Is there a program/game i can build a deck and play against AI's without a net connection? When i build my deck i like to try and test it out to see what flaws could be exploited and cards used to exploit those flaws while also seeing how difficult it is to implement my strategies while also learning of new cards i may want to get in order to strength my deck.

problem is that the i can't test it out how i want to, i'm not privilege enough to have many players (if at all) to help test my deck in my area and if i go into the city players tend to reserve their opinion, assuming that it's because they don't want me patching up my deck to potentially defeat them in a rematch.

I use a program called YVD (Yu-Gi-Oh Virtual Desktop) which is normally up to date with every card currently released and allows me to duel players however random duels with human players tend to be nonconstructive as when i loose my opponent doesn't stick around for me to learn where i went wrong and while i could rig a couple of machines to connect locally and duel an identical deck this fails in me learning of new cards or strategies which could be used against me.

Now i am looking for a program/game similar to YVD however has a single player aspect for dueling AI players, while pale in comparison to human players who can come up with strategies and see and exploit flaws in my deck, an AI can help me prepare a better deck.

the things YVD has which i also want

Complete database of cards (or can be updated)
Allowing both tournament and non-tournament decks (my non-tournament tend to have tournament banned cards like Change of Heart and tends to get close to 100 cards)
Preferable free to download but i am willing to pay for it however to get cards that has to be free, i dont want to be spending money getting digital versions of my cards just as a test before i go off to buy them physically
Has AI Players or a single AI Player which is assigned decks meaning i can recreate decks posted on forums/wikis and duel against them as a test
Can be played Offline without ever needing to connect to the internet (not even for installing), this is because my main computer doesn't connect to the net and my laptop which does is getting on in the years and tends to burn up during summer

Platform must either be Windows, iOS or Android, while i can accept consoles most console Yu-Gi-Oh games on consoles start you off with a starter deck and it takes forever for you to get all the cards needed to mimic a deck you have created in real life

Try YGOPRO it actually works and does everything you need. It even has an offline AI.


Mana fixing in a Cube I am building a cube and was wondering how much mana fixing is necessary to build a fun cube?

Is it necessary to have all the fetch lands and revised duals or shock lands to make sure that the players have the right manabase or is ok to forgo those cards for something simple (and less expensive) like evolving wilds and M10 lands + Innistrad lands?

Not at all.

A quick Gatherer Search revealed at least 25 non-Green, fairly inexpensive basic land searchers (most $0.10 commons). Key cards of note:

The Panoramas: Example Bant Panorama, Naya Panorama
Terminal Moraine, Evolving Wilds, Terramorphic Expanse, Ghost Quarter, Oath of Lieges
Artifact Searchers - Armillary Sphere et. Al.
Basic Landcyclers

This is without even listing all the dual lands that are available. There is a thread on the Multiplayer Wizards forum that displays alternatives to the original duals for people on a budget. The top post of the thread breaks the dual/tri lands into categories, first by cost, then by cycle.

Finally, there are also artifacts that tap for any color, or three color(Obelisk of Esper, Obelisk of Naya), or cheap Signet cycle (Boros Signet,  Azorius Signet, et. al.).


Carcassonne builder and bazaars Here is a scenario that happened to my friend and I last night: we were playing Carcassonne with extensions 2 (builder & cie) and 8 (bazaar & cie). My friend was adding tiles to a castle he owned. His builder was in his castle as well. At some point, he picked a tile (let's call it tile A) which had a bazaar on it and he added it to his castle. Then we made the bid with two tiles and he was left with a tile (tile B) which he added to its castle with a builder.

The rule state that for tile A, one must wait after the bid related tiles have been placed to pick the builder bonus tile. However, the rules state nothing for tile B.

Should my friend have picked yet another builder bonus tile for tile B?

tl:dr-  No, I don't think they should take another bonus tile.

Firstly I'm going to assume that by 'castle' you mean 'city'.  The castle in Bazzars refer to a specific token which the builder can not be placed on and your example seems to mean the player extended a city with a builder to.

I think a key word in the rules is 'immediately' in Traders and Builders.  Using the rules reference here it says as follows:-

  If you place a Land tile that continues the road or city your builder occupies,
  you may immediately draw and place another Land tile. You place this tile
  following all the normal rules

then later it says :-

  You may place a meeple on both the first and second tile.

The rules for the Bazaars taken from here

  The placement of a bazaar triggers a bid for Land tiles.

Now in luie of anything better to go on I'm would do the rules saying 'immediately' before trigger.

The final semantic note to is that the Bazaar rules refer the whole process of auctioning and placing tiles as the 'Bazaar round'  it does not use the term 'turn'.  Turn is used in the Builder rules.  Both rules are very strict that no chain reactions can occur to trigger multiple auctions or builder actions in the same turn.

So my interpretation of your example would be as follows:-
1) Player A starts turn and draws tile with bazaar and adds it to city/road they have with a builder.
2) Player A then optionally takes another tile and optionally adds meeples (or other pieces depending on expansion to those tiles.
3) The game is the interrupted for an Bazaar round.
4) Player A add that tile to extend city/road with builder.  However as they are not allowed chain reactions they do not get another tile this turn but may still optionally add a meeple/other token to tile just placed.
5) Player A's turn ends.


Can a corp have more than 1 'Chairman Hiro' rezzed at the same time? Chairmain Hiro: Can a corp have more than 1 'Chairman Hiro' rezzed at the same time?

Chairman Hiro is a unique asset (there is a diamond next to the card name designating this status).  While multiple unique cards may be installed simultaneously, only one may be rezzed at a time.

So, if you have two Chairman Hiro's installed, and one is rezzed and the runner runs on it, you could conceivably rez the second Hiro which would cause the first one to trash itself before the runner accesses it (so long as you do this during a legal paid ability window).


Dark angels legion praetor in cataphractii size I know that some heresy models are smaller than the 40k models, so I was wondering for a friend building a dark angels company.
How big is the dark angels legion praetor in cataphractii armour? Is he around the right size around 40k models or would he be laughably too small?

They are about the same as normal terminators, a bit buffier because cataphractii is supposed to be. With the release of intercessors, imo termies are a bit to small in comparison. (Just my taste, I know its fluff) But you can easily fix this visually by putting them on an elevation on its base.


Can I activate an ability on a card in my graveyard that returns its to my hand? Say I have Cage of Hands, Shackles or another card in my graveyard that has an activated ability that returns the card to its owner hand, but doesn't explicitly mention that it can be played from the graveyard. Can I play its activated ability while it's in my graveyard, or only while it's on the battlefield?

Hackworth has it right, but I love me some Comprehensive Rules:

  112.6. 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:

112.6a to 112.6n then specify the exceptions to this rule, including:

  112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it's on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone, unless that ability's trigger condition, or a previous part of that ability's cost or effect, specifies that the object is put into that zone.
  Example: Necrosavant says "{3}{B}{B}, Sacrifice a creature: Return Necrosavant from your graveyard to the battlefield. Activate this ability only during your upkeep." A player may activate this ability only if Necrosavant is in his or her graveyard.


Dice with same letter on each side I would like to surprise somebody by spelling out a phrase in Boggle. When we start playing, they will instantly recognize the phrase.

When we have play in the past, the other person is virtually always the one to mix up the letters right before starting. If we didn't need to shake up the letters, it would be easy—just pre-spell the word. But I need to have each particular dice have the same letter on each of its sides (different dice will have different letters) so that no matter how they are shaken up, they will always spell what I want.

Are there any dice (Boggle size) that have the same letter on each side?
If not, what would be the best way to modify existing Boggle dice to produce this result?
Are there any other ways to go about this that wouldn't cause suspicion?

What ended up happening was as follows. I first pre-arranged the letters well ahead of time by myself. Luckily, the other person needed to go into another room for some reason. I used this opportunity to suggest that we play Boggle, which was agreed to. I then quickly got the game ready. When the other person returned, I claimed that I had already shaken it up. It worked out nicely.

Because they left the room, I didn't have to deal with the problems I mentioned, such as suggesting that I be the one to shake the letters up and then trying to fake doing so, but in a convincing manner.


Honors point count for holding all four aces in one hand? Recently, I had a friend say that the rules for points accrued for holding all four aces in one hand have changed. I have always understood that the player received 150 points only if the contract is in no-trump.

She says that the rules have changed so that the points are awarded in any contract, even a trump contract.

Is that a recent change?

No, this has never changed in the Laws of Rubber Bridge (2014).

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

In a suit contract the only scoring honours are a holding of four or five of the top five trumps.

From Law 81 - Scoring Table:


Relic - Activated Corruption Cards and discarding Quick question regarding corruption cards: If you have 5 corruption cards and one of them is activated because it has an activation value of 5, what happens if your discard one or several corruption cards later in the game? Is value 5 card activated forever until you discard it?

Yes,  activated corruption cards remain activated until they are discarded via an event or action that instructs you to discard them.

Also,  note that you only check to activate corruption cards as you receive them.  eg.  if the first corruption card you recieve is a 5 it does not activate and is placed face down.  Even if you reach 5 corruption cards later in the game,  that first card will not activate.

You can find this information on page 17 of the rule book


What tools exist to manage an M:TG tournament? I work in an office with a good number of Magic players. I'd like to try and organize some sort of pauper cube style tournament that could be run like a "season" over the course of a couple months. With people meeting once for a long time for a draft and then having games against each other as they have time for the tournament. Maybe with a small buy in for a prize at the end. Are there any tools to manage that kind of thing?

Ideally something to take a lot of the paperwork off of my hands.

So this is a bit of an outside idea, but this website:

https://us.leaguerepublic.com/gaming.html

is what our local store uses for their MTG leagues, and it works pretty well. Its also free (to a point) but looks like what you're looking for.

Otherwise, a whiteboard displayed in a publicly visible place can work great too.


doublestrike blocking with kusari-gama I have a 4/4 creature with double strike and equipped with Kusari-Gama. I get attacked by a 5/5 and 3 2/2's. I block the 5/5 with my 4/4. Do I take damage from the 2/2's even though they die in the first strike phase?

You will take damage, because the creatures don't die

If a creature without first strike or double strike is killed during the first strike step, it will not deal damage.  It is not on the battlefield during the regular damage step, therefore it cannot deal damage.

However, Kusari-gama does not work the way you think it does.  Kusari-gama reads

  Whenever equipped creature deals damage to a blocking creature, Kusari-Gama deals that much damage to each other creature defending player controls.

In the scenario you've presented, your double striking creature is dealing damage to an attacking creature.  Therefore, Kusari-gama's effect is not triggered, and no damage is dealt to the attacking 2/2s.  Since the 2/2s do not actually die in the first strike step, and they were not blocked, you take damage from them.

Were you to use a card like Brigid, Hero of Kinsbaile to deal damage to the attacking 2/2s at any point before they deal damage, then they would die and you would not take damage.


Can a Dragon Mage wear magic armour? In the 8th Edition High Elf book the Dragonmage is equipped with heavy armour. This is very unusual for a (non-chaos) wizard. A normal wizard cannot wear armour, magic or otherwise.

Does the fact that can wear normal armour mean he can be upgraded with magic Armour/Shields/Helms or is he forced to keep standard armour?

Yes.

In 8th edition the "Magical Interference" rule (Magic Items, pg 500) says:

  Wizards cannot choose magic armour unless they have an option for
  'normal' armour.

It goes on to say that most Wizards cannot use magic while wearing armour, but that any Wizard that "has armour as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armour" is an exception, having trained to do so without penalty.

As such, any wizard with armour/access to armour can wear it and cast spells as normal, and can be upgraded with magical armour.

However, most wizards do not have access to armour.


In Monopoly Deal, can you pay with houses or hotels? Can you pay with houses or hotels or do they remain with you forever?

From the Monopoly Deal FAQ (scroll down to near the end):

Q - WHICH CARDS CAN I USE TO PAY OTHER PLAYERS? (E.G. FOR RENT, BIRTHDAYS ETC.)
A - You can choose to pay:

from your Bank (with money or Action cards that you've Banked as money),
with Property cards, or
with a combination of both.

Remember, you can only pay with cards that are on the table in front of you, never with cards from your hand.

You cannot pay with Houses or Hotels you have on properties because they are not in your bank nor are they Property cards themselves.  If you had Banked them, you could use them to pay for things.


Is there any methodology or pattern to picking better stats to emphasize for location and other world encounters? I know this of the 6 basic stats

speed: for moving through arkham
sneak: for evading
fight: for combat and gate closing
lore: for spell casting and gate closing
luck: for....shrug. Encountery random stuff.

Obviously all of these stats are tested in encounters as well, but is there any predictable way to their occurrence in tests in these encounters? For instance does the Science Building more often check Will or the Library Lore? It feels random what stat gets tested most of the time, so short of the reasons in the bulleted items, I often feel like I'm flailing just randomly picking which stat to boost during upkeep if I'm not specifically dealing with gate closing or monster encounters, etc.

Yes, different locations do skew toward different skills.

If you really want to know, you can look at something like this cheat sheet. I personally think that kind of spoils the game a bit, though. It's not as bad as if you just looked through the encounter cards yourself, but it still takes out a bit of surprise and fun in playing. The one broad rule is that encounters do depend on luck a bit more often than other skills in general, since they're the only place it's really used.

The kind of edge you can get from this knowledge really isn't too large, though. The most likely skill needed in an area might not be much more likely than the other skills, and some locations are probably pretty evenly balanced. Your skill focus is often substantially restricted by what you need to do to move/fight. And it's certainly possible to do quite well in the game without that little edge. So I think you might as well just play a bunch of games and learn that way!


Can I play on other people's buildings in Belfort? I assumed that I can only play on my own buildings.  Are you allowed to play on others' buildings as well in Belfort?

Correct, you may only play on the buildings that you have built.

You may play on a guild that has been purchased by another player, paying that player 1 coin.


Underrealm Lich vs. Dredge No doubt, Underrealm Lich is cool. Still I am wondering, how it interacts with dredge, such as on Life from the Loam.

As both are replacement effects, I should be able to choose which happens, shouldn't I?

Asking for a friend.

Both dredge and Underrealm Lich's ability are replacement effects. As such, you can choose which one you want to apply when you would draw a card.

  616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply [...]


What is the purpose of castling in chess? Having played chess on occasion I know the basic rules and moves to the game. However, it seems like a possibly wasted move when there are players who play a dominant game of chess and don't castle their king. Is castling a necessary move or is it more of a preference choice by the player?

Castling is always an option - it is never forced upon a player. It is however a very commonly taken option as it:

places the king in an easily defended position
moves the rook towards the centre of the board where it is easily developed
and does all that in one move, improving the player's tempo


Does anyone know the name of this card game? The game is played with a standard 52 card deck.

I start by dealing cards to each player plus a dummy hand next to the dealer and the last card goes into the middle.
Then three pots are made up.

Pot one is first person to get a three card run.
Pot two is the queen pot of you play the queen that matches the card suit in the middle at the end you claim the pot.
Pot three is first person to be out of cards.

Dealer looks at his hand and decides if they want to keep it or change to the dummy hand. This continues around the table until someone accepts the dummy hand.

The game then starts by someone playing an ace but I can't remember which one, then the game continues in suit order.

That's roughly what I remember.

We used to play this game with our grandma from Leeds over 40 years ago. We knew it as Queenie. She used to keep us up until she won all our money.
We are trying to remember the rules and thats how we found your post.

When we played we only had two pots one for the queen and one for finishing first. I thought we used to bid for the spare hand, but I could be wrong.

Yours is the first mention of the game I have found online.


Diminishing Returns vs Increasing Returns I'm making a board game about constructing molecules out of elements. For example you can construct water out of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen. When a player constructs it they take a water card worth 6 points. However this currently has a diminishing return, the next player to construct water only get's 4 points, then 2 points, then 1 point. I felt it simulated a supply/demand system, where to more you supply the lower the value of the commodity becomes. I then asked myself, what if it was the other way around? Water is worth 1 point to begin with, then 2 points and so on. While this doesn't make sense with the supply/demand analogy it does create interesting decisions to think ahead.

Edit to make answers more objective:
What are the pros and cons for each system? What games have these mechanics?

(the game is calle Entropy btw, you can read more about it here http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1032958/wip-entropy-chemistry-and-chaos-2-4-players-pnp)

The decision is obviously localized to the game and requires a significant amount of background to answer objectively.

The important distinction between the two is this: diminishing returns is easy, but amplifying returns is hard.

When you have diminishing returns, you introduce two elements.

The first is resourcefulness (no pun intended). If you can only do the same thing 2 or 3 times before it becomes worthless, you (as a player) need to structure your play such that you don't rely on a single mechanic.
The second is awareness of what your opponents play. If two people have played water already, you really should do something else with your hydrogen. But this means you have to be very aware of who has played water, who is set up to play water again soon, and what options you have with your water components.

When you have amplifying returns, you introduce a different set of elements.

The first is that you have a huge risk of being bah-roken. Magic: the Gathering's two most broken mechanics were Storm and Affinity. Storm copied a spell for every spell played before it this turn (majorly amplified!) and Affinity made artifacts cost 1 less for every artifact on the board (allowing you to play things that should be out on turn 8 on turn 3 or even sooner!) The amplification effects in Magic are strictly regulated and playtested to death before being released because of how powerful they've been in the past. Typically, they're prohibitively expensive or fragile to be used in competitive play, as otherwise they would easily dominate the format.
The second is that your players will probably focus on them. Most casual players like big things. If this gets big fast, they're going to go for it. You must be careful not to make your game all about these 2 or 3 mechanics that explode super fast, or your game will run out of steam.

So in summary, diminishing returns put a lot of work on the designer not to make the game a chore to play, while amplifying returns put a lot of work on the designer to make the game last long enough to be fun for everyone in the game.

I would recommend using linear acceleration or deceleration in whatever one you pick (if anything) as using anything higher than that explodes in value after only a few iterations, and obviously the safest thing to do is to not have it. A core tenant of game design is that the game should have as few mechanics as necessary to make the game fun.


Do counters go away when the creature that gave them dies When a creature card gives another creature counters does the counters go away when the creature that gave them dies.(the card does NOT say It gives is  a +1 +1 counter as long as it is on the field)

No, the counters stay where they are. Counters are a separate entity once they are placed on a permanent. If a creature says "other creatures get +1+1" and then leaves the battlefield, the bonus is lost. And if a creature with +1+1 counters on it leaves the battlefield, the counters go away. But in the scenario you described, the counters stay.


Battlestar Galactica (base game) Sympathizer explanation? I recently purchased BSG the boardgame and, reading the rules, two questions aroused to my mind regarding the sympathizer mechanic.

With 4 and 6 players, after dealing the starting loyalties cards, we have to add the Sympathizer card to the deck... That means the deck now has +1 card than the number of players, so is it possible that, during the sleeper agent phase, no one becomes the sympathizer, right?
Also, if the sympathizer card goes to a non-revealed cylon player and there is at least one resource in the red zone, this player becomes a sympathizer. Then, if he deals the non-revealed cylon card to another player, we can have 2 cylon (sympathizer + cylon) in a 4 player game, and 3 cylons (2 cylons + sympathizer) in a 6 players game right? Wouldn't it be a bit unbalanced?

Thanks for the answers!

All of the loyalty cards are dealt out.  The starting loyalty deck compositions have (2n - 1) cards in 4 and 6 player, where n is the number of players, so that when the sympathizer card is added, there are exactly enough loyalty cards.
The point of the sympathizer card is to be half a cylon, by being either a handicapped cylon (no super crisis, can't activate the cylon fleet) or a handicapped human (in the brig).  As each of these favors one side slightly, the side that is losing at sleeper phase gets the advantage so the game is a bit self-balancing.  If the humans are winning (all resources in the blue), the sympathizer is a handicapped cylon; if the cylon's are winning (at least one resource in the red), the sympathizer is a handicapped human.  Note that the sympathizer is always something; the sympathizer card always gets revealed and does something to that player.

Note on the sympathizer: Fantasy Flight (the maker of the game) was never quite happy with how the sympathizer worked.  The game at its heart works best with 5 players and everything else is an attempt to make it work with other numers.  The Pegasus and Daybreak expansions introduced four potential mechanics to replace the sympathizer, Pegasus introducing the "Sympathetic Cylon" and "Cylon Leaders (agenda cards)", and Daybreak introducing the "Mutineer" and "Cylon Leaders (motive cards)".  Having tried all of these, the best option for a 4 or 6 player game (in my opinion) is using a Cylon Leader with motive cards from Daybreak.


Will state triggers cause a draw if their condition is always true? If I have Hidden Predators and Enchanted Evening on the battlefield, will the game end in a draw as soon as my opponent has a creature with power 4 or greater enter the battlefield?

If I understand the layers correctly, then Hidden Predators will be an Enchantment and a Creature, because even though its own ability normally removes the Enchantment type, the ability of Enchanted Evening will make it stay an Enchantment. This means that every time the state trigger of Hidden Predators resolves, it will immediately trigger again.

Assuming no player has an instant to get rid of any of the 3 cards in question (or to kill their opponent), does this cause an automatic draw?

Edit It turns out I was wrong about the layers. I thought that a continuous effect like "all x are y" would take precedence over a type-setting effect like "y becomes x".

In general, a state-triggered will trigger repeatedly and draw the game if its trigger condition continues to be true, but the situation you describe does not meet that prerequisite, so the game will not be a draw.

Once the three relevant permanents are on the battlefield, the next time Hidden Predators triggers, it will stop being an enchantment again, and the game will just go on as usual.

Lets say we have the state where Hidden Predators is already a creature, your opponent controls a creature with power 4, and you cast Enchanted Evening. The game plays out like this:

Immediately after Enchanted Evening resolves, two relevant continuous effects apply from Hidden Predators and Enchanted Evening respectively:

Hidden Predators is a 4/4 Beast Creature.
[Hidden Predators] is an enchantment in addition to its other types.

They are applied in timestamp order, so the result is that Hidden Predators is a 4/4 Beast Enchantment Creature.
Now, all of the conditions are met, so Hidden Predators' triggered ability triggers again.
Hidden Predators' triggered ability resolves, and we get an additional relevant continuous effect:

Hidden Predators is a 4/4 Beast Creature.
[Hidden Predators] is an enchantment in addition to its other types.
Hidden Predators is a 4/4 Beast Creature.

Again, these effects are applied in timestamp order, so Hidden Predators is once again just a 4/4 Beast Creature.

After that, Hidden Predators is once again not an Enchantment, so the ability does not trigger.

The rule that governs this interaction is 613.6:

  613.6. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.

  613.6a A continuous effect generated by a static ability has the same timestamp as the object the static ability is on, or the timestamp of the effect that created the ability, whichever is later.
  613.6b A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability receives a timestamp at the time it’s created.

In a different situation, with different state-triggered abilities, those abilities can cause a draw. For example, as diego mentions, if you control a Darksteel Reactor and your opponent controls a Platinum Angel, then the ability just triggers forever in a loop that can't be stopped unless a player can remove one of those permanents at instant speed.


Are there hands that should be opened at the one level in first or second seat, and with a "weak two" opposite a passing partner? I'm referring specifically to hands like (s)AKQJx (h) Jxx (d)xxx (c) xx or (s) AKQTx (h) Qxx (d) xxx (c)xx that are technically just under the usual requirements for a one bid, but nevertheless have five tricks.

In first or second seat, I would want to open at the one level to give partner a chance to bid. But in third seat, would it be better to open a "weak two" because partner doesn't have opening hand (that would allow a game opposite my holdings) while I fear that fourth seat does?

And is this hand worth opening in fourth seat on the assumption that if the remaining 29 high card points are "evenly" distributed, partner will have the three tricks I need to make the contract?

I hesitate to use a word like "never" when it comes to bidding advice, but such a situation would be rare.

In third seat, 1-level and 2-level openings both tend to become less disciplined, not more. A weak hand in 3rd seat must stretch to preempt the presumed strong hand in fourth seat. Playing the Drury convention, responder can stay low when opener opens light, and opening light in third seat can help your side make the correct decision in a partscore auction.

In fourth seat, 1-level openings may be light when opener has a good spade holding. A common agreement is that 2-level bids are "intermediate": about 10-14 HCP with a 6-card suit.

The hands that you gave I would certainly open 1S in third or fourth seat; I may pass them or open 1S in first or second.


In Game of Thrones naval battles, do land units on the ship count? If I have moved units on to a ship, and then that ship gets attacked, do I add their points to my defense power?

In the board game A Game of Thrones: the Board Game, land units do not board ships, and thus do not occupy the same location. Rather, ship units allow you to treat two coastal locations as adjacent for the purposes of using March orders on land units.

From the 2nd edition rulebook, page 23:

  Any two land areas are considered adjacent for the purposes of
  marching and retreating when they are connected by consecutive sea
  areas (or a single sea area) each containing one or more friendly Ship
  units. In other words, Ship units in consecutively adjacent sea areas
  form a direct “bridge” for Knights, Footmen, and Siege Engines to move
  directly from a coastal area to another coastal area in one move.

As a further note, when using the Support order: whilst ship units are able to provide support to adjacent land or sea locations, land units can never provide support to sea locations; as on page 18:

  Ship units may support adjacent combat in a sea area or a land area.
  Footmen, Knights, or Siege Engine units, however, may never provide
  support to combat in a sea area.

However, it would be possible, for example, to use a ship with a Support order to transport land units into an enemy-controlled location, and then have that ship support the land units in the subsequent battle.


Agricola: Traveling Player? What the heck is the "Traveling Player" space for in Agricola (family game)? Besides gaining the food there, is there anything else significant about that space?

Traveling Players only becomes really relevant in the full game, when players' Occupations and Minor Improvements may trigger off using it.

So why is it still there in the family game, you ask?  Well, Agricola is a pretty tough game for newbies to "grok" on the first play, or even the first few plays.  The last thing you want is for them to have three Begging cards by the end of the second harvest, and vow never to play this stupid game again!

By having multiple spaces that just contain food piling up, even the least clued-up player has an obvious way of saving his family from grim starvation at the end of the harvest rounds.  And that's good.  Once they get a bit more experienced, they will turn their noses up at such an inefficient way of turning actions into food... but's that another story, for a later day!


Sacrifice create before it gets destroyed Let's say, I have played Altar of Dementia (some rounds ago), which allows me to sacrifice a creature (at any time) to force a player to put a number of cards from the top of his or her library into his or her graveyard. Now an opponent casts Terror (or any similar card) to destroy one of my creatures.

My question: Is it possible to sacrifice my creature before Terror applies to force the opponent to put the accordant amount of cards in his or her graveyard (in respone of Terror)?

Yes... You sac your creature in response to your opponent casting the spell to destroy your creature.


Why are the extension cards in separate stacks? I recently purchased several extensions for Catan card-game and noticed that the manual says to put the cards of the extensions into separate stacks at the beginning of the game. Before reading the manual I expected that the extension cards would just be shuffled into the regular stacks, and therefore I was surprised to read about the separate stacks. Unfortunately the manual is not very clear on why those cards need to be in separate stacks. What is the reason for this? And what is the disadvantage of shuffling them into the regular stacks anyway?

More info:
I'm referring to this game (notice the table setup next to the box): Kolonisten van Catan Kaartspel  At the end of the page you can see that there are 5 extensions for this game.

My question refers to the manual of the extensions saying that instead of making 5 equal stacks of cards, now there should be made 4 equal stacks of the base game cards, and 2 stacks of the cards of the extensions. So that makes a total of 6 stacks of which 2 contain ONLY extension cards. In my opinion this is a strange rule as it allows a player to search either the base set or the extension sets. I would argue that mixing all cards together and make 5 equal stacks makes a nicer game. Now why is the rule not like this? Is there any disadvantage of making 5 mixed stacks anyway?

I've deleted my previous answer as it was based on too many wrong assumptions on my part!

When playing with the Catan Card Game Expansion set, you could choose to just mix all the expansion cards together into five stacks as normal.  I don't think this would break anything, as such.

However, it strikes me that the new Themes introduced in the Expansion set would be quite significantly diluted by just being mixed in with everything else.  Depending on the outcome of the shuffle, your game might not end up being very highly "themed" at all.

By giving the new cards their own dedicated stacks, you give players the option to have a game that is quite heavily based on the theme. (They can, at their discretion, just keep drawing cards from that stack, after all.)  This could be particularly relevant if cards within a theme work better with each other, instead of in isolation: and I'd be amazed if this was not the case - most boardgame expansion kits I can think of are designed to have new internal synergies, rather than just complementing the mechanics of the basic set.


Can Coastal Wizard bounce multiple other creatures? I have been thinking about other ways to abuse the Aphetto Alchemist and Illusionist's Bracers combo.

Aphetto Alchemist {1}{U}
Creature — Human Wizard 1/1
{T}: Untap target artifact or creature.
Morph (You may cast this card face down as a 2/2 creature for {3}. Turn it face up any time for its morph cost.)

Illusionist's Bracers {2}
Artifact — Equipment
Whenever an ability of equipped creature is activated, if it isn't a mana ability, copy that ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.
Equip {3}

I stumbled across Coastal Wizard.

Coastal Wizard {2}{U}{U}
Creature — Human Wizard 1/1

{T}: Return Coastal Wizard and another target creature to their owners' hands. Activate this ability only during your turn, before attackers are declared.

Can I tap Coastal Wizard (before I declare attackers) to target an opponent's creature, then hold priority, tap Aphetto Alchemist to untap Coastal Wizard and itself (with the Illusionist's Bracers trigger), allow the two untap abilities to resolve, then tap Coastal Wizard again to target another creature an opponent controls?
If I can and do, when Coastal Wizard's two activated abilities on the stack resolve, do both return an opponent's creature to hand, even though Coastal Wizard has already left the battlefield after the second activation resolves?

Yes, that combo works.
For the first part of your answer, whether you can activate Coastal Wizard multiple times, yes you can:
Whenever you, as the active player, cast a spell/activate an ability, or whenever a spell or ability has resolved, you receive priority:

117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

117.3c If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward.

That means you can keep activating abilities as long as you want before anything resolves. That allows you to stack your abilities in any order you like. When any of the Aphetto Alchemist's abilities resolves and your Coastal Wizard becomes untapped, you receive priority and can activate Coastal Wizard again, before any of its previous activations resolves. At the end of it all, you have 3 Coastal Wizard activations on the stack.
For the second part of your question: Since returning Coastal Wizard is an effect of its ability, not a cost, you only return it on resolution. Since returning the Wizard and the targeted creature are independent effects (no intervening if-clause), it doesn't matter if the Wizard is no longer on the battlefield by the time the ability tries to return it. The targeted creature will be returned anyway.

609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

Note though that if all targets of your various Coastal Wizard abilities all became illegal by the time they resolve, for example through Veil of Summer, the abilities would all be removed from the stack because all their targets became illegal, and you wouldn't have to return your Wizard either.


Activated a trap when I wasn't able to do so; how is this handled? If I played a trap card that I was not allowed to play, do I destroy it or put it back down?

If I played a trap card that I was not allowed to play, do I destroy it or put it back down?

Well, this will depend on the nature of the game you are playing:

If this was an official game/tournament: In this case it will be up to the Judge to determine the course of action to follow. It could be from a simple replay (rewind the actions made), or up to a penalty or game loss.
If this was a fun/friendly game, not official: Then it is up to you and your opponent to decide what to do. If you are able to replay or rewind moves go for it, otherwise discuss what should be done.

... Still, I suggest you be careful in either case, as you are not only revealing your cards to your opponent, but you could end up with a penalty or game loss in a tournament.


What happens with trample when a boost is cast during damage assignment? So imagine this:

My 5/5 with trample attacks.
It's blocked by a 1/1 and a 2/2.
I assign damage as 1 to the 1/1, 2 to the 2/2, and 2 to the player.
And then they play a card to boost their 1/1, making it a 5/5.

What happens?

They cannot boost after you have assigned your damage. The last chance that players have to activate abilities and cast instants is in the declare blockers step, after all blockers have been assigned. They could cast a boost at that point, but you would already know the actual toughness when assigning damage, and you would have to assign lethal damage to the first creature before moving on to the second.

Note that prior to the 10th edition, released in 2006, damage DID use the stack, so after damage went on the stack, there would be a chance to respond before it resolved.


Can I use Lucky Cigarette Case on another player My question is rather simple, but we can't quite put a finger on the correct answer. Items such as the Lucky Cigarette Case ... can we use them on other player rolls or just our own? The text says to add 1 to the result of a single die roll ... but doesn't specify on whom you can use it. Any help would be neato, thanks in advance.

No, unless an item specifically says it can be used on other investigators (e.g., "Choose an investigator"), it can only be used on/by the person holding the item.


Am I required to shuffle my opponent's deck? During pregame, Anthony shuffles his own deck and then presents it to his opponent, Nathan. Is Nathan obligated to shuffle Anthony's deck? Is cutting the deck acceptable? Is doing nothing acceptable?

If the answer varies for each REL, please describe how it varies. If there are penalties associated with not shuffling, please describe those penalties.

Competitive and Professional REL

You are always required to shuffle your opponents' decks. From Section 3.9 of the Tournament Rules:

  At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them

Regular REL

You are usually not obligated to shuffle your opponents' decks. However, the Head Judge may optionally require it. The very next sentence of the aforementioned section in the Tournament Rules:

  The Head Judge can require this at Regular REL tournaments as well.

Casual (No REL)

You are never obligated to shuffle your opponents' decks.

Is cutting acceptable?

The rules do not care whether or not you cut the deck. You can cut if you want, but you don't have to.

You are always obligated to give your opponent the opportunity to shuffle your deck, even if they elect not to. If you are physically unable to shuffle, you can ask a judge to shuffle for you.


Do you still collect a noble if the day ends? If there is one noble left in line and you play "fled to England" to discard it (thus, ending the day) do you collect a noble from the new day?

I concur with Pat's answer - I have my copy of the rules in front of me, so can quote chapter and verse!

  Play continues in this manner until there are no nobles left in line
  at the start of someone's turn.  That day is then over and a new day
  begins. ... The player to the left of the person who started the
  previous day is the first player for the new day.

Essentially, emptying the line of nobles does not end the day, nor is the line immediately refilled with nobles.  The day ends at the start of the next player's turn, and as Pat says, a new player will be selected to be start player and thus the first to collect a noble.


Are tribal spells with changeling considered creature spells? Does Heartless Summoning make Tribal Changeling Instants cheaper to cast? Crib Swap's type line says:

  Tribal Instant - Shapeshifter

In the reminder text it says:

  Changeling (This card is every creature type at all times.)

So is Crib swap a creature or not, and if not, does Heartless Summoning affect it in any way because of the Changeling clause?

The spell is not a creature spell, so it is not affected by Heartless Summoning. The Changeling ability says that the card has "all creature types", but "creature type" is just the name for the subtypes that Creature and Tribal share. So, Changeling doesn't make the card a creature, it just makes the card have all of the creature subtypes.

The relevant rule is 205.3m :

  Creatures and tribals share their lists of subtypes; these subtypes are called creature types.


Does Valakut do damage if Dryad of the Ilysian Grove is in play, but dies before the trigger resolves? Let's say my board is 5 Mountains, Dryad of the Ilysian Grove, and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle. Now I play a Plains. Because of the Dryad, the Plains is also a Mountain, so Valakut triggers. While the trigger is on the stack, opponent kills the Dryad. Which of the following is right:

Does Valakut deal 3 damage because I still control 5 real Mountains, or
Does Valakut not deal 3 damage because no Mountain entered the battlefield?

Relevant text of cards:

Lands you control are every basic land type in addition to their other types. (Dryad of the Ilysian Grove)

and

Whenever a Mountain enters the battlefield under your control, if you control at least five other Mountains, you may have Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle deal 3 damage to any target. (Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle)

Refering to rule 603.4.

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

Note how only the condition is checked again as it resolves.
Let's break these rules down to the text of Valakut.

Whenever a Mountain enters the battlefield under your control
[trigger event], if you control at least five other Mountains [condition], you may have Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle deal 3 damage to any target.[effect] (Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle)

Therefore you playing the plains (which is also a mountain) causes the trigger event and the condition to be met. With valakut's ability on the stack, your Dryad is destroyed in response. This resolves with valakut's ability being on top of the stack as result.
Now look at the rulings from the gatherer.

If a Mountain you control leaves the battlefield between the time
Valakut’s second ability triggers and the time it resolves, be aware
if that was the Mountain that caused Valakut’s ability to trigger or
not. If it was, Valakut’s count isn’t affected; if it wasn’t,
Valakut’s count goes down by one.

According to this ruling, the condition on Valakut is met and the damage is dealt.


Why should I ever go green? My friends an I have tried playing this game a few times now and have come to the conclusion that going a green never wins. Green cards do not seem to be more powerful than red cards and yet red cards have victory points attached to them. This gives players who go red an automatic advantage over those who go green. Going balanced doesn't seem to work well either since then you do not have the power or token generation to get boss loots.

So the question is why would you ever go green, or more exactly why would you ever not go red?

It depends on the setup. If you've got Bat Milk, and a few other deck thinners, you remove all of the other trash from you deck, draw your entire deck every turn, and win before anyone else has really started.

Green has the majority of the deck thinning cards (and PVP Defense). Also most of your combo cards are going to be in green. Werewolf in a Tophat and 3 Natural 20s = 3 of each boss loot all on the same turn. With Bat Milk in the mix you can do that reliably.

On the other hand, sometimes Red IS the better choice. Again it depends on the setup, and how other people play. Having some Defense or Deck Thinning is vital if you have a lot of people buying PVP attacks.


Copying and stealing an EDH Commander? Suppose my opponent is tapped out while playing Sliver Overlord as his commander, which has the ability:

  {3}: Gain control of target Sliver. (This effect lasts indefinitely.)

On my turn, I play a Rite of Replication, targeting his Sliver Overlord. I now have a copy of it in play.

May I then use the {3} ability to steal his Overlord, and then due to the Legendary rule, sacrifice the copy and retain control of his commander?

That is correct. The Sliver Overlord is a Sliver so it is a legal target for the token's ability. Once you have control of it the Legend Rule kicks in. The "Legend Rule" says:

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

So it is perfectly legal to choose the token copy of the Overlord to put into the Graveyard, and then you can proceed to kill them with their own commander. Note that you aren't 'sacrificing' the token, it is just being put into the Graveyard by state based effects. It will still 'die' and trigger anything that cares about creatures dying, but it won't trigger anything that cares about sacrificing creatures.


Does an ability resolve if the source of the ability leaves the battlefield? Player A taps Goblin Fireslinger targeting Player B; its "deals 1 damage to target player" ability is placed on the stack.

Player B gets priority and responds with Snap, targeting Goblin Fireslinger.

Both players pass priority. Snap resolves, and Goblin Fireslinger is returned to its owner's hand.

Does Player B still take 1 damage from Goblin Fireslinger's activated ability?

I know that if the creature had been killed/sent to the graveyard, the ability would still resolve, but I was told recently that because a player's hand is a private zone it couldn't. If anyone could confirm or deny this for me, it would be most appreciated.

Yes, Player B still takes damage from the Goblin Fireslinger. Rule 112 covers this adequately. Rule 112.3a tells us that Activating an ability puts it on the stack, until it resolves, is countered (Stifle), or it otherwise leaves the stack (Time Stop). Rule 112.7a tells us that the activated ability exists independent of the source, and does not quality this separation with objects moving to a hidden zone.

  112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” A player may activate such an ability whenever he or she has priority. Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.”

  112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.

It is possible that they are confusing this with the rules regarding tracking objects that are moving between zones. Normally, objects have no memory of their previous existence in another zone, and become new objects. There are 7 exceptions, and (d/g) are probably the ones that they are confusing this with. These exceptions exist, because cards like Rancor exist that need to have rules that allow the cards to actually work.

  400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule:

  400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone.

  400.7g A resolving spell or activated ability can perform actions on an object that moved from one zone to another while that spell was being cast or that ability was being activated, if that object moved to a public zone.


Can I use Fate Transfer to make a Thing in the Ice transform immediately? If I have Thing in the Ice with 4 ice counters on it and played Fate Transfer to move all these counters on to another creature, will it transform? Or is the check on how many counters it has done before the actual move of all the counters?

End result: Thing in the Ice with no counters, unflipped; another creature has 3 ice counters.

The sequence of events creates the following stack:

Thing in the Ice Trigger
Fate Transfer

The trigger is on top of the transfer since it is in response to the spell. Trigger resolves, removes 1 counter, sees that there are 3 counters left and doesn't flip. Transfer resolves, and moves the counters.  Since the trigger is already resolved, it doesn't flip.

The next time you cast an instant or sorcery, the trigger will (attempt to) remove a counter, then seeing no counters will flip.


Is it legal to buy property for $1 in Monopoly when other players are in prison? This happened in one of the Monopoly games I had a while ago.

It was a 3-player game. Two players were in prison when the incident occurred. The third player (let's call him Joe) landed on the unowned property in his turn. This is what he said:

  I don't want to buy it for the base price. Therefore, the property should go to an auction. I'm willing to bid $1 for this property. No-one else can bid, since both of you are in prison, so - I won the auction.

Is this legal in the game of Monopoly?

"Anyone can bid in an auction, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price."

Also, more official rules PDF.

From other forums I have visited, it seems as though most people do not play by the rules, the entire rules, and nothing but the rules...


What are the random/luck factors in Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico is generally considered as a game of mostly skill, with very little luck involved. In this regard, it is more like chess or checkers, than the typical board game that uses cards or dice.

The only random factor I know of in Puerto Rico is the fact that the plantation tiles are initially turned face down, and shuffled, then a number of them are turned face up and made available, with redraws from the face down pile as the game progresses. In theory, this could lead to one of each plantation being made available at any given time, but it could also lead to a (random) abundance of some, and an absence of other choices.

What (if any) other random or luck features exist in the game?

The first random thing that happens in Puerto Rico is turn order.  This can be offset by having players bid on seats.

If you are playing with the expansion, then the buildings available are randomized. This can also help to prevent the game from being solvable.

There are the plantation tiles as described in the question.

Finally, if you are playing with more than 1 other person, player actions are, in a way, a randomization.  Some moves become better if your opponents act perfectly logically, others are better if your opponents make mistakes, and you can't know what they will do.  This is unlike chess (or a 2 player Puerto Rico game) where your opponent making a mistake cannot be a detriment to your game.

Overall, Puerto Rico is a very low luck game with all randomization being "input randomization".  This means that all random factors are chosen early in player decision, and by the time a player acts, they will know the result of at least that action.


What makes a cooperative board game actually a game? Most board games are competitive, where you have players competing against each other, trying to win.  Some board games are described as "cooperative", where the players are trying to do...what exactly?

In a competitive game, there isn't usually a single optimum path to victory, since the actions of the other players will change in response to what one player does.  Someone might publish the so-called "best" strategy for Dominion, yet it isn't going to win every game, since the other players can adjust their strategies in response.

In a cooperative game, once someone has worked out an optimum strategy, the game can't respond by changing its strategies (or can it?) so there's nothing left for the players to do but carry out that optimum strategy.  If they fail, it's just due to the roll of the dice (or draw of the cards, etc.).

So what makes a cooperative board game actually a game?

Just so you understand, I'm not asking this to be snarky, or to disparage cooperative games.  It's that I simply don't understand how such games could retain playworthiness once they've been played a few times.

What is a game?
There's some argument about what exactly constitutes a "game" in academic and design circles. Going by Salen and Zimmerman's definition from Rules of Play:

A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict,
defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.

Cooperative games still have rules and definite win/loss outcomes. "Artificial conflict" does not prescribe that the conflict be between players, or that it be focused on strategic competition per se.
Strategy vs. algorithm
The operative assumption in the original question is that play vs. a sentient actor requires on-the-fly decision-making, whereas cooperative play vs. random game events can necessarily be reduced to a script you can follow to win. I think this is an error.
Even when the adversity they face in the game is tied to something as simple and unthinking as the luck of the draw, the human players may still have to adjust their actions to the unpredictably changing game state. To use your Dominion example, simply knowing what an optimal strategy looks like in the abstract doesn't free you from having to adjust your turn-by-turn plays to make the best use of the cards you've actually drawn.
You could try to articulate all these tricks into a single defined "strategy," but for many games this hypothetical script will be so complex that a human player couldn't simply follow it by rote. And how is this different from trying to write out a gameplan that includes ways to compensate for intelligent opponents' moves, anyway?
Counterexamples: strategic depth without opponents
Consider these examples of challenging decision-making without a human opponent:

Classic solitaire games such as Klondike involve hidden information and strategic decisions analogous to classic multi-player card games.
Knizia's Lord of the Rings board game is a cooperative board game with a random element (some tiles in a bag) as the the source of adversity. It has an expansion that allows a player to assume the role of the antagonist; this tends to increase the difficulty a bit since the Sauron player is actively choosing the most punishing outcome, but either mode involves qualitatively similar gameplay and strategic decision-making for the ringbearer players.
There's a casual variant of Magic: the Gathering where players team up against a random deck representing a zombie horde. The horde just immediately casts whatever it topdecks and always attacks with all of its guys. There are certain things the horde can't do (play targeted removal, for instance), but the players still have to make strategic decisions about resource utilization, attack vs. defense, and timing their spells that are qualitatively similar to the decisions involved in a normal game of Magic. This is a mirror of the situation above: a normally head-to-head game can be played as a cooperative game against a random element, with qualitatively similar gameplay and strategic decision-making.
Video game AI opponents are often actually fairly simple actors just following a generally-good strategy. Despite not being particularly reactive to the actions of the human players, these rather simple opponents can still present a significant challenge to them.

Is strategic thinking an integral part of all board games?
More generally, I think your question presupposes too much about games and why people play them. Board games, like all games, can provide a variety of experiences, including:

Overcoming a challenge
Proving yourself against your peers
Solving a puzzle
The thrill of gambling
The visual and tactile pleasure of gameplay (think about how much enjoyment miniatures gamers get from the look and feel of their pieces)
Socializing with your friends
Experiencing the narrative of play (drama and resolution, for instance)

Among these, overcoming challenges is not always and necessarily the game's or players' primary goal. Nor is strategic play the only way to experience a challenge: games can easily involve physical and mental tests that don't depend on analysis and planning.
Some products traditionally labeled "board games" don't actually put much emphasis on overcoming challenges. Candyland is, of course, the archetypical extreme example. Some game designers and purists may say that such board games aren't really "games," but that is their popularly-accepted label.


Is there a budget version of Collected Company for this Modern elf deck? I wanted to buy a Modern deck (a competitive one) for a private tournament which will be in a nearest future. I'm bored with the ones I already have so I wanted to build a new one... I'm currently working on an elf deck and I need some budget alternative to a Collected Company if there are any of those... I can afford to add only 2 Collected Companies at this moment but I think that something more consistent as a 4 of will be better. Any suggestions?

My deck also contains:

4 x Arbor Elf
4 x Elvish Mystic
2 x Joraga Warcaller
4 x Elvish Archdruid
4 x Imperious Perfect
2 x Ezuri, Renegade Leader
4 x Elvish Clancaller

That's what I came up with for now. I'm thinking of having 16-17 lands here and I need any suggestions about it.

No, there isn't.

Collected Company is one hell of a card. It's 1) instant speed, 2) card advantage, 3) usually mana advantage and 4) half a tutor. CoCo (as it's often called) is the best card in the deck, and there's nothing that can compare.

You could potentially run Chord of Calling, but it's significantly worse because convoke works really badly with mana creatures which you have a lot of, and besides Chord of Calling is also an expensive card. Otherwise there is Lead the Stampede which will draw you cards, but does not put them into play; and Eldritch Evolution which will tutor a relevant card, but is not nearly as efficient (and isn't cheap either).

If you don't have 4 copies of Collected Company, you should still run as many copies as you can.


Can I make a planeswalker harder to attack by making it a creature with flying? So a weird combo popped into my head. If I use Memnarch to turn Nicol Bolas, the Arisen into an artifact, then use March of the Machines to turn him into Artifact Creature Planeswalker and tap Dragon Blood to put a +1/+1 counter on him and I have a Sapphire Drake on the field, is he still a legitimate target?

Since, you know, you can’t attack something with flying?

I know at the very least that only creatures with flying and reach will be able to block him. But other than that, this is rather puzzeling.

This doesn't work. The rule “you can’t attack something with flying” doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because you don't attack creatures: you just announce creatures as attacking a player or planeswalker, and then the defending player assigns blockers.

Flying only controls what can be declared as a blocker of that creature, and nothing else. Here's the rules on what flying means:

  702.9b A creature with flying can't be blocked except by creatures with flying and/or reach. A creature with flying can block a creature with or without flying.

Meanwhile the procedure for attacking remains unchanged:

You declare which creatures will be attacking.
You choose which opponents or opponents' planeswalkers they will attack.

No mention of flying. I can declare a creature as attacking your planeswalker if it's also a creature with flying, because I'm attacking that planeswalker under the rules for attacking planeswalkers. That it's a creature and has flying simply isn't factored into this process.

Your intuition around flying is in a reasonable place, but flying doesn't actually do anything for you here.

You do get to have Bolas as both a flying creature (that can attack!) and a planeswalker though, and that can be handy. However he'll be more vulnerable to removal: many more burn and removal spells can now target him. Also, any damage dealt to him, such as in combat or by burn spells, will result in him both losing loyalty counters and having damage marked on him. From the rules on Planeswalkers:

  306.8. Damage dealt to a planeswalker results in that many loyalty counters being removed from it.

Since he's both a planeswalker and creature, and creatures may still attack him, we also run into a rare fun situation mentioned in the rulings for Gideon, Champion of Justice: he can block on his own behalf, even versus creatures declared attacking him as a planeswalker. Let's quote that ruling but swap mentions of Gideon for Bolas:

  [Say Nicol Bolas, the Arisen is also a creature.] You may have any of your creatures attack [Nicol Bolas] (since he’s still a planeswalker). Then [Nicol Bolas] may block (since he’s a creature). He may block any eligible attacking creature, including one that’s attacking him! During combat, he behaves as an attacked planeswalker and/or a blocking creature, as appropriate. For example, he deals combat damage to any creatures he’s blocking, but he doesn’t deal combat damage to any unblocked creatures that are attacking him.


How much mana can I tap per turn? So I am fairly new to Magic and I have read the entire rulebook multiple times and it never gave a clear answer," how many mana can I tap per turn", because to would just feel weird to be tapping all of the mana for example with my Arbor Colossus he requires 3 forest and 3 of any mana to attack, so if I get enough do I tap them all at once or do they stay tapped after each turn?

There is no limit to the number of lands that you can tap per turn. For your other question, all of your tapped permanents will untap at the start of each of your turns, during the "untap" step.

You have a few different important basic terminology mixed up though. Mana and Land are 2 different things. Land is a type of card, one that most commonly produces mana (but some lands do not produce any mana). Thus, "Forest" is not a type of mana, "Green" is a type of mana, and Forests are cards that produce Green mana when tapped.

Also, you do not need to pay mana to attack with creatures, including Arbor Colossus. You need to pay mana to cast Arbor Colossus (to out him from your hand into the battlefield), and to activate his "Monstrosity" ability, which gives him 3 +1/+1 counters.


What are the odds a player doesn't draw a monastery or garden tile? I just played a frustrating 3 player game of Carcassonne with the Abbot expansion, where I didn't get a single opportunity to use my Abbot Meeple.
What are the odds a player doesn't draw a single tile usable by the Abbot in a 3 player game? Note there are 6 monastery tiles and 8 garden tiles for a total of 14 tiles the abbot can use (out of 72 total tiles).

This should happen to you about 1 in every 620 games that have 3 players, 14 tiles that an Abbot can be played on, 1 start tile, and 57 other tiles.
Given that there are 72 tiles, in a 3-player game, you'd draw either 23 or 24 tiles, depending on turn order. Although the 72 tiles divide evenly, one of them is the start tile and is removed. I'll assume that in 1/3 of games you go last, and only get 23 tiles.
Without changing the statistics, we can pretend you draw all your tiles first, without any other players taking their turns. You can think of their turns as simply showing you what was never in the tiles you were going to get without affecting it, besides that you're stopping your draws early and not drawing the whole stack.
Drawing 23 tiles out of 71 without replacement, 57 of which are not Abbot-eligible, your chance of only drawing from those 57 is 57/71 * 56/70 * ... * 35/49. This comes out to about 0.200% (or about one in 499) of games where you go last.
Drawing a 24th tile multiplies this by 34/48, for about 0.142% (or about one in 705) in games where you don't go last.
Weighting the probabilities together based on your chance of actually going last it's 0.161% (or about one in 620).
Obviously changing the number of players, introducing river tiles, or caring about whether anyone at the table can't play an Abbot rather than just you would change the chances.


What happens if you control two Krark's Thumb and you have to flip a coin? If I have Sakashima of a Thousand Faces out, a Krark's Thumb and a Copy Artifact that copies Krark's Thumb what happens when I have to flip a coin? Does it go infinite and result in a draw? Do I flip two coins? Do I flip four coins?

Krak's ability is a replacement effect. The relevant rule is

614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace that event.
Example: A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads “If a creature you control would deal damage to a permanent or player, it deals double that damage to that permanent or player instead.” A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage—not just 4, and not an infinite amount.

Like the example, two Krark's Thumbs would cause you to flip four coins.
These flips technically aren't at the same time, but you can generally get away with flipping four coins at the same time and taking whichever you prefer. However, if they want, your opponent can insist on you flipping them two at a time. You can probably also declare before you flip any of them which result you prefer, then flip all of them at the same time; this would probably fall under the general concept of "shortcut". It's generally obvious which result you prefer, but if you don't want to reveal it, and your opponent is a stickler for the rules, you'll have to flip two at a time. Obviously, if the coins come up with different results, then which one you pick will reveal which you prefer, but if you flip two at a time, and they all come up the same, you can keep which you would have preferred secret. This is more of an issue if you had two Krark's Other Thumbs and you would roll a die: if you want to roll all four dice at the same time and it's not obvious what your preference ordering is, you have to declare it ahead of time, and it'll probably be faster to just roll the dice two at a time.


Would Pot of Extravagance be too unfair if you use a deck that doesn't use an Extra Deck? Pot of Extravagance allows you to banish cards from your Extra Deck to draw cards.

However, some archetypes, like "Monarch", "True Draco" or the "Lair of Darkness" structure deck doesn't need an Extra Deck to beat an opponent.

If you use one of these types of decks, could you just put "useless" cards in your Extra Deck that you don't plan on using so there is no cost to using Pot of Extravagance?

If you use one of these types of decks, could you just put "useless" cards in your Extra Deck that you don't plan on using so there is no cost to using Pot of Extravagance?

Yes you can.

You can build your deck and extra deck the way you want, as long as you stick to the current Banlist (on an official game, that is) and the game rules.


Does Aura of Silence's ability stack? If I play two or more Aura of Silence or have them active at the same time, do my opponent's spells cost an additional 4, 6, or more mana?

Yes, your opponents' spells cost 2 more for each Aura of Silence you have on the battlefield.

While I haven't found a ruling for this situation specifically, your question can be broken down into two components: how multiple static abilities coexist, and how multiple cost-changing abilities interact.

The first question is pretty straightforward: all continous effects are applied independently of one another, even if two of them happen to do the same thing.  For instance, if you had two Glorious Anthem on the battlefield, all creatures you control would get +1/+1 from each enchantment, for a total of +2/+2.

The second question is covered by rule 601.2f (excerpt, emphasis mine):

  The player determines the total cost of the spell.... The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost, plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions.

So it is definitely possible for multiple abilities to increase the cost of spell.

Combining the two leads to the logical conclusion that any number of Auras on the battlefield will each increase the spell cost by 2 mana.


If you have 2 "s" in your rack, do you score statistically higher playing the extra "s" immediately or saving it? Although it doesn't happen often, when I have 2 "s" in my rack, I'm not sure if I should try to use one immediately to score an additional 2-7 points, or save both s's for bingos/parallel plays.
Like any duplicate letter, I seem to have trouble making high point moves when have duplicate letters in my rack including 2 "s". I'm leaning towards using 1 s immediately if appropriate like if it would help balance the consonant/value ratio on your rack more than if you didn't use it.

As noted in the comments, it very much depends on the board. In general, S is useful for tacking on various plays your opponent makes - especially punishing them for thinking that stopping a word short of the TW row is safe. Two S tiles lets you possibly tack two words that end in the same row or column, and plenty of words (in English anyway) have double-s.
Given the general utility of pluralizing a word already on the board to create space for yourself - I would personally look to use each S in its own move, but only after confirming that I don't have any options to pluralize two words in one play - scoring three decently long words is pretty strong.


texas holdem full house showing in table, splitting pot among players Texas holdem, KKK22 full house showing on table.

Player 2 has the K2 hole cards to make the same full house, is the pot split among all players or is it player 2 pot?

If player 2 has K2 in the hole and the community cards are KKK22, then player 2 has KKKK2 as their best hand, 4 of a kind, which beats everyone else's community full house.

That being said, if everyone had their hand made up of the community cards, or perhaps someone had a 2, matching the pair (which has to be lower than the three of the kind), the hand is a push and all players still in the game at that point get an equal share of the pot, or whatever of the pots they are still in (If short stacked players go all in, that can create side pots between those that had more chips left and still bet). Only 5 cards per player matter in holdem, and in most poker variants in general, whether they come from the hole, the river, the turn or the flop doesn't have any bearing on who wins and loses.


Why is real-money-betting necessary for poker to be fun? Obviously, all games may be played with an ante, but it is often not mandatory for the game itself to be fun.

I've long wondered what makes poker so different from everything else: poker, when played without real money, instantly becomes boring and random. And what's even more curious is that even a very small amount of money in play (say, 1€ per player on an 8-player table) is sufficient to turn the game into a very interesting and very disputed battle.

Do there exist out there some other games that are meaningless when not played for money? I'm told that old timers always play backgammon with an ante, but I've played backgammon many times without, and found the game pretty interesting by itself.

So what's the big deal with poker?

When you fall behind in a "for fun" game, the best strategy becomes to make high risk yet high reward choices. Essentially, if you are sitting in last place, you've got nothing to lose so you might as well risk it all for a shot at the top.

In real life poker, you are always in a situation where you have something to lose: your money. Every dollar counts, so players will not change their strategy.


Who gets magic if the Fallen Kingdom Ghoul destroys itself? The card states:

  if the Ghoul did not destroy a Unit during that Attack Phase, place 1
  Wound Marker on this card

In the scenario that the Ghoul is destroyed as a result of having a wound placed on it in this manner, who gets the magic?

The owner gets it, since it was their ability that destroyed the card.


How do sorcery spells resolve? I read somewhere that

  Permanents and sorcery spells can only be cast during your own main phase when the stack is empty.

So

a) Do sorcery spells I cast resolve immediately after as I cast them (they    do not stack and resolve backwards?)

b) If I cast two instant spells during my main phase, will they
stack and resolve backwards (in the same way that multiple counter
spell attacks stack on each-other and resolve backwards)?

It sounds like you know that spells and abilities on the stack resolve in "first-in, last-out" order. However in the majority of cases, this rule will only become important when your opponent "responds" to your spell or ability, so that theirs will resolve first. This will come up frequently if your opponent has lots of instants in their deck (especially counterspells or removal spells).

When you cast a sorcery spell, it goes on the stack and your opponent has an opportunity to respond to it before it resolves. If they do, their response will resolve first because of the "first-in, last-out" nature of the stack. If they don't, your sorcery will resolve.

It is possible to respond to your own spells, but it is very rare that you would actually want to. It is generally preferable to just wait to see if the first resolves, then cast the second one.

In case a), you cannot respond to your sorcery with another sorcery because of the rule you linked. You must wait for the first one to resolve, then cast the second one. You could however respond with an instant, which would resolve before the sorcery.

In case b), you could indeed respond to your instant with a second instant, so the second one would resolve first. Alternatively you could wait for the first one to finish resolving, then cast the second one afterwards.


What are good reasons to lead dummy's first bid suit? The most obvious time is when partner has made a lead-directing double, showing strength, perhaps a tenace, in dummy's suit.

But even when partner hasn't doubled, there may be other reasons. For instance, if dummy has only a few high card points, forcing dummy to take its winners early may cause declarer "transportation" problems. If your hand lends itself well be being squeezed, hammering at dummy's high cards early may be a form of anti-squeeze defense.

If you have something obvious to do, like cash a long suit or lead partner's bid suit, you'd do that. But suppose you have scattered values and no bids by your side. What would make you lead dummy's suit? Are the reasons I listed in the last paragraph valid ones? And are there others that I have overlooked?

A couple of reasons

You have a singleton in dummy's suit.
You hold, say K8, in dummy's suit, and want declarer to commit to
    finesse in that suit/some other line (i.e. refusing the finesse), on
    the opening lead. You do this by leading the deceptive 8 (feigning
    singleton 8 or 8x). This has actually happened, with success, on real play.

The reason of cutting off dummy's communication is good, but unlikely to come up on the opening lead. Leading dummy's suit can lose a much needed tempo, especially when you are not even sure if the suit is solid etc.

Breaking up a squeeze on the opening lead? Well, if you can do that knowingly, you should play bridge for money :-) I guess it is theoretically possible, though.


Is the "snake" turn order for Blokus fairer than the traditional turn order? My friends and I play pretty much everyday.  I was wondering if a snake order is actually more fair than the traditional 1-4 with the last person being at a disadvantage.

Snake turn order would have players go in the order 1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1,1,2,3,4...

I would say not. The advantage to those on the ends of being able to place multiple pieces consecutively is far greater than the disadvantage of going last in this game, IME.

First, the single most successful opening strategy is to get across the board as fast as you can, so you don't end up boxed in to your corner of the board. It's been my experience that even with perfect play by the players immediately to the left and right of any one player, it is impossible to effectively "corral" a knowledgeable player attempting to do this, because even if all three other players reach the center first, they will be unable to stop a concerted effort by the player they're attempting to corral to "squeeze out" through one of the gaps left by the other players in their mad dash to the center. A player typically ends up corralled when they focus on building a compact arrangement of pieces in their own quadrant, and that's such a basic strategic mistake that the game designers saw fit to advise against it in the one-page instruction manual.

Second, the snake arrangement is typically most equitable when the style of the game is such that any player could make exactly the same move, and would want to make that move about as much as any other player, and so an arbitrary decision of who can make the most desirable move in the round or game is perceived as unjustly biased. "Draft"-style decisions, such as worker-placement games, are an obvious example that typically benefit most from a variable player order of some kind. Catan's another common example; the last player to place their first settlement is the first player to place their second, allowing them to choose a pair of locations that work well together, compensating for the disadvantage of having the worst first pick.

Blokus is not that type of game; the number of situations in which two players can make exactly the same move, and the move would be equally advantageous to either player, are sharply limited overall, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Even in those cases, it's very rare that the two players would see equal advantage from the move, as while the piece to be played might be exactly the same, the places the player could go based on that move are likely different.

Given these two points, the advantage conferred on the last player (and eventually the first player) in a snake turn order is enormous; in this game, being able to play two pieces consecutively is like being able to move two pieces on the same turn in chess. You get the opportunity to make a coordinated sequence of moves, and in this game that often creates a far larger advantage than the disadvantage you would have by going last.


Texas Holdem: How to Score this Hand - Single Pair, 3 kickers I have a question for you. It's a question that came up last night in a poker game and is still being debated by the group. Some say split, some say one winner. Please let me know how you would score this hand (see pic below). Please tell me who won, or if there was a tie, and also what the series of cards would be for the winning hand or tie. Also, if you're aware of any game variations that are played that would make both sides of the debate right (unlikely).

I'm not going to tell you what I think, because I don't want to bias your ruling. Just trying to get to the truth here.

Thanks so much!

It's a split. If you take the highest scoring set of five cards, each player is holding a double king, queen, ten and nine. The eight of clubs and four of hearts are never considered in scoring.

Here's an explanation of this five-card scoring rule. Especially:

  Five might be the most important number in poker, if only because five cards make a complete poker hand. This is true no matter how many cards you’re dealt, whether seven, as in seven-card-stud, or just two, as in Hold’em.


Sliding Tile Board Game--Lingo Bingo? I'm looking for a board game that was one of my mother's favorites growing up. This would have been in the early to mid 70's.

It was a game for four people, each with a 4x4 (with one empty) sliding tile setup with letters. A paper wheel in the middle of the board could be turned and would reveal four words for each player, and the players would race to spell those words with their sliding tiles.

She thought the name of this game was Lingo Bingo, but I can't seem to find even a mention of a board game with that name anywhere. Does it sound familiar to anyone? Is there a place where I can buy it?

I've been able to find a partial match for what you're describing. It isn't your exact game, but I'm posting it hoping it'll help someone find that game — it sounds like a possible ancestor or derivative.

The former Ideal Toy Company produced Logus Sr. and Logus Jr. in 1971. This is a 2-player game that gives the players a 4×5 grid of letters, two spaces missing, making for 18 letter tiles. You're assigned challenges of various formats by cards. There's no wheel and there's no 4-player.

First: Logus Sr. Image credit: Bagherra on Board Game Geek. // Second: Logus Jr. Image credit: Amazon

(Logus found thanks to Graham Toal, Steffan O'Sullivan, and the wordgame-programmers mailing list.)


Are you allowed to move backward on a monopoly board? Are you allowed to move backward on a monopoly board?

No.  moves after rolling dice are clockwise/forward.
from the rules here

Place your token on the corner marked "GO," throw the dice and move
your token in the direction of the arrow the number of spaces
indicated by the dice. After you have completed your play, the turn
passes to the left. The tokens remain on the spaces occupied and
proceed from that point on the player's next turn.

The direction of the arrow is pointing clockwise; on future turns you "proceed" from that point.  There is no choice as to direction moved under normal Monopoly rules.
The exceptions are is a card tells you to move backwards. Or if you're playing with the speed dice then

If you roll a three-of-a-kind (all of the dice show the same number),
you can move anywhere you want on the board!

But under standard rules you move clockwise only.


Sacrifice creature question (Magic the gathering) Let's say my opponent plays Diabolic Edict and I have to choose to sacrifice a creature.

I have Insolent Neonate on the board, so can I choose to sacrifice it, and then play it's ability at the same time?

I know that if the opponents card had him choose a target, and that target had an sacrifice ability, I could use it and it would resolve first. But since here I have to choose the target myself, how does the stack work here?

The spell is already on the stack once my opponent plays it, so does me choosing a target to sacrifice resolve the spell, meaning I can't play any abilities in between, or does it stay on the stack still and let me play abilities in between?

Edit: Similarly, if an opponent would play an ability that said f.ex: "Opponent discards 2 cards from his hand" and I had a card in my hand that said something like "Discard this card, draw a card" and a card in play that said "Discard a card, this creature gains +1-+1". Could I choose to discard the draw card to trigger the effect and another card to trigger the creature effect at the same time the opponents spell resolves?

You can't sacrifice the creature to pay for the ability and then because of D.Edict. If you are left with no creatures on board though, that means you can't sacrifice any. It's the only way that play would work out, if Insolent N. was the last creature you controlled.

It goes like this:

Player 1 puts Diabolic Edict on stack and pays for it.
Player 2 can respond with an instant or ability, chooses to sacrifice  Insolent Neonate to draw a card it goes on the stack. The ability "price" is payed at this moment (discard and sacrifice)
Stack is resolved, "draw card" ability resolves first, as the stack is FILO (First In, Last Out, that means the first thing on the stack, is the last to be resolved, and the last thing is the first to be resolved)
Target player sacrifices a creature is resolved in 2nd. Player 2 is target player, and he needs to choose the creature when the ability is resolved. If there are no other creatures to sacrifice, player 2 sacrifices none.

EDIT: Likewise the discards are 2 separate things. The discard in your cards is a "cost", and you have to pay it. The discard on your enemy card, is an action you have to do, so you'd just end up discarding twice. Again this would only be useful if you were left with no cards in hand (so he couldn't force you to discard).


Engineers : only 3 bridges Are the engineers limited to only 3 bridges?

I ask this just as confirmation. I can't find this anywhere in the rules, but I suppose it's so.

Yes, they are still limited to 3. Though the rulebook does not seems to mention this specifically in regards to engineers, it says:

  Keep in mind that you can only build a total of three Bridges.

And nothing in the section about engineers says otherwise.


Pocketing the striker while covering the Queen Say I'm white, and the board has 1 white, 3 black and 1 Queen left on it.

I pocket the Queen. Then, when covering the Queen, I pocket both the remaining white piece along with the striker.

What is the outcome?

Two of your pocketed pieces are removed and placed on the board. You continue playing, trying to cover the queen.

I'm referring to the ICF Laws of Carrom:

  101) a) While covering the Queen by a proper stroke, if a player pockets the striker along with his C/m, the C/m so pocketed plus one C/m as Due shall be taken out for placing by the opponent. The player shall however, continue his turn. If in that subsequent stroke no C/m of the player is pocketed, the Queen shall not be considered to have been covered and it shall be taken out for placing.


How does priority work in these cases? I understand the ruling that when a Planeswalker resolves the player controlling the walker can activate its ability without their opponent getting priority in between.

Are there any other rules that take on priority that are important?

How does priority work for these circumstances?

A player's sorcery spell resolves. Does the player have the priority to do something else knowing that there is no ETB effect to consider, or does it go to the opponent who gets to do something after the sorcery resolves?
If an opponent controls a triggered ability that triggers on their opponent's upkeep, and that player also has an upkeep effect, who determines arrangement of the stack if multiple triggered effects happen?

After any stack-using effect(spell, ability, or otherwise) resolves, or whenever any player would get priority, the Active Player, (the player who's turn it is) gets priority first, and then the NonActive Player gets priority after the active player passes priority.

A player may put any number of spells onto the stack before they pass priority.

If multiple sources controlled by both players would trigger an effect at the same time, they're put on the stack in APNAP order. The Active player puts effects from his sources on the stack first, and he chooses the order for his own effects.  After all of the active player's effects have gone onto the stack, than the Non-active player can put his effects onto the stack, and he can chose the order in which they go onto the stack.

This results in the Non-active player's spells resolving first.


pandemic - can a city outbreak more than once per infect city turn? Scenario:
- infection rate is 2
- Tehran currently has 2 cubes, Baghdad has 3 cubes

At end of turn, first infect card drawn is Baghdad. It outbreaks and adds a cube to Tehran so Tehran now has 3 cubes.
Second card drawn is Tehran, which outbreaks.

Question: Does the Tehran outbreak cause a chain reaction outbreak in Baghdad? Or is Baghdad skipped because it already had an outbreak on this infect cities stage?

Yes, the second card will cause a chain reaction.

In a case like this you would have three total outbreaks happen. First one from the first card drawn, Baghdad. Then two more from the second card drawn, Tehran.

  INFECTION:
  Infections
  Flip over as many Infection cards from the top of the Infection Deck as the
  current infection rate. This number is below the space of the Infection Rate
  Track that has the infection rate marker. Flip these cards over one at a time,
  infecting the city named on each card.

  To infect a city, place 1 disease cube matching its color onto the city, unless
  this disease has been eradicated. If the city already has 3 cubes of this color,
  do not place a 4th cube. Instead, an outbreak of this disease occurs in the city
  (see Outbreaks below). Discard this card to the Infection Discard Pile.

  OUTBREAKS:
  When a disease outbreak occurs, move the outbreaks marker forward
  1 space on the Outbreaks Track. Then, place 1 cube of the disease color
  on every city connected to the city. If any of them already has 3 cubes of
  the disease color, do not place a 4th cube in those cities. Instead, in each of
  them, a chain reaction outbreak occurs after the current outbreak is done.

  When a chain reaction outbreak occurs, first move the outbreaks marker
  forward 1 space. Then, place cubes as above, except do not add a cube to
  cities that have already had an outbreak (or a chain reaction outbreak) as
  part of resolving the current Infection card.

  As a result of outbreaks, a city may have disease cubes of multiple colors on
  it; up to 3 cubes of each color. This does not affect infections.

If you read the outbreaks section closely it only talks about not adding cubes to cities that have already had an outbreak for the current infection card only. So for the situation that you are dealing with there will be an outbreak for each infection card.


What knowledge do players get when Hangman is sent to another game using Side Quest? At a un-draft I had the pleasure of sending Hangman to another silver bordered game with Side Quest. We played it with both players having no knowledge about the hidden word and me confirming if the letters were in the word. Also we didn't give them knowledge about what else had been guessed. Was this the correct way to play this?

This is silver-bordered land, so of course there is no "real" rule to cover this. As such, this is my interpretation of the interaction.
Hangman keeps all of the "state" of its mini-game, and Hangman's new Side Quest controller becomes the mini-game's gamemaster for the duration of the Side Quest. So Hangman would keep its originally-chosen word, Hangman would keep its +1/+1 counters, and all players in the Side Quest game would have access to which letters had already been guessed and what the "progress" of the mini-game is.
My justification for this answer is that I would expect a generic 1/1 creature with a +1/+1 counter on it to keep its counter when going on a Side Quest, and I would expect a creature that had gained e.g. First Strike to retain that ability when going on a Side Quest. In other words, I think that Side Quest keeps the creature in its current state.
From Mark Rosewater's tumblr:

magicwizardmageman asked: What happens if you augment a creature on a side quest?
It stays with the creature and returns to the original game. Same for an aura. If either of the games end, the Augment/aura goes to its owner’s graveyard.

This sounds like "official" justification that you try to keep the Side Quest creature as "current" as possible while moving it between games.


Creatures with Surge as Commander Is it possible to use a creature with a surge ability as my commander?
a creature such as Tyrant of Valakut?

If so would this allow me to bypass the cost increase by using the surge ability, or would the surge cost increase as well?

I am new to commander so I am not fully aware of the comprehensive rules on creature abilities like this.

Is it possible to use a creature with a surge ability as my commander?

Yes

Surge does not care about where your card is when you cast it, so it also works in command zone.

You still need to apply commander tax to the cost afterwards

  a creature such as Tyrant of Valakut?

No

I believe your commander should be a legendary creature, which Tyrant of Valakut is not.


Does Wizards of the Coast still package World Championship Decks? The most recent decks that I can find are from 2005. Are the top 4 championship decks from each year still being packaged for retail? If so, where's a good place to buy them?

Unfortunately they were discontinued (at around the time you state) for not being widely popular.  The cards could obviously not be played in tournaments and weren't even very good for casual play because of the nonstandard card backs.

A shame because I quite liked the feeling of playing a finely-tuned Pro deck too... but Wizards are just too cagey about printing anything resembling proxies of top-tier tournament cards.