B and build all 3 stages. He has 3 military shields after the last turn in age 3.
Player 2 (neighbor of Player 1) has build Courtesan's guild (that allows you to clone a leader from a neighbor) and has 4 military shields after the last turn in age 3. 2 of these shields come from a leader (not the cloned one though).

Dilemma:
If player 1 clones the the Courtesan's guild and then clones the leader that gives him 2 military shields (making him have 5 shields in total), does he win the military conflict of age 3 or he clones it for nothing because the cloning takes place after the military conflict?

Rules (page 9) say:

  for the third stage, the choice of the Guild is made at the end of the game, when counting points. The player totals the victory points as they had built that Guild.

Since Courtesan's guild gives no victory points, selecting it will be no use for the player. Note that, Olympia B was designed at a time when all guilds were effective only during scoring.

See here for more discussion.


Can ghost replenish hand in Reveal the Culprit phase In the Vision interpretation section of the rulebook, it says to draw vision cards to make up his hand to 7 cards.

In the Reveal the Culprit phase, it says the ghost picks three vision cards from his hand

It's not clear to me if the ghost is allowed to draw new cards to bring his or her hand up to 7 in the Reveal the Culprit phase every time he/she selects one of the three vision cards.

Can the ghost replenish his/her hand in the Reveal the Culprit phase?

There is nothing in the Reveal the Culprit section about drawing new cards in the middle of the vision therefore you don't. It is similar to the Vision Interpretation part of the game where if you give a psychic multiple cards as part of a single vision you don't draw in-between them, only after you are done with that particular vision and a ready to move to the next psychic's vision.


In Catan, how do you decide which "fifth" resource to neglect? In Catan, there are five resources: wood, brick, wheat, sheep, and ore. You get two free settlements that can access up to three resource hexes for a total of six. An "ideal" placement will let you access two hexes of one resource, and one of each of the other four (that is, all five). But sometimes, this is not practicable, and you have to choose four resources to access with your first two settlements, "neglecting" the fifth. In that case, how do you choose which resource to do this with?
I would imagine that you might "neglect" a resource that you can trade easily for, or be able to access quickly with a third settlement. And that you would come to these conclusions after studying the board. How would these considerations, or others I haven't mentioned, impact your decision?

If you must neglect one of the resources, then there are several possibilities, the main three  are:

Neglect Ore.  Roads and settlements do not cost ore, thus it is possible to start without ore and build a settlement on a ore hex later.
Focus on Ore, Wheat & sheep, going for fast 2 cities and development cards, then with the extra resource production trade your way into another settlement.
Harbor 2:1 + Go heavy on a specific resource.

The best option depends on many aspects including:

The distribution of resource: abundant resource goes down in importance, scarce resource goes up.
Trade possibilities: either with the other players or with the bank. Does another player needs your resources? How trade-happy are your opponents?  Do they think you are a head (which will make them less inclined to trade with you)


Ponder: to shuffle or not to shuffle You know the situation. You need something specific: a land, say, or a removal spell, so you play Ponder. You find the thing you're looking for. Hooray! Unfortunately, the other two cards that Ponder shows you are completely useless at this point in the game, so if you put the card you want on top and draw it, you're guaranteeing yourself two dead draws afterwards. On the other hand, if you shuffle, you might have better draws on the upcoming turns, but you leaving it up to randomness whether you draw the card you need right now.

What do you do? What factors do you take into account in order to decide the correct play?

In general, the only time it is worth it to shuffle your deck is if you are looking for a land card. When you are looking for removal, a win condition, or more than a single threat card, you are usually better off keeping the cards that Ponder reveals. This question essentially boils down to a probability question. The deciding factors are:

How likely are you to draw the specific card you are looking for if you shuffle?
How soon do you need to draw the specific card?
How likely are you to improve your draw if you shuffle?
Do you have in hand a way to search for the specific card, or to shuffle your library? (I would assume that you didn't, otherwise the question is moot. i.e. If you had another Ponder in hand, Polluted Delta, or some other means to shuffle your library then you should keep the revealed cards.)

Except for the specific probability, the only real controlling factor here is how soon you need to draw the specific card. The gray area here though, is what exactly do you mean by need and dead draw? Are the "dead draws" 1/1 chump blockers, can you survive for 3 turns if you keep this draw? I will make some assumptions about what those dead draws likely are, and run some calculations using the Hypergeometric Distribution function to give a general idea what the best course of action is.

Probability

Looking for Land and Ponder reveals a Land, and 2 other "useless" cards (high converted mana cost).

At one extreme, you might have kept a hand of a single land card and hoped that Ponder would help you find at least another one. In a 24 land deck, if you choose to shuffle, you have a 44% chance of immediately drawing  the land. After three draws, you only have a 17% of not getting any land, and a 41% chance of getting two or more land. The fourth draw looks even better for shuffling, with a 60% chance of getting 2+ land, and keeping the useless cards only having a 45% chance of 2+ land.

That extreme case is not very likely though. Usually, you will mulligan a hand with fewer than 3 land. If instead we examine Turn 3, casting Ponder to find the 4th land. If you shuffle, you have a 42% chance of immediately drawing a land. The remaining calculations have very similar percentages as the extreme case. Late game, after drawing a quarter of the deck, perhaps you are looking for your 6th land so that you can cast some game winning spell. Obviously, if you have already drawn the "winning" spell, you should probably just keep the cards since Ponder revealed the one land card you were looking for. If you haven't drawn the winning spell, the odds that you don't draw your 6th land by your third draw are only about 18%, which drops to only 10% on the forth draw. Once again shuffling is the best move, because not only is it unlikely that you won't draw your 6th land, you also have an increased chance of drawing your game "winning" spell (about 32%).

Looking for Removal and Ponder reveals removal, and 2 Lands. For one extreme, we will assume Turn 2, two lands drawn, 4x copies of Swords to Plowshares (StP).  If you shuffle, the odds of drawing StP are only 8%:1st draw and 21%:3rd draw. In fact, the odds of drawing removal after shuffling only exceeds 50% on your 8th draw. Clearly, if you need removal any time soon you shouldn't shuffle (Considering you start at 20 life, a 3/x or larger creature will kill you in 7 turns).

In a more likely scenario, lets assume you have 8x copies of removal in your deck, it is Turn 4, you have drawn and used one removal spell and are looking one of the remaining 7 (these could be targeted removal, or WoG). In this situation, if you shuffle you have a 14%:1st draw, 25%:2nd draw, 33%:3rd draw, and >55%:5th draw. When you compare these results with the certainty of drawing the removal you need immediately, you are likely better off keeping the cards and the 2 "useless" cards. If you can last +5 turns before you need removal, you might want to shuffle.

Looking for a Win Condition and Ponder reveals the win condition, and 2 Lands. The win condition will be a card that completes a combo, some sort of fattie with evasion, or an instant win card. We will assume that you have drawn enough lands already, so that is why the cards are dead draws. Since it is a rather obvious choice to keep the cards if all you need is one copy of the "win condition", the chart below will examine the increase/decrease in odds of drawing 2+ copies if you decide to shuffle. Only after you have drawn half your deck, and when 20% of the cards left in the deck are win cards, are the odds equal or better that you have drawn 2+ win cards. When you take into account the fact that keeping the cards ensures you get one of those win cards immediately, you nearly always should keep the cards Ponder reveals.

        |  2 |  4 |  6 |  8 |Win Cond
        +----+----+----+----+--------+
      50| -2%| -4%| -4%| -3%|
      40| -2%| -4%| -4%| -2%|
      30| -2%| -4%| -2%| +3%|
      20| -3%| -1%| +5%|+12%|
      10| -1%|+12%|+17%| -- |
 Library|

Another possibility is that Ponder revealed a single threat, and 2 Lands. What you would really prefer at this point, is any threats in your deck. If you shuffle, you have the possibility of getting fewer dead land draws. In this situation, you are interested in the odds of drawing 1 or fewer lands in the top three cards (2 lands within the top 3 would be the same situation a third of the time). The situations where it would be worth it to shuffle are extremely unlikely, as 60% or more of the deck needs to be land.


How can I move the potion explosion ingredient dispenser? When I play Potion Explosion, I want to turn the ingredient (marble) dispenser so the current player can easily see it and choose ingredients. But when I lift it, it comes apart.  I have tried gripping it from the lowest supports, but pieces still come off, marbles go everywhere, and they don't end up in the same place they were at the end of the last player's turn.

Is there a good way to pick up the dispenser and move it without it falling apart? Does glue help?  What kind of glue should be applied, and where?

Yes! Gluing the joints with common Elmer's Glue makes the dispenser sturdy enough to move about when filled with marbles.

Assembled without glue, the dispenser tends to come apart:

Empty the dispenser and turn it over.

Apply glue to everywhere the supports cross each other.  I didn't put glue anywhere it would be visible from the outside:

After drying overnight, it can be filled and moved about without any trouble.  It fits into the storage box that comes with the game.


Efficient Elemental Manland Creation I know cards like Nissa, Worldwaker will get a whole bunch of new lands and make them into Elementals, but are there any way to make all the lands you currently have on the battlefield into Elementals, even for a turn?

If you want your lands to specifically have the "elemental" creature type:

Liege of the Tangle

If you don't care what creature type they are, as long as they're creatures:

Jolrael, Empress of Beasts
Life
Living Plane
Natural Affinity
Natural Emergence
Nature's Revolt
Rude Awakening

If you only need a single type of land to be animated:

Forests

Ambush Commander
Living Lands
Thelonite Druid
Life and Limb

Swamps

Kormus Bell


In two-player and solo Caverna, why is Round 9 with the Exploration action skipped? The setup rules dictate the removal of the Exploration action card, with Round 9 to be skipped.  But they don't list the reasoning behind this decision.

Rulebook, page 3:

  In the 2-player game, only 11 Action space cards are used. Remove the “Exploration” card with the “Level 4 expedition” from the game. (Cover the unused Round space 9 with a Dwarf card.)

Is there a reason for this action and round to be skipped with these player counts?

TL;DR: Ultimately it's a matter of game balance

The Exploration action card is removed as a result of two factors:

1. The 2 player game is shortened by one round (and one harvest)

  In a 2-player game, remove one of the Harvest markers with a green leaf from the game. Then distribute the remaining 6 markers among the Round spaces 6 to 12 leaving space 9 empty.

Having one fewer round makes the two player game harder and reduces the amount of time the players have to implement their strategies and see the returns. The reason for this is because you have less competition over board spaces and so the main constraint/obstacle needs to be time instead of the other players

2. Because one of the action cards needs to be cut in order to remove a Round, one had to be chosen.

Exploration makes the most sense
In a game where time is the main obstacle instead of the other players, it's easier to play the actions of your strategy. Therefore, action spaces that provide a higher quantity of resources or a higher versatility of resources are more important. In this situation, the ability to embark on a level 4 expedition is both, and that heavily imbalances the overall strategy towards weapons.

This is problematic because Caverna aims to make all paths to victory equally feasible


How does "Exile and return to battlefield" work with a Manifest I am playing Brago, King Eternal as my Commander and I have a Cloudform attached to a Manifested card. What will happen if I use Brago's trigger (exile permanent and return to the battlefield) on both Cloudform and the Manifest?

Will the Manifest be revealed? Will it be flipped? If so, what happens if the Manifest is an instant/sorcery?

Please reference the rules when answering.

Your first two questions are a duplicate of this question. (Yes revealed.  Yes flipped)
For your third question, it won't return from exile:

304.4. Instants can’t enter the battlefield. If an instant would enter the battlefield, it remains in its previous zone instead.
307.4. Sorceries can’t enter the battlefield. If a sorcery would enter the battlefield, it remains in its previous zone instead.


Can you counter a Land in Magic the Gathering? I have always wondered this when I played Magic the Gathering, whether or not you can use a counter spell on a land.  I know a land is technically a spell, but it is a special type, hence the confusion.

It may be kind of a waste to counter spell a land but still it could be a good strategic option.

Nope; it's a land (which is a special kind of not-a-spell card), not a spell.  In particular, a land never goes on the stack (where all the spells go); it goes directly from your hand into the battlefield as a permanent.

(If you could, it would completely not be a waste to counterspell a land.  Magic works on a steady acceleration of bigger and better spells as more land comes out.  Anything that puts your opponent a turn behind on that curve is useful.  Destroying/countering a land is about equivalent to delaying everything your opponent does for the rest of the game by one turn.)


How are numerical chess rankings calculated for different ranking systems? I know there are several different ranking systems for chess, but how do they work in general? How exactly do they approximate your skill and how you will fare against other players? How can I figure out my own rating? Does the jump between 2000 and 2100 require a lot more practice/improvement than the jump between 1000 and 1100?

I know I phrased the question to be generic to all systems, but feel free to go into the specifics of any one rating system if it helps answer the question. :D

In general, the idea is to give an approximation of relative strength among players, based on their history in rated competition in that type of chess (normal, blitz, correspondence). The greater the difference, the higher the probability that the higher-rated player will win.
Ratings are modified based on the difference in rating between the players and the expected result. Ratings generally go up for a win and down for a loss; the rating change is bigger if the difference in ratings as bigger. There is typically a damping factor that reduces or removes the penalty for losing to a much higher-rated player.
There are typically different rules for players with established ratings and players who haven't yet played enough games to establish a rating. Provisional ratings fluctuate more and have less predictive value for future results.
In general, yes, once you have established a rating, it is harder to increase your rating by 100 points from 2000 than it is to increase it by 100 points from 100. That does depend on your skill level: if you have a knack for chess, you may never have a rating in the low 1000s.
Below are summaries for most of the major ratings I have been able to identify; apologies to those who use a different rating system.
Elo system
The formula for calculating your Elo rating is this:

new rating = old rating + K×(W-We), where K=10, W=actual score, and We=expected score

In tournament play, the difference in ratings between you and each of your opponents is calculated first. From this, an expected score against each opponent is derived from a table. The sum of those expected scores is compared to your actual score, and thus your new score is calculated.
ECF system

As of 2009, a player's grade is calculated by taking the opponent's grade and adding 50 points for a win, subtracting 50 points for a loss, and taking the opponent's grade as it stands for a draw. For grading purposes it is assumed that the opponent's grade is never more than 40 points above or below one's own. An ECF grade can be approximated to an Elo rating by multiplying by 8 and adding 600*.

For a further explanation, per the ECF website:

In the interval between the end of a grading period and publication of the new grades, the "current" grade for calculation purposes is the new, as yet unpublished, grade.
The Grade is calculated by dividing the total number of points scored by the number of games played. If there are at least 30 games in the current period, then the Grade is based on these games alone. If there are not, results are brought forward from the previous periods as required (see 'Category' above). In no case does calculation go back more than 36 months.
Results are brought forward in two different ways, depending whether the Grade is Rapid or Standard. With Rapidplay, any games brought forward from a previous period will be the most recent games in that period. This is possible because the dates of Rapid games are (almost) always known. With Standardplay, unfortunately, this is not the case. So, instead, the required number of (notional) games is brought forward at the average score for the period.

For ungraded players, a grade is estimated this way:

A Rapid Grade, where available, will be used in default of a Standard Grade; and vice versa. If the player has no Grade at all, a starting grade is calculated as follows.
Stage 1 is to calculate a 'grade' for each ungraded player on his games against graded opponents. The 40-point rule is not used. If all his opponents are graded, it stops there and the result will be used as his starting grade.
Stage 2 brings in games between the ungraded players. Once again the 40-point rule is not used. The players are 'graded' on all their games, using as starting grades the figures obtained from Stage 1.
The resulting 'grades' will not be very accurate. So they are fed in again as new starting grades, and Stage 2 is repeated. This continues, with increasing accuracy each time, until the figures (more or less) stop changing. The starting grades can then be considered accurate.
These starting grades are then used in the grading proper.

Glicko system
The Glicko system is an improvement on the Elo system, introducing a concept called Ratings Deviation.
The rating system itself is beyond the ability of this site to display; without the add-in that Math.SE has, the formulas would be nearly impossible to follow.

The RD measures the accuracy of a player's rating. For example, a player with a rating of 1500 and an RD of 50 has a real strength between 1400 and 1600 with 95% confidence. Twice the RD is added and subtracted from their rating to calculate this range. After a game, the amount the rating changes depends on the RD: the change is smaller when the player's RD is low (since their rating is already considered accurate), and also when their opponent's RD is high (since the opponent's true rating is not well known, so little information is being gained). The RD itself decreases after playing a game, but it will increase slowly over time of inactivity.

USCF Correspondence
The USCF used a linear approximation of the Elo method for calculating correspondence chess methods ... this is how it works now.
Established players
To calculate a new rating after a game, use the following formula:

Rn = Ro + .04(ED) +/- 16
This means that a new rating (Rn) is determined by taking the old rating (Ro), adding or subtracting 4 percent of the difference in ratings between opponents (.04(ED)), and adding or subtracting 16 points.
Rating differences that exceed 350 points are figured as 350 points.
For players rated 2100-2399, the formula Rn = Ro + .03(ED) +/- 12 is used.
For players rated 2400 and above, the formula Rn = Ro + .02(ED) +/- 8 is used.

Provisional players
During your first 25 games as a correspondence chess player, your rating is calculated as the average of your game results.
Each game result is as follows:

400 points plus the opponent's rating for a win, unless the opponent's rating is more than 400 points less than yours.
The opponent's rating minus 400 points for a loss, unless the opponent's rating is more than 400 points greater than yours.
The opponent's rating for a draw, regardless of the difference in rating.
Your current rating in all other cases.

For your first result, because you do not yet have a rating, the 400-point differences do not apply: you get the opponent's rating for a draw, +400 for a win, -400 for a loss. If your opponent also doesn't have a rating, then it's 1700 for the winner and 1300 for the loser, or 1500 for both if you draw.
There is also a provision for forfeits under certain circumstances, like the death of an opponent. (Yes, this is a drawback to correspondence chess ... sometimes you suddenly don't have an opponent any more.)
EDIT : The ELO system is not that simple : here is the FIDE handbook that regulates the rating system : http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=172&view=article.
For those who don't want to read it, here goes (for already rated players) :

For each game played against a rated player, calculate the rating difference D
A difference in rating of more than 400 points shall be counted for rating purposes as though it were a difference of 400 points.

Use a table to find the player's score probability PD
dR = score - PD (score is 0, 0.5, 1 for each game)
The rating change is : the sum of each dR multiplied by K

K is the development coefficient, defined as follows :

K = 40 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed events with at least 30 games
K = 20 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.
K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400 and remains at that level subsequently, even if the rating drops below 2400.
K = 40 for all players until their 18th birthday, as long as their rating remains under 2300.
The Rating Change is rounded to the nearest whole number. 0.5 is rounded up ( whether the change is positive or negative).

Hope it is useful for everyone that wondered.


Phase 10 discard pile While playing Phase Ten, is it legal to pick up the top card of the discard pile and then immediately discard that exact card?

Yes. You draw the card, put it into your hand, and then discard any card from your hand (which may be the card you just drew).


Does Doubling Season creates attacking tokens with Hanweir Garrison? I have a doubt about the interaction between Doubling Season (or the more recent Anointed Procession) and cards creating attacking tokens, like Hanweir Garrison or Hero of Bladehold.

I know that token-copying abilities like Populate wouldn't carry over attacking state.

If I'm understanding it right, Doubling Season's ability is a replacement effect, meaning the "extra" token(s) are still created by the original effect, carrying over any additional effect it would give them.

In that case, an attacking Hanweir Garrison with a Doubling Season on the battlefield would create 4 tokens, all tapped and attacking.

Is this interaction working that way ? If it does, is there a specific rule about it, apart from general replacement effect rules ?

Yes, all token creatures created by Hanweir Garrison etc. will be tapped and attacking, no matter how many are created.

Doubling Season (and Anointed Procession), as you noted, are replacement effects. The original effect never happens. In particular, Doubling Season replaces Hanweir Garrison's ability with the same ability, except it doubles the number of creature tokens the effect creates.

  614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. [..]

When Hanweir garrison's ability resolves with Doubling Season in play, its effect will simply read

  Put four 1/1 red Human creature tokens onto the battlefield tapped and attacking.


Can I use a weapon that makes noise when there's no room for more noise tokens? Is it possible to use a weapon making noise if there's no more room for noise tokens on a location? And is it possible to use a weapon making noise in the colony, knowing that you can't put noise token on the colony?

Read the description on the weapon cards. Most of them doesn't make noise. Ones that do, have a clause: "add noise if possible". Thus, you don't add noise in the colony or if 4 noise tokens are already present at the location.


In response to an opening bid of 1 spade by my partner, why do I have to have at least 5 pieces in hearts (+ the usual points) in order to respond 2H? I've had this "rule" drilled into me for decades; but somebody asked me recently for an explanation, which I was unable to provide.

In addition to the other two great answers here, I'll expand a bit more on the "why".
Basically, your goal is to describe your hand as low as possible and as accurately as possible, right?  So you want to show partner whether you have 4 hearts or 5 hearts at the earliest moment possible, while showing other details about your hand too.
If you play 2H shows 5, then you have these choices for most hands (in base 2/1) that are game-interested or game-forcing:
1NT: 6-11, nothing else exciting to say
2C:  12+, Hearts 4 or less, Diamonds 4 or less, Spades 3 or less
2D: 12+, 4 or more diamonds, Hearts 4 or less, Spades 3 or less
2H: 12+, Hearts 5 or more

Plus the various "spade support" options, of course.
Now you've told your partner (who's mostly in the drivers seat) what you have without taking up almost any space.  Your partner can then tell you their next most interesting thing: whether that is a 4 card heart suit (by bidding 2H), can explore NT, can explore all sorts of things, especially over 1NT or 2C, which are the "least informative" bids.  This is a generally good idea in bidding - the higher the bid, the more space is gone, so the more information you need to convey!
2H steals all that space; after that, what can P bid?  2S to show longer spades or maybe if they're stuck, 2NT to decline but not leaving a lot of room to explore NT; or 3 level bids.  Ick.  If you're going to have to be in a long conversation that might end up with having to really think hard about how safe 3NT is over a 5-2 4S, you want to have that conversation at the 2 level, not the 3 level, as you have only so many chances to show stoppers or shape.


MTG What happens if a creature's toughness is reduced to 0 but immediately raised? I've been playing MTG for a while and I just ran into this problem.

Example: Let's say I have a 3/3 Grove Rumbler and my opponent uses a Lightning Strike to deal 3 damage to it making it a 3/0, but I immediately use a Titanic Growth to give it a +4/+4 making it become a 7/4. So my question is which happens?

A. Lightning strike puts Grove Rumbler down to 3/0 immediately putting it into the graveyard due to state based effect and Titanic Growth is wasted.

or

B.Lightning strike puts Grove Rumbler down to 3/0, but Titanic Growth resolves before state based effect putting Grove Rumbler at 7/4.

First, damage is not the same as toughness reduction. After Lightning Strike resolves, the Grove Rumbler is still a 3/3, with 3 damage marked. This still causes the Grove Rumbler to die from state based actions, just for a slightly different reason.

Once you add Titanic Growth, the outcome depends on exactly when you cast it. If you let the Lightning Strike resolve, then decide to cast Titanic Growth, you can't save the Grove Rumbler, and it plays out like this:

Your opponent casts Lightning Strike targeting Grove Rumbler.
You choose not to respond.
Lightning Strike resolves. Grove Rumbler now has 3 damage marked on it.
State-based actions occur. Grove Rumbler has 3 toughness and 3 damage marked, so it dies due to rule 704.5g.
You now have another opportunity to act. At this point, you can't cast Titanic Growth targeting Grove Rumbler, because Grove Rumbler is already dead.

Alternatively, if you decide to cast Titanic Growth in response to Lightning Strike, you can save the Grove Rumbler, and it plays out like this:

Your opponent casts Lightning Strike targeting Grove Rumbler.
In response, you cast Titanic Growth targeting Grove Rumbler. Now the stack has Titanic Growth on top of Lightning Strike.
Assuming neither of you have any other responses, Titanic Growth resolves. Grove Rumbler is now a 7/7.
Again, assuming neither of you has a response, Lightning Strike resolves. Grove Rumbler now has 3 damage marked on it.
State-based actions occur. Grove Rumbler has 7 toughness and only 3 damage marked, so nothing happens.

Note: I omitted several irrelevant steps. Each player has an opportunity to act (priority) before each object on the stack resolves, and state-based actions actually occur every time a player gains priority.

If Lightning Strike were replaced with Last Gasp to make the scenario actually involve toughness reduction, each case would play out in pretty much exactly the same way. Grove Rumbler would have a lower power and toughness instead of damage, and it would die because of 704.5f instead of 704.5g.


Backgammon bearing off rules Suppose I am bearing off and have two checkers left, one on the 6 point and one on the 4 point. If I roll 5 and 3, is it legal to move the checker on the 6 point to the 3 point and then bear off the checker on the 4 point? Or am I required to make full use of my dice by moving both checkers to the 1 point?

Where can I find a reference to indicate which of these is correct?

Either choice is legal. Here's a reference:

Q: Can I play low number first when bearing off?
Yes, you may play your numbers in either order, as long as each number is played legally.


Can "SWOT" analysis be useful in bridge SWOT stands for (an analysis of) strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. There are four "fields" and yes, four suits.
Here's an example from this deal, which came up in today's New York Post. West opened 1 diamond, South doubled (takeout), and later bid 4 hearts after North's (forced) response.
          Jxxxx
          QT
          Jxx
          Qxx

KQxx              xx
xx                xx
AKQTx             xxx
xx                KT9xxx

          Ax
          AKJxxxx
          xx
          AJ

The trump suit is solid, that is a strength. There are two diamond losers, that's an obvious weakness. With seven trump tricks and two black aces, the club suit an represents opportunity for the 10th trick the QJ together are worth one trick. The spade suit is the threat, you don't want a spade loser.
After south ruffs the third diamond, he should lead the jack of clubs to either steal a trick or force out the king. He then wins any return, draws trumps in dummy, and leads the Q of clubs to discard his low spade.
But South played A, then J in clubs, and went down when East won and led back a club for West to ruff.
Does SWOT analysis make it easier to focus on where the "problem" lies in the hand?

Sort of, I certainly think people do something like this when they first look at their hands (even if they don't call it SWOT). Also analyzing play for a squeeze covers many of the SWOT areas if you squint hard enough (though interestingly threat cards aren't a threat)

strength = your squeeze card
weakness = your threat cards (possibly also communication cards)
opportunities = the squeeze itself/opponents discard under your squeeze card
threat = the opponents busy cards

And I'm sure many other areas of play will also be mappable to SWOT. I suspect that this isn't covered more as we generally have much mores specific methods to analyze a hand for different situations


Does Barren Glory require its trigger condition to be satisfied when the ability resolves? I was watching the most recent episode of Commander Clash in which Richard manages to pull of a win with Barren Glory. I believe the win wouldn't actually have worked out if not for MODO rules engine doing something funny.

We see that before Richard combos off with Barren Glory, when he doesn't meet the conditions, Barren Glory does not trigger at all. But once he satisfies the requirements, the trigger does happen and even though Tomer Blue Sun's Zenith's Richard in response to the trigger it appears that as long as Richard was able to satisfy the condition when the ability triggered he would have won. I'm just wondering how this would have worked out in paper with a judge and whether MODO did anything funny or I just don't understand how Barren Glory works.

The win with Barren Glory was in fact a bug. Barren Glory's ability has an "intervening 'if' clause", which is described in rule 603.4:

  A triggered ability may read “When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect].” When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn’t true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the “intervening ‘if’ clause” rule. (The word “if” has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an “if” that immediately follows a trigger condition.)

This means that you have to have an empty hand and no other permanents both at the time that the ability triggers, and at the time that it starts to resolve. In the game in question, the player with Barren Glory had a card in their hand when the ability started to resolve, so they should not have won the game.


When Purifying the World, can you keep or track monsters you don't usually return to the drawing pile? Purifying the World allows an investigator to collect the monster tiles of defeated monsters and then flip the card to perform some action based on the number or toughness of tiles he's collected.  Can the investigator collect, or probably more appropriately keep track of, monsters which do not simply go back to the drawing pile, for instance ones that are set aside on the ancient one and used repeatedly in mysteries and encounters?  My thinking is that the most sensible thing to do is return them to their source (i.e. the ancient one sheet instead of making them "unavailable") and keep track of them mentally or on paper to count them when flipping the Purifying the World card.

As luck would have it there is an official answer on this from the game designer:

  The Purifying the World Unique Asset as well as the Hunting the
  Thousand Mystery allow investigators to “keep” defeated non-Epic
  Monsters. Both of these effects will function whether the Combat
  Encounter was premeditated or an ambush and even if the Monster is to
  be set aside.

  It works like this: A Monster ambushes an investigator. He defeats it
  and instead of discarding it as normal, he places it on the Mystery or
  his TASK. While on that card, it is not available to be spawned, but
  its attributes may be referenced to resolve another ambush in the
  future.

  If another investigator were ambushed by a Monster, and the only
  available reference for that Monster has been placed on another card,
  that investigator would not be able to “keep” that Monster on his own
  Purifying the World; that specific token is already claimed.

  Finally, if a Monster that was previously set aside has been placed on
  a card, it will return to being set aside instead of being discarded
  when that card is discarded or otherwise removed from play.

  Thanks for playing!
  ~ Nikki Valens
  Fantasy Flight Games

Summary: yes you can place such monsters on Purifying the World. Once you eventually turn that card over (or lose it for some reason), those monsters go back to being put aside.

It seems it is an intentional secondary effect of this asset to enable you to remove monsters from the game! (At least until you flip over or lose the card)


MTG Rhonas the Indomitable + Saving Grace What happens if I cast Saving Grace on Rhonas the Indomitable after attackers are declared?
Does Rhonas block all damage even if the conditions are NOT met aka : don't have another creature of power 4?
Rhonas's deathtouch/indestructable combo seems perfect for blocking any creature dmg

Rhonas the Indomitable doesn't block anything, and won't deal damage, but the damage does get redirected to Rhonas.

Usually the flow goes like this:

Your opponent declares attackers. (Then both of you can cast spells, activate abilities, etc.)
You declare blockers. (Then both of you can cast spells again, activate abilities again, etc.

Rhonas can't be assigned as a blocker during this step, but that's OK for your plan.

Attackers, and the creatures blocking them, deal damage to each other simultaneously.

You'll be modifying this slightly with Saving Grace's ability:

  When Saving Grace enters the battlefield, all damage that would be dealt this turn to you and permanents you control is dealt to enchanted creature instead.

That "instead" makes this a replacement effect which, this turn only, changes how damage would be dealt to you and permanents you control. Rhonas still can't block, but this changes step 3 to the following:

All attackers that would deal damage to you or permanents you control instead deal that damage to Rhonas. Simultaneously with that, all of your blockers deal damage to the attackers they're blocking.

Rhonas is still indestructible and won't be destroyed by what is almost certainly lethal damage.

Rhonas is not however involved in combat. Rhonas wasn't declared as a blocker, isn't considered to be one, and isn't blocking any creatures at all. It's just taking a bunch of damage. Rhonas will deal no damage in this step. This also means it won't deal lethal damage via deathtouch to anything.


What is this game (on the bottom)? Trying to figure out what game is circled in the bottom of this image. Would appreciate any help.

It's Rock Me Archimedes. The page is from Target's Black Friday 2017 Toy Catalog.


Exiling tokens with conjurer's closet What happens if you exile a token with Conjurer's Closet? My understanding is that the token disappearing is a state based action, which is only checked when the ability finishes resolving. Since the closet exiles and returns the token as part of the resolution of a single ability, state based actions are never checked and the token survives. Is this correct?

Edit: I just noticed that the closet specifically refers to "that card". Does that change the answer?

The token will disappear, and it will never enter the battlefield.

You are correct that state based actions are only checked after the entire ability resolves. However, there is an additional rule that applies here: rule 110.5g says

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

So once the token is exiled, it stays in exile even when the Conjurer's Closet instructs you to return it to the battlefield.

So, the use of the phrase "that card" on Conjurer's Closet is not the reason that it only returns to the battlefield if it's a card, but it's a hint that that's how it works anyway.


What general approach should be taken opening hands with 3=1=4=5 and 1=3=4=5 shape? If my hand is not good enough to reverse, what should I do with a hand like

Kxx
x
KJxx
AQxxx

That is, a minimum opener with a singleton major, 4 diamonds, and 5 clubs (assuming that I'm playing Standard American or 2/1 with a strong NT opener)?

Should I open 1D or 1C? What's my rebid if partner bids my singleton?

If the diamond quality is vastly better than the clubs, then open 1D planning on rebidding clubs; otherwise open 1C.

If the club quality is vastly better than the diamonds, then open 1C and plan on rebidding 1NT if partner responds 1H; the club suit can be expected to run in such a situation, and so how much trouble can you get into in 1NT.

Remember that if partner passes a 1NT rebid by you this shows 6-9 points to go with your minimum opener. If you can't make 1NT on power and the club suit, the opponents can probably make at least 2S (or 2H!); going down 1 or 2 undoubled is a win.

The big misconception newer and intermediate players make is thinking that 5-card suits, by either responder or opener, are a preferable rebid; this is untrue; rebidding a 5-card suit is a desperation rebid to be done only in dire circumstances, or to reveal a 5-5. Both opener and responder should try keenly to avoid rebidding 5-card suits, and save such rebids for 6-card suits. Partner will preference back with 3-card support unless her hand is strongly no-trumpish, at which point the 8-card fit can be revealed.

In regards to Rud's statement about opener's raise of 1M with 3 card support; I have always felt comfortable raising partner's suit with 3 and a side singleton. If partner cannot handle the occasional Moysian fit, I find another partner. (And I never have difficulty finding partners.)


What is "Go" in cribbage? I've played a fair bit of cribbage, but I've never heard of scoring one point for "Go" (as mentioned in this other question: Cribbage score going out).  What is it, and what impact does it have on the game?

"Go" is when the count is less than 31 and the player whose turn it is to play has no legal plays (all cards remaining would put the count over 31). That player says "Go", the other person scores one point, and then plays any remaining cards in their hand (without going over 31).

The explanation at cribbage.org from rule 1.5.e.2 ...

  Players alternately play (place face up on the table) one card at a time, starting with the pone. The cumulative value of the cards played is announced as each card is played.
  When a player cannot play a card without the cumulative total exceeding 31, that player calls "go", and the opponent continues to play all cards possible (not exceeding a 31-count). The player who calls "go" plays first in the following 31-count sequence.
  Points are scored during this play of the cards (see scoring chart in rule 1.7).

Scoring occurs normally on these cards – points for pairs, runs, etc. are still scored – except that if such play takes the count to 31, that player scores an additional point: you get two for reaching 31 or one for Go, but not both.

See the definition here and the scoring rules below.

The impact is generally small. It's unlikely that you'd get much more than two points during this time, as it takes at least two cards from your hand to reach a state where the other person would call Go, leaving you only two to play. You might be able to score a triple, but more likely you'd just get two or maybe four (with a pair) ... and your opponent might get those points back if you end up playing your remaining cards, e.g. by having 4-5-6 and being able to play them consecutively (after you've played your last card following Go).


Can I Birthing Pod a token to get a creature with a CMC of 1? From my understanding, the CMC (converted mana cost) of a token is 0.  When you sacrifice a creature with Birthing Pod it adds 1 to the CMC.  So, if I sacrifice a token (any token) to Birthing Pod, can I get a creature with a CMC of 1 from my deck?

You are correct in the general sense. The CMC of almost any tokens is 0. The only exception is tokens copying other cards (e.g. Cackling Counterpart).

The simplest reference is the Oracle rulings:

  6/1/2011  A token has a converted mana cost of 0, unless it is copying
  something else.

  6/1/2011  If a creature is copying something else, its converted mana
  cost is the converted mana cost of whatever it's copying.

So, why do most tokens have CMC 0?

  110.5b ... A token doesn't have any characteristics not defined by the spell or ability that created it.

  Example: Jade Mage has the ability "{2}{G}: Put a 1/1 green Saproling
  creature token onto the battlefield." The resultning token has no mana
  cost, supertype, expansion symbol, rules text, or abilities.

Normally, in Magic, the absence of a value isn't the same as "zero", but the definition of converted mana cost explicitly covers this situation:

  202.3a The converted mana cost of an object with no mana cost is 0.


Is it a good idea in TI:3 to play with fixed alliances? Whenever we play TI:3, we play free-for-all. Of course, during play you can make agreements with fellow players whom you are still free to backstab later. I was thinking about playing with fixed teams, like 3 vs 3, just to try it out. The problem is that my buddies have never agreed to it.

So now I was wondering: has anyone else has ever done this? And did it work out or not?

Never tried it, and I think that making and breaking alliances is a big part of the game. The fact that there can be only one winner keeps everyone on their toes!

How would you resolve secret objectives? Will you still go for the victory point path or would you try galaxy domination?


Monopoly Chance Card In my monopoly game there is one chance card that reads "Advance to Illinois Avenue". It does not mention whether you collect money if you pass go. The rest of the cards that tell you to advance, specify whether or not you collect money. Do I get to collect on Illinois Avenue?

Yes. “Advance to Illinois Ave” just means to move forward normally until you are at Illinois Ave. If you pass go you collect $200 like normal.


If somebody plays a wild card (without +4), is the next person's turn skipped? 3 of us were playing Uno, and somebody layed down a regular wild card. I tried to play the next card because it was my turn, but everybody said that it skipped my turn. I don't believe it did. Please answer soon!

No, it does not skip your turn. There is a separate card called “Skip” that does that, Wild only allows you to change the color being played.

From the rules:

  Wild Card - When you play this card, you may change the color being played to any color (including the current color) to continue play. You may play a Wild card even if you have another playable card in hand. If this card is turned up at the beginning of play, the person to the left of the dealer chooses the color to begin play and plays the first card.

Nothing about skipping a player is mentioned.


Genotype - Market Card refills In Genotype, do the market rows for Tools, Pea plants and Assistants refill immediately or only at the end of each round?

Not until the end of the round. Pg. 10 of the rulebook:

(Assistant Cards are not refilled until the end of the Round.)

And pg. 12:

Discard the remaining Pea Plant Cards, Tool Cards, and Assistants. Refill Tool and Pea Plant Cards based on player count (see p. 3) and refill 3 face-up Assistants.

And reiterated on the "reminders and clarifications" section on pg. 13:

Tool Cards and Pea Plant Cards are only refilled during the End of the Round Reset, not when taken.


Multiplayer timer for board games I'm interested to know if there exists something like a chess timer, but for an arbitrary number of players.  I would like to use this for games such as Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan, where each player's turn is largely independent of the other player's involvement.

Assuming there is a product like this I would like to hear whether you have found it helpful to play with, or whether you think it causes more problems than it solves.

The G8 Game Timer sounds like what you're looking for, and Greg Aleknevicus has has a very nice review of it in The Games Journal. It seems like it might be hard to come by these days, as its out of stock in many stores, though it appears the manufacturer still sells them directly.

From the review:

  To my mind the device only really works well when playing games in which the players take sequential, non-interactive turns of several minutes duration. While this might seem rather restrictive there are lots of games that do fall into this category. Also, it's precisely these games in which a timer is most useful. The aforementioned Tikal is one such example and Vinci is another with which it worked quite well. Ultimately, I can't really say whether I recommend this or not. Not because I don't think it's a worthy piece of game equipment, it is. Rather, because its usefulness will depend so much on the particular game and group that's using it.

As mentioned in the review, a timer is less useful in certain games. Games that involve lots of interaction with other players during your turn, such as trading in Settlers of Catan, mean that the length of your turn doesn't depend only on how fast you play, but also on how fast your opponents make decisions. I don't think that Settlers of Catan would work well with a timer.

You also need to consider what you do when a player runs out of time; do you simply eliminate them from the game? In a two player game, when you run out of time you lose, and the other player wins; in some multiplayer games, elimination can disproportionately benefit one player over the other ones.

Then there are games in which people's turns generally go fast enough that the timer is more of a distraction than a benefit. I would put Carcassonne in this category; it doesn't usually take long for someone to place a single tile. If people are taking too long, there's a simple house rule that I use: people draw their tile at the end of their previous turn, instead of the start of the next one. That way, they have everyone else's turn to think about where they want to place it, and the board only changes a bit by the time it gets back around to them.

That said, there are some games in which the timer would be useful. Games in which elimination doesn't disrupt the game, which have long turns in which each player plays independently of the others, and which are prone to analysis paralysis.


Backgammon best strategy for clearing my home All my checkers are in my home, all my oponent's checkers are not in my home.

I roll the dice.

Assuming I can't take out checkers, what's my best strategy of advancing them? e.g. when this is my home and I roll a 2, should I move the 6 or the 3?

#| | | | | | |#
#|X| | |X| | |#

Since I'm not dependent on my opponent, I assume there's an optimal strategy I can use here. Is it "always move the highest numbers"?, "always move the lowest"?, something more complicated?

example

In the simple case I described above I know it's best to move the 6, since my chances of clearing out in the next round are higher:

option 1: move the 3

result:

#|X| | | | |X|#

chance of winning:

I have to get a 6 at least in one dice, so it's

# get a 6 in the first dice
1/6 +
# get 2-5 in the first dice, 6 in the second or double
4/6 * (1/6 + 1/6) +
# get 1 in the first dice, 6 in the second
1/6 * 1/6 =
# result:
0.416

option 2: move the 6

result:

#| | |X|X| | |#

chance of winning:

I have to get at least a 3,4:

# both dice get 3-6:
4/6 * 4/6 +
# double 2:
1/6 * 1/6
# result:
0.472

So close call, but it's better to move the 6.

But this is a simplified case, assuming I will either finish in the next round or the one after. What about when I have more than 2 checkers?

The logic of finding the “general rule” in these situations is flawed and will lead to potential mistakes. There are positions where you have to move the highest or the lowest number and need to be able to quickly calculate the numner of dice combinations that are favourable or not for your next roll.

In your example, if you leave the checkers at 6,1 points: you need all sixes (11 combs) plus 55,44,33,22 (4 combs), total of 15.

If you however leave the checkers on 4,3 points, you need 65,64,63,54,53,43 (12 combs) plus 66,55,44,33,22 (5 combs) for a total of 17 rolls. The latter play is superior.

Just in case one wonders why not always move the highest point, consider the example of having two checkers on 5,3 with a need to play a deuce. if your move is 5-3, leaving checkers on 3,3 you will clearly lose more games than if you have moved 3-1, receiving the position of 5,1. I will let you calculate the combs and compare.


What to do if I do not have any Link Monsters? I understand that recently, there has been a change in the Yu-gi-oh! game mat. It now has another two zones called the Extra Monster Zones, and the Pendulum Zones have been removed.

The new rules regarding these changes mean it is a massive holdback for those people who don't have Link Monsters. If I don't have Link Monsters, that means that I can only play a certain amount of Extra Deck Monsters at a time.

Usually, my opponent would have Link Monsters, and that means that I am at a disadvantage.

What should I do to make it more even? By this, I am asking for either:

A change in the rules and/or the game mat to make it fairer
A few cards that means that I have a lesser disadvantage to my play or makes my deck counter those disadvantages

And yes, as you may have guessed, I do not have any Link Monsters, nor do I want to buy any.  When I ask for those card recommendations, I have NO intention of buying them, but just to add them to my deck if I have them.

What should I do to make it more even?

(sigh)... Well, sadly, a change in the rules is certainly not something you or I can do, and is up to Konami to decide if they want to change that part or not. Perhaps when some time passes and the Link dynamics start to settle in they will adapt the rules a bit to support those decks that do not use Links as part of their deck.

However I must warn you that Konami strongly favors new cards and archetypes they come up with; when Synchro monsters first appeared 'older' decks were strongly affected, and in that moment only people with Synchros were able to play and build competitive decks. Same story when the XYZ monsters came about, as Synchros and other older cards started to lose their Top Tier qualities.

This story repeated itself when Pendulum monsters came out, and I guess this is happening again with the new Link monsters. Of course there are exceptions, but you have to get more creative when trying to cope with the change of the Meta game while still playing with your 'older' cards

Personally, my main deck is Harpie Ladies, and fortunately they have been given some support lately that has enabled me to adapt them to make them more competitive (made them more XYZ focused, included some useful Synchros, and took advantage of Top Tier cards like Number 11: Big Eye or Mecha Phantom Beast Dracossack... my wallet was not so happy though, as Dracossack rounded $150 each on that moment). But even after that, with these new changes my dear Harpies are starting to stay behind once again.

  A few cards that means that I have a lesser disadvantage to my play or makes my deck counter those disadvantage

This I think is the option you got, and is what I did with my Harpies to compensate for the fast changes of the format; start including in your 'older' decks cards that can counter Link monsters, instead of just having them on your Side Deck.

There are, of course, many cards that you could include to achieve this. I'll be adding some of them here as they come up to mind, so you can perhaps edit your deck to include them to counter Link monsters more effectively:

The Accumulator: «Gains ATK equal to the combined Link Ratings of all Link Monsters on the field x 300.» This can be useful to easily overcome with higher Atk those decks that extensively use Link Monsters. It's Lvl 1 card so you can normal summon without tribute.
Summon Limit: «Neither player can Summon more than two times per turn. (Negated Summons count toward this limit. Negated cards/effects that would Summon do not count.).» This will help you prevent your opponent from Link summoning right away, as all Link monsters require at least two monsters to summon, so in most cases they will have to wait until their next turn to make a third summon.
Grand Horn of Heaven: «During your opponent's Main Phase, when they would Special Summon a monster(s): Negate the Summon, and if you do, destroy that monster, then your opponent draws 1 card, then end the Main Phase» This and other variants of Horn of Heaven are useful to stop Special summons (like Link summons), halting altogether your opponent's efforts to Link summon. You could also use any of the Solemn Counter Trap cards, which are the most widely used across many decks to stop summonings and other activations.
Kaiser Colosseum: «If there is 1 or more monster(s) on the field of the controller of this card, his/her opponent cannot place a monster on the field if his/her number of monsters would exceed the number of monsters that are on the field of this card's controller. The cards that are already on the field before this card's activation are unaffected by this effect.» If you manage to summon one powerful monster, you can zone out your opponent and make him unable to summon more that one monster (thus no Link). Unfortunately, at the date of this edit this card is forbidden, but may return.
Creature Swap: «Each player chooses 1 monster they control and switches control of those monsters with each other. Those monsters cannot change their battle positions for the rest of this turn.»  This is a really powerful card that does not even target and enables you to take control of your opponent's monsters in exchange of one of your own; if they have a single powerful Link monster, you can take control of it by swapping it for any token or lesser monster you have. A similar card is Mind Control but has more restrictions. Even so it can be user to get out of your way some Link monster at least for one turn.

You could also opt for an "Anti-Meta" deck for a change, or well consider some of the cards they use, as those hardly get outdated and still can manage to counter many modern decks (those linked are just a few, you can well make your own anti-meta deck). However, these decks are more control than aggressive or combo, so be sure you like that game play before deciding.


How do CCGs/LCGs have an ongoing metaplot? I am told that there are some collectible card games and living card games that have a metaplot. For instance, I am told that Alderac Entertainment Group (AEG) has Legend of the Five Rings and Doomtown: Reloaded have an ongoing story in the background that is furthered as new sets come out. Apparently it's a pretty involved metaplot too, as I've heard of a lot of fans of the Legend of the Five Rings RPG complaining about the changes introduced by the CCG.

For instance, I have heard that throughout the run of the Legend of the Five Rings CCG, different people have become emperor and new threats (e.g. politcal coups, demon invasions) have emerged and apparently had a specific canon resolution (e.g. the coup failed but the emperor was mortally wounded, so dude X is the new Emperor). These events are all somehow established by the cards int he game and became canon, becoming part of the timeline and affecting those who play the RPG and read any tie-in media, such as novels.

How does this work? I'm having a hard time imagining a story being told as part of a deck of cards with one sentence flavor text on each of them. At first, I thought maybe new boxed sets included fiction stories in the rulebooks, but as far as I can tell, that's not the case.

So how do CCGs and LCGs have an ongoing metaplot?

For what it's worth, my experience with card games in the past is stuff like Yu-Gi-Oh! and Pokémon Trading Card Game, which definitely did not have metaplot (at least, not metaplot that was furthered by the card game itself as opposed to a TV show or other media).

EDIT: To clarify, it is my understanding that the Legend of the Five Rings CCG and Doomtown are not having their metaplot advanced by their corresponding RPGs or anything else, but they are doing it through the cards themselves. My question is not about a card game where the game metaplot changes based on some other media (e.g. Season 2 of a TV show has a storyline where the hero gets a new power, so a new card is released reflecting this story development).

I decided to e-mail someone who is more familiar with the Legend of the Five Rings collectible card game and got a pretty helpful answer:
Consider for instance the Race for the Throne storyline of the L5R card game. This was a storyline where the emperor's throne was vacant with no heir and there was a sort of civil war to determine who should become emperor.
One thing that you seem to have not been aware of is that AEG publishes fiction stories online for L5R and their other games (Doomtown too). Race for the Throne had a whole collection of stories that talked about which people each clan put forth as candidates, what issues arose, who died in the conflict, and so on. This was where the majority of metaplot took place.
If the stories had something happen to a particular person, they would be reflected in a new version of their character in the next edition (or in the rare even that someone died in the fiction, they would be completely omitted from the next edition). For instance, Race for the Throne had Kitsuki Iweko as a Daimyo as a reflection of the development she gained during the Rain of Blood arc (Diamond Edition) where she was just a Samurai.
Aside from characters, the cards also tended to reflect the events of the stories as well. For Race for the Throne, these were cards such as The Throne Stands Empty, Claimants to the Throne, and Claiming the Throne. Often times, flavor text quotes attributed to certain people were in fact quotes from the fiction itself.
AEG will also base the storyline off of the results of high level tournaments, particularly the world championships. If memory serves, the 2007 World Championships were represented in-universe as the Celestial Tournament where the winning player got to have their faction crown their champion as emperor, concluding the Race to the Throne arc. The winner of the world championships was a player who played a Dragon clan deck, so the Dragon clan champion, Iweko, was crowned Empress Iweko I.
It seems the specifics about the 2007 World Championships have been taken down, but I found similar info on their website for the 2014 World Championships. For instance, there was the storyline event "Something Wicked…"

Even in the most prosperous of times, there are dire omens that must be heeded. In Rokugan, there is one omen that is darker than all others, one sign that causes the faithful to rush to shrines and temples and pray to their Fortunes and ancestors of choice for guidance and protection. There is one portent that is so dire that there can be no room for interpretation, but instead its presence affords certainty that there are dark and terrible things upon the horizon.
The Porcelain Mask of Fu Leng has returned.
The winner of this tournament may select any one personality affiliated with his faction. That personality will be responsible for discovering the mask’s return to Rokugan, and will be among the first to realize what disaster looms upon the horizon.

As a result of this, future stories by AEG will involve whichever person the winner of the tournament picked to be the one who found the mask.
So the ongoing metaplot happens in a couple of ways:

Fiction stories published by AEG
Cards that reflect those fiction stories
Input from players who win championships or other special events

I think that it's rare for the RPG to affect the CCG metaplot (which I think is partly why RPG players hate the CCG metaplot changes, especially since sometimes there are pretty drastic shifts in status quo). I suspect that's because the CCG is more of a moneymaker and story prizes are a really good incentive for those who care about it.


Parallel Lives and Dance of Many I was wondering how Dance of Many and Parallel Lives interact.
Dance of Many's Oracle text says:

When Dance of Many enters the battlefield, put a token that's a copy of target nontoken creature onto the battlefield.
When Dance of Many leaves the battlefield, exile the token.
When the token leaves the battlefield, sacrifice Dance of Many.
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Dance of Many unless you pay {U}{U}.

Parallel Lives says:

If an effect would put one or more tokens onto the battlefield under your control, it puts twice that many of those tokens onto the battlefield instead.

Although the ruling on Parallel Lives states:

If the effect creating the tokens instructs you to do something with those tokens at a later time, like exiling them at the end of combat, you'll do that for all the tokens.

this applies only to delayed triggers like for example the one on Mimic Vat, as far as I know.
My question is: will the second triggered ability on Dance of Many remember that it put two tokens into play? And if it does (implying "the token" becoming "those tokens") , will the third triggered ability trigger on either token leaving the battlefield or on all tokens leaving the battlefield?

Just like the delayed triggered ability and the activated ability of Mimic Vat, the first two abilities of Dance of Many are linked [CR 607.2c], and so are the first and third abilities. The ruling from Parallel Lives applies.

  607.2c If an object has an activated or triggered ability printed on it that puts one or more objects onto the battlefield and an ability printed on it that refers to objects "put onto the battlefield with [this object]," those abilities are linked. The second can refer only to objects put onto the battlefield as a result of the first.

"The token" in the second and third ability is short for "the token put on the battlefield by Dance of Many", and refers to that which the first ability created [CR 607.1]. Since

  put a token that's a copy of target nontoken creature onto the battlefield.

was replaced with

  put two tokens that's a copy of target nontoken creature onto the battlefield.

that which was created was two tokens, so both tokens get exiled if Dance of the Many leaves the battlefield, and Dance of the Many gets sacrificed if either token leaves the battlefield.


Would "destroying" Wurmcoil Engine prevent its tokens from being created? I attacked with Wurmcoil Engine and my friend blocked with Stinkweed Imp which has the ability "Whenever Stinkweed Imp deals combat damage to a creature, destroy that creature." My friend argues that it destroys Wurmcoil Engine and does not "die" and is instead moved directly into the graveyard. I argue that the tokens will still be created because the creature hits the graveyard and no matter how it got there, it still counts as a "death" so it gets the tokens. We're still confused, what's the rule?

Destroying Wurmcoil Engine will definitely cause it to create tokens.  Destroying something causes it to go to the graveyard, and "when Wurmcoil Engine dies" means "when Wurmcoil Engine is put in the graveyard from the battlefield":

701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner's graveyard.
700.4. The term dies means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield."

On top of that, destroying Wurmcoil Engine is the most common cause of its tokens being created.  Your friend is probably thinking of "destroying" a creature as something different from "dealing it lethal damage", but dealing lethal damage to a creature literally causes that creatrue to be destroyed:

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed.

This rule is really important because it is why "indestructible" prevents creatures from dying to lethal damage.
If you want to prevent Wurmcoil Engine from creating tokens, you need to do one of the following:

Have Wurmcoil go somewhere other than the graveyard, such as with Path to Exile or Unsummon
Remove Wurmcoil's abilities, such as with Ovinize
Prevent the trigger from resolving, such as with Trickbind


Are Magic: The Gathering booster packs "color random"? Are Magic: The Gathering booster packs "color random"? I've tried Googling it, but nothing tells me anything specific.
Can you get booster packs by color, or are they filled with random colors?

If you're talking about regular (also called 'Draft') boosters: their color distribution is completely random, except that some sets may have a somewhat skewed color distribution themselves, e.g. there might be more black cards than white cards in the set; then, booster packs will contain (on average) more black than white cards. An example of this Torment; from the checklist, it's also clearly visible that it's a set which contains a high number of black cards.

The only thing that is not random is the rarity distribution; each pack contains

  one marketing card, one basic land, ten commons (one possible premium card in any rarity), three uncommons, and one rare (occasionally, about one in eight packs, replaced by a mythic rare).

(source: Gamepedia)

  Can you get booster packs by color?

Actually, it turns out you can. As @murgatroid notes in the comments, beginning with Dominaria in 2018 Wizards started selling 'Theme boosters' (scroll down to the end of the article) with a fixed color distribution (depending on the set, a single color or a combination of two colors).


Peaceful cave too good to be true? We've played Caverna a few times now, and the most recent time, I stumbled onto something so easy and good I felt like I must be cheating. So, help me out: am I doing this right? Or, is there some mitigating factor I don't understand?

The Peaceful Cave furnishing is described like this in the Appendix (emphasis original):

  At any time, you can trade the weapons of your Dwarfs for Food. You get a number of food equal to the strength of the Weapon you trade in. You can trade multiple weapons at the same time or at different points in time. (For instance, if you traded in a Weapon of strength 14, you would get 14 Food from the general supply. The Peaceful cave works well with the Prayer chamber.)

Ore is relatively plentiful (with plenty of tiles to help if you need a boost), and the net result is that you can take the Blacksmithing space basically whenever it's available, pay 8 ore, and then immediately exchange the now-strength-9 weapon for 9 food plus whatever you got on the expedition itself. (2 more ore + 2 points + one of whatever else you need!)

Once the others have armed their dwarfs (or decided not to), the Blacksmith tile doesn't seem to be in that much contention, and anyway, this made food so plentiful that I had no problem using the Imitation space whenever it was convenient. Plus, the tile itself is worth 2 points, and as the description notes, it makes Prayer Chamber another easy 8 points.

With three dwarfs, you can basically have one doing this, one gathering ore, and the other doing whatever else you want. Probably breeding more dwarfs, because mouths to feed aren't an issue.

So: were we playing this wrong? Is there some limiting factor that I hadn't thought of? Should there be a rule that once a weapon is sold, that dwarf can't be re-armed? (There doesn't appear to be. And how would you keep track?) Or are there many other options that are actually just this good that we haven't discovered yet, and I'm just amazed because I'm used to the rounds of abject poverty and starvation in Agricola?

As said in comments you are doing it right.

With this strategy, you lose the ability to access any quest reward of level 8 or above, unless you are keeping two weaponned dwarves.  This is a significant disavantage, since you can't get the cheap dwelling, a cow, sow, breed, or place pastures/tunnels/rooms/fields.

As with any food engine, it makes the game easier, but I find the flexibility of dropping the single tiles too much to give up for my tastes.


How have editions of Bang! been different from previous ones? Bang! has had a relatively large number of changes over the years. I know lots of people who are used to a different edition than I am. Often, this means they are used to a different set of rules and a different deck composition. What are the changes in each edition?

For the sake of clarity, I mean only the editions having English text. (Italian/English versions are fine but not the versions like French or Czech/Slovak/Polish.)

Whenever an expansion has been included in an edition, I'd appreciate it if you would describe any changes from the separately-available expansion or which edition the expansion is.

As far as I'm aware, there are five different editions of Bang!, listed below (printings' dates listed in parentheses):

1st Edition (2002)
2nd Edition (2003, 2005)
3rd Edition (2007)
The Bullet (2007, 2009, 2010)
4th Edition (2008)

Note: Your answer doesn't have to say all the changes for every edition; it will help even if you just mention a few changes.

2nd Edition

This edition adjusted or clarified a few of the rules (and the matching graphics). The rule changes were:

The Sheriff can't be put in jail. (1st Edition: Sheriff could be put in jail.)
Discard Jail after you skip one turn. (1st Edition: Jail was not discarded until a heart ♥ or diamond ♦ was drawn.)
When performing a draw! for jail, the flipped-over card must be hearts ♥ to get you out of jail. (1st Edition: The flipped-over card could be hearts ♥ or diamonds ♦.)
Sid Ketchum has 4 life points. (1st Edition: Sid Ketchum had 3 life points.)

There were also a few changes in cards' names:

Cavallo (Horse) became Mustang
Maestrina (Mistress) became Cat Balou
Indiani! (Injuns!) become Indiani! (Indians!)

3rd Edition

—

Bang! The Bullet!

This was a compilation release, it contained the 3 expansions released at that point

High Noon
Dodge City
A Fistful of Cards

It also included

3 special character cards

Uncle Will
Johnny Kisch
Claus "The Saint"

2 additional high noon cards

New Identity
Handcuffs

A sheriff's badge

This release contained the 3rd edition of the basic game rules and the 2nd edition of the Dodge City rules.

4th Edition

—


How long does a creature returned by the Whip of Erebos remain on the battlefield? Whip of Erebos says

  Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield. It gains haste. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step. If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

Does that mean that the creature will remain on the battlefield for the rest of the current turn and pretty much all of the next turn, too, save for the end of that turn? eg. could I attack with the resurrected creature twice?

And what happens if I bounce it back to my hand? I assume it doesn't go to the graveyard from my hand?

The creature will remain on the battlefield for the remainder of the turn that it came into play. The last phase of each turn is the ending phase, and the first step of that phase is the end step. When that step starts, the triggered ability "Exile it at the beginning of the next end step" will trigger and you will exile the creature.

The next part of the ability says "If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else." This means that if it would go to your hand from the battlefield (you "bounce" it), it is exiled instead.


In MTG, is there a collective name for cards that cost 1 mana and grant 3 of something? I'm aware of the boons, which are a cycle of instants that cost 1 coloured mana and grant 3 of something: cards, mana, damage, +1/+1, or healing.

However, it seems that there are a number of other cards that also cost 1 mana and grant 3 of something. For example:

Holy Strength and Unholy Strength each grant a combined power/toughness boost of +3.
Several 1-cost creatures are 1/1, with one keyword ability: Benalish Hero, Mountain Goat, Tundra Wolves.
Savannah Lions and Wall of Wood have a combined power/toughness of 3.

Is there an established term for these cards, or for the design principle of paying 1 mana for 3 resources?

I think the simple answer to his question is actually "no".  I've been playing and reading about Magic for over 15 years now, and I've never heard of a collective term for these cards, beyond the "boons".

It's obviously true to say that three is a bit of a magic number (excuse the pun) in Magic, and that there are symmetries and cycles everywhere in the cards.  Holy Strength and Unholy Strength are obvious symmetrical designs.  Likewise the 1/1 for 1 with some special ability is a longstanding Magic tradition.  Nowadays, what with power creep, a 1/1 for 1 mana rarely cuts the mustard: now the design principle you want to watch out for is the 1cc creature that has some way of attacking for 2 on turn 2.  (Innistrad even has a werewolf that can attack for 3 on turn 2, on a good day!)

Whether or not there was initially a design decision to give out three of something for one mana, I think, basically, they were quick to realise that it was a bad design principle.  Obviously they spotted that Ancestral Recall was about a million times better than Healing Salve in time to make one rare and one common; likewise, a Wall of Wood is a vastly worse card than Savannah Lions, and again, the bad card was common and the good card was rare (though a 2/1 for 1 wouldn't be rare any more).  Lightning Bolt may or may not have been too good, at 1 mana for 3 damage; and that's why, quite often, we have formats where only the fixed version, Shock, giving 2 damage for 1 mana, is legal.

I think players would no longer accept cards that are terrible just because they are symmetric.  Look at the "new" Holy and Unholy Strengths in Magic 2012, Divine and Dark Favor.  Because +3/+1 is considerably better most of the time than +1/+3, Dark Favour comes at a life cost compared with Divine Favor's life gain.  That's a much better design decision than just saying "2 mana = 4 resources, job done".  Without a shadow of a doubt!


Can you Rez an upgrade during a run? And when? If I have an upgrade (eg: Strongbox) on a server (eg : Archives) - can I Rez it during a run?

If i can, how does this differ if there is Ice or not?

You can rez an upgrade anytime the "Rez" symbol appears on the timing chart for the structure of a run.

This is mostly the same as when paid-abilities can be used, there are a couple of paid ability windows where you cannot rez cards, the most notable being the "Encounter" window with ICE.

From the rules, this is timing sections 2.3 and 4.3. Also before and after every action.

1. Runner starts, names server.
2. Approach outermost ICE.
2.1. Paid ability
2.2. Jack out (goto 6) or not
2.3. Approached ICE can be rezzed
     Paid ability can be used
     Cards can be rezzed.
2.4. Check if ICE is rezzed.
3. Runner Encounters Ice if rezzed.
3.1. Icebreakers can interact
     Paid abilities can be used
3.2. Resolve all unbroken subroutines
     If run hasn't ended, and there's another piece of ICE, goto 2.
     If run ended, goto 6.
4. Runner approaches attacked server
4.1. Paid abilities can be used.
4.2. Jack out (goto 6) or continue.
4.3. Paid abilities may be used
     Cards may be rezzed.
4.4. Run is successful. Trigger abilities if any.
4.5. Access cards. Trigger abilities if any.
5. Run ends. Trigger abilities if any.
6. Run is unsuccessful. Trigger abilities if any.

If there isn't any ice, you won't have the 2.3 timing window, and so you can only rez your upgrade at the 4.3 timing window.


How is bridge for beginners taught in Taiwan or Italy today, Precision or another method? I play duplicate bridge, and have recently begun studying the Precision bidding system on my own.  Precision was invented by C.C. Wei in the 1960's with Truscott's assistance, and was used with great success by the Taiwanese and Italians at the world championship level during the late 1960s and early 1970s, respectively.

I was wondering how beginning bridge is taught these days in those countries, Taiwan and Italy.  Of course, Standard American and Two-Over-One are the main methods taught in the U.S., and, for example, our Bridge Club has yet to offer Precision Bidding lessons.

I imagine that in Taiwan and Italy Precision is taught in beginning bridge lessons, but I am having a difficult time confirming this on the internet.

Thanks for your help!

Personally, I believe in most places, novices are taught the "natural" way. i.e. when you bid a suit, you have length in that suit.

Which means they are probably first introduced to system similar to the standard american.


In rubber bridge, when should you "lead your partner's suit rather than your own?" With equal vulnerability, opponents bid 1 club, 1 spade, 1NT, 3NT.

I'm sitting West, opening from: (s) xxx (h) J8732 (d) T9x (c) xx.

I don't fancy leading my ragged hearts suit with no side entry. So should I lead the other unbid suit, diamonds, and hope that partner has 4-5 of them, headed by enough honors so that my T9 sequence isn't wasted? The opponents probably have 26-27 HCPs between them; my one leaves 12-13 for partner.

Suppose my hand were upgraded to (s) xxx (h) J8732 (d) ATx (c) xx. Now I have 5 HC points, versus 8-9 for partner. Is this a better time to lead "fourth best" from my heart suit?

In general, you are correct not to lead that ratty heart suit with a bad hand. Instead lead DT hoping to catch a quack in dummy and partner with some cards in the suit. With luck you might get in again with a heart to lead the suit a second time for partner.

That being said however, the opponents bid game aggressively; in MatchPoints it might be better to try the heart 3 with the goal of not giving up an overtrick, rather than defeating the contract.

With the second hand, not playing MatchPoints I definitely lead the heart suit; or if the auction had finished 1NT - 2NT - 3NT I lead the heart because opponents have bid a minimum game. However in MatchPoints, with the opponents having bid to game strongly, I am leading the heart suit only because every other possibility is worse and so the heart lead is least likely to give up an overtrick.

Update:
As pointed out below by Ruds, if the opponents play CBS or NMF over 1NT in this auction, then the failure of responder to do so is a loud denial of a 5-card spade holding. In this case only a spade lead (highest spot usually, but dependent on leading conventions) can be considered at all vulnerabilities and styles.


Does affecting an action card affect the Minion it has been played on? Can an ongoing action card played on a minion be destroyed when an action played on a base is preventing minions from being affected?

For example:

A minion has Tooth and Claw... and Guns applied to it.

  Play on a minion. Ongoing: If an ability would affect this minion, destroy this card and the ability does not affect this minion.

If another player uses Disenchant on that minion,

  Destroy an action that has been played on a minion or base.

Would Wildlife Preserve (played on that base) block this entirely?

  Play on a base. Ongoing: Your minions here are not affected by other players' actions.

Does the play of the Disenchant destroy Tooth and Claw... and Guns and avoid the base card (Wildlife Preserve) since its play doesn't affect the minion?

Or, does this actually affect the minion by effectively "un-guarding" the minion?

Q: Does affecting an action card affect the Minion it has been played on?

A: No.

Q: Can an ongoing action card played on a minion be destroyed when an action played on a base is preventing minions from being affected?

A: Yes.

From the most recent rules (Pretty Pretty Smash Up), page 9:

  Affect: A card is affected if it is moved, returned, destroyed, placed, or is changed in power or controller, or has an action attached.

Removing an action is none of these. Even if you were removing an action that gave +2 power, the action doing the removal isn't changing the the minion's power.


Can opponents ask for "alerts" in bridge? Suppose a bidder makes an unusual bid that is "alertable." The bidder's partner is then supposed to say "alert," and then field questions about the bid.

But suppose the partner fails to do this. Can the opponents ask for an alert?

What happens in the two opposite cases, if the opponents do ask for an alert and 1) the bid is alertable and the partner forgot to alert (opponents are wrongly deprived of information) and 2) the bid is not alertable (opponents may ask for and get unauthorized information)?

Law 20 of The Laws of Duplicate Bridge deals with review and explanation of calls. Quoting partially:

F. Explanation of Calls

During the auction and before the final pass, any
player may request, but only at his own turn to
call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction.
He is entitled to know about calls actually
made, about relevant alternative calls available
that were not made, and about relevant inferences
from the choice of action where these are
matters of partnership understanding. Except on
the instruction of the Director, replies should be
given by the partner of the player who made the
call in question. The partner of a player who asks
a question may not ask a supplementary question
until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply
and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations
for written explanations.
After the final pass and throughout the play period,
either defender at his own turn to play may
request an explanation of the opposing auction.
At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy
declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s
call or card-play understandings. Explanations
should be given on a like basis to F1 above
and by the partner of the player whose action is
explained.

...

(a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken
explanation may not correct the error during
the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. “Mistaken
explanation” here includes failure to alert or
announce as regulations require or an alert
(or an announcement) that regulations do not
require.
(b) The player must call the Director and inform
his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s
explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)
but only at his first legal opportunity, which is
   (i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
  (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final
pass of the auction.

Alert procedures and requirements are prescribed by the Regulating Authority, such as the World Bridge Federation or the American Contract Bridge League.
The ACBL has a document explaining alert procedures, as well as a document that advises directors how to deal with failures to alert.
So, to answer your questions:

Opponents do not ask for an alert, but they may ask you for an explanation of your partner's bids when it is their turn to bid or play.

An unexpected alert, or alternatively a failure to alert when expected, by your partner presents unauthorized information to you. Not only may you not take advantage of this information, you are required to avoid actions that are suggested by the information. From Law 16, which deals with unauthorized information:

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

(a) After a player makes available to his partner
extraneous information that may suggest
a call or play, as for example by a remark,
a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected (i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action)
alert or failure to alert, or by
unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed,
special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or
mannerism, the partner may not choose from
among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably
have been suggested over another
by the extraneous information.
(b) A logical alternative action is one that,
among the class of players in question and
using the methods of the partnership, would
be given serious consideration by a significant
proportion of such players, of whom it is
judged some might select it.
When a player considers that an opponent has
made such information available and that damage
could well result, he may announce, unless
prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which
may require that the Director be called), that he
reserves the right to summon the Director later.
The opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized
information might have been conveyed.
When a player has substantial reason to believe
that an opponent who had a logical alternative
has chosen an action that could have been suggested
by such information, he should summon
the Director when play ends (It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later). The Director shall
assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he
considers that an infraction of law has resulted in
an advantage for the offender.

If partner fails to alert a bid (or otherwise gives an erroneous explanation of one of your bids), and you are the declaring side, you must call the director immediately after the last pass ends the auction. If you are the defending side, you must call the director immediately at the end of play.


When was "pennant" renamed "coat of arms" in Carcassonne? Carcassonne has historically used the term "pennant" to refer to the shield icons in cities but now appears to use the term "coat of arms".  They both do the same thing (add two points to completed cities and one point to uncompleted cities).  When did this name change happen?

The original German is Wappen.
English rules have translated that variously as Pennant, Banner, Shield, or Coat of Arms.
The Rio Grande edition called it Pennant.
The Z-Man edition called it Banner.
And when Z-Man printed "Carcassonne II" (art by Pätzke instead of Matthäus), they called it Coat of Arms.
From the German forum:

Das Wappen in dem Stadtgebiet:

Carcassonne (Grafik bei Doris Matthäus)
Bei RioGrandeGames: pennant
Bei ZmanGames: banner

Carcassonne II (Grafik bei Anne Pätzke)
Bei ZmanGames: coat of arms

So the change "from" pennant came in 2012 with ZMG 78000. That changed it to "Banner". The change from "banner" to "coat of arms" came in 2014 with ZMG 78100.


Do people commonly play collectible card games without shuffling? I was watching the Garfield lecture on luck last night, and he mentioned that Magic eventually adopted a discard rule for the first hand drawn if it was a "dud", so that defeat is not so dependent on luck of the draw.

By contrast, in my Jyhad playing days, during which I amassed quite a collection of cards, I tested a no-shuffle rule, where competitors, having access to the same library of cards, could arrange their decks in any desired sequence. This actually resulted in satisfying gameplay, in that hidden information and complexity still resulted in a state where outcomes were indeterminate.

My question is:

Are there any formal variants of collectible card games that allow deck arrangement as opposed to shuffling?

There are variants of Magic that remove deck shuffling and other sources of non-determinism, but they also make other major modifications that make the game very different from normal Magic.

One example is 3-Card Blind, in which any number of players each submit a deck containing 3 cards. Gameplay is as normal, except that attempting to draw from an empty library does not result in a loss, and players have an unlimited number of basic lands outside the game that they can play. The players do not play out games, instead each pairwise matchup is analyzed to determine which player would win on the play and on the draw with perfect play.

If you look at regular Magic, with decks and otherwise normal gameplay, removing shuffling would have cascading effects on the rest of the game.

Combo decks become a lot more powerful when the card order is determined in advance. A land combo deck will do a lot better if they can guarantee that their opening hand contains Dark Depths, Thespian's Stage, and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. A Goblin Charbelcher deck will be a lot more consistent if the opening hand always contains a land, 3 fast mana sources, Goblin Charbelcher, and Lion's Eye Diamond. A Death's Shadow player would (probably) like nothing more than to have 4 Street Wraiths in their top 10 cards.

Starting with a shuffled deck also generally requires that the distribution of cards in the deck matches the distribution of cards in a good opening hand, but this is not so with stacked decks. Some cards are balanced around this fact. Mind Funeral, for example, becomes a lot more powerful in a format where players will generally play fewer lands, and keep them near the top of their libraries. Trench Gorger is a lot better when you can have 40 lands and put them all of the bottom of the library without mana flooding every game.

Search effects are balanced around the fact that you shuffle afterwards. It would change the effect to be able to choose which card to remove from the sequence without modifying anticipated future draws. Scry effects in decks with search effects would becomes stronger, while cards like Brainstorm become weaker.

If you want to avoid all of these kinds of problems, you would have to remove every card that searches the library (e.g. Diabolic Tutor), or requires shuffling (e.g. Green Sun's Zenith or Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre), or cares about libraries being shuffled (e.g. Psychic Surgery) or is balanced around library order being unknown (e.g. anything with Cascade), or is balanced around card distribution being within a certain range (e.g. Mind Funeral), and probably others that I haven't thought of. And you would also want to remove any one- or two-turn combos, to avoid moving from the randomness of shuffled libraries to the randomness of the coin flip that determines who plays first. Removing that much of the card pool would have an unpredictable effect on how the remaining cards are balanced against each other.

And there are further balance issues on the rules side that would need to be considered. Does it still make sense to have 20 life, and a minimum of 60 cards in the library, and 7 cards in the opening hand? Should deck size still have just a minimum, and not a maximum? Is the second player's extra draw still necessary to balance the first turn advantage? Is it sufficient?