Topping up fields in agricola I have a question about the Sow action in Agricola. Namely, consider the following:
 - You sow a field, so now you have 3 grains on it.
 - Harvest happens, so you have 2 grains on the field and 1 grain in your personal supply.
 - You take the Sow action.

Question: does the field 'top up'? In other words, will the final result be that your field now has 3 grains on it again and you retain the 1 grain in your personal supply?

That's how we've been playing it, but rereading the rules I cannot find a mention of that particular case. If our ruling is wrong, it seems to me a bit strange - baking/sowing strategies have always been considered by us to be "weaker" than going straight for animal breeding -> cooking hearth -> 13 food/harvest with no extra actions, and any nerf to sowing hurts the baking strategies even further...

No, the field does not 'top up'.

You cannot sow the field again until it is empty again.

From the page 6 of the rules:

  Grain may be sown in empty fields.

In the side panel:

  1 Grain becomes 3, 1 Vegetable becomes 2. Players can use the Sow action to sow several empty fields at once. It is irrelevant whether Grain or Vegetables was sown in the field previously. If it has been completely Harvested, it may be re-Sown.

In the extended example in the side panel:

  He cannot plant anything in the third field, because it still contains one Grain.

Strategy

I generally favour sowing and baking over eating animals - I find it gives much more food in the long run.

The general grain/bake bread strategy goes:

Stage 1: Get at least one field sowed. This takes three actions (Plow, Take grain, Sow). If you can, it's nice to get two fields sowed, but there might be other actions (eg. taking wood) that might be more worthwhile.

Stage 2: At harvest you recieved one grain.  Plow and sow another field (two actions). Acquire enough food using other means to feed your family.

Stage 3 and beyond: You are now producing at least two grain each harvest. Build either the Stone or Clay oven. Now when you sow, you sow one of your grains, and bake the other(s). That's an easy five/eight food, which is more or less enough to feed your family for that harvest. Also in stage 3 you should get a vegetable, and sow that. The vegetable is for points only, and remember that you only need four for max points, so don't go overboard.

Compare grain to sheep as a food source

Let's say you are getting every single sheep that comes out.

That's only four sheep in stage 1, three sheep in stage 2, and two sheep in the remaining stages. You'll also get one bonus sheep per stage at harvest.

In the later two round stages, that's a maximum of six food you can get solely from cooking sheep.

Whereas if you have say, 5 fields of grain, you could potentially be producing twenty five food from grain each stage. Admittedly this requires you to be using actions. Remember that if you have two ovens you can use them both in the same bake bread action.


Drunk UNO Game: Who is "the player that gets reversed" in Uno? In the Drunk UNO Game, the rules say that when a Reverse is played,

  The person who gets reversed takes two shots

If A, B, and C are seated clockwise and play is still clockwise, then when B plays a reverse, it becomes A's turn.

Who is "the person who gets reversed" in this case?

The whole table is reversed.

When Player B plays a reverse it makes it Player A's turn which means that Player C would have gone next if the reverse hadn't been played. Following the same rules as the other action cards in UNO (skip, draw two etc.), the player who would play after Player B would be the player that would take the shots. in this circumstance it would be Player C.


Contract Bridge and the short club convention When playing the short club convention I thought a one diamond bid shows that I  hold five diamonds. Is that true?

As Alexander Woo says in a comment, there is no "short club convention" - at least, no single one.  Frankly, there is no "X convention" for any X - you will find people who play X a different way than you, and will insist theirs is the right way (or even the only way).  The correct answer to your question is "what have you and your partner agreed to?" and "how are your responses tuned to fit that agreement?"  It is always a risk to say "we play X" and assume partner plays it the same as you do.
"Short Club" systems common enough for me to think of immediately include:

The most common "short club" played by thousands of (usually weaker) players at home and in tournaments: "5-card majors, 4-card diamonds, 3 cards clubs, with 4=4=3=2 opened 1 club instead of 1 diamond" (= is a writing convention meaning "suits in order", so 4=4=3=2 is 4 in both majors, 3 diamonds, 2 clubs).  Perfectly playable, as long as it doesn't evolve into "I couldn't raise on 5, what if you only had two!" or other monstrous convolutions to care for this very rare (3% in a strong NT) hand type.  In this case, no, 1 diamond does not promise 5 (1D is opened on 3=3=4=3, for example).

A very common system in my area is "Montréal Relay", where 1 diamond does promise 5, 1 club is frequently 2 (the key of this system is that the "relay", 1C-1D is catchall, and only "denies a 5-card major" (and a few other rare hands)).  Now the issue is what to do with 4=4=4=1; some put it into 1C, some into 1D, some play some sort of 2D 4441 bid,...
I am amused by the fact that there are more players of Montréal Relay where I live out West, than there are in Montréal itself.

Becoming more common in the ACBL (due to convention liberalization), and very common elsewhere, is 1 club "clubs or balanced", usually with transfer responses (so 1C-1D shows 4+ hearts, 1C-1H shows 4+ spades,...)  Here, 1D is almost always unbalanced, almost always 5 (could be 4=4=4=1, many play not 3=3=5=2 or (32)=5=3).

Then there are all the two-way and three-way club systems like Swedish ("weak NT or strong hand") and Polish ("weak NT or 15-19 clubs or strong hand") Clubs. The rules for those vary a lot as well, but we're leaving the world of what would be called a "short club" convention.

Of course, there's the really old-fashioned "short club", where as well as the clubs hands, you open 1 club with a hand not quite strong enough to open a strong 2.  1C is "not forcing", but partner knows not to pass it, "just in case".
This system works much better with the similarly old-fashioned spoken bidding clues, where, as Ron Andersen (prolific bridge author, teacher and expert player) said about his "mother's bridge club" (quoting from memory):

If a player has 13 or so with real clubs, she opens "one club".  If it's 3 poor (or 2) clubs, she opens "a club".  If she has a strong hand that shouldn't be passed, it's "I'll start with a club".

In case it wasn't obvious, this "help" is highly unethical if done by habit, and cheating if on purpose.  Don't.


In a multiplayer game, if a player is controlling another player's turn, may they reveal that player's hand? With cards like Mindslaver and Emrakul, the Promised End, a player can take control of another player's turn. The controlling player can make most decisions for the controlled player, but they may not, for example, concede the game for that player, or look at their sideboard. Mindslaver's Gatherer rulings even provide a very general explanation:

You can’t make any decisions that aren’t called for or allowed by the game rules, or by any cards, permanents, spells, abilities, and so on.

Now, since when controlling a player, you also gain access to their hidden information, such as their hand cards. In a two-player game, this usually means that until the end of the turn, one player has access to all hidden information in the game, since they see both their own as well as their opponent's information - in a multiplayer game, however, there will be other players not permitted to see this information.
All the Comprehensive Rules have to say about it seems to be:

402.3. A player may (...) look at [his or her hand] as much as he or she wishes. A player can’t look at the cards in another player’s hand but may count those cards at any time.

The Tournament Rules elaborate on a player being allowed to reveal hidden information available to them:

3.12 Hidden Information
(...) players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available to them, unless specifically prohibited by the rules. (...)

This is a dilemma, because even if the above-quoted Gatherer ruling prevented the controlling player to decide that the the controlled player reveals their hand, the controlling player themself has access to this hidden information, so they could always state exactly what was in that player's hand. The point of bluffing aside, this effectively is the same difference.
Now, the entire hidden information rule is part of the tournament rules, and while it's sensible to assume a player may just as well reveal their hand in a casual game, I do wonder if it's a difference in this example.
Questions

Is a player allowed to decide that the player they control reveals their hand?
In case they aren't, are they allowed to share the knowledge they themselves gained, therefore achieving about the same?
May the controlled player still decide to reveal their hidden information?

All of those questions would be interesting to hear about whether it makes a difference if played in a casual environment vs. in a sanctioned event, or in other words, whether the applicability of the Tournament Rules changes things (knowing that there aren't any actual multiplayer formats with more than two teams.
Concerns
These aren't really part of the question, but may help understand why I think it's a relevant question.
If the answer to either 1 or 2 is yes, that would make an effect like this surprisingly strong in multiplayer games, seeing as you're not only getting the already strong effect of taking over someone's turn, but you're also gaining a lot of diplomatic power from revealing certain cards, or not doing so.
Furthermore, if the answer to 1 is no, but to 2 is yes, this means a player may rightfully state that they're not allowed to reveal the cards, but could state what they can do. Since it's not forbidden to misrepresent hidden information, they could effectively bluff that any given card is in that player's hand.
Both of these points aren't game-breaking on their own, but are promoting to decide games not by skill or the contained amount of randomness in Magic, but instead by skill of diplomacy, deceit or other traits that aren't suited for tournament matches, and could spoil casual or social matches just as well.

The controlling player cannot reveal the controlled player's hand. Rule 714.5b says

  The controller of another player can’t make choices or decisions for that player that aren’t called for by the rules or by any objects. The controller also can’t make any choices or decisions for the player that would be called for by the tournament rules.

Revealing your own hand in accordance with tournament rule 3.12 is a decision that would be called for by the tournament rules, so the controlling player is not allowed to make that decision. By that same logic, the controlled player would be allowed to make that decision.

I don't have a solid ruling for this part, but my interpretation is that the controlling player can verbally name the cards in the controlled player's hand. Revealing your hand is a game action that involves game objects, so it is covered by the game rules. However, there are very few rules about players' verbal communication, and there are none that govern statements that players make about hidden information. In other words, there is no rule against naming those cards, and there is no rule against lying about them.


Can I solve a puzzle I originally failed if there is a monster in the same room? In Mansion of Madness, my wife was in the laboratory. She then could not complete the puzzle in that room and the lights could not work. Then I had a cultist come in the room with her. Can she try to solve the puzzle for a second time to be able to turn on the lights before having to kill that cultist?

Yes, she does not have to attack the monster and can solve the puzzle.

Combat occurs in two ways:

If the character spends an action to attack the monster
During the monster attack phase of the Keeper's turn the Keeper has the option of attacking with any monster in the same room as an investigator. (And usually will!).


Warhammer 40k traitor legions-favored of tzeench special rule In the book (traitor legions), the favored of tzeench rule refer to ''all units in the formation can reroll any failed saving throws of 1''. In the case of the Tzaangor warherd formation, does the chaos sorcerer/exalted sorcerer benefit from this special rule?

Yes, if the Sorcerer/Exalted Sorcere was bought as part of that Formation
and the formation met the criteria of the rule (i.e. if the formation contains the maximum number of units).

The Sorcerer/Exalted also gains Fleet as per the Formation special rules.

Unless otherwise specified, all units/models in a formation are subject to the special rules of that formation.

Source: Wrath of Magnus, p 150 - Tzaangor Warherd.

Also, from the Main Rulebook, p 118 - Formations text box:

  Formations
  ...the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain...


What are the standard time settings in chess What are some of the most popular time limits for chess games?  I'm looking for those used today as well as historically.

Blitz games will have 1-5 minutes per side.

Most tournaments will have 1-3 hours per side.  A popular setup is 1-2 hours per side for the first 40 moves, plus an additional ½-1 hours each after the 40th move.  They may also allow Bronstein/Fischer time, if the clock supports it.

The official FIDE time settings are 90 minutes for the first 40 moves + 30 minutes after move 40 + 30 seconds for every move.

The 2010 world championship was "120 minutes, with 60 minutes added after move 40, 15 minutes added after move 60, and 30 additional seconds per move starting from move 61."
I've heard of World Championships going up to 8-hours per side, though.


What are the proper names for the places where cards are drawn from and discarded to? Many card games have two sets of cards that aren't in play, but could be:

a pile of cards (face down) that you draw from on your turn,
and a pile of cards (face up) where you discard any cards you're not using.

What are the proper names for these two places?

I wouldn't be surprised if different games use different names, but I'm just looking for the names that are the most common, and the most readily understood.  Also, I'm thinking of both traditional 52-card games, and the various specialty card decks out there (like Dominion or Magic).

I think the most generic names would be "Draw Pile" and "Discard Pile".


Clarification on the rules of Top Trumps when two or more cards win The rules state:

  If two or more cards share the top value or data is not available for that particular subject then all the cards are placed in the middle and the same player chooses again from the next card. The winner of the hand takes the cards in the middle as well.

However, what they don't make clear is:

Does every player continue to play in this case?  (If two players have the same top value and a third player does not, does the third player continue to play – and possibly even win the hand?)
What happens if this situation occurs on a player's last card?  They cannot carry on but have not yet lost the hand!

Is there some de facto rule that's used in each of these circumstances?  Or is there an official rule that is just hard to find?

As it's written, drawing a hand confers no advantage to the people who played the top cards. It's not that the same hand continues, it's just that there's now a bonus stack of cards available for the winner of the next hand.

In this way, if your last card was put into the middle like this then you're simply out of the game. You didn't win the hand, and you have no way to win the next hand to claim the bonus.

Now for the extra bit that the rules don't cover: if you were the player choosing the category and this happened, I'd have the next player either become someone else at random, someone who's obviously doing the worst, or just have you pick the category but not play a card.


How exactly does Extort ability work? So a friend of mine bought a new deck today which is (heavily) based on Extort ability:

  Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay  If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life.

So now I wonder how exactly does it work? Does he have to pay  for EACH creature with Extort for each spell he plays or is 1  enough to let Extort trigger from all creatures? An example:

A player has 5 lands and 3 creatures with Extort ability. He then plays an Oblivion Ring for 3 mana(), so he now has 2 mana left. If he taps one, would all 3 Extorts trigger or just one?

From the text I would assume the following:

  Whenever you cast a spell, if you pay  extra, then Extort ability will trigger.

So am I right or is Extort a pretty useless ability that should be paid on each creature separately?

From the text I would assume the following:

Whenever you cast a spell, if you pay {W/B} extra, then Extort ability will trigger.

That is incorrect. The triggering event is you cast a spell. Each time that event occurs, the ability triggers.
On resolution, you may pay {W/B} and cause life loss.

A player has 5 lands and 3 creatures with Extort ability. He then plays an Oblivion Ring for 3 mana ({2}{W}), so he now has 2 mana left. If he taps one, would all 3 Extorts trigger or just one?

All three trigger. Note that no time exists between Oblivion Ring being cast and Extort triggering. You don't have to option to tap anything then or when you place the ability on the stack.
When the third ability stacked resolves, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life.
When the second ability stacked resolves, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life.
When the first ability stacked resolves, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life.
So you can cause each opponent to lose up to three life, but each life lost will cost you a mana.
Michael Snook explained how this isn't useless. This post is mostly about correcting your understanding of triggered abilities.


Ahn'Morpork: Placed to one side On some cards I've read "Place to one side" and I couldn't understand does that mean that it is removed? If said for a building does it mean that it is destroyed or has a different meaning? I couldn't find that in the rules.

The card that baffled me was Bloody Stupid Johnson: "Roll the die. If the City Area card of the same value is in play then that card is placed to one side. The owner of the card must also remove one of his minions from the same area as the card."

How is this played out?

Bloody Stupid Johnson works like this:
You roll for a random city area. When you roll an area that contains a building, the owner of that building has to put the corresponding area card away. The card says "to one side" but the important thing here is that the area card is removed from play. The building is still there, it still counts as a building for all intents and purposes (win conditions, for instance), but the owner can no longer use the power on the area card.

According to Martin Wallace, the designer of the game, the card is back in the game if the bulding gets destroyed and subsequently rebuilt (by the same player or another).


Spin on old cribbage A friend of mine and I have our own brand of Cribbage where we throw extra Cards into the game hypothetically speaking how many 15s would there be if there was five fives in one hand

Three fives create a single fifteen.

Four fives create four fifteens: you have four choices of which card not to use.

Five fives create ten fifteens: you have five choices of the first card and four choices of the second card, but half of those are equivalent to the other half, so there are ten pairs of cards to not use.


Smash up: First mate with ongoing actions attached to it. Do the actions follow him? I'd like to hear peoples opinion on this.

The text on the cards mentioned below:

First Mate: "Special: After this base i scored, you may move this minion to another base instead of the discard pile".

Heirloom: Play on a minion. Ongoing: This card gives this minion +1 power for each Heirloom on it. This card cannot be destroyed.(the "this cards cannot be destroyed" is irrelivant to my question).

Situation:

First mate with an ongoing action (fx. heirloom) played on it(first mate).
The base scores
the first mate gets to move to another base after the base i scored

question: does the action played on him follow him or does it get discarded?

I'd think that it would follow him.

They follow him.

  After scoring, players can use Special abilities that
  happen “after” a base scores. Then all cards still on that base go to their owners’ discard piles.

The First Mate is no longer on the base, so he doesn't get discarded, much less actions attached to him.


Software to search for MTG decks based on a list of cards I haven't played MTG for a while, but I still own about 500 cards. Some of them were from pre-built decks, but now the cards are all randomized.

I have the full inventory (quantity and name) on a text file. Although I've seen a lot of programs that allow you to build and share decks, I'm looking for something that searches for a deck based on the cards you have (or on a list you provide).

Update: I may have misguided you with my explanation, so here it goes in different words. I want to know what decks are out there that I can build with the cards I have. Something like: here's the list of cards I possess; show me what decks exist that I can build with them, without needing to buy more cards.

Inspired by this post I've managed to implement the requested feature in my program Mtgdb.Gui, it's free and opensource.

The screenshot below shows the list of decks filtered by a condition that you own 90% or more from the Main deck.

So to search the decks based on cards you have collected, you need to

Step 0. Import the decks to Mtgdb.Gui. It can be be done as easy as drag-n-dropping a bunch of files or folders into it. See Wiki for details.  I used Forge to quickly download ~5000 decks.

Step 1. Import your collection to Mtgdb.Gui. E.g. you can import from a plain-text file where each row is more or less like this:

2 Accomplished Automaton

You can also import your Magic The Gathering Online collection.

Step 2a. Sort the list of decks by percent of cards from Main deck you own in descending order, by clicking the corresponding field.

Step 2b. Alterternatively as in the screenshot above, you can filter the list of decks by using search input.

P.S. Let me stress it, I am the author of Mtgdb.Gui. It has to be perfectly clear, because the rules of this forum, as well as common human honesty, I believe, require people to be explicit when promoting their own product.


What happens if I cast disenchant in response to the triggered ability of animate dead? My opponent has Griselbrand in his graveyard and casts Animate Dead.

It resolves, causing the triggered ability to go on the stack which would bring Griselbrand back to play. In response, I Disenchant Animate Dead.

What happens?

My friend believes it would be the same as the bouncing Oblivion Ring trick-- the triggered ability would still activate, causing Griselbrand to come out, but the aura would be gone before its "leaving the battlefield" trigger has anything to target: i.e. Griselbrand comes out and stays out, while Animate Dead goes to the graveyard.

This sounds right. Is it?

If you destroy Animate Dead before the creature card it enchants returns to the battlefield, the creature card will remain in the graveyard and never enter the battlefield.

Read the text of Animate Dead carefully:

  When Animate Dead enters the battlefield, if it's on the battlefield, it loses "enchant creature card in a graveyard" and gains "enchant creature put onto the battlefield with Animate Dead."

If Animate Dead enters the battlefield, it triggers its ETB ability. If someone responds with a Disenchant to destroy it, then by the time the ETB resolves, the aura will no longer be on the battlefield and the ability does nothing on resolving.

The Oblivion Ring trick you mentioned works only because its ETB ability does not have that condition.


Does "'Collapsing Parallel Worlds" remove Locations that are in play? The crisis 'Collapsing Parallel World's forces one of the players to exchange their deck and discard pile for a new 10 card deck.  Do they lose the Locations they have in play?

The Crisis only affects cards in your deck or discard pile. Cards left in play (such as locations), and cards in your hand, are neither, so they are not affected.

This is corroborated by this Board Game Geek thread:

  This was asked earlier on here and I believe Matt [Hyra, creator of the game] answered it with yes they keep their hand and locations just the discard and deck piles go.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the original reference.


Using a joker when you can't make any other moves Consider the following scenario:

1) There are no more tiles to be taken.
2) I have 9 tiles (none that form a run or set)

...except I have a joker and 2 tiles in hand, which would make a run.

Do I have to use that joker or can I pass my turn?

Yes, you could pass but I wouldn't recommend it since if everyone passes the game is over.

In this rare case the rules state that if all players pass then the game ends and the player with the lowest score is consider the winner.  Since the Joker is worth the most point I would probably play it to get the point out of my hand at this point.


How to Measure Luck vs Skill in Games? Anyone who has played a wide variety of games knows that some games are almost purely skill (i.e. Chess, Go), while others are 100 % luck (ie. Candyland, card game of War). However, most games are in between. I would find it helpful as a game buyer if there were an objective measure indicating how much luck is involved in a game, to include as one of several criteria when deciding which kinds of games I'd like to buy and spend time learning. I personally prefer games where luck/probability plays a role, yet deliberate practice increases skill over time (i.e. card game of Bridge). But obviously other people will have different preferences.

I've observed many debates about the amount of luck and skill in certain games and I sometimes use information gleaned form these informal debates to help me decide whether to purchase a game. Very few of these debates cite objective measures to indicate how much luck or skill is involved.

Note that in a BGG luck/skill thread I started, one person did cite an attempt to objectively measure whether skill exists in the game Fluxx.

So what measures exist and how useful are they? Or is there some persuasive mathematics to suggest that useful measures (of how much luck is in a game) are not possible?

Think about the Elo Rating System used to measure the relative skill of Chess players. This is essentially an equation that takes a series of wins and losses and produces a number that can be used to predict the chances of one player winning a game against another player.

One of the inputs to the equation is a "distribution" that describes how much a difference in skill changes your odds of winning. This part is tweakable - they started with a normal distribution, but some groups have switched to a logistic distribution because they've found it to be more accurate.

If we had a fully deterministic game like "Which player weighs more?", the Elo rating would just be your current weight (or some deterministic mapping thereof), and the distribution parameter would be the Heaviside function (0 if less than 0, 1 if greater than 1).

If we modify that game a bit to make a game like "Roll a D6, add that to your weight, and see who has the highest number", the Elo ratings for everyone would still be the same, but the distribution function would have to change so that the behavior from -6 to +6 was a stepwise thing based on the distribution of die rolls.

If we had a zero-skill game like War, everyone would have the same Elo rating (and the distribution function wouldn't matter).

So if we have a two-player game that produces win/loss results, and a set of players, we can force the players to play games against each other and establish Elo ratings for every player, using some distribution function (maybe we start with a normal distribution like chess did). Eventually we'd be able to look at the results of all the games and determine that a logistic distribution (or a log-normal distribution, or some other distribution) did a better job of predicting the results than a normal distribution.

The shape of that distribution - how 'wide' it is, how it tapers near the ends, how steep it is in the center, and so on, is the answer to your question. Of course, this takes a huge amount of effort to measure, but it's theoretically possible to determine that curve.

Addendum: Here are some distribution curves (courtesy of Wolfram Alpha). Apologies that these don't have 100% consistent X/Y axes, but hopefully you get the point.

This is the 'normal' distribution (rather, its CDF). For example, using the yellow line, we'd expect a player with a skill of "+2" to win about 80% of the time.

The logistic distribution is very similar, but has heavier tails (this is really subtle!). The X-axis here is different (why, Alpha?); again using the yellow line we'd expect a player with skill "+50" to win about 90% of the time.

Note that with both the logistic and normal distributions, there is a parameter to tweak how 'wide' the spread is.

Heaviside:

Stepwise (using the "weight + d6" example, this should be transposed up and flatten out at the left/right extremes):


Aliens in the hallway In The Captain is Dead, we can teleport aliens around the ship to get them out of the way (a hold full of aliens?).
Can we teleport them all to a hallway so they don’t impede any systems?

The base game does not say anything about limitations for where you can place aliens and in fact has alerts that place them where the active player is. What this means is if the active player ends their turn in a hallway they would spawn there since there is nothing preventing them from doing so. Since that is the case there is no problem with a teleport to move them all to the hallway.

That being said however I would say that is a bad idea unless you plan on killing them all right away as the hallway* is about the worst place they could be when things go bad. For example if you move a bunch of them to a hallway and then the teleporter goes down you have potentially blocked off access to a room and made it take longer to move around the ship. Ideally you would want to dump them into a room that you have little reason to use such as the cargo hold or the war room (if the admiral is in the game they can draw battle plans from any room so access to that room isn't critical).

I would also note in both expansions you will find aliens in the hallways more frequently with no new rules about hallways which also says it is okay in the base game.

*The safest hallway is between the war room and cargo hold as it doesn't block entry into any rooms. The other 3 hallways end up in a room being blocked if the teleporter goes down.


Is it a bad idea to to run 24 tap and shock lands in standard I am trying to figure out a good 3 color mana base in a standard constructed deck. It seems like there is a pretty straight forward answer if your wallet agrees.
4 shock lands of each of 3 colors=12
4 check lands of each of 3 colors=12

there are your 24 lands.
The shock lands work for the check lands so it's not an issue

Any deck running 3 colors would most likely be mid or control, so let's assume that we are not thinking about agro here.

Are there any disadvantages with doing this? Would a loadout like this affect pacing or become too much of a toll on the life total?

The only other problem I can think of is not being able to benefit from cards like Assassin's Trophy or Settle the Wreckage. Should these cards be a consideration when creating my mana base?

Yes, going all shock and check lands has disadvantages. Running one to three basic lands is recommendable for any 3 color deck.

As you already noted, the lack of basic lands can be punished by certain powerful cards that are balanced by allowing the opponent to search a basic land. In Standard, these are Settle the Wreckage, Assassin's Trophy, and Field of Ruin. In fact, 3 color decks are so common that dedicated land destruction decks have sprung up that look to punish the extreme cases of decks running only non-basic lands. The latter 2 cards mentioned above are cornerstones of that deck, together with Casualties of War.

Another problematic aspect to the approach is inherent and largely independent of the specific meta:

To use shock lands immediately, you have to "shock" yourself, which can put you in a precarious situation against any form of aggro deck.

To use check lands immediately, you have to have a shock land in play already. With 50% check lands, it is not uncommon to have a starting hand with all lands being check lands, which means your mana base will be a full turn behind the curve, which is a great tempo disadvantage in almost any matchup.

To alleviate these problems, it is worth considering to replace some of the check lands with basics of the type you need the most. One to three basic lands can greatly reduce 2 of the 3 mentioned problems. Typically, running shock lands is preferrable to running check lands, because having the choice between a tapped land and 2 life loss is typically better than running the risk of being forced to play a land tapped.

Example: at 24 lands total, with 12 shock and 12 check lands, you have the following probabilities that all the lands in your starting hand are check lands:

1 land: 50%
2 lands: 24.5%
3 lands: 11.7%
4 lands: 5.5%

If you run 24 lands total but only 9 check lands and 3 basics, the probabilities to get all check lands in the starting hand are reduced to:

1 land: 43.7%
2 lands: 18.6%
3 lands: 7.7%
4 lands: 3.1%

The exact number of basics to run entirely depends on how color-hungry your specific deck is, but if your deck in its current form cannot afford to run basic lands at all, you should probably adjust the spells of your deck rather than run the risk of all non-basic lands.


Fluxx Play All Card and Hand Limit Cards Does the Play All card require the removal of any Hand Limit rule cards currently in play?

No. Play All replaces the Play One, or any associated play rule cards.

Of the many New Rule cards in Fluxx, there are several archetypes, including: Draw, Play, and Hand Size. Each are categorically separate from the others, which is why each directs you to discard any previous associated rules.


Can "aggressive" or unusual play in blackjack get someone thrown out of a casino? One example of such a play is "splitting tens." That is an agressive play that's usually foolish, except when someone is "card counting"? When suspected, card counters are "barred" from casinos (or worse).

Can casinos protect themselves against card counters by limiting bet variations in blackjack?

Card counters are usually identified by wildly changing their bet sizes. (That's mostly how they make their money, but they can make "a little" extra money by using card-counting to inform their play). Suppose someone "split tens" without making large bet variations. Would he still be "suspect?"

BTW, what is the rule for splitting tens? Do they have to be the same denomination (two tens, two jacks, etc.) or merely of the same value (e.g. king and jack).

Years ago, someone was harassed by casino authorities for hitting to an 18 and catching a 3 (usually a bad play that made 21 this one time). Upon questioning, this person told the casino that the dealer had a "tell" that said the dealer had 20, so the "heat" went on the dealer, not the player.

Could a player get into such trouble today under the new rules (the dealer is not supposed to look at his "hole" card, but merely turn it up after all the players have played)?

What other kinds of plays may draw "heat" and why?

I think winning an excessive number of times get you thrown out of a casino. And the casino will then try to find "good" reasons like card counting or whatever dodgy moves you made. If splitting tens is one of them, and you placed a high bet and you won a lot, then certainly the casino will use that to support their claim. If you just split tens and then lose, I don't think the casino will throw you out. :)

I think the unwritten rules that you mention are a set of heuristics that the casino uses to decide whether or not you are suspicious. More or less like a spamfilter deciding whether an email message is spam or not. Some actions make you more suspicious and once you go over a threshold the alarm bells start ringing. Of course the number one alarm bell would be the fact that you are winning, but I can imagine that a persistent ten-splitter might eventually become suspicious for being "out-of-the-ordinary". I just don't think the casino will chuck you out as long as you don't win too much.

Regarding your card counter's book. In the end (s)he is a card counter, so if the casino chucked them out for splitting tens perhaps (s)he had been doing other moves in line with being a card counter inherently, and has, perhaps without knowing, made several other alarm bells ring already. Maybe the splitting of the tens was "the straw that broke the camel's back"

As far as my knowledge reaches regarding Blackjack, I believe in order to split tens they need to be the same denomination. So a Jack and a King cannot be split.


Calculate Mind Funeral efficiency I was wondering about the formula on how to calculate the average number of cards milled by Mind Funeral.

  Target opponent reveals cards from the top of his or her library until
  four land cards are revealed. That player puts all cards revealed this
  way into his or her graveyard.

Just to have an example scenario, let's assume it's an EDH/Commander deck (99 cards total) with 40 lands in it. With no mana ramp or extra draws, let's assume we had the first turn and can cast Mind Funeral on turn 3. Target opponent should have 90 cards left in his library at that point.

This situation can be approximated by the following model: you have an infinite sequence of lands and non-lands, where the probability P that each is a non-land is equal to the fraction of the deck that is non-lands. So, in a 60 card deck with 36 non-land cards, we say P=3/5.

Now, starting at any point in the sequence, the probability that we see exactly N non-land cards followed by a land is simply P^N * (1-P). From there, to get the expected number of non-lands followed by a land, we calculate

Sum {for all N} of N * P ^ N * (1 - P)

The 1 - P factor is independent of N, so that's the same as

(1 - P) * Sum {for all N} of N * P ^ N

This is then equal to (see Wolfram|Alpha)

(1 - P) * P / (1 - P) ^ 2 = P / (1 - P)

So, the expected number of cards that we mill when we mill until we see one land is 1 + P / (1 - P) (adding 1 to also count the land)

Then we simply multiply that by the number of lands that we mill until.

If we apply this to Mind Funeral targeted at a 60 card deck with 24 lands, or at a 100 card deck with 40 lands, in either case about 3/5 of the deck is non-land, so the expected number of total cards milled is

4 * (1 + (3/5) / (2/5)) = 4 * (1 + 3/2) = 10

We expect to see 10 cards milled from a deck that is about three fifths non-land.

There is a little simplification we can apply to the formula above, based on information we can infer from the initial definitions. Specifically, P is the fraction of the deck that is non-lands, or in other words non-lands/(total cards). And 1-P is the faction of the deck that is lands, so that's lands/(total cards). Then

1 + P / (1 - P)
= 1 + (non-lands/total) / (lands / total)
= 1 + non-lands / lands
= (lands / lands) + (non-lands / lands)
= (lands + non-lands) / lands

And of course the number of lands plus the number of non-lands is just the total size of the deck. So, the overall formula for the expected number of cards that you mill is

(lands to mill) * (library size) / (lands in library)

or, perhaps more clearly

(library size) * (lands to mill) / (lands in library)

In other words, the fraction of the library we expect to mill is approximately equal to the fraction of the remaining lands that will be milled.


What games have plan-moves-in-advance mechanics like Robo Rally? I'm looking for games with pieces on a board that move and interact according to actions taken previously in the game. In Robo Rally you give your piece instructions in advance. I recall a similar game where you alter parts of the board before your piece reaches them. Any other games with similar mechanics to these would be welcome answers here.

Space Alert is a cooperative game in which you plan out your entire sequence of moves while trying to communicate with other players about the moves that you are making and the moves that they should make.  It uses very similar parts of your brain as RoboRally, with the exception that you're communicating about what each other are doing rather than trying to guess.


Who does the Runner pay if a piece if ICE states "runner... pays X Credits"? If the runner triggers an ability that says they "pay" a number of credits, who should they pay? The bank or the Corp?

Is "pay" the same as "loses"?

Examples of "pay" abilities and subroutines include Tollbooth and Pop Up Window.

All transactions are conducted with the bank, credits never change hands directly from one player to another.

Thematically, this makes sense as you can think of runner and corp using different scales of money. One credit to the runner may represent say $1,000 or $10,000, but for the corp it may represent 10 or 100 times that amount.

From a game design perspective, it makes sense as the game was intended to be played with the cardboard credit tokens, but also designed for play between people who own their own sets. With neither player directly giving money to the other, there's no confusion as to whose game pieces are whose.

I believe the most specific place in the rulebook is the Credit Pool definition on page 6:

  Each player has a credit pool where he keeps the credit tokens
  he has available to spend. Spent credits are returned to the
  token bank.

"Pay", "lose", and "spend" have the same effect of credits returning to the bank. The difference is that payments and spending are often optional (unless preceded by "must"), and the payer gains something. "Loses" is common as a penalty from the other player, e.g., from an Account Siphon.


What's the etymology for the term "Bingo" in Scrabble? Using all 7 tiles nets a Scrabble player a 50-point bonus and is sometimes referred to as a "Bingo". I'm curious: how did that term come into use and why does it have such meaning?

There is a good detail on Scrabble Bingo's on the Wikipedia page here.

Bingo is a game where each player is issued a card with numbers. A caller calls out numbers drawn at random and the player will cross of numbers on their card. The first person to have all of their numbers crossed off will shout out Bingo! So there is a parallel between this game where all of the numbers have been marked on the card and using all of your tiles in Scrabble.

You can read more about the game Bingo on its wiki page. Note the wiki page mentions that game has its earliest recording in 1776. It is my assumption it was long popular before Scrabble and that is why the term was borrowed for Scrabble because of the parallel mentioned above.

I checked the Online Etymology Dictionary and it says the origin of the phrase is unclear.

If you want to know more about the word itself you should try asking as a separate question on https://english.stackexchange.com/


40K: What are the disadvantages of playing Necrons? I just picked up a 40K Necron codex today and I am rather astonished. They appear quite overpowered to me. Then again, I play Orks and Imperial Guard, so maybe that's why they appear so.

My question is for the experienced Necron players: what are the disadvantages in playing Necrons? There's the low initiative (offset by being reasonably tough and numerous), most of the armor values are relatively low (offset by vehicle abilities) and the weapon ranges seem to cluster around 24" (not so bad). So what do you have to watch out for or compensate for when playing your Necrons?

Necrons are a fairly solid codex right now.  They don't have any glaring issues like some of the older codexes do.  They come with very impressive shooting and decent resilience.  I would say they are a top-tier army this edition, but they aren't all-powerful.

They are not the greatest army in melee.  They have units that can be good at melee(Overlords, Wraiths, C'Tan, several of the elite choices), but the core of the army(Warriors and Immortals) won't stand up very well in assault.  And those units that are good tend to be fairly expensive.  Lynchgaurd and Pretorions cost the same as TH/SS Terminators but are just not quite as good.  6th edition is shaping up to have an even bigger emphasis on troops than 5th, so it's probably not wise to overpay for average quality assault units.  Wraiths and Command Barge Overlords tend to be the exception.  These are assault units that will find their way into most competitive Necron armies.  Scarabs are a special case since they are really only effective against vehicles, but, boy, are they effective:)

While the Necrons at first glance seem very resilient, a competent opponent that knows your codex can compensate for that advantage.  High strength/low AP weaponry can make short work of Necron vehicles even with their Quantum Shielding.  Since Necron vehicles are opened top any penetrating AP1 hit will destroy you on a 3+.   Reanimation protocols can also be overcome if your opponent focuses fire effectively.  If a whole unit is knocked down, no one can get up.  Plus the inclusion of precision shots could allow opponents to knock out your res-orbs at an inopportune time.

Necorns also don't have as wide a range of allies open to them as some other codexes.  Though they need them to be competitive a lot less than some others.  And they can ally with Grey Knighs...'nough said about that.

I had mentioned how many Necron assault units where expensive.  That's a trend with many of the options in the codex.  While there are many units that are cheep and effective(Warriors, Nightscythes, Annihilation Barges) there are others that can end up costing too much.  The special characters are all very expensive.  The rest of the HQs are decently priced, but you should be weary of giving them too many upgrades.  You won't get a good return on investment if you give them more that 2-3 options. Most of the Elite choices are expensive for what they do.  The efficiency of the cheaper options won't always compensate for the more costly ones.  Necrons are typical of xenos armies with the amount of dead entries present in the Codex.


When to make a small bet in two-player Haggis? In the game of Haggis, you can make a big bet (30 points) or a small bet (15 points).

I've always wondered what the use is of making a 15 point bet instead of 30. If you're pretty sure that you're going to win, why not make it 30? If in doubt, then don't bet at all.

The only situation that makes some sense to me is this:

Let's say you're winning (e.g. you already have 200 points in a 250 point short game), and your opponent is a bit behind you (e.g. he has 180 points). Your opponent doesn't bet. You've got yourself a pretty good hand, and usually you would bet big with those cards, but in this case, you can win the game just as well with a small bet. Also, in case something goes wrong, you are giving your opponent only 15 points. There is a chance that this won't be enough for him to win, so you will have the opportunity to respond in the next round. If you'd bet 30, it probably would be enough for him to finish and win the game.

Are there any other situations when making the small bet is a good choice?

Edit: I should have pointed out that I'm asking this question about games of Haggis involving two players, but not three.

This question was discussed in this BGG thread.

The only answer I found at all convincing was: in a 3-player game, if your hand is marginal, the big bet may convince your opponents to put their own interests aside and work together to set you. If you make a small bet on a similar hand, your opponents might play less aggressively to defeat you--each trying to snag more point cards himself, say--leaving you with a slightly better chance of making the bet. Clearly, this does not apply to 2-player.

It was also pointed out that the 15-point bet allows a risk-averse novice to experiment with the bet mechanic without being buried for failure. This isn't strong general strategy but it's a reason you might see the small bet.


Characteristcs on the stack I've got a question regarding characteristics on the stack. I found the information that "each spell has all the characteristics associated with it". Does it mean that when card is on the stack as a spell, it has its  mana cost, name, abilities and so on? I know that for example static abilities don't work on the stack. If I get it right, cards have their abilities on the stack, but these abilities don't work. Or maybe that is wrong?

Spells have all their characteristics on the stack, including abilities, which allows other cards to interact with them conditionally. That doesn't mean that their abilities are functional on the stack. They usually are not, though they can be.

Spells are objects:

  109.1. An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem.

Abilities are part of an object's characteristics:

  109.3. An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. [..]

There are many cards interacting with spells that have certain characteristics, for example:

Negate (type),
Red Elemental Blast (color),
Disdainful Stroke (CMC),
Meddling Mage (name),
Goreclaw, Terror of Qal Sisma (power),
Hand of the Praetors (abilities),
Reki, the History of Kamigawa (supertype),
Bog-Strider Ash (subtype).

There are four kinds of abilities: spell abilities, activated abilities, triggered abilities, and static abilities (113.3)

In the vast majority of cases, spell abilities are abilities that take effect when the spell they're on resolves, such as Lightning Bolt, and the others only work on the battlefield.

  113.6. Abilities of an instant or sorcery spell usually function only while that object is on the stack. Abilities of all other objects usually function only while that object is on the battlefield. The exceptions are as follows:


How is Hnefatafl related to Chess and Go? What is the history of Hnefatafl in relation to Chess and/or Go? Which was developed first and what if anything influenced the development of Hnefatafl?

History of these ancient boardgames is a bit murky due to their really old age.

The wikipedia article on Hnefatafl is a good starting point, but you can already see from that how vague the information is. Hnefatafl being played since around 400 is certainly older than Chess. In fact, it can be considered a predecessor of Chess.

A not so easy relation is that between Hnefatafl and Go - if it exists at all.

What can be said for certain is that written documents on these three games can placed in a timeline like this:

Go is the oldest with (written!) references dating back to ca. 400 BC
Hnefatafl appears around 800 years later
Chess appears again a few hundred years later.

What is particularly interesting is that Chess is believed to have originated in India, from where it basically traveled to Europe. By around 1000 Chess was far-spread in Europe.

As for the initial development of Hnefatafl, I am not aware of the influences. What is known is that Hnefatafl is tied very closely to the Vikings. Due to their enterprising nature they traveled through most of Europe helping to spread Hnefatafl. Also note that the end of the Viking age coincides with the time of the introduction of Chess, so it is not surprising that the latter continued to dominate the European scene for centuries to come.

Edit: In terms of influence between Hnefatafl and Chess, I'd wager neither significantly influenced the other. From the mere timeline it is possible that Hnefatafl may have influenced the development of Chess. But that would be a risky theory, as I am not aware of any written connection between these two and the spacial separation between Vikings and Indians makes it ever so unlikely.


Can I give a creature spell hexproof to prevent it from being countered? The card Dive Down states:

  Target creature you control gets +0/+3 and gains hexproof until end of turn. (It can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.)

If I cast creature and opponent casts counter, can I Dive Down on the stack to give creature hexproof?

So if I understand correctly:

You're casting a creature spell.
Your opponent has cast Essence Scatter targeting that spell to counter it.
You want to use Dive Down to prevent that creature spell from being countered.

No, you can't do this. For a few reasons:

Hexproof only functions on the battlefield. A creature card on the stack that has hexproof can still be a target of your opponent's spells. (Same for when it's in your graveyard, in exile, etc.)

  702.11b “Hexproof” on a permanent means “This permanent can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.”

(Anytime it's not on the battlefield, it's not a permanent.)
Dive Down targets a "creature", which refers to only creature permanents on the battlefield. It can't target a spell — things that target creature spells say "creature spell", such as Essence Scatter.

  114.2. Only permanents [ed: cards and tokens on the battlefield] are legal targets for spells and abilities, unless a spell or ability (a) specifies that it can target an object in another zone or a player, (b) targets an object that can’t exist on the battlefield, such as a spell or ability, or (c) targets a zone.

If you want to prevent your creatures from getting countered, you'll need effects that say your spell "can't be countered." For example, Altered Ego and Carnage Tyrant both can't be countered. Meanwhile Surrak Dragonclaw and Prowling Serpopard both grant this ability to other creature spells you cast, whilst also having the ability themselves.


Does an item effect still occur if you go insanse/unconscious using it? As an example, an investigator had the item Flute of The Outer Gods, which takes 3 stamina and 3 sanity to use and immedietly defeats all monsters in the investigators location. If using the item reduced either the sanity or stamina to 0, does the effect still come in to effect?

Does this apply to all items that require you to lose either sanity or stamina?

This question is not a duplicate of: How does Flute of the Outer Gods work in Arkham Horror and when should I use/buy it? although the answer there is relavent.

This question is asking about items in general and not just the Flute of The Outer Gods

If a cost associated with a spell or exhaust card leaves you at 0 stamina or 0 sanity it will resolve before you become injured or insane at the location you cast it.

What about Flute of the Outer Gods?
After the injury or madness, the spell resolves(Either its success or failure state) in the location in which it was cast the spell.

You then become injured or insane and are transported to the correct treatment facility.

Other spells that does not have such dramatic effects (Like plus to combat checks) are rendered useless since you can not perform a combat check after the spell has resolved against the original target which resides in another location.


Who should I try to kill? Chandra or opponent? Here's a board state I faced today in a casual Constructed game:

In case it's not clear from the picture, I have 1x Mausoleum Guard, 1x Doomed Traveler, and 2x Intangible Virtue, while he has 1x Stormblood Beserker (enchanted with Pacifism) and Chandra the Firebrand.

What's the play? Should I send my guys after Chandra or hit my opponent directly? And why?

What actually happened is this (spoilered for the curious):

   1. I reason that, all else being equal, I'll grind him down on the ground before he can ping me to death with Chandra's +1 ability. I
 attack him, and he goes to 12.
 2. He plays a Stormblood Beserker, pings me for one with Chandra's +1 ability, and passes the turn to me. I am now at 8 life.
 3. I pass the turn back without attacking, planning on using men to block and upgrade them into flying tokens.
 4. On his turn, he uses Chandra's -2 ability to double a spell. He then casts Incinerate targeting me, which gets doubled and hits for 6.
 Then he casts another Incinerate from his hand, and I lose.
 Should I have seen this coming? Should I have attacked Chandra to remove the threat of her -2 ability?

Depends on what's in the rest of your decks, really.

Just generally speaking, a five-turn clock is too slow to justify sacrificing board position.

I thought about ways to explain this in terms of drawing "outs", "control vs. beatdown" theory, &c., but I think it's actually simpler than that... Look at Chandra's -6 ability. 6 damage! If you race and both draw blanks, he will still win. With Chandra on the board, he actually has a faster clock than yours.

Consider also why he played her. What did your opponent do last turn? Looks like he played Blackcleave Cliffs tapped, tapped all his basics for Chandra, then +1ed her up to 4 loyalty counters. He did all that stuff based on the same board state as you're seeing now: two creatures and two Intangible Virtues. He had two other cards in hand; these represent alternative options. So, why'd he choose to make this play? Presumably he played Chandra because the best line of play available to him includes Chandra; therefore, you should kill her to cut it off.

It might be a fake-out to buy time, but...

He's clearly not stalling for mana. He's already got six mana available to him: if he had something big hiding in his hand, he could've just played it already. It's safe to assume Chandra is part of his strongest line of play.
It's possible that -- and this is highly unlikely with a red deck -- both cards in his hand are dead and he's stalling to try to draw some kind of "out" (a card that'll turn the board state in his favor or win the game outright so he doesn't have to care about board state anymore). However, having access to Chandra's copy effect makes many more of his potential topdecks into legitimate outs (e.g. the exact way he burned you out next turn). In this unlikely scenario, your best line of play is still to cripple his board and grind out a win.

Since I did just end up mentioning "outs" anyway, I might as well throw in "control vs. beatdown" theory. Assuming you're playing Township Tokens and his deck isn't heavy with big stuff like Inferno Titan, you've got a stronger endgame. In this situation, you've also got the ability to claim a stronger board position, by killing Chandra. So, be the control deck! Don't let him keep a planeswalker around just because ignoring her makes your super-slow clock a little bit faster.


Does the leader get to look at the Plot cards before distribution? When playing The Resistance with the Plot Thickens expansion, the leader gets to distribute the Plot cards to other players of her choosing.  Is this a blind draw, or does the leader get to look at the cards before giving them to other players?

I believe the leader not only looks at the plot cards, he also chooses what card to give which player.

I couldn't find a copy of the original rules online, but here is a summary of the rules. Also note the plot cards are public information once dealt to a player.


Value of the double-blank domino? Is the double-blank domino, if in hand at the end of a standard "connect" game, counted as zero or 14 points?

I am not sure what you mean by a standard connect game (it is also odd that you tagged it with trick-taking-game. There are variations of dominos that are trick taking, but you don't make connections in those games). Nearly all variations of Dominos have you count the number of pips on dominos left in a losing player's hand. Since the double blank has zero pips, it is worth zero points.

Draw Dominos

  Scoring - When a hand ends, the player with the lightest hand (i.e. the fewest number of dots on their dominoes) wins the number of sum total of points in all of his opponents hands (minus the points in his own hand, if any).


What happens to a spell if an oppenent runs out of mana while casting it? My friend and I were playing Magic the Gathering when he tried to summon Ghor Clan Rampager. He used all his mana to cast him, but in response I played Twiddle and tapped one of his lands. What would happen to his creature?

What happens to a spell if an oppenent runs out of mana while casting it?

That's impossible. There is no chance to use spend mana between the point where you start casting the spell and the point where you pay for it.[1]

  but in response I played Twiddle and tapped one of his lands.

"In response to" means "after it has been cast but before it resolves". When Ghor Clan Rampager is cast, the lands have already been tapped and the mana has already been produced.[1]

(Or did you mean in response to activating the land's ability? One cannot do anything in response to activating a mana source as it does not use the stack.)

You would have to cast Twiddle before he casts Ghor Clan Rampager (which means before he even mentions he's going to cast it), but then he could just tap the land for mana in response to you casting Twiddle, so it would have no effect.

Notes:

The steps to casting a spell or activating an ability are:

601.2a) Place card on stack.
601.2b-d) Make choices, including targets.
601.2e) Determine total cost.
601.2f) Activate mana abilities.
601.2g) Pay the previously determined cost.


How does Goad interact with Archangel of Tithes? A new card Disrupt Decorum says: Goad all creatures you don't control. (Until your next turn, those creatures attack each combat if able and attack a player other than you if able.)

Now, I know if you have to pay a cost to attack with a creature, you don't have to attack with it.

However, if you are unable to attack all non-goad players, your creature must attack the goad player (if able).

So, if Player A goads my creature, and Player B has an Archangel of Tithes untapped (As long as Archangel of Tithes is untapped, creatures can't attack you or a planeswalker you control unless their controller pays 1 for each of those creatures. ...), can my creature not attack at all, or does it attack Player A?

They must attack the goading player.

With Goad there are 2 requirements, one for if they are able to attack, and one for who they attack. When determining if an attack is legal you need to make sure it fulfills as many requirements as possible (without violating any restrictions like the Angel's preventing attacks) First are they able to attack? Second can they attack a player other than the one that goaded them?

In this case the creatures are able to attack, but there are no  players other than the one that goaded them they can attack. Since they are able to fulfill one of the requirements (the must attack) they do so even if it means violating another one (not attacking the goading player if able). Not attacking would fulfill fewer requirements so it is not a legal attack, and attacking the player with the Angel would violate a restriction so it is also not legal.

From the Commander 2017 Release Notes:

  If the creature doesn't meet any of the above exceptions and can attack, it must attack a player other than the controller of the spell or ability that goaded it if able. It the creature can't attack any of those players but could otherwise attack, it must attack an opposing planeswalker (controlled by any opponent) or the player who goaded it.


What game mechanic can be used for evenly selecting other players but not yourself? I am looking for a game mechanic for a game I am designing,  that would let players randomly select other players, but that by the end of the game all the players were selected equally.

My first instinct was the destiny deck from Cosmic Encounters.  In that game there is a deck with a few cards representing each player.  On their turn the player draws a card, and interacts with the selected opponent.
The limitation of this solution is that sometimes players select themselves.  Cosmic encounters solves this by having rules for how to interact with yourself, but my game lacks this.  Even if i was to simply put the card on the bottom of the deck and draw a new one, there is a chance with the last card being left of the last player who must take the last turn.  At this point selecting another player randomly would unbalance the game, giving them an extra time they are selected.
Is there any other mechanic that can be used to solve this?
(I am in no way set on using cards.  Any mechanic would be OK)

If it is acceptable that the order of the players turns is different every round, you could have a deck with a card for each player, then draw the top card and let that player have the next card as target, and then the next player takes the third card as target.
Finally the last player uses the first one as target. This way each player is the target exactly once in every round.


What's the best strategy for winning while using all 3 stations in Ticket to Ride Europe? Ticket to Ride Europe pocket edition has an achievement that I just can't get! It's winning using all 3 stations during the game. Can anyone suggest any strategies on any of the following:

Should I play with 3 or 4 bot players? (You can't use double tracks with just 3)
Should I select the 20+ pt "long route" and try to complete it?
Should I place the stations at the very end? The bot players keep ending the game before I get a chance to establish the stations. If I place the stations earlier, it's hard to keep adding new destination tickets.

Play with 2 or 4 bots. You'll be needing stations more with more competition for routes. Why 2? because you don't get the second half of the doubles without 4 players total. This means that to win, you'll more likely need to make more connections through occupied chunks.

If winning cleanly, grab some tickets, and take one or two that you can connect by dropping a station.


Can dummy claim points for honors in contract bridge? North won the bid at 4 hearts.  When South laid down his dummy hand, South had 4 of the top 5 hearts.  Is the North-South team eligible to declare 100 honors even though North won the bid and South had the honors?

Yes. Either hand, by either side, may claim honors. The only restriction is that the honors claimed must all be in the one hand. This has been the rule since before I first learned the game in 1963.

From The Laws of Rubber Bridge (2014):

  PART VII - The Score*

  Law 72 - Points Earned

  A. Trick Points ...

  B. Premium Points Either side or both sides may earn premium points. Declarer’s side earns premium points ..., by holding scorable honors in either of their hands, or ....  The defenders earn premium points ... by holding scorable honors in either of their hands. (see Law 81)

  ...

  Law 81 - Scoring Table

  ...

  HONORS

Scored above the line by either side

For holding four of the five trump       100
honors (A, K, Q, J, 10) in one hand

For holding all five trump honors        150
(A, K, Q, J, 10) in one hand

For holding all four aces in one hand    150
at a no trump contract


Maxing out your buys in early Dominion How important is it to always buy the most expensive thing that you can with your first buys in Dominion? I appreciate that in the later stages of the game you often have more money than you can profitably spend, especially since the more expensive cards are often very situational. However, in the first three turns or so, how important is it to always buy the most expensive cards that I can afford with my copper?

As a rule, not important. Far better to have a strategy that you follow than to buy the most expensive card you can afford.

The value of a card will vary depending on your deck, and knowing when to buy a less expensive card that your deck needs (or nothing at all) is, I think, part of the transition from a beginner to intermediate player. If there's a Chapel, it's almost always worth spending $3 on it in your first turns, as getting it early is more important than waiting for an unlucky draw with only $2. For certain kingdom sets you might not want any $5's at all, so buying one just because you have $5 would be deplorable.

Similarly, as @thesunneversets points out, Silver is often what your deck needs instead of a  $3, $4 or even $5 action if you're not hitting $6 enough for gold. Buy the card your deck most needs that you can afford!


Munchkin Dungeon of Comprehensive Curses Technical Difficulties So this dungeon says any curse that affects someone happens to everyone, unless the curse already does so. Most curses are pretty cut and dry, but what does "effects everyone" technically mean?

example: What happens when I play "Curse of Generosity"? Does this only affect the player I played it on, because he gives something to everyone? Or, Does everyone have to be "generous"?

Pretend that the curse is copied for each player and played on them.  So in your example, every player would need to be generous.  You should probably do it simultaneously so you don't have cards getting passed in a giant circle.


Forgetting to steal in Settlers of Catan A Knight card is unique because it can be played on your turn before the dice is rolled. We ran into an interesting scenario last night where one player played the Knight and then rolled the dice, without stealing... And then we realized it. What's the best course of action? Is the roll null until he steals? Or did he forfeit his right to steal? Or does he steal after the roll?

On one hand, he now knows the value of the roll which could influence what he steals. On the other hand, forfeiting a steal might not be allowed (otherwise you might do so if you had 7 cards, to evade a 7 being rolled).

There are two issues here, and I think they each deserve a separate answer:

If you forget to steal, do you forfeit your right to steal a card?
If you go back a step in the game, do you re-take each step including rolling the dice?

The first is personal preference, I would say he forfeited his right to steal. It's not just he who missed the steal, it was the other players as well. It could be that people's hands have changed because they've received resources from the dice roll, and you'd have to account for that. In that, you would need to rely on everyone's honesty about (and memory of) the cards they'd received.

Re-rolling the dice after backtracking is something I never do, as a rule. If there's a possible argument about whether or not the dice should be rerolled, it's better not to, to avoid all discussion. No one is impartial in a game of Settlers.


Yu-Gi-Oh Tribute effect When you activate a monsters tribute effect, like "tribute this monster to destroy a face up card on the field", can you tribute summon using that monster and activate its effect?

No you would not get the effect if you used the stated monster as a tribute for something else.

The text states:

  "tribute this monster to"

this means tributing this card is a cost to activate the effect to destroy a face up card on the field.

if it read:

  When/If this monster is tributed

then it would work when you used it for a tribute summon or any effect that caused it to be tributed


In bridge, what are the proper followups to a Jacoby transfer? In bridge, over a 1 NT opening, a responder might bid 2D/H with five hearts/spades asking the opener to "transfer" to 2H/S. The idea is to try to find an eight card fit, assuming that the NT bidder has three in the major.

But suppose the 1NT bidder only has two of the designated suit. Does s/he have to accept the transfer, or can one bid 2NT in this situation.

Assuming the opener accepts the transfer, is the responder (i.e. 2D/H bidder) supposed to go to 2NT to give the opener a choice of a NT or suit contract?

Well, the proper followup is what you have agreed upon.

The 'normal' responses to a transfer allow you to bid the major at the 2 level (usual completion of the transfer) or bid the major at the 3 level, which shows a maximum hand and 4 cards in the major in question (called super-accept).

Assuming your agreement is the above, bidding 2NT with doubleton in the major, instead of completing the transfer is just silly.

You partner could have 6 cards in the major and a bust hand and might have been planning to pass the 2H bid from you. With a 6-2 fit, 2H will play very well as compared to 1NT. Even with a decent 5 card suit and nothing else, 2H will likely play better than 1NT. 2NT might just be too high. This is because the trumps serve as stoppers in other suits, and also provide entries into dummy.
With partner having an invitational/game forcing hand and exactly 5 card major, you will always be able to reach 2NT or 3NT when you need to. With an invitational hand and exactly 5 cards in the major, partner will rebid 2NT, which you can then pass (or go on to 3NT if you have a maximum hand). With a game forcing hand and 5 hearts, partner will bid 3N.
You are denying partner the chance to bid 2S after transferring to hearts which can show some hand types (some people play it as 5-5 in majors etc).
Bidding 2NT is a unilateral bid. Remember that your partner is the captain. You have narrowed down your hand with your 1NT bid.

So violating the transfer to bid 2NT to show doubleton is pointless with no real gain (you will always get to deny support later), and has only downsides.

Also, from a system point of view, having 2NT show a doubleton is inefficient, as later followups will clarify that situation. You are just wasting space and getting to a bad contract/wrong siding it for no reason.

That said, some people do have followups other than 2 or 3 of the major, but those typically show 4 card support and some other feature (like doubleton/values in the suit bid).


How does the new Sangan errata affect Exodia? Just reading up on the new sangan errata which is;

  If this card is sent from the field to the Graveyard: Add 1 monster with 1500 or less ATK from your Deck to your hand, but you cannot activate cards, or the effects of cards, with that name for the rest of this turn. You can only use this effect of "Sangan" once per turn.

So this new Errata states that you cant use the effect of the monster you added until the turn after you use this effect.

To my understanding this means that if you have sangan in an exodia deck and you have both legs and both arms in your hand then if you use the sangan effect to add the head then you wont win until your next turn. Or would the effect of exodia overrule this effect?

And also if you have the head already and three of the other pieces in your hand when you use sangan to add the last one it doesnt have an effect because only the head has the effect and because you havent added the head to your hand then the win condition can still be activated. Or would you still have to wait a turn because the pieces are listed in the effect of the head?

Having all five pieces of Exodia triggers a win condition, not a monster effect. No card may directly prevent this win condition from triggering.
No card may negate or override the win condition printed on Exodia the Forbidden One. There are multiple rulings to this effect in OCG, including that Prohibition cannot block the effect of Exodia the Forbidden One (this ruling in particular is among those that UDE also issued independently for TCG, before Konami took that over).
There are only three situations in which a player with all five pieces of Exodia will not win:

The player drew the remaining piece(s) of Exodia as a result of an effect that requires them to draw X cards and then discard X cards from their hand (e.g. Graceful Charity - Draw 3, then Discard 2). Exodia's win condition will not be checked until after the cards are discarded from the player's hand.
Both players were required to draw cards (e.g. Morphing Jar), and as a result of that, both players now have all five pieces of Exodia in their hand. The official ruling in OCG (and unofficial from UDE) is a draw.
The player had only the remaining piece of Exodia in their deck and was required to draw two cards from a single card effect (e.g. Pot of Greed). The first draw will add Exodia to their hand, completing Exodia. The second draw causes them to lose the game via Deck-out, before Exodia's win condition is checked for.

Exodia's win condition also occurs before any cards can react to the event that caused its satisfaction (e.g. Magical Thorn) and prevents the remainder of any chain in progress from resolving (e.g. if "Backup Soldier" is played against "Delinquent Duo" and "Backup Soldier" results in Exodia being completed, Delinquent Duo no longer resolves as the game has already ended)


Ways to remove creatures with Shroud I was playing Forge last night and the computer brought out Wall of Denial.  What an annoying wall!  Is there any way to destroy it other than attacking with a big creature and having the wall block the creature.  It says it can't be the target of spells or abilities.  Any other ways to destroy it?

Yes, there are. A creature with shroud can't be the target of spells or abilities, but it still can be effected by ones that don't target.

Some examples are ones that destroy all creatures like Wrath of God, deals enough damage to all creatures like Blasphemous Act, or gives all creatures -X/-X like Black Sun's Zenith.

Another common way of dealing with shrouded creatures is by forcing its controller to sacrifice it with something like Diabolic Edict, though this require them to only have one creature, or want to keep their other creatures more than the wall.

You can also remove shroud from the wall either with Arcane Lighthouse or cards that remove all abilities without targeting like Polymorphist's Jest.

You could also give smaller creatures that it blocks deathtouch with something like Coat with Venom.


Is it possible to have an unplayable tile? Is it possible to have a scenario where you pick a tile up, and are unable to make a legal placement with it?

What happens in this scenario?

I found this rule very quickly in the rules.

  In the rare circumstance where a drawn tile has no legal placement
  (and all players agree), the player discards the tile from the game
  (into the box) and draws another tile to place

For example:


What game has black dice with keys on three sides? What game are these dice for: black 6-sided dice with a white key symbol on each of three sides with the other 3 sides blank

They're dice from Got'Cha! from Milton Bradley.
Detail of box cover:


Is a card set aside with an Island considered "In Play"? For example, can I set aside my Lighthouse on an Island to protect myself from attacks throughout the game?

My opinion is that Yes, cards set aside using Islands are still 'In Play', as this makes sense from a mechanism and theme point of view (Lighthouse on an Island).

However, if this is the case, I wonder what happens when combining Island with Goons, Hoard or Quarry...

Since everyone has an opinion, I'm really looking for material references one way or the other.

No, cards Set Aside cards are not In Play

The Seaside Rules states rather specifically on page 4 that set aside cards are not in play, only played cards are.

  In play cards are those you have played - not those set aside, trashed, or discarded. Nor are they cards in your hand, deck, supply or discard piles. (page4, sidebar)

  “In play” -- Action cards and Treasure cards played face-up in a player’s play area are in play until they are moved somewhere else—usually until they are discarded during a Clean-up phase. Only played cards are in play; set aside cards, trashed cards, cards in the supply, and cards in hands, decks, and discard piles are not in play. Reaction abilities like Moat's do not put those cards into play.

  Island – [...] Island and the card set aside with it are set aside face up on the Island player mat provided. They should not be shuffled back into your deck when you shuffle your discard pile. [...]

Additionally, the Intrigue rules, define Set Aside (page 4, Intrigue), and instruct you to not follow rules text for cards set aside. And while play is never defined in the rules, it is only used in two contexts while appearing 63 times (3 if you count the single instance in the sidebar, "play passes clockwise").

to play (verb): to place an Action card from your hand to the play area, and follow the instructions on the card or place a Treasure card from your hand to the play area adding their value to any coins provided by action cards then Gain any Card from the supply of equal or lesser value.
play area: the place where Action cards and Treasure cards are placed during a players Action/Buy phases. These cards are usually placed in a player's Discard during the Clean-Up phase.

  In the Action phase, the player may play one Action card. [...] To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face-up in his play area. He announces which card he is playing and follows the instructions written on that card from top to bottom. [...] Any Action cards played remain in the player’s play area until the Clean-up phase of the turn unless otherwise indicated on the card. Players should not discard the cards prior to the Clean-up phase, unless directed to by the card or another action.

  In the Buy phase, the player can gain one card from the Supply by paying its cost. [...] The player may play some or all of the Treasure cards from his hand to his play area on the table and add to their value the coins provided by Action cards played this turn. The player may then gain any card in the Supply of equal or lesser value.

  "Set Aside” – when a player sets aside a card, he places it face-up on the table (unless otherwise indicated) without following any instructions on the card. An Action that requires a player to set aside cards will instruct him on what to do with these cards.


Does a concealed Kan interrupt the game flow? If you made a concealed Kan on the first turn and won on the extra tile that you drew, would you get Heaven/Earth?

Do your own concealed Kans interrupt the game flow, or does it only apply when someone else steals a discard?

A similar example: Kanning into first turn riichi. Is it considered a first turn riichi?

Warning: not exactly familiar with the term Riichi, nor with the specific Mahjong ruleset Riichi Mahjong (Henceforth, RMJ).

In the books I've read, and the 3 different published rulesets I've played (One of which was a 1960's Japanese rulebook translation), the functional definition of "on the first turn" is "without having discarded."

Having just read the rules for Riichi from the EMJA, the rules for Riichi Blessing of Heaven (East out on deal), Blessing of Earth (non-east out on self-drawn tile), and Bleassing of Man (non-east out on claimed discard) forbid concealed Kong.

Both the RMJ rules and the 1 of the rulesets I've played agree that any play after a discard is claimed is no longer first turn.

TLDR: in the Riichi ruleset, yes, Kans/Kongs do preclude the "first turn" bonuses.


Returning to Origin city when Married Do you need to end your turn in the city with your origin marker in order to satisfy the condition on the Married status?

The status Married says, in part:

  After you have an encounter in another city, you must return to your home before you may end your turn in any other cities.

It is ambiguous as to whether or not you must end your turn in this home city in order for it to count, or if you may simply move over it with your movement (rolling your check for making babies on the way) and then proceed as normal.

On the one hand, nothing else in the game functions by just passing over a space, but on the other, many cards make reference to their effects happening only "after an encounter," while this one does not.

Yes you must end a turn in your origin city before you may end your turn in any other. Your interpretation is correct, this game does not care about the spaces you pass over as you move (aside from the movement speed, though that's between spaces technically), only the spaces you end your turn on.


Is it legal to check the number of resources in the bank? Could a player, during their turn, count the number of resources of each kind in the bank? I would typically do this before playing a monopoly card for instance.

You can only count resource cards after rolling, to determine if there are enough for everyone to get the cards they need.

From the official FAQ:

  Resource Cards - May I count the Resource Cards in the supply stacks during play?

    Yes, immediately after a production roll, before distributing the resources - but only if it isn't sure whether there will be enough cards for all players entitled to receive them.


How does the die rolling work in Betrayal at House on the Hill? There are a lot of parts into the game where i just dont know what to do with the die. For example, when I have to roll a 3+ to cross a bridge, how many dice is it when it's not a might or speed or sanity or knowledge roll?

The number of dice you roll is equal to your stat for the roll you need. So if it tells you to make a might roll, and your might is 3, then you roll 3 dice.


When Governor and Alchemy cards are in same game, how does gaining a card for trashed card work? In Alchemy, the rules for what kinds of cards can replace a trashed card are governed by the following, somewhat ambiguous wording:

  Adding coins to a cost doesn't affect [potion] being in the cost or
  not. If [potion] was in the cost, it still is; if it wasn't, it still
  isn't.

The rules then present an example with Remodel card. However, the Remodel card says:

  Gain a card costing up to two more . . .

The Governor card wording is:

  Gain a card costing exactly one (or two [if you're the player playing
  the card]) more.

So, for the player who played the Governor card, it is clear from the remodel example that a card costing exactly 2 coins must be replaced by a card costing exactly 4 coins with no potion.

However, what about a card costing exactly 2 coins and a potion? If trashed, must it be replaced with a card costing exactly 4 coins and a potion? Or could it also be replaced by a card costing exactly 4 coins (but with no potion)?

It must have a potion. The rule states that any time any cost is increased, the potion quantifier stays. Since the card you are trashing has one potion in the cost, the card you pick up also has to have one potion in its cost. For more strategy with this card (albeit not help with this particular question!) check this out.


Is the Deputy Card an Item? Does the "Deputy of Arkham" card count as an item, for the purposes of counting up your total items when forced to lose half your items?

No, it does not count as an item
The Rules, page 16 note on the middle of the right hand column:

Important: When adding up items before discarding
them, count all Common Items, Unique Items, and
Spells. In addition, the Deputy’s Revolver and the Patrol
Wagon both count as items. Allies, Skills, and other
cards do not count towards this total.

Since "Deputy of Arkham" falls under "other cards", it does not count when adding up items.


Spells are not exiled by Jace, Telepath Unbound's second ability in MTG Duels I used Jace, Telepath Unbound's second ability, which is casting a spell from the graveyard. It says the spell will be exiled.

However, it didn't. For example, Adverse Conditions was in the graveyard when I activated the Jace's second ability. And Adverse Conditions was cast, but didn't get exiled and instead went into the graveyard again.

Why so?

Should it have been exiled? Yup.  You cast it from your graveyard, it went on the stack, resolved then returned to your graveyard.  Going to your graveyard should have been replaced with exiling the card.

Why didn't it?  No idea.  It's probably a bug.  With a game and rules as complex as Magic's, it wouldn't surprise me that something doesn't work like it is supposed to.


Does being removed from a location via a character ability or event count as "leaving"? If a character is moved from one location to another via an event (e.g., Airlift) or character ability (e.g., the Administrator ability, which lets you move a pawn to a location with another pawn), does that count as the character leaving the location?

Spoiler pertains to the Cairo recon, and provides context:

   With the introduction of the Hollow Men, a character gets exposed when leaving a location that contains 1 or more Hollow Men figures.
 Does that happen only when doing any of the normal movement actions (Drive/Ferry, Sail, Charter Boat) or any time you are no longer in the location with Hollow Men?

It isn't specifically limited to the movement actions, so anything that causes your pawn to no longer be in that location would count, including events or character abilities. You do have the option to simply stay in that location and perform non-movement actions, which can be viable towards the end of the game if you're about to win or lose anyway.

I asked the same question on BGG, and while there aren't any "official" answers, all of the posts so far have agreed with the conclusion that there are no exceptions.


Is" third seat, favorable vulnerabilty" the only appropriate time to pre-empt with "any seven" of a suit? I would do this with 8765432 of a suit in third seat, and a "Yarborough" elsewhere in hand, and with favorable vulnerability (not vulnerable vs. vulnerable).

Opposite a passed partner, I don't fear missing out on a game, or any constructive bid, and I do fear that the opponents have at least a game in hand, if not a slam, if fourth seat gets to open.

If partner has one or two trumps, I will make four tricks on sheer length against an opposing 3-1 or 3-2 distribution (3-3 for that matter). Doubled, non-vulnerable, that is -1100, less than the value of an opposing slam and rubber bonus.

If partner has the three defensive tricks needed to hold opponents to game, s/he will contribute 2-3 tricks, and we'd be down two or three -300 or -500, less than the value of game and rubber for the opponents.

Are the above circumstances the only time to do this? Or are there some systems or experts that would go "beyond" this and bid "any seven" either in the first or second seat, and/or with equal vulnerability?

Or would most people refrain from bidding "any seven" even with third seat and favorable vulnerability?

To answer your specific question: Other than third-seat favourable vulnerability, only when you are specifically interested in a small short-term bump in your results against weak club competition, and are willing to sacrifice your overall partnership rapport and skill level in order to do so.

Your argument is extremely faulty. If one is allowed to open 3 in a suit with a hand like such as

x-xxxxxxx-xx-xxx

then one is effectively removing the capability to open 3 in a suit with a constructive hand such as

x-KJTxxxx-xx-KTx

because it is too dangerous for partner to respond on the possibility of the second hand and risk going down 1700 or 2000 if you only have the first.

Further, you  are neglecting the value of the distributional information that you are giving to the opponents, and that you are depriving both yourself and partner of (from hearing an informative opponent auction) in making an informed opening lead and sound defence. Destructive agreements like this are discouraged by all authorities because they both prey on weak players, who do not have the experience and agreements to deal with them, and convert expert contests into extreme games of chance from ones of skill.

Yes, in a club game you will undoubtedly do well with such an agreement against weak players; but you will at best break even in the same games using it against experienced partnerships; turn friends into enemies; and see your tournament results plummet as you develop a reliance on such gimmicks for good results at the expense of sound bidding and play.

as I noted in a comment above:

  Yes, bridge clubs around the world have numerous fools who would bid thus - .... Bidding on the assumption that LHO received a defective bidding box, without any red cards, is lunatic bridge. LHO's bidding box is just fine, and [if an experienced player] he knows exactly how to pull that red card, whether it be for penalty or takeout.

Update:

It is also important to note that a very weak hand is much less likely than a merely weak hand. Thus that holding a hand similar to x-KJTxxxx-xx-KTx is much more likely than holding one similar to x-xxxxxxx-xx-xxx. Are you really sure you wish to handicap all the hands where you hold the former, just so that you can bid on the very rare occurrence of the latter?

Similarly one moderate feature outside the suit is much more likely than no moderate feature outside the suit, compounding the unfavourable statistics.

Update An example of how a system that encourages light openings enables opposing declarers to make contracts unlikely to be made otherwise.


"You may cast" and timing rules Some effects that say “you may cast” let you ignore timing rules. For example, Descendants' Path lets you cast creature spells during your upkeep. It doesn’t explicitly say that you can ignore timing rules or cast the spell as though it had flash, but it’s implicit (because otherwise the card wouldn’t work at all).

On the other hand, Emry, Lurker of the Loch has a “you may cast” effect with reminder text stating that “Timing rules still apply.” Since this is reminder text and not rules text, that means the rules text on its own already implies that you can’t ignore timing rules.

Those two are clear-cut cases, but in general, how to determine whether a “you may cast” effect lets you ignore timing rules? It seems like punctual effects let you ignore timing rules, while ongoing effects (“You may cast (…) this turn”) don’t, but I couldn’t find a reference to that in the comprehensive rules.

While these effects look similar, there is a key difference between the two:
Descendants' Path instructs you to cast the card as part of the effect's resolution. This is the case exempted by 116.1 and therefore ignores the timing restrictions given by the game rules (see 116.1a) , but is still subject to timing restrictions imposed by game objects (e.g. an opponents Teferi, Time Raveler would prevent you from casting it)
Emry, Lurker of the Loch creates a continuous effect that gives you permission to cast the card upon resolutuion. You may do so until the effect  ends, but must follow the usual timing restrictions (116.1a).

116.1. Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined
by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells,
activate abilities, and take special actions.
116.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time he or she has priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during his or her main
phase any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty.

If a spell or ability instructs you to cast another spell as part of its resolution, it will be on the stack while the other spell is being cast, however, it will have left the stack by the time that spell resolves. While technically a legal target, you will not be able to actually copy the original spell or ability.
If a spell or ability grants you permission to cast another spell, it will have left the stack by the time you recieve priority to cast that spell and will not be a legal target.


Sheriff of Nottingham Negotiation Question This occurred during a game of Sheriff of Nottingham, during the "negotiation" phase between two other players.

I was going to lie to the sheriff and put illegal goods in my bag, however I was not going to bribe the sheriff. When I offered my bag, the sheriff said to me "If you give me an offering I will not search it." So I decided to add a bribe on top of my bag, as play allows. Then, the sheriff decided to search the bag since I had reached to offer him something.

According to the rules, is this kind of game-play legal?

Before you [as the sheriff] inspect a bag, you may choose to threaten the bag's owner. That player may offer you a bribe to avoid the inspection.

  A deal is considered complete when an offer is accepted. An offer is a specific bribe proposed. Once the sheriff has made a choice it cannot be changed.

As you describe it, the sheriff made a vague threat, and then declined whatever offer you were making (possibly before you even specified the amount).

For better or worse, this is within the scope of the rules. Maybe in a future game, you will occasionally adopt the tactic of offering a bribe even when innocent, to make the sheriff's decision less obvious!