Bluff - Early game strategy (5 players) I have played a few rounds of Bluff with a new group of players and I am currently a little lost in the early game. What's a good strategy to come out ahead of the first rounds? Here is what I have thought about myself.

The other 4 players:

As far as I can tell, the other players are not trying to analyze the playing styles of their opponents early on, so I am not worried about being easy to read, at least not in the beginning. Most of them have played a lot more than me so they have a better feeling for the flow of the game.

What do I want to achieve:

The more I think about it the more obvious it gets. It looks like the early game revolves around not having to call a bluff or getting called. You want your opponents to call bluffs on each other because it is quite rare that you take any damage in that case (only if the exact amount has been bet). On the other hand you can earn nothing if you are involved in a challenged bet. That's why I feel that I have to create situations where I am not involved in the showdown. Is this line of thinking correct?

How do I achieve this goal:

It seems like it depends a lot on position. If I am the first to bet I have no information about the other players. There are 4 players in front of me so I want to make it easy for the next player to bet a larger amount while I don't want the betting to come back to me increased 4 times if noone calls a bluff.

In the first round there are 20 dices out there hidden from me. With the numbers 1 to 5 and a joker on each dice the chance for each number (incl. the jokers) is 1/3. On average there will be a little less than 7 rolls of a certain number out there, a little more than 3 of them will be jokers.

Lets say I rolled 1-1-2-3-J. What should I do? On average I expect 10 times 1, 9 times 2, 9 times 3, 8 times 4 and 8 times 5 (all of them incl. the jokers) and 4 times a Joker. If I start betting the average expected amount of any of those, it is better than a coin flip that I am right. But if I bet 10 times 1 and the next player has no 1 or J it will be called immediately. Not what I want. Going for 8 times 4 feels less risky to get called, that's why I would prefer to take that route.

It might even be better to calculate the expected value and go down a certain amount to be even safer. If I reduce one from the expected value it will be even harder for the next player to call a bluff. If I go down even more it gets better and better. Where do you think is the threshold in a game of 5 players? I could obviously start by betting 1 times 1 but I can be pretty sure that the betting will be back at me for sure, if no one raises the bet significantly.

I guess the same thinking patterns will apply when I am the second to make a bet. If I am allowed to make the same bet that I would have made in first place, I will make that one. If I have to go higher, I am already lost again. What range of values can I bet and when am I forced to call a bluff? I prefer the bet because I might avoid an showdown in which I am involved, but if the amount I have to bet is too high I will be called by the next player.

Transition into middle and endgame:

I want to keep middle and endgame out of this question. Once a significant amount of dices has been lost or the number of players is reduced the psychological factor weights more and more compared to a mathematical approach.

Summing it up:

My main questions are:

Is a mathematical approach viable as long as there are 5 players with almost all the dices left?
How much do I have to factor the play style of my opponents into the equation at that stage of the game?
What is a good betting strategy to avoid being involved in a showdown?

Is a mathematical approach viable as long as there are 5 players with almost all the dices left?

A straight probability is never a bad place to start. You know that 1/6 of the dice will be your number (before you start adding in the 1s. In a five-player game, there are 25 dice. So, it's safeish to assume that there should be around 4 twos (for instance). Obviously you don't want to start that high, but it gives you a good benchmark for when you should start worrying.

How much do I have to factor the play style of my opponents into the equation at that stage of the game?

This is hard to answer since we don't know your opponent's. Any information/tells they're giving up is useful, so I'd start paying attention.

What is a good betting strategy to avoid being involved in a showdown?

Liar's Dice boils down to two questions:
1. What is riskier: calling your opponent's bid or one-upping him?
2. What is riskier to the player after you: calling your bid or one-upping?

To avoid showdowns, you need your opponent to bid low enough that you can safely bid low enough that your opponent would rather bid again rather than call. (Put another way, if your bid is plausible, but the next player can't one-up without being called himself, they'll probably call you and hope for luck. You need to leave the next player room to also be safe-ish.)

Of course, the whole point of the game is the tension of bids becoming ever-more-unlikely, so avoiding showdowns entirely is not going to happen. What you want to be aiming for is to make sure that it's safer for your opponent to bid rather than call you.


How do poison counters work and how would a player get them? How do poison counters work? What are the scenarios a player would receive a poison counter?

All you really need to know is that you lose the game if you get 10, and that they're nearly impossible to remove. Generally if you see a card that talks about poison counters, it'll be a card that gives them, so this should never really be confusing - if the cards don't mention them, you don't have to worry about them.

By far the main way to get poison counters is from creatures with Infect, like Blighted Agent:

  Infect (This creature deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters and to players in the form of poison counters.)

There's was also an ability called Poisonous, but it's only on a couple cards.  Virulent Sliver gives all Slivers Poisonous 1:

  All Sliver creatures have poisonous 1. (Whenever a Sliver deals combat damage to a player, that player gets a poison counter. A player with ten or more poison counters loses the game.)

And Snake Cult Initiation is an aura that gives the enchanted creature Poisonous 3. Marsh Viper essentially has Poisonous 2, but spells it out.

There are several more cards that just explicitly give a player poison counters.


When I get rewarded with a crystal and already have 3, do I forfeit the reward? When I get crystal rewards (for example via rolling dice after winning in some adventure sites), do I forfeit them if I already have 3, or can I reroll?

Effectively, you're forced to use the new crystal immediately. You gain a mana token of the crystal's colour directly into your Play area.

From the rules, page 5, under "Gain" Effects:

  If an effect tells you to gain a crystal, take a mana token of the corresponding color and put it in your Inventory. If you already have three crystals of that color, gain a mana token of that color to your Play area instead.


What's the probability of having a combo on the first turn in MTG? I'm creating a combo deck, and I'm interested in the probability of having a certain combo on the first turn.

For this combo, I need 4 different cards. There are 4 copies of each of these cards in the deck. The deck has 60 cards.

What is the probability of seeing these 4 cards in the starting hand of 7 cards?

I read How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand?, but my question is a little different and I don't know how to calculate this probability.

You can do this calculation using the multivariate hypergeometric distribution. The setup is as follows:
The deck of 60 cards consists of: 4 cards of type A, 4 cards of type B, 4 cards of type C, 4 cards of type D, and 44 cards of type E (other).

Your criteria are that a hand of 7 cards contains at least 1 card of type A, at least 1 card of type B, at least 1 card of type C, and at least 1 card of type D.

For a given hand arrangement, you can calculate the probability using the formulas in the link. As an example, the probability of the hand (1 card of type A, 1 card of type B, 1 card of type C, 2 cards of type D, and 2 cards of type E) is:

(4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 2) * (44 choose 2) / (60 choose 7) = ~0.000941.

Note that this probability is for this specific hand, and there are many that meet your requirements. You will want to make a table of all realizable hands and sum up the probabilities. (or alternatively a table of all hands that don't meet the criterion, and subtract the sum from 1).

=== table of realizable hands ===

1,1,1,1 of (A, B, C, D), 3 of other

(4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (44 choose 3) / (60 choose 7) = ~0.00879

1,1,1,2 of (A, B, C, D), 2 of other [4 variants]

4 * [(4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 2) * (44 choose 2) / (60 choose 7)] = ~0.00376

1,1,2,2 of (A, B, C, D), 1 of other [6 variants]

6 * [(4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 2) * (4 choose 2) * (44 choose 1) / (60 choose 7)] = ~0.000394

1,2,2,2 of (A, B, C, D), 0 of other [4 variants]

4 * [(4 choose 1) * (4 choose 2) * (4 choose 2) * (4 choose 2) / (60 choose 7)] = ~0.00000895

1,1,1,3 of (A, B, C, D), 1 of other [4 variants]

4 * [(4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 3) * (44 choose 1) / (60 choose 7)] = ~0.000117

1,1,2,3 of (A, B, C, D), 0 of other [12 variants]
12 * [(4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 2) * (4 choose 3) / (60 choose 7)] = ~0.0000119

Total Sum of above = ~0.01307


Why are the old Pokémon TCG sets not allowed in modern tournaments? I've heard that the Pokémon TCG cards from the old sets, like base, jungle, fossile etc, aren't allowed in tournaments anymore. Why are they forbidden? The old cards seem to be consistently weaker, so it can't be a balance issue. Are there incompatibilities between the rules?

Also: Which sets are forbidden?

There are a good collection of Pokemon TCG tournament rules and resources here - you may find some of it useful.

Looking at the rules for tournament formats, I see that there is a format called "Modified" that restricts players to using more recent sets - but there is also an "Unlimited" format where any cards ever printed are fair game.  So, in theory, there's no reason why you couldn't find an Unlimited tournament to play your older cards in.  Lobby your local tournament organizers to run one, if they aren't doing so already!

Why would people prefer to run Modified tournaments?  Well, as Aramis correctly states above, the manufacturers have a vested interest in people buying new cards in order to stay competitive.  However, it's not all for evil, economic reasons.  It would be deeply unfair to new players if, every time they turned up at a tournament, they were crushed by long-time players with vast collections of powerful, out-of-print cards.  It's not necessary for the old cards to be stronger than the new cards for there to be a problem: the players who have been collecting for a decade will have so many more options to choose from that by definition they will be able to build better decks.  And if an older, out-of-print card is actively unbalanced, then it's very unfair to ask new players to spend big bucks getting hold of these, just to compete.

Compare and contrast to Magic the Gathering: there is a format called "Vintage" which is quite popular - but to build a truly competitive Vintage deck you need cards like Black Lotus and Moxes, which cost hundreds of dollars apiece!  If all Magic tournaments were Vintage, then only players who have been playing for 20 years or have tens of thousands of dollars to spend would stand a chance of winning a game.  And nobody wants that!


Do I have to say how I'm ordering my cards after Scrying? When you Surveil or Scry more than 1 card and announce to your opponent "I leave the 2 on Top (or bottom 2)" do you have to announce the order in which they cards are placed?

"I left both on top - In the same order",
"I left both on top - but switched the order they'll be drawn", or simply say that you Top both (or bottom both) and no need to announce the order?

You need to tell them how many cards are placed in which location, but need not reveal whether their order has changed.

  401.4. If an effect puts two or more cards in a specific position in a library at the same time, the owner of those cards may arrange them in any order. That library's owner doesn't reveal the order in which the cards go into the library.


What game has this weird 12 sided die with clouds, a bug, a pear and other stuff on it? I found this unusual and hilarious die. I have no clue what it could be from. On the 12 faces I see these 4 particular shapes:

a lady bug or beetle
a vest or blouse
a creepy clown face
a partly eaten pear

and the rest of the 8 faces are clouds or bats(?)

Can anyone identify this game and help me figure out what this die is actually used for or what the figures really are supposed to represent?

Found it! Through sheer Google-fu, I discovered ThinkBlot!

Tom Vasel's review describes its use:

The game is very simple. Up to six players are given a sheet from a pad included with the game, along with a pencil. Then, the Thinkblot book is opened. It is a spiral bound book that transforms into an Easel with 75 different inkblot pictures, as well as a fold-out scoreboard. Each player places a peg into one of the colored paths on the scoreboard, representing his score.
Now, a special 12-sided die is rolled. Instead of numbers, there are little pictures or blots on each side of the die. Depending on what is rolled, the players write down things on their scoring sheet that they think they see in the inkblot currently showing. Whenever a little blot is rolled (eight of the twelve sides), players write down anything they see in the inkblot mess. When a little bug is rolled (one side), players should write down any creature they see in the picture. When a little face is rolled (one side), they are to write down people, parts of people, or actions taken by people. When a half eaten pear is rolled (one side), players should write down any food they see. And when a little shirt is rolled (one side), players are to write down any clothing or accessory they see.


Where can I buy a deck of personalized cards? I want to design my own cards, backside and frontside (on the frontside only the pictures for jack, queen, king, and ace). One of the biggest problems is that I only want two decks,  not thousands of them. It's a birthday gift for my girlfriend.

Where can I buy bridge cards that I can personalize and how much would it cost (including shipping to the Netherlands)?

Are there other ways to print a low quantity of customized cards?

Thanks in advance!

I've had great experiences with Printer's Studio.

You can have anything from a custom back on standard playing card fronts to completely custom fronts and backs that are different for each card.
Good interface for building these decks.
While the images you submit must have a bleed, the jobs I submitted were spot-on.
No minimum order size (though you get discounts for buying in bulk).

Tips:

Don't order without a coupon. You can always get a deal. At the very least, sign up for the mailing list to get $10 off, which will cover the shipping. (The best I've seen was early in the new year where they had a deal for 15% off and free shipping!)
You might be able to save a buck by going to the Canadian portal. The prices of items are the same as the US portal, but the Canadian dollar is weaker. The company is based in Hong Kong.
If you want cards that are perfectly flat, go for the linen instead of the standard. Both types are high quality. (I have no experience with their "plastic" cards.)


Are there red cards that offer protection against mass token destruction? I was playing MtG with a mono red goblin deck, and someone used Virulent Plague on my tokens and they all died! Is there any way to counter this with a mono red card?

Honestly, your options aren't great.  Enchantments are a designated weakness for Red, and as such they have basically no options for dealing with them.

If you search on Gatherer for mono-red cards that have "enchantment" in their rules text, you get only 20 results.  Of those, 3 have off-color activations, 2 destroy nonenchantments, 2 are Licids (which become enchantments), 3 create enchantment creature tokens (they're from Theros), two are a split card with the enchantment destruction on the white side (Gatherer doesn't really handle split cards very well), one only cares about enchantment creatures, 4 have miscellaneous effects that don't help, and one is Warp World.

The only two cards that might possibly be of use to you are Aura Barbs and Enchanter's Bane.  Aura Barbs does a measly 2 damage to your opponent for each Virulent Plague they have (which is terrible), and Enchanter's Bane is only 3 damage a turn, which isn't really a fair trade for shutting down the rest of your deck.  Also, Enchanter's Bane is from a Commander deck, so it's not legal in Modern, if that's what you're playing.

If you dig a little broader you can find some other cards that might work, such as Bearer of the Heavens or Capricious Efreet, but they tend to be expensive and/or random in effect, making them pretty useless for your purposes.

The other classic red solution is to simply win the game before the hoser can wreck their field, but a 3 mana enchantment comes down a little too fast for that to be really viable.

If Virulent Plague is a frequent participant of your local metagame, you're probably going to have to splash white or green if you want your token deck to have a prayer.


Why is this move illegal? I'm trying to learn 3-D chess by playing Parmen against the computer.  I've read the tournament rules and am fairly confident I've got a good, basic understanding of the game.  However, in my first game, I've quickly encountered a situation where the program is telling me I'm trying to make an illegal move which I think would be legal.

The moves so far (I'm playing white):

  a4N, Nc6N
  c4N, Nb6N
  Nb3N, Nxc4N
  d3N, N4a5B

The move I'd like to make now is Nxa5B, but I'm alerted that it is an illegal move.  Can someone explain to me why this is?

Your King is in check from your opponent's Queen.


Are there any resources available for building custom battle decks? I work with a group of people who frequently like to play table top games and the like during lunch hour, and I've been wanting to play some M:TG. The problem though, is that

Only myself and one other person has their own cards
We frequently have 3+ people playing at once so even buying precon 1v1 decks wouldn't be feasible since it would leave others unable to play

I'd like to build a few decks that can be played in a two-headed giant format, where the decks are as balanced against each other as possible... Also wouldn't mind having a card list for 5 good star format decks for when we have 5 people.

Is anybody aware of any sites that have such card lists? I can't come up with a google search query that proves promising.

I would buy enough of the Duel Decks for each player to have one. Even though each set is not balanced against the other sets, they are going to be the best value you will find for pre-built decks from wizards. They have a very reasonable power level for the most part.

Wizards is releasing the older duel decks in December as part of an anthology- it might be worth waiting for that, depending on your timeline.

Once you you have played with them a few times you might want to supplement the decks with a booster pack or two, or cards from your existing collection.

One reason I suggest these instead of building your own is that there's no way to see what decks you could really build with the cards & budget you have without going through your card pool and building the decks myself. I also find that having a base deck that is not packed full of great cards really lends itself to learning how to build fun decks by tweaking the existing deck.

Good idea about the star format. I really enjoy the tension that having the mixed enemy/ally groups provides. For some playgroups it is valuable to have a prescribed target so that people don't get analysis-paralysis trying to decide who to attack.


In "Standard" American, Is It Possible to Bid the Opposing Suit "Naturally" Over a Takeout Double? I dealt and bid one heart with the following:

  ♠Axx
  ♥AQJxx
  ♦Jxx
  ♣xx

Left hand opponent doubled for takeout. Partner passed with something like K♦, Q♣ and one heart.

Right hand opponent held something like ♠Jxx ♥KT98xxx ♦void ♣Jxx and bid two hearts. It made, since the takeout doubler had some 18 points. I congratulated them on a good contract.

Would it have been better for RHO to pass for penalties instead? (No one was vulnerable). I always thought that a bid on the opponents' suit opposite a takeout double was a "cue" bid indicating a void, and slam interest, with prospectively 25-30 partnership points concentrated in three suits.

We were bidding a "loose" version of Standard American. So was two hearts a proper bid in this context? Or should it have meant something else?

In "standard" american (or typical variants of 2/1) it is normal to play 2H in the sequence: (1H) - X - (P) - 2H, as a close to game forcing hand (opposite a minimum takeout double) or better. There might be variants which different partnerships play, but it is almost never a natural bid.

2H should not be to play, as it makes no sense to play in 2H there. You are contracting to make at least 8 tricks with hearts as trump, with partner showing shortness in hearts by his takeout double! If you make those same 8+ tricks, opposing a 1H doubled contract, don't you rate to make at least +200 (or more if opps are vul)? There might be cases where you let 1H doubled make, but in that case, you are probably down 2 in your own 2H anyway and those would be very rare.

Over a minor suit takeout, some people might consider playing it as natural, as opponents could have shortness there and might have the option to try and run to a longer suit, but I believe the usual is still to play 2D in: (1D) - X - (P) - 2D, as close to game forcing hand etc and not natural.


Deriving statistics from original card games I have drafted a game that uses a French Deck with 52 cards, 4 suites (diamonds, clubs, hearts, spades), and no jokers.

I'm interested in profiling game play along a few axes:

How many turns are there in a typical game with different play strategies?
If I change the winning condition from, say, getting all four queens to getting all four jacks, how much longer or shorter is play. This would make an actual difference in my game, but I'd like to quantify that difference.
How frequently will players have matching ranks for the cards they play if I force them to play a random card from their deck versus selecting which card to play?

Besides those, I could think of other ways to tweak the game, and I want to know what effect that has without manually playing the game several times in real life.

It would be possible to get this information by using some ad-hoc scripting on my computer to calculate values for the specific cases I mention above. However, adding more measurements, could require changing or improving my model of the game which takes more work. What would be better is a suite of computer programs that would allow me to change rules and gather new statistics without, in general, needing to add additional instrumentation to the game engine. Does such a suite of programs already exist?

I have seen this question which is similar to my own, but the poster requests statistics for a much more specific condition. I am looking for a general tool. I am hoping that the situation has changed since the original negative answer.

If you have a small amount of experience programming, you could achieve your goals here pretty easily, and as customized as you need.  If you want graphs and other 'pretty'  output, I suggest R.


Wargame with customizable miniature stats? I am looking for a wargame of any genre that has rules for creating stats for any miniature from any company. I know I've seen at least one set of rules like that, but I can't remember what the name of it was, nor can I find it through Google, as I'm not sure what to look for. It doesn't matter if it's a free game or if I have to pay for the rules, I just need a game where I can use the minis I've already got.

Quite a few, actually, have had such a "Look at it and rate it" approach.
Early Warhammer games
The first edition of Warhammer 40K (Warhammer 40K: Rogue Trader), and the first several editions of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, were all intended to use any minis, and had extensive minis rating lists by base type, weapon, and profile value.
40KRT vehicles were points-costed by their ratings; the rating system wasn't terribly effective at play balance, but it was workable within reason, and especially for man-sized units.
Ground Zero Games' games
GZG's rules are intended for use with both their lines and others' lines of minis. Better still, you can get them in PDF for free direct from GZG.
Dirtside II is vehicle or squad per mini, platoon scaled, up to battalion level. It includes vehicle design rules that border on being "Look and rate"...
Stargrunt II is tactical, squad level, individual man per mini, infantry combat, but it also can use Dirtside II vehicles.
Full Thrust is space combat, one ship per mini. It can do fleet level play easily.
R Talsorian Games' Mekton
Mekton has always been a combined battle game and RPG, and always had a design system capable of producing a wide range of designs.
Because the design system is actually a design system, you might not always be able to get decent match to a given mini's fluff text.
7th Street Games' Mecha
The system is able to use a variety of minis. The included setting is less flexible, being focused on space aztechs.
Dream Pod 9's whole catalogue
The "rating" system in both Heavy Gear and Jovian Chronicles is intended to take an extant mini or image, and allow you to devise game stats to fit, generating a relatively good point total for balance purposes. Other games in the line use the same ratings, so that means that any of them can be used. Several have both minis and RPG rules, and the minis rules are almost all written for hex-grids but easily adapted to gridless play.
Flashpoint!
Flashpoint! is a wonderful minis wargame, using a mostly 1d20 rolls, printed in landscape mode in the 90's, of skirmish scale combat in a near-future sci-fi setting.  1 Character/vehicle/robot per model, typically individual model maneuver scale, and intended for platoon level and below.
Many elements border between a rating system and a design system, especially robots and vehicles.
Old FASA games
VOR is very similar to early WH40K:RT... except using d10's rather than d6's, and having a less-obviously Traveller/Cthulhu mashup setting. The rating system is very similar to that in 40K:RT.
And onto the less close fit to the question...
Battletech, while having a design system rather than a rating system, has rules for mecha, vehicles, and troops, and multiple games in various scales, so you can use pretty much almost your entire collection somewhere... and it's still in print, from Catalyst.
Renegade Legion is very much the same approach as Battletech, but is a different set of combat mechanics.


Will Mirror Gallery make it impossible for your Mox Amber to produce mana? Does Mirror Gallery make it impossible to tap your Mox Amber for mana?

No, legendary permanents are still legendary with Mirror Gallery on the field and will count for Mox Amber.
Mirror Gallery only makes the "legend rule" not apply. It does not change any object in the game. In particular, it does not remove the "legendary" object supertype from anything.
The only way for Mox Amber to not produce mana is if you don't control any colored, legendary creatures or planeswalkers. Note that the game makes a distinction between types of mana and colors of mana. "Colorless" is a type of mana, but not a color, so Mox Amber will not produce any mana if you control only, for example, Karn, Silver Golem or Karn Liberated.

106.1a There are five colors of mana: white, blue, black, red, and green.
106.1b There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
105.2c A colorless object has no color.


Is Saboteur biased towards the miners? I recently played a couple of games (i.e. six rounds) of Saboteur with ten and then nine players.  The miners found the gold every round, and it was only a close thing once.

The saboteurs win a bit more gold than the miners if they're successful, but I'd be surprised if this was enough to balance the game.

There's a similar question about ways to balance the win ratios, but I'm interested in whether the game as it stands has a balanced expected return for both sides.

Edited to add game information:

Rules

The rules for Saboteur are available from the ZMan games site.

Role Cards

The role deck contains 11 cards:

7 gold miner cards (whose aim is to find the gold)
4 saboteur cards (whose aim is to prevent the miners from finding the gold).

Gold distribution

The gold deck contains 28 cards in the following denominations:

16 cards with 1 nugget
8 cards with 2 nuggets
4 cards with 3 nuggets

If the miners win a round in an n player game, then n randomly select gold cards are distributed amongst the miners (for a 10 player game only 9 cards are distributed).  If the (1/2/3/4) saboteurs win a round then they are awarded (4/3/3/2) gold each (respectively).

Question clarification:

I am interested in the expected amount of gold for those playing as miners, and for those playing as saboteurs.  This is almost certainly different for different numbers of players, but I am interested to know whether the expected winnings is anywhere near the same for both sides.

Saboteur 1 does seem to be biased towards the "good dwarves" if you don't play it in really cutthroat fashion.  If the good dwarves just cooperate and go for the gold, they will win most of the time.

However, if the good dwarves break each OTHER in order to keep competitors from getting gold, it gives the Saboteurs a much better chance, obviously.

I think Saboteur was designed with an expectation that good dwarves would be more cutthroat and selfish than a lot of groups play them instinctually.

That said, I recommend you pick up Saboteur 2, which adds (and replaces) some cards and roles.  It's much more well-balanced and more consistently fun.


When should I mulligan in Android: Netrunner? I expect this is quite an open question, but I'll try to keep it on point:

I know it depends on specific deck tactics, but under what circumstances should I consider mulliganing?

My initial thoughts are that, as a Runner, I can be quite generous with mulliganing. Didn't get the first part of my combo, or a decent economy card? Might as well mulligan.

As a Corp, I'm always a LOT more reluctant to mulligan, short of three agendas in hand or something. I feel like there's a great deal more risk to a Corp mulligan.

So, does anyone have any guidance? How "bad" does a hand have to be to force a Runner mulligan? How about a Corp one?

Your initial analysis is pretty good, but perhaps overemphasising the risk to the corp.  The real issue is that five cards from 45 is a very variable draw, and the results are a pretty unpredictable.  I'll examine the two cases separately.

Runner

As you say, the runner can mulligan fairly freely - there isn't much of a downside.

Obvious mulligans:

No icebreakers, or only a code gate breaker.
No economy boost, combined with high-cost icebreaker.  (If you have a cheap starter icebreaker, consider living without the economy boost - time is always on the corp's side, so press the pace while you can.)
If your deck's based around a key three-card combo or the like, and you haven't drawn any of them.  (But don't try for two; your odds aren't good enough.)

However, you still need to understand what your 'typical' opening hand looks like, because you don't want to make the situation worse while trying for better!  It's important to understand the odds of getting what you want - they're often not as good as your intuition says.

For example, if your deck is 1/3 icebreakers in a 45 card deck, your chance of getting at least two in the opening hand is only about 55%.  If you have 8 specifically anti-sentry icebreakers, your chance of drawing one of them is about 65%.  (If it's crucial to have one, you have the same chance again in a mulligan, of course, for a total chance of about 90%)

A runner deck usually needs to be more tactic-focussed than the corp, but that's mitigated by your comparative ease of draw.  Unlike the corp, you can afford to push your draws early if you're missing a useful element.  Understand which kinds of cards your deck actually needs to open with, and be prepared to let go of ones you merely want.

Corporation

There's nothing inherently more risky about mulligans for the corp - since cards are reshuffled, the corp gets the same chances the runner does.  The problem is that draws are highly variable, and the corp is more vulnerable to extreme hands than the runner, so - appropriately - you need to be more risk-averse.

Obvious mulligan conditions:

Multiple agendas, obviously.  Three must be mulliganned, but even two should be strongly considered - it's too many to protect, and you don't know if you're about to draw a third.  (If you have 9 agendas in deck, your chance to draw two or more of them in a mulligan is only about 26%, so if the rest of your hand doesn't defend those two quickly, redraw.)
Lack of ICE.  What this means is highly situational, however, and depends on your opponent.  Against an Anarch virus deck, it's vitally important to protect HQ / R&D with something quickly, but usually not a panic to ramp to your high-power stuff - favour fact ICE over economy or power.

If you're playing Jinteki ambushes, on the other hand, it can be more important to get decoy servers up early than heavy protection - burn the runner early and he'll be more cautious about remote servers in future.
Economic development is usually more important but less urgent for a corp, but that depends a lot on your deck.  Weyland economy powerhouses shouldn't actually worry that much if they don't draw credit boosters to start with; there should be one along shortly.  NBN tag decks should consider drawing for one if they start with high-cost ICE and not enough ways to rez it.

More than the runner, the corp needs to understand what their deck is intended to do.  Corp decks are often broader-based than runner ones; you should be able to "settle" for a wider variety of opening hands.

Summary

Mulligans are pretty low-risk in Netrunner; if your hand is worse-than-average you should try to improve it.  However, it's very important to understand what an "average" hand look like for your deck - if your hand is a better than average draw, but doesn't have the key cards you want, it's still risky to try for them.  You're likely to make it worse.

For the mathematically inclined, grab a spreadsheet.  Your chance of drawing a card or card type in your opening hand, if there are N of that card type in a deck of D cards, is

1 - HYPGEOMDIST (0, 5, N, D)

(Excel syntax used here, but all spreadsheets should have something very similar)


What deck should be used for a beginner in Netrunner The Netrunner rules suggest playing with Jinteki as a first hand, but I have heard that is a bad starting deck. Which should be used for a starting deck for introducing someone to the game? And which should be used for someone who has only played as the runner but not the corporation?

Jinteki is a bad choice for first time corp player because, with only the starter set, the deck does not have enough ways to generate credits. Having no money means you cannot do much and usually leads to the new player not having fun. If you are trying to teach someone, fun is the whole idea, so this is obviously counter productive.

With core set only decks, I would do Weyland vs Shaper. Both play styles are easy and both run pretty rich.

If you are up to building decks specifically for teaching there are some better options.

Here is a board game geek thread that has a lot of beginner deck suggestions, though some decks here use more than just the core set. Here is a reddit thread that has beginner decks using only the core set.

FFG has actually released decks that it thinks are the best for teaching. These decks leave out a lot of the more complicated mechanics such as Trace. They focus on both players setting up their side of the board quickly so there is almost always an "end game".

Note that the Demo decks clearly don't follow normal deck building rules. They are purely for teaching. In addition they only require 6 points to win by agenda points.

  Jinteki - Personal Evolution
  Agendas:
  3x Priority Requisition
  3x Nisei mk2
  1x Unorthodox Predictions
  Operations:
  3x Hedge Fund
  1x Restructure
  2x Trick of Light
  2x Neural Emp
  Assets:
  2x Melange Mining Corp.
  2x Private Contracts
  2x Snare!
  2x Project Junebug
  ICE:
  3x Wall of Thorns
  2x Bastion
  2x Wall of Static
  3x Enigma
  3x Chum
  3x Neural Katana

  Shaper - Kate "Mac" McCaffrey
  Events:
  3x Sure Gamble
  2x Modded
  2x Freelance Coding Contract
  2x The Maker's Eye
  2x Infiltration
  Resources:
  1x Professional Contacts
  1x Aesop's Pawnshop
  1x Ice analyzer
  2x Armitage Codebusting
  2x Public Sympathy
  Hardware:
  3x Akamatsu Mem Chip
  Programs:
  2x Magnum Opus
  1x Net Shield
  Icebreakers:
  2x Battering Ram
  2x Gordian Blade
  2x Pipeline


When does discard happen if player goes over limit after passing in Endeavor? The rules state:

  When a player passes, they must discard cards down to their Card Limit if necessary.

also:

  Only when a player passes will they have to discard down to their Card Limit, which is determined by their Politics score.

Take the following scenario:
Black is at their card limit. During an Action Phase, Black passes. Later that same Action Phase another player completes a Shipping Track which awards a Governor card to Black. Black now has too many cards.

When does Black discard? Immediately, at end of turn, or not until they pass in the next Action Phase?

The above rule quotes pretty clearly indicate that Black would not need to discard until they pass in the next Action Phase. But, what if there isn't another Action Phase? For example, what if the phase in question is the last Action Phase of the game? Does this mean a player could score more cards than their card limit allows?

However, the following quote seems to imply that the card limit is lifted only during the Action Phase (because it's not mentioned anywhere else):

  When drawing cards during the Action Phase there is no restriction on how many cards a player may hold...

This could indicate that the card limit is enforced continuously after a player passes (because they are no longer able to draw cards), but it's not worded very well because what about the rest of the Action Phase when not drawing cards?

Apparently even the two designers are not completely in agreement over this issue. It has come up on BGG more than once. This thread references two other threads where each designer gives an opinion on whether or not you should discard at the end of turn.

Jarret Gray says:

  Discard is part of pass. The cards are
  supposed to return immediately to
  their respective piles. This can
  create some interesting timing
  effects, like blocking an opponent
  from drawing a good card. The downside
  is that when a player discards you
  have to wait for them. If the cards go
  back at the end of the turn then you
  can carry on the game while they
  number crunch. The game is intended to
  be played the first way.

Carl de Visser says:

  You should still meet the card limit
  at the end of the turn. Checking the
  rules, this is only implied in the End
  of the Round section with "Once
  discards are complete". Basically
  there should be another check at the
  end of the turn.

de Visser was specifically responding to the question of acquiring a governor card after passing, Gray was not. He was only answering the general question of whether discarding occurs after passing or at the end of the turn. So he probably wasn't considering the odd circumstance of getting another card after passing. Had that case been brought up he might have said both, as did de Visser, but all we have to go on is what they did say and Gray clearly says you don't discard at the end of the turn.

The rules-as-written are pretty explicit that discarding only occurs immediately after passing. That is also supported by the comment of one designer, but explicitly contradicted by the other. So there is certainly evidence to back up either ruling, but no definitive answer.

Personally, I don't like the idea of exceeding the card limit for a full turn, and really don't like the idea of getting to score cards that exceed the limit. So I'll probably go with discarding after passing and also at the end of the turn. I may even consider immediate discard as that makes the most sense to me, and there is some slight justification for that in the rules.


Ability to cast for overload cost or just cast Dreadhorde Arcanist allows you to "cast target instant or sorcery card with converted mana cost equal to or less than dreadhorde arcanists power from your graveyard without paying its mana cost" but for cards with overload costs that state in it's own separate ruling that we "may" cast it for its overload cost, can I use dreadhorde archanist to reach and have the ability to cast a card like "weapon surge", then choose to pay its overload cost for its overload effect?

No, you cannot pay the overload cost for spells cast that way.

Dreadhorde Arcanist allows you to cast a spell with an alternate cost of "without paying its mana cost", as described in rule 118.9:

  Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.

The Overload ability also defines an alternate cost in rule 702.95a:

  Overload is a keyword that represents two static abilities that function while the spell with overload is on the stack. Overload [cost] means "You may choose to pay [cost] rather than pay this spell's mana cost" and "If you chose to pay this spell's overload cost, change its text by replacing all instances of the word 'target' with the word 'each.'" Using the overload ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f-h.

Then rule 118.9a says this:

  Only one alternative cost can be applied to any one spell as it's being cast. The controller of the spell announces their intentions to pay that cost as described in rule 601.2b.

Since Dreadhorde Arcanist's effect specifically allows you to cast the spell with its alternate cost, you cannot choose to pay the overload cost.


Sunrise vs. "Summon Eclipse" in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Yes, I play the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (US) board game.  Yes, I like it.  On to the question!

The Sunrise rule states:

  When the talisman moves to the Sunrise, all vampires that are outside must immediately move to the closest indoor space.

The "Summon Eclipse" card states:

  Move the Phase Talisman to the first New Moon space.

My question is, if the Talisman has to move past the Sunrise space to get to the first New Moon space, does this trigger Sunrise?

I say, "No", since you're moving the Talisman to the first New Moon space (effectively skipping over the Sunrise space), but others in our group insist it does in fact trigger "Sunrise", since they argue you move the Talisman forward (and through Sunrise) to the first New Moon space.

Going off of this version of the rules.

  If the Sunrise space is moved past in
  one turn, these effects still take
  place.

It sounds like the token always advances, and passing through the Sunrise space is sufficient to trigger the vampire actions.


Can the U.S. Open With an Air-based Strategy in Allies and Axis? In Axis and Allies, the U.S. starts with the largest number of IPCs, and also has the furthest to go to reach the main battlefields. These conditions both suggest the use of strategies using (expensive) air units.

One strategy is build bombers. The U.S. can spare 30 IPCs to build two a turn. Send them to the UK (one turn) for the strategic bombing of Germany. With six bombers, there will be a loss of one per turn (on average) to anti-aircraft. The surviving five planes will average 3.5 hits on average, or 17.5 IPCs in total. Since a bomber costs 15 IPCs, this is a profitable strategy. And it hurts Germany's economy even if they get some IPCs from Africa.

A second strategy is to build 2-3 fighters a turn, and fly them to the UK, then to Karelia or wherever they are most needed in Russia. Enough of them will stop a German attack cold. Or the U.S. could use a "hybrid" strategy, build one bomber and one fighter per turn for a combination of both. Then spend 5 IPCs a turn on tech research.

Tech discoveries could alter the equation, especially if they were jet fighters or heavy bombers (using one of the "two roll" modifications #1, #2, not the standard three-roll rules). Perhaps I'd use the fighter strategy if I discovered the one and the bomber strategy for the other (some versions of the game don't allow you to choose which tech to research).

Would you use any of these strategies without tech enhancement? With tech enhancement, especially "modified" heavy bombers? Or is the shuck-shuck strategy still superior?

The US can't afford to waste money (and time) building planes
The trap the Allies fall into when considering an airpower-based strategy for the United States is to evaluate the strategy on its own merits instead of by comparing it to the alternative strategies.
The question points out that a large bomber force can do more IPCs in damage than it would expect in AA-gun losses--which is all true. However, it neglects three important considerations:

It takes too long to implement. The US can only afford two planes a turn and starts with one bomber. This means a 6-bomber fleet takes three turns to build and it isn't available until the Combat Phase of turn 4. Furthermore, it will take an average of 15 IPCs per turn to maintain this force in the face of AA losses--about half the US economic output.
If all the US has been doing until turn 4 is build bombers then the game is probably already over (a fait accompli if not an actual economic victory). Also remember that because one bomber a turn is needed just to maintain the force at 6, the US can only afford 2 transports OR 5 infantry per turn afterwards. Granted, a smaller force can attack in the prior turns, but the net IPC swing is too small to hurt Germany, and any AA hits set back the strategy by a half turn.

The strategy can collapse in the face of bad rolls. One turn of good AA rolling by Germany, or a multi-bomber run that only does a few IPCs of total damage, and this strategy is defeated. In contrast, the typical shuck-shuck strategy can't really be defeated by bad luck. The naval force the US and UK can set up by the end of turn 2 can't be attacked by Germany without decimating their air force, and deterrence of German aggression is the entire point of shuttling a mass of Allied infantry into Europe.
Good players tend to shy from luck-based strategies, believing that they will eventually win a game decided by skill but could lose one decided by luck.

The opportunity cost of building fighters is too high. This point has some overlap with the first, but it is a distinct argument. The key metric is not how many IPCs a bomber force can destroy compared to how much it costs to maintain. Strategies have to be compared against each other. The goal is not to bleed Germany for more IPCs than the US has to spend, it's to use the US IPCs to their greatest effect. Bombers are just not as useful as a fleet of five or six transports dropping off 10 infantry a turn in Finland, France, or Algeria.

Lastly, to quickly discuss the fighter-heavy variant that was also proposed.
Sure, a stack of fighters is pretty dominating on defense, but a stack of infantry four times as high is more dominating: they will do more damage on average, are cheaper to replace, and can actually occupy territory if necessary. They are slightly less mobile, but the battle lines in Europe move slowly anyway (when they move at all), and the consequences are much less if some get caught alone in a territory because the UK and Russia decided to bail on a lost cause just before Germany's turn.
So given how much less effective a plane-based strategy is than the shuck-shuck, I would not choose it. Even if some good tech rolls made it occasionally a winner, lots of times the tech won't work out.
I'll take the eventual sure-thing over a long-shot any day.


In Magic, when can I tap my opponent's creatures to prevent them from attacking? Whilst I haven't played Magic in a while, use of the stack was something that I always found a little confusing. When I first started out, our group could tap an opponents attacking creature after attackers had been declared and effectively take it out of combat? Is this right? Or did we have the stack order backwards?

This is not so much about the stack, as the order of the turn:

Beginning Phase
Main Phase
Combat Phase

Beginning of Combat step
Declare Attackers step
Declare Blockers step
Damage step
End of Combat step

Main Phase
End Phase

After the first main phase, there's a step where you can play abilities like tapping, but before they can attack you: Beginning of Combat step. Every turn goes in this order (with minor exceptions) But when we play, we usually don't bother talking about every phase and step, often because nothing happened in them! But they're still part of every turn, if we need to do something then.

So there's nothing wrong with your opponent playing a spell, then moving right on to "I attack you with this guy." All you have to say is "wait, I want to do stuff at the Beginning of Combat" and back up to that point. Then you tap whoever you want to tap. Just remember, after the tapping your opponent gets to decide how they want to attack, knowing their creature is tapped!

And after they know you can tap things, in future turns they should stop and ask you before they declare attackers. (You can ask them nicely to do this.) That way they don't give away the info of who they want to attack with!


Why are the port arrangements in Better Settlers not like the arrangements in my game? In the Better Settlers' setup, I can trade with bank at 3:1 or 2:1 ratio if I have a settlement or city on specific harbors. But the location of the harbors (3:1 and 2:1 ratios shown) doesn't match with the game that I have. In my game, these ratios are printed on outside long pieces. I also went to the official Catan site and compared pictures in the rule book with one from Better Settlers' site, and the pictures don't match :(

Why does Better Settlers site show custom 3:1 and 2:1 placements?

I created Better Settlers and the other answers are correct in that the version that I usually play with, the harbors are completely individualized on their own hexes so it's possible to completely randomize them. Newer versions of the game have the continuous puzzle-interlocking pieces to make things quicker for setting up.

The reason I chose not to force harbors positions even after the new version is I found that it was possible to create better and more variable board setups if I didn't add the constraint of fixed harbors.

The best solution with new versions is to flip the frame pieces over (so harbors aren't visible) and then use the additional harbor pieces that come included with the game (you can even just use a piece of paper if you don't have the additional pieces).

Hope that helps!


Do dead monsters really have to leave the game? The one part of King of Tokyo I don't like is when players have to leave the game because their monster dies. Are there any variants/house rules that keeps players in the game?

There are a few things you could do, but they would have a significant impact on the way the game works.

There are 2 ways to win King of Tokyo. Get 20 points, or be the last monster alive. Any suggestion that makes it no longer a game of elimination would remove the second way of winning.

The trick is that if losing all your health doesn't eliminate you from the game, you need to decide what it does mean. There are a few options of how you could handle it though:

If you have no health, you cannot earn any points or attack. Thus the only thing you can do on your turn is heal. So you are still in the game, but you are slowed down a bunch, making it harder to win.
Similar to above; if you have no health, you just skip your turn, and instead automatically heal some given amount of health. This way you aren't relying on continually re-rolling, hoping for health, to get back in. But you are still slowed down as you miss a normal turn.
When the game ends, consider your health points to be part of your score. Thus someone who has no health left will not have as many points. He could still win, but it would be harder.
When you have 0 health, damage takes away your points instead. In this way, your points act kind of like additional health. Having no health is still really bad, because then you can't win by getting enough points either.


How does transport movement work? Here are a couple of scenarios that my friends and I always fight about when we play Axis and Allies Spring 1942 edition:

A unit(s) is loaded onto a transport that has not moved yet, then the player moves the transport
A transport moves one space, then picks up a unit and moves another space.
A transport "bridges" a unit(s) then moves a space or two.
A transport moves one space and then bridges a unit(s).
A transport moves two spaces and then bridges a unit(s).
A transport moves into a sea space where an enemy has a submerged submarine

If multiple bridges are possible (such as in the bay north of Germany or sea space to the left of said space):

A transport bridges unit(s), after battle proceeds bridges unit(s) again to a different country (this is complying with the rule that says you can only attack a country once a turn).

One last rule that does not involve transports moving or bridging:

An airplane (usually a bomber) comes from the land and bombs an unguarded transport and kills it

We have looked at the rulebook countless times and it is pretty vague on some issues. I'm not saying that the rulebook doesn't answer any of our questions, but we certainly can't find any of our answers. Thanks for reading!

True, there are so many scenarios that the rulebook doesn't specifically cover

But most of the points you ask are specified in the rulebook. Taking this rulebook (Anniversary: compliance with spring 1942 edition) for instance:

A transport can move between one or two spaces that do not contain an enemy surface ship during combat or non combat phases.  It can load and offload units into free cargo slots before, before or after any of the previous. However load and offload procedures cannot iterate (you can't offload units first and then load). Offloading units ends the transport's actions: If you begin by offloading units of a transport (loaded in previous rounds) then the transport will not move nor load after that.

Other rules apply for a transport engaged in combat.

  A unit(s) is loaded onto a transport that has not moved yet, then the player moves the transport

As long as the transport did not participate in any combat this round, it can be moved, loaded if it has any valid free space and offloaded. It cannot iterate load and offload.

  A transport moves one space, then picks up a unit and moves another
  space.

It is valid as long as the first move does not put the transport in a seazone containing enemy surface units (thus putting it in combat)

  A transport moves one space and then bridges a unit(s).
  A transport moves two spaces and then bridges a unit(s).

If bridging means moving land units between adjacent territories in a seazone, it is valid. The transport has: moved (one or two spaces), loaded and offloaded (one or two units).

If between move and load/offload the transport moves to an area with enemy surface units, then the sea combat must be resolved first (amphibious attack).

Remember that no unit can move to any other territory containing enemy troops during non-combat move phase, except for submarines.

  A transport moves into a sea space where an enemy has a submerged
  submarine

It can be done either in combat move and non-combat move. If done during combat, and you move along a destroyer you CAN choose to engage or not engage the enemy submarines. If you choose to, the transports take part in the combat.

  A transport bridges unit(s), after battle proceeds bridges unit(s)
  again to a different country (this is complying with the rule that
  says you can only attack a country once a turn).

No, for two reasons.

Transports that engaged in combat cannot do anything else after (move, load offload).

After offload, the transport actions end.

  An airplane (usually a bomber) comes from the land and bombs an
  unguarded transport and kills it

If the question is: "Can the transport be destroyed?" the answer is: yes. It is automatically destroyed during combat resolve phase.

I would suggest you install tripleA. It is an open source game that can implement A&A ruleset and its different maps; the rules there comply pretty well with the rulebook.

This were many questions packed in one.. :/ I'll later add the pages references to each sub-answer, or I would welcome anyone editing to add that info.


Exceeding the monster limit due to an encounter In the "The King in Yellow" expansion, there is an encounter card for the library that results in all monsters of a certain type, including those in the outskirts, relocating to the investigators location. The card then states that you 'must immediately evade or defeat them'.

If the investigator succesfully evades them all or gets reduced to 0 stamina/sanity, do the monsters all remain in that location even though the monster limit is most likely exceeded?

I know there is a card listed in the FAQ that does exactly this but in the graveyard, I don't remember one from the library, but the ruling would be transferable.
From the Arkham Horror FAQ

Q: A Graveyard encounter summons "all Undead monsters in Arkham, the Outskirts, and the Sky" to the Graveyard. If this would bring the number of monsters in Arkham above the monster limit, which ones are sent to the Outskirts?
A: Any monsters that were in the Outskirts when this encounter was drawn are the first to be returned to the Outskirts if the monster limit is exceeded. In the event that not all monsters that came from the Outskirts need to be returned there, the first player decides which monster tokens are placed back in the Outskirts. If more monsters still need to be moved to the Outskirts, move the monsters that came from other towns (Dunwich, Kingsport, or  Innsmouth) to the Outskirts until the number of monsters in Arkham is again at the monster limit. In the event that not all monsters that came from another town need to be returned there, the first player decides which of those monster tokens are moved to the Outskirts.


What are some good strategies for Elder Sign: Omens? I recently bought Elder Sign: Omens for my iPhone, and I really like it, but it seems to be VERY difficult.

Does anyone have some good strategies on how to play?

Specifically:

What is a good team to start with for a beginning player?
When should I use my cards? Should I use them as soon as I get them? Hold off a bit?
Which adventures should I try to defeat first? Which should I avoid until I absolutely have to beat them?
Is it even possible to win this game? Or is the point of the game the impending doom of the players?

Edit

Elder Sign: Omens is based off the board game Elder Sign

I went ahead and asked the creators of Elder Sign: Omens and here's some responses from them and other members of their message board:

There are easier/less difficult adventures. Sure, you are still at the whim of the dice, but target some of the easier ones - specifically with the investigation tokens. These are easier to roll and succeed at and in turn provide you additional items and rewards that can be used to overcome some of the more difficult adventures down the turn.

Don't write off an investigator. My two guys were slouchs at first but when I started picking my adventures a bit wiser they ended up coming on strong.

The footprint token that allows you to reroll glyphs is priceless. Added dice is nice but the reroll is fabulous.

Target adventures that don't have sequential phases with investigators that don't have reroll abilities. This allows you to use the dice that are available when you have them and not in the order the adventure dictates.

Remember the odds of the dice. Each green dice has the following sides - Investigation ×1, Investigation ×2, Investigation ×3,  Lore, Peril, Terror. Be sure to Focus according to the odds and the needs of the adventure. Yellow dice replaces Terror with an Investigation ×4. Red dice is like the Yellow dice but replaces Investigation ×1 with the Wild token - lovely, lovely wild.

Cashing in trophies tokens at the Entrance seems to be a waste if you are using four investigators - especially if you have the adventure that is hitting you for 2 trophies every midnight. With four investigators, you only get two turns per investigator per day. I'm going to try with less than four to see if that dynamic will change.

Assist is a great feature that works if you fail an adventure and then have a second investigator come in. Instead of focusing one dice, you'll be able to focus two. A nice synergy in the game and makes getting past some of those tough adventures a little bit easier.

I used some/all of these tips and I was finally able to win a couple games.


Where can I find what LCG's exist? I know of four Living Card Games:

Warhammer
Call of Cthulhu
game of Thrones
Lord of the rings

Is there somewhere that maintains a canonical list of all LCG's?

Since Living Card Game is a trademark of Fantasy Flight Games, you should just be able to check their product page and find out.
You are missing:

Android: Netrunner the Card Game
Star Wars: The Card Game

If you are asking if there are any expandable card games, where there isn't any randomness in the cards you get with each expansion (I.E. This is unlike Magic: the Gathering's Trading/Collectible Card game model, with booster packs that are random so you have no idea what you are getting), then it would be difficult to track. There have been other games using the LCG model, but cannot use the term for Trademark infringement reasons.

Summoner Wars by Plaid Hat Games
Killer Bunnies by Playroom Entertainment


Is the number coins a private information Do I have to show how many coins I have, or can I keep this information private?
When I play with Cities or Armada expansion, Debts and Taxes have to be paid, and in some cases I would like to know if it makes sense to play a card, so that others need to pay. Because if they do not have enough coins, they have to take a -1 point token for each coin the cannot pay.
If a player hides the number of coins, this strategy is irrelevant.

Your coins are kept on your board. The number of coins you have can therefore easily be seen or checked by the other players.
Rules:

Each player begins the game with 3 value “1” coins which they place on
their board.


Can I use both abilities of Tainted Field? What's the difference? When using Tainted Field, can I use both abilities if I have a Swamp? I was told I can only use one ability or the other but not both, but I do not understand the benefit of using one over the other. They both basically seem the same to me.

They can both be used but only one can be used at a time. This is because to use either ability, you need to tap the card and it can not be tapped twice

The second ability lets you produce colored mana where the first ability only lets you produce colorless mana.

Note also that you must control a swamp in order to use the second ability.

So when you play that land, you can immidiatly tap it for colorless mana if you do not control a swamp. If you do control a swamp, then you can tap it for either a white or a black mana or a colorless mana. If you do not need specifically a white or a black mana, then yes both abilities produce one mana which can be used to pay a colorless cost.

This is of course important because unless you are playing with primarily artifacts, you are going to need mana of a specific color.

This card imparticular allows you to play one land that can produce a single mana of two different colors under specific circumstances. This is very usefull in a deck that has cards of the two colors in it.

Comprehensive rules:

All lands are permanents with no color that have at least one mana ability.

Basic lands have the ability to produce when tapped a single mana of their type.

  305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words "basic land type," it's referring
  to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the
  intrinsic ability "{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool," even if
  the text box doesn't actually contain that text or the object has no
  text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for
  Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule
  107.4a. Also see rule 605, "Mana Abilities."


Guillotine: Face up or visible? In Guillotine, the rules state that the cards should be "face up". But is it ok to stack the nobles on top of each other into piles? Technically, they are still face up, but the points are not visible. Or perhaps the point value should be visible at all times as to avoid confusion?

I guess the real question is, should other players be able to "count" your points at all times, or is it ok to make it harder for them to do so?

Page 9 of the official rules states that players are allowed to check your nobles to see how many points have been scored.


Is prompting players with alternate moves poor etiquette? Recently we have had a number of 'explosive' games of Catan and Risk, where the game has become very heated because use of 'prompting' or 'suggesting' of moves to other players. I see this as a valid strategy, however one of my rival players sees it very much the other way and thinks it is unsportsmanlike.

To give a better illustration of the issue here is a scenario for Catan:

It is a 4 player game, around half way through
I am Player 1 and am currently not leading the game
Player 2 is currently in the lead as I see it, and they are a good player
Players 3 and 4 are in similar positions to me, and look unlikely to win.

At this stage I feel like if the game plays out then Player 2 has a high chance of winning, they are unlikely to make any major mistakes and it would take a sequence of bad luck to unseat them from the victory.

It comes up to Player 3's turn, and they have several moves they can make. They initially choose to attack me. At this point I speak up and prompt another move that attacks Player 2, and illustrate that they are currently winning the game, and that they need to be stopped, implying a loose alliance. This play is beneficial to both me and to Player 3 by keeping us in the game, but damaging to Player 2.

At this stage Player 2 'explodes'. I am berated for making such a suggestion, called a bad sport, and are accused of being of weak moral fibre.

Unfortunately Player 2 has been a better political opponent as well as player, and has the backing of some of the other members of the group, as this is not the first occurrence. They have been building support for their 'anti-prompting' cause for a number of weeks/months.

I back down, and stay quiet, and watch a number of games go by that were largely uninteresting because of a lack of any team play to slow down the winner. Part of this issue is with the way the game operates, in this case Catan:

You can see the progress of each player to within a 1-2 victory points in most cases, as well as how they trending
The game seems to be decided quite early in many cases due to strong starting positions and early moves
It has a large chance factor for starting positions and early resource gains
By having only one winner it can be very cut-throat and does not explicitly lend itself to cooperation

The end result of these properties is that I feel many games are decided early, and the remaining 45-30 minutes is spent going through the motions. Ideally I would not be in this position, as the other players should see the primary threat and that we should work together toward a common goal of taking out the leader and then one of us may have a chance of the win. Unfortunately this is not often the case, and I'm not allowed to make any mention of this, or I get berated again.

Ultimately this comes down to trust also, if I suggest poor moves then no one will listen. The issue is that, as a strong player, my suggestions are often strong and insightful too, negating a major play or situation that has gone unnoticed. This is clearly aggravating for the player I'm doing this against (Player 2), but my only other option is to sit there and let them win.

Do you allow prompting in your games? Is it an issue? Do you think it is unsportsmanlike? Should I back down and keep quiet? How should I bring this up as a valid and accepted part of the game if I choose to try an get this included as an allowed behaviour in future games?

This isn't really an ethics question, it's more that you and Player 2 haven't agreed on which game you're playing.

You want to play a game that involves loose alliances and table talk.
Player 2 wants to play a game with strict solo play and no talk.

There's not much you can do here apart from agree, in advance, which version of the game you're playing.  If you want to play the game differently, you'll need to play with different people or put up with agreeing to something you don't like.  Careful phrasing of this can get you away from this being a right/wrong thing.

What you can do is bring games where open alliances are part of the game.  That could well loosen up player 2 to come round to your way of thinking.  Diplomacy, Cosmic Encounter or Avalon would be a good start.

All this is separate from the issue of people outside the game giving advice.  Personally I find that to be bad form.


Rivals For Catan – How do you draw a card when playing the Library In Rivals For Catan, the Library card says that:
"When you build the Library, you may immediately choose a card from a draw stack."

Does this mean that you look through a draw stack and select which card to take? Or do you take the top card from a draw stack of your choice?

I would say that "choose a card" indicates you may look through a stack; otherwise, they would have been more specific and said to take a card from the top, or take a card at random, or something like that.  Admittedly, they could have been a little clearer.

According to this BoardGameGeek link, Professor Easy's Interactive Online Tutorial has an example where one of the players is shown using the library to look through a stack.  I must have clicked 100 "Next" links and didn't see that, but I spaced out near the end.


Can I sacrifice a permanent to pay an ability cost while the permanent's spell is still on the stack? At what point does a creature/artifact/whatever become a legal candidate for being sacrificed to pay an activation cost?

For example, suppose I cast an artifact creature spell, and my opponent responds with an instant that would kill it (like a Lightning Bolt). I have an Atog that lets me sacrifice an artifact to give the Atog +2/+2. Can I use the artifact creature, even though the spell that "summoned" it has yet to resolve, to pay the Atog's ability's activation cost?

A card on the stack is not a permanent, so you may not sacrifice it.

When a card refers to a permanent type, like "artifact" or "creature," it refers only to permanents — meaning a card on the battlefield. Note that this includes the Lightning Bolt spell in your question — you can't sacrifice the creature until it is on the battlefield, but your opponent can't Bolt the creature until it is on the battlefield, either.

Cards in other zones are referred to as cards — e.g. Unburial Rites: "Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield." — or spells if they're on the stack — e.g. Essence Scatter: "Counter target creature spell." (Compare to Murder, which affects creatures on the battlefield: "Destroy target creature.")


Does the card color matter for untapping it? If a card is tapped (from the effect "on vacation"¹), its activation number has to be rolled to untap it.

Does the card’s color matter here? Does my green/purple card get untapped if my opponent rolls its number? Does my red card get untapped if I roll its number?

¹ I don’t know the English translation. In German it’s called "im Urlaub".

I don't have the English rules of Machi Koro Sharp either but the French version makes it clear (in a long paragraph just under the game components) that you need to roll the numbers needed to activate the building to untap it.

  Un établissement peut rouvrir lorsqu'il est à nouveau activé par le résultat des dés. [...] Donc les établissements bleus peuvent rouvrir pendant le tour de n'importe quel joueur, les établissements rouges uniquement pendant le tour des autres joueurs, tandis que les érablissements violets et verts peuvent rouvrir uniquement pendant votre tour.

which would translate by

  A building can re-open when it is activated by the result of a dice roll. [...] So blue buildings can re-open during any turn, red buildings can only re-open during the turn of an opponent and green or purple buildings can only re-open during the active player's turn.


Magic the Gathering Protection question If I were to cast Hymn to Tourach a black card that makes the opponent discard 2 cards at random, and the only 2 cards my opponent has in his hand have protection from black would they be protected? Would it fall under Targeting since it doesn't actively target the creatures with white, it should go off?

Protection only functions on the battlefield; most rules text only functions on the battlefield. The exceptions are characteristic defining text, i.e. 'this card is black' and text which references another zone, i.e. '{2}, discard 2 cards: return CARDNAME to battlefield from the graveyard.'

In your example your opponent would discard both of their cards, despite their having protection from black, as protection only applies to permanents on the battlefield.


Do creatures from outside the game go to the graveyard? Okay, so I was looking through some eldrazi to purchase and I came across Spawnsire of Ulamog.

I want to purchase it for my deck but I want to know how it works before I buy it. My question is, when you bring creatures from outside the game to the battlefield with this ability, when/if those creatures die, where do they go? Do they hit the graveyard or get removed from play?

Once a card has been brought into the game, it is treated like any card you have started the game with.

The game rules make no distinction between cards from your deck and those that have been brought into the game after the game has started, they function exactly the same. Therefore, any card you bring into the game with  Spawnsire will do whatever it usually does, including going to the graveyard if the game rules require it.

The only difference is that you have to remove those cards from your deck before the next game starts, but that's a matter of tournament rules rather than game/match rules.


Does "when ~ dies, deal n damage to all players/creatures" have a name? I saw this tweet (of a neural network generated MTG card),  and tried to find a name for the ability "Simic Commander" has.

Using the gatherer I find some similar cards, but nothing with a name.

Does this kind of mechanic have a mechanical (preferably) or colloquial name?

A search on Gatherer reveals that there are only two cards with exactly this ability. Based on that, I believe that it is very unlikely that it has a colloquial name. It definitely does not have a name used in the rules; if it did, that name would be used on cards instead.


What are the rules for a space marine commander? I was searching the space marines section at a local warhammer shop when I saw a miniature called the space marine commander, I looked for it in my index but his rules weren't in it. What are the rules for a space marine commander? Do they follow the same rules as the captain? Please let me know so I can decide whether to get him or not.

Was this Space Marine Commander the miniature you saw?
If so, at least according to the description on the website, it appears you'd be treating this as a Captain for rules purposes:

Space Marine Commander
A Captain leads each of the ten Companies of a Space Marine Chapter. They are second in experience only to the Chapter Master and each is a warrior so deadly that he will rarely meet his match. Each Captain is an inspirational and determined leader, able to coordinate the Space Marines under his command whatever the opposition.


What are the rules when two or more people go out when they are on the bubble for payout What are the rules when two or more people go out when they are on the bubble for payout.
For example, the top 6 players will get money back and there are 7 people left.  The next hand results in 3 or more people going All-In, ultimately leaving one winner.  The other two guys don't have enough to cover so they are both out.  Who gets 6th place?

When multiple players are eliminated in the same hand, the player with the least amount of chips at the start of the hand will receive the worst of the available placements, followed by the player that had started with the next least, as so on.

Mechanically, this is because main and side pots are technically resolved one at a time, and elimination can happen after any single pot resolution.   To extend your example:

Suppose there are 7 players.  At the start of the hand:
A has 500 chips
B has 400 chips
C has 300 chips
D has 150 chips

chip counts for E, F, G don't matter for this example.  For sake of simplicity, assume none of them bet any chips during this hand.

By the end of the hand, players A, B, C, and D have all gone all-in.

Main pot contains 600 chips (D's 150 plus a matching amount from each of the other three players).  All players are eligible to win this pot.

Side pot 1 contains 450 chips (C's remaining 150 plus a matching amount from each of A and B).  A, B, and C are eligible to win this pot.

Side pot 2 contains 200 chips (B's remaining 100 plus a matching amount from A).  A and B are eligible to win this pot.

Side pot 3 contains 100 chips from A and is immediately returned to A.

Assume A or B wins the hand for this example.
The main pot is resolved first.  D did not win and therefore is eliminated, receiving 7th place and no prize.

Side pot 1 is resolved next.  C did not win and therefore is eliminated, receiving 6th place and the associated prize.

(While rare, it is possible for multiple players to be eliminated in the same resolution step.  I assume in this case that the players would share the ranking and the associated winnings.  I don't know what would happen if it was a non-fungible prize, such as top 2 winners advance to next tournament while 2nd and 3rd place tie.)


Agricola Card Organization Solutions? So I expect most of us Agricola nuts have already got a tackle box for all the meeples and counters.  But now that I own the base set, Farmers of the Moor, the Gamers Deck, AND the Goodies, I'm finding the cards pretty unmanageable too.

The base set comes with E, I, K and Z decks (for both Minor Imps and Occupations), plus the Occupations have to be subdivided into 1+, 3+ and 4+ player sets, if like us you often play with fewer than 4 players.  Farmers of the Moor has Minor Improvements with different backs, subdivided into (confusingly) another E deck and an F deck.  The Gamers deck adds a G deck, and the Goodies brings the L, Cz, Oe and X decks!  (All of these including Occupations suitable for different minimum numbers of players.)

The temptation is just to give up and mix them all up together, apart from the Farmers of the Moor improvements, and sorting the Occupations by minimum player number; but maybe there's a better way.  Can anyone recommend a method of boxing and dividing Agricola cards so we can quickly play with any subsets of cards we choose?  Are there any commercially available card boxes that are the perfect size for Agricola cards, have enough capacity to accommodate my growing collection, and preferably come with dividers too?

Go to boardgamegeek.com and print and construct the custom tuck boxes for each deck.  Worked great 4 me.  Or, put the game away and just play online at play-Agricola.com

@Monica rubber banding you cards is sac-religious to us ultra board game dorks


What happens to the current color when you successfully challenge a Wild Draw 4? What happens If you challenge a player who say nominates red with his/her wild draw 4 card and you challenge successfully, then the person who played the card would pick up 4 cards instead of you. My question is, does the colour stay as red in this situation or to the colour just before it was reds?

If the Wild Draw 4 is challenged the person who played the card must show their hand to the challenger. If there is a card in their hand that they could have played then the player must draw 6 cards. If the person who played the the draw 4 has no cards that they could have played then the challenger must draw 6 cards. Regardless the outcome of the challenge the Wild Draw 4 stays in play and the game is played normally. All of this info can be found in the rulebook that came with the cards.


How many tokens do the survivors require in The Séance in Betrayal at House on the Hill? We have been confused by some phrasing in the "How to Summon the Ghost" section in the Secrets of Survival booklet for haunt 2, "The Scéance", in Betrayal at House on the Hill (2e). Emphasized below:

  Each hero can attempt a Knowledge roll or Sanity
  roll of 5+ to conduct a séance. An explorer can
  attempt either one of these rolls during his or her
  turn, but only while that character is in the Pentagram
  Chamber.

  Each time one of these rolls succeeds, put a
  Knowledge Roll or Sanity Roll token (as appropriate)
  in the room where the haunt was revealed. When the
  heroes have a number of those tokens equal to half
  the number of players (round down), they've
  completed the séance.

My first inclination is to interpret this as

  When the players have a number of tokens (each of which may be Knowledge or Sanity) equal to half the number of players (round down), they've completed the séance.".

but it seems like it could also mean this:

  When the players have a number of Knowledge tokens and a number of Sanity tokens both equal to half the number of players (round down), they've completed the séance.".

This is further confused by the "Right Now" section of the rules, which instruct us to:

  Set aside a number of Knowledge Roll tokens  (triangular) equal to the number of players. Set aside  an equal
  number of Sanity Roll tokens (triangular)

How could we ever need a number of either token equal to the number of players? Shouldn't it ask us for the a number of tokens "equal to half the number of players (round down)"? The location of tokens doesn't matter, so as soon as players have aquired the required number there's no reason they'd collect any more.

After the game we checked the Traitor's Tome, but it didn't help:

   We thought there might be some way for the traitor to remove or manipulate tokens so that the extras were neccessary but it didn't mention the tokens at all.

How many of which tokens do the survivors require to summon the ghost?

Basically, it's saying you can do either token as you want. The number of either token must equal the given amount (this changes on different haunts).

Let's say you need number of tokens = number of players (6 in this example) to win. You can have 3 knowledge and 3 sanity, 2 knowledge and 4 sanity, or just all 6 knowledge. Those are all valid conditions.

The instruction to set them aside is just to get them out of your storage area for easy access (and as I explained earlier, some tokens could be used more than others).


Does the attack or defender decide the order of damage assignment to blockers? I read from the comprehensive rules guide that there is a damage assignment order, but I've always played the game as if there was a blocking order. Here is the relevant text:

  509.2. Second, for each attacking creature that's become blocked, the active player announces that creature's damage assignment order, which
  consists of the creatures blocking it in an order of that player's
  choice. (During the combat damage step, an attacking creature can't
  assign combat damage to a creature that's blocking it unless each
  creature ahead of that blocking creature in its order is assigned
  lethal damage.) This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. Example:
  Vastwood Gorger is blocked by Llanowar Elves, Runeclaw Bear, and Serra
  Angel. Vastwood Gorger's controller announces the Vastwood Gorger's
  damage assignment order as Serra Angel, then Llanowar Elves, then
  Runeclaw Bear.

My interpretation of this is that I can attack with a 3/3 and the opponent can block with a 1/1 and a 4/4. I could make it deal the damage to the 1/1 first, and there is no blocking order such that the opponent can't say the 4/4 blocks first and 1/1 blocks second.

Is this accurate?

By the very rule you quoted (and the one directly following it):

You choose the damage assignment order of attacking creatures you control. (CR 509.2.)
Your opponent chooses the damage assignment order of blocking creatures he controls. (CR 509.3.)

Simple Example

You: "I attack with Centaur Warrior."
Opponent: "I block with Jeskai Student and Disciple of Phenax."
You: "I will assign damage to Jeskai Student first, followed by Disciple of Phenax."
You: "Damage?"
Opponent: "Sure."

Note: There was no need for your opponent to declare a damage assignment order, because each of his blockers are only blocking one attacker. Centaur is assumed to be first in line.

Centaur Warrior must deal at least lethal damage to Jeskai Student before dealing any damage to Disciple of Phenax. You are not allowed to change the order at this point. Therefore, Centaur deals all 3 points of damage to Student. Student and Disciple each deal 1 point of damage to Centaur.

Centaur and Disciple live. Student dies.

Intermediate Example

You: "I attack with Ash Zealot."
Opponent: "I block with Elvish Mystic and Runeclaw Bear."
You: "I will assign damage to Runeclaw Bear first, followed by Elvish Mystic."
You: "First Strike Damage?"
Opponent: "Sure."
You: "Bear dies. Second Strike damage?"
Opponent: "I'll cast Giant Growth on my Elvish Mystic."
You: "Ok it resolves. Second Strike damage?"
Opponent: "Sure."

Ash Zealot deals damage in the first damage phase. Zealot must deal at least lethal to Runeclaw Bear before moving on to Elvish Mystic. Therefore, Zealot deals all 2 points of damage to Runeclaw Bear.

At this point, you both get the chance to play spells and activate abilities. Your opponent takes this chance to make his Elf larger with Giant Growth. We then move to the second damage phase. Runeclaw Bear is already dead and so cannot deal damage. Ash Zealot already dealt its damage. Elvish Mystic is the only creature than will deal damage, and so it deals 3 point of damage to the Zealot.

Mystic lives. Zealot and Bear die.

Special Notes

Some abilities modify, or provide exceptions to, the rules for attacking and blocking. For a particularly complicated example, read about an old mechanic called Banding.


Can Legion's Initiative save permanents from Bearer of Heavens's destruction ability? When Bearer of Heavens dies, it destroys all permanents. If my opponent's creature destroys Bearer of Heavens can he activate Legion Initiative's ability (to exile his creatures until the start of his next combat) before Bearer destroys all permanents? Or does Bearer's ability activate straight away on death?

The first ability of Bearer of the Heavens creates a delayed trigger:

  When Bearer of the Heavens dies, destroy all permanents at the beginning of the next end step.

So if, for example, the Bearer dies during combat, it simply goes to the graveyard and nothing happens yet. During the second main phase, your opponent can activate Legion's Initiative and exile his creatures. When your end step begins, the delayed trigger from Bearer of the Heavens goes on the stack and resolves, destroying all permanents that are in in play, which doesn't include the creature cards your opponent has exiled.

Alternatively, he could wait until the Bearer's trigger goes on the stack, then activate the ability of Legion's Initiative in response. Either way, the your opponent's creatures are exiled before the Bearer's ability resolves, and his creatures are saved.


Is it possible to live with false eyes, only? Sometimes, in a game of Go, we get a life where there is a false eye involved: There are two groups with a single real eye, each, but they are connected to one another via a false eye, allowing their individual eyes to join forces to ensure life. Something like this:

$$Bcm0
$$ .........
$$ .OOOOO...
$$ .OXXXO...
$$ .OX.XOOO.
$$ .OXXaXXO.
$$ .OOOX.XO.
$$ ...OXXXO.
$$ ...OOOOO.
$$ .........

While the false eye at a is not necessary (black could fill it and still live), it does not need to be filled either, directly providing a liberty to each of the two black chains. I wonder whether it's possible to construct a live that entirely relies on such false eyes?

In this question, I use a purely local definition of a false eye: A false eye is a free spot that is a freedom of two distinct chains. I am aware that there are other definitions of false eyes that would call the example above a living group with three eyes.

Yes, this is possible. It requires the living group to circle back on itself like this:

$$Bcm0
$$ ............
$$ ...OOOOOO...
$$ ..OOXXXXOO..
$$ .OOX.XX.XOO.
$$ .OX.XOOX.XO.
$$ .OXXO.OOXXO.
$$ .OXXOO.OXXO.
$$ .OX.XOOX.XO.
$$ .OOX.XX.XOO.
$$ ..OOXXXXOO..
$$ ...OOOOOO...
$$ ............

Here, each of the eight black eyes is locally a false eye, but because the chains that they connect are also connected via the other false eyes, none of the false eyes can ever be attacked. The term for such a construction is "two headed dragon", and they are described in Sensei's Library at https://senseis.xmp.net/?twoheadeddragon (thanks to Karl Knechtel for the link).

The above example makes the circle explicit. However, much smaller forms exist which do not require encircling an opponents living group, where the two eyes are also false by the definition you gave:

$$Bcm0
$$ ........
$$ .OOOO...
$$ .OXXOOO.
$$ .OX.XXO.
$$ .OXX.XO.
$$ .OOOXXO.
$$ ...OOOO.
$$ ........

Here too, we have two eyes which are shared liberties of two separate chains, and again, the whole thing is only alive because those two chains are connected via the other eye. Most Go players would call these two real eyes, though. The two eyes are just so close together, and both groups rely on the exact same two liberties, so it's hard to call these eyes false, even though they fit the definition you gave.


How should one handle miscommunication being abused? I was observing a game the other day and saw a miscommunication that resulted in a player essentially cheating. This was at an FNM.

Here is the scenario, Andrew has a 1/1 thopter token and and a Spireside Infiltrator, Nick has 2 tapped Ovalchase Daredevils.

Andrew confirms his move to attacks and declares thopter token and
Infiltrator as attackers. They resolve the Infiltrator's trigger
Nick says "before blockers, Subtle Strike" placing the card on the table near Andrew's thopter and
waiting for Andrew.
Andrew then says, "in response, cast Built to Smash" placing the card from his hand directly on the thopter.
Nick
then replies, "then I'll give your infiltrator -1/-1 and put a
counter on one of my Daredevils".

What ended up happening was Andrew just let this happen since he recognized that Nick had not finished casting the spell when he announced his Built to Smash. Technically speaking Andrew is the one who made an error in this manner, but it was clear to everyone watching that Nick intended to give the thopter -1/-1 and manipulated the communication to his benefit.

What should be done if behavior like this is observed? If the answer as a player is to report to a judge, then what would a judge's course of action be?

Technically Andrew cannot act at step 3 because at step 2 targets and modes were not fully defined so Subtle Strike wasn't technically on the stack.

So, since Andrew acted without priority, the steps should be rewound to Subtle Strike being cast.  It would then need to be fully cast before priority is regained by either player.

Now, assuming that there were no modes and only a single target, I would actually say that Nick implied that he chose the thopter as his target, and since Andrew accepted the shortcut (by acting like it was on the stack and casting his spell) that Nick's choice is set. There's an old article from Wizards about "false information", but there might be something more recent.


How do I tell which cards are "bombs" in draft? I use the BREAD strategy for drafting, but am unsure what exactly makes a "Bomb".

For example, in a Kahns of Tarkir draft I'm normally quite happy to pick a Mystic of the Hidden Way as a first pick, but is it a bomb? If it isn't why not, and what does qualify as a bomb?

First off, what is a bomb? According to a Limited Information article it is ... a powerful, game-ending, stabilizing card." though the author does admit that other people might have slightly different definitions. The MTG Salvation Wiki describes a bomb as "...a card, generally used in conjunction with Limited play, that always makes a large card impact on a game in which it is played."

From these definitions we can gather that 'bombs' are cards that when you play them have a high impact on the board, making it so that if you were behind you have now caught up, or even pulled ahead (stabilizing), and if unanswered will win you the game quickly (powerful, game-ending). In general I would say a bomb is anything that when played, regardless of board state, makes you go 'Oh crap' when played against you.

In general this means that a lot of bombs are creatures with high power and toughness (usually 5/5 or bigger), evasion or protection from removal is nice but not always required especially on ones with powerful 'enters the battlefield' triggers, speaking of which ETB triggers are also help make bombs because even if they have removal you still got some value out of the card. There can be other factors that that make creatures bombs but these are the big ones.

While a lot of bombs are creatures it is possible to have non-creature bombs too, most Planeswalkers are bombs, for other non-creature non-Planeswalker cards generally you want things that will have a large impact on the board for example End Hostilities or any other board wipe, Overrun or Flying Crane Technique or other things that give your entire team a boost and/or evasion. For these though it is a bit harder to define exactly what makes a bomb since bomb creatures are designed primarily to attack, but non-creature bombs can do a wide variety of things.

As for Mystic of the Hidden Way, according to the definition I've been using it is not a bomb. While it does have evasion in its 'can't be blocked', it doesn't have very impressive stats at 3/2. This means it neither helps you stabilize your board if you are behind, since it can't block most cards without dying too, and while it will inevitably win the game for you if you keep attacking it will take a long time. This doesn't mean that it is a bad card, it just means it isn't a bomb.