Can a player respond while a spell is resolving? I cast Wistful Thinking on my opponent, whose hand has two Mountain cards. Wistful Thinking resolves and my opponent draws a Shock and another Mountain.

Can my opponent cast Shock before discarding it?

No, they can not cast the Shock.

Comprehensive rule 608, all parts.

The fact that the card text contains 'then' does not make the two parts separate abilities. The whole effect of drawing, then discarding, happens in that order while the spell resolves. There is time in between drawing and discarding for the new information to be reacted upon. However, there is no break in the resolution.

There is no passing of priority until the spell completely resolves, and thus no opportunity to cast the instant.

Edit June 2018:

In regards to the Madness key word and abilities:

A Madness trigger may cause someone to believe that in response to a card being discarded the 'Madness' ability interrupts the resolution of the thing on the stack that would trigger madness. This is not the case.

Rule 702.34 which defines Madness has this to say:

  702.34a Madness is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with madness is in a
  player’s hand. The second is a triggered ability that functions when
  the first ability is applied. “Madness [cost]” means “If a player
  would discard this card, that player discards it, but exiles it
  instead of putting it into their graveyard” and “When this card is
  exiled this way, its owner may cast it by paying [cost] rather than
  paying its mana cost. If that player doesn’t, they put this card into
  their graveyard."

Though it is not explicitly stated here, this does not cause the player who's card is exiled to receive priority at that time. The card is in exile and when the player who exiled the card has priority again, they are able to choose to cast the card(s) in exile or let it(them) go into the graveyard.


When do you reveal the top card of your library with Courser of Kruphix and scry lands? I have Courser of Kruphix in play, and a scry land (say Temple of Plenty) on top of my library revealed. If I then play the land off my library using the Courser's ability, which of the following happens?

I play the land, then reveal the top card of my library, then
scry. Or,
I play the land, then before revealing the new top card of my
library, scry.

You never get to choose to reveal the top card of your library. As soon as a card becomes the top card of your library (which happens when the previous top card, the land, was removed from your library to be put into play) it is revealed. It's not something you can respond to or choose to take other actions. It's a property of your library that must be maintained at all times.

I would venture to say that option 2 would get you in trouble at a sanctioned event.

There is a case that appears to break that rule. From the comp rules:

  If the top card of the player's library changes while a spell is being cast, the new top card won't be revealed and can't be looked at until the spell becomes cast.

So if you're casting a spell, and it says something like "As an additional cost to cast ~, exile the top three cards of your library face down." You may not reveal those three cards before exiling them. The top one would stop being revealed as it goes face down, and the two below it stay face down (to both you and your opponents). For a brief moment, the top card is still face down, because the spell is still in the act of being cast - once the spell is actually cast (i.e. placed on the stack) the top card of your deck is revealed.

However, do note that State-Based Actions (SBA) aren't checked/performed while the spell is being cast. SBA checks include "is the top card of my library revealed?" or "do any creatures have 0 toughness?"

Consider a creature with something like "Play with the top card of your library revealed. ~'s power and toughness are equal to the revealed card's mana cost". If you had no card revealed, the creature would die. By not performing state-based actions until the spell completes casting and the next top card revealed, you don't lose your (theoretical) creature even though its toughness temporarily drops to zero.


Are potions and ingredients discarded when crafting spells? Or do you get to keep them for scoring, the way you do for spells that you cast?
https://cardlords.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Animalchemists-Rulebook-v6.pdf

This looks like someones custom game they are planning to release at some point and reading the rules it's not clear.   If you know they people making this game there are quite a few things in the rules that are not totally clear and could be worded better.  I think I understood what they meant based on playing games but this set of rules would benefit from pictorial examples of actions being taken.
The rules say

Use ingredients to craft potions. Discard the two matching ingredients
listed on the potion

and later

Use a combination of potions and/or ingredients to craft spells.

Based on other unclear things in the rules I think that the fact both those actions have the word "Use" in them suggests. you are meant to discard card for spells.
Another reason to think this is because potion cards are arranged in stacks of 4 and that each player may only have one of each type.   If this was a 2 player game and potions were not discarded when making a spell there there would be no need for a stack of 4 as only 2 of each type could ever be taken.
Also in end game scoring there are points for 'unused potions'. If they are not discarded how would a player know that is not used.
This is however a best guess as the rules could be improved.


What is a good resource to discover new games? On this site recomendation questions are banned.  You are not allowed to ask:

  I often play risk and Axis & Allies.  I don't like Settlers of Catan because bla bla bla ... What other games would I like?

See meta pages:

Game Recommendation questions are banned
Should we ban game recommendation questions? - Done

I was just wondering where/how members of this community discover new games.  I have played a number of games including:

Chess
Monopoly
Multiple Risk type games
Ticket to Ride
Axis and Allies
Settlers of Catan

Suppose I want to find more games like this.  Where/how should I look?  What is a good way to discover new games?

Online, I think BoardGameGeek is a great resource. It's kind of to board games what IMDb is to movies - tremendous repository with lots of rulebooks, user reviews, and more. It can be a bit hard to know where to start, but they also have a dedicated recommendations forum, and most people are happy to help.

If you live in an area with a hobby game store or a Meetup group, they're also a great resource for information, and more importantly, the ability to try things out before you buy them (as @shujaa points out).


Probability of being dealt a 7-card flush in Rummy Playing 7-card rummy with 4 players, I was dealt a 7 card Spade flush (not straight) and on the first card picked from the deck pulled an 8th card spade and immediately won (it was 23456 8910).

What are the odds of being dealt all 7 cards in the same suit?

What are the odds of being dealt all 7 cards in the same suit?

The odds of pulling 7 spades in 7 cards the number of ways to pull 7 spades (from among the 13 spades) divided by the number of ways to pull 7 cards (from among the 52 cards).

13c7 = 1716

52c7 = 133784560

1716 / 133784560 = 0.0000128 = 0.00128 %

For general suit (not just spades), multiply that by four:

= 0.0000513 = 0.00513 %

If you want to continue to the eighth card:

The odds of pulling 8 spades in 8 cards the number of ways to pull 8 spades (from 13) divided by the number of ways to pull 8 cards (from 52).

13c8 = 1287

52c8 = 752538150

1287 / 752538150 = 0.00000171 = 0.000171 %

And again multiply by four for general suit:

= 0.00000684 = 0.000684 %

(subtract the number of ways to get a straight if you want to exclude straights from "all cards in the same suit".)

Notation explanation:

13c8 is read as "13 choose 8" and means "the number of ways to choose 8 things from a set of 13 things". It is computed as 13!/((13-8)! * 8!).

In general, NcM = N! / ( (N-M)! * M! )


Oiling fake Yunzi stones I bought some "yunzi" stones that came in straw bowls, but they aren't translucent at all. They are fully opaque.

Considering the price paid (around 35 dollars, I bought it in Brazil), I think that they weren't the real deal, but they look nice anyway.

Now, should/can I oil them? What are they made off?

I would suggest a spot test. Try oiling a small, inconspicuous section of one stone.


What are the criteria for the best move in Scrabble? Suppose you're playing (classical, not duplicate) Scrabble and it's your turn. My question is:

  What would be a good general defintion of a best move for you?

The definition could be of a theoretical interest only, but I'd prefer a definition which could be translated (at least partially) in program code in order to generate automatically the list of your best moves.

Some constraints of objectivity

It might be argued that the concept of best move is a subjective one. In effect, when choosing your move, you might take these factors into consideration:

Your opponent last moves, in order to evaluate the probability that he has certain letters in his current rack. Note that in general, you can't know for sure what his letters are, except if there's no letters remaining in the bag.
Your opponent strength. Note that in general, you can't know for sure if your opponent will know particular words or if he will see particular variations.
Your opponent style (open or close).
Your opponent psyche. This is what you exploit when you bluff.

The three last factors apply only if you play against a human. Indeed, a program would theoretically be of the greatest strength and it would only care about playing a good objective move.

I think that it is reasonable, therefore, to distinguish between two types of best moves: subjective ones and objective ones. My question asks for a definition of the objective one, since it is the one which can be used . In other words, we must not

Any move in Scrabble has a few effects on the game:

It earns you points.
Unplayed tiles remain on your rack.
You draw new tiles (usually).
The board changes, which can make scoring easier or harder.

This suggests that the best move is one that can maximize as many of these (sometimes conflicting) aspects:

It scores a bunch of points.
It leaves you with complementary tiles for future points, especially having a good vowel-consonant balance.  It often pays to forego a few points this turn for a good opportunity at a bingo the next turn.
It lets you draw many tiles.  This means more opportunities for getting "lucky" with high point tiles (JXQZ) or super useful blanks.
It shapes the board in a way favorable to your current gameplan.  The best advice I've heard is to open the board up when behind (for more opportunities to catch up) and to close the board down if you're ahead (for just the opposite reason).

You won't always have an obvious best choice, but the more bullet points you can achieve the better.  Bingos are especially important because they score a bunch of points and give you more chances of drawing important tiles.


Tweaking the difficulty in Arkham Horror? Most cooperative games have methods of altering the difficulty listed in the rulebook, but Arkham Horror doesn't (although it does mention that Cthulu tends to be harder than the other ancient ones).

What are some good ways to tweak the difficulty?
How does each one alter the game difficulty and strategy?
Are there any methods of changing difficult in the expansions that you don't need to have the entire expansion to use?

There's a lot of obvious things, like drawing more mythos cards, taking away character abilities, having more monsters come out of gates etc. But I'm afraid to just start tinkering away. Which methods tend to work best?

A couple of these I'm pulling straight from Richard Launius' House Rules (My favorite of which is Rule #12)

If you want an easier time of it:

Drawing a Mythos card every other turn is the way I've done it. It allows the players to wander around Arkham and have encounters they normally wouldn't take the time out to have.

You can also make traveling through gates (for those standing on them) during the encounter phase optional rather than mandatory.

Monsters standing on a location that contains a gate when that gate is closed are drawn through it, in addition to all those that would normally do so due to their dimensional symbol.

To make the game harder:

Have Investigators randomly dealt out to players or randomly dealt two and pick, etc.. My group usually hates playing spellcasters, and with good reason! They weren't particularly impressive before the later expansions and the spells use precious Sanity. This forces players to pick people they wouldn't normally play as and prevents games from being filled with powerful characters.

Place gates face down on the board. This makes it more of a surprise when you find yourself plummeting into R'yleh after jumping into an unguarded gate, or fighting through a horde to end up in the Dreamlands. It also makes it harder to come out of a gate that you didn't enter through (as they are facedown, you don't know if there is another exit on the board). When I do this, I usually allow the exiting Investigator to look at one facedown gate, and if it wasn't the one they were looking for, they get LiTaS and the gate stays facedown.

The Heralds and Guardians that made their debut in later expansions (King in Yellow and beyond) also help make the game harder (or easier with Guardians). Hastur paired with the King In Yellow Herald have made games so painful my group refuses to play with either one of them anymore.

Personally, I've never found it necessary to take away a character ability. None of them are that broken. Some are close, but there's always a drawback to them.

Additionally, (though I've never used them myself) there are difficulty modifying cards in the Black Goat of the Woods expansion. Two of them make the game easier, two of the harder. I think they do things like 'everybody starts blessed/cursed, more/less mythos per turn', etc.


When can the Keeper use Trauma cards? I understand I need to pick up a Mythos card during the Keeper's turn, but when do I pick up and use Trauma cards?

The rules on Trauma cards are on pg25 of the Rules of Play book.

  These cards can only be played by the keeper immediately after an investigator takes damage or horror.  The only exception to this restriction is if an investigator has zero sanity, in which case the keeper may play one insanity Trauma card on the investigator as a keeper action (once per turn per insane investigator).

The main way to get Trauma cards is to use Keeper actions, particularly the Evil Presence and Dark Ritual actions.  (All 5 stories in the base game have one or the other available to the Keeper)


Why does Tales of the Arabian Nights have the victory condition it has? In the setup for Tales of the Arabian Nights, each player secretly chooses a victory condition: a number of Destiny points and a number of Story points that together add up to 20. When you have enough points, you can return to Baghdad, reveal the numbers you picked, and attempt to claim victory.

I don't have any problem with this mechanic—Tales isn't exactly hyper-competitive, so one way of deciding that the game is over is as good as another. But it seems arbitrary and complicated, in a way that's somewhat out of character with the rest of the rules. I've never felt any need to change it, but I always mutter: why do they do it this way?

Has the designer made any statements about the rationale for these rules? Failing that, is it demonstrable that less complicated rules wouldn't serve the game as well as the printed version?

Other games, such as Careers, also have this mechanic. Such Victory Conditions have the effect of increasing replay value, by increasing the number of possible strategies for victory.

Considering that such a mechanic is easily understood by children as young as 10, perhaps even a bright 8 or 9, the additional complexity is truly minimal.


Does this have an official name and rule set? At work during lunch break, me and my colleagues often play a game using a cup and poker dice. We use five poker dice, which have the traditional faces (9, 10, jack, queen, king, ace). Contrary to liar's dice, each player does not have a cup and dice. There's only one set. The rules are very much like Mia, but instead of using two regular dice, the five poker dice are used. The rules are roughly as follows:

The first player shakes the cup and looks at the combination under it without revealing it to other players.
This player passes it onto the next player (can be clockwise or counter-clockwise, established before the start of the game) and announces a combination. For example, a pair of kings.
The receiving player may choose to believe this by looking at the dice under the cup (again, covertly) or not believing it by lifting the cup and showing what's under it.
If the receiving player called a bluff and lifted the cup, he/she wins if the shown combination is of a lower value than that called by the passing player. He/she loses if it matches the value or is higher.
If the receiving player accepted, they can do a number of things. They're allowed to take one or more dice from under the cup and roll those openly on the table. Or, place one or more dice from under the cup on the table without changing their value and then shake the cup. They're allowed to look at what's under it before passing it on. If there's dice on the table already, combinations are possible. For example, rolling those on the table in addition to one from under the cup, or placing some on the table from under the cup, putting others back and shaking.
The receiving player, after taking an above action (they don't have to, they may just pass things on without changing the situation) will then pass the cup onto the next player while announcing a new combination. It must be higher than what he/she received. We're then back at step 3.

The combinations used are those from poker: high dice, pair, double pair, low straight, three of a kind, full house, high straight, four of a kind, five of a kind (not really a poker combo but possible with dice). You're allowed to stay with the same combination but of a higher value. So for example, two pair of aces and nines will beat two pair of kings and jacks. A dice not forming the combination can be used as a kicker (there may even be two or three, like in a single pair). In that respect it's like liar's dice, but played more in the style of Mia.

Looking around at dice games I'm not finding anything exactly like this. Mia is the closest in rules. Is there an official name and/or rule set for this game? Is it a commonly played game or did someone cook it up and it got passed onto my colleagues via playing?

You're talking about Liar's Dice, an individual hand variant, which is also covered in the Wikipedia entry you shared:

  In "common hand" liar's dice games, each player has a set of dice, all players roll once, and the bids relate to the dice each player can see (their hand) plus all the concealed dice (the other players' hands). In "individual hand" games, there is one set of dice which is passed from player to player.

Spanish and French versions of this game only cover the individual hand variant, as reflected in their own Wikipedia entry:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%B3ker_mentiroso
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_menteur
Spanish rules establish losing when reaching 9 points, as those are the
number of letters for the word liar in Spanish: mentiroso. While French rules fixes the losing points up to five (has nothing to do with French word for loser this time, as its menteur).

As it seems to be a game without any official organization behind it, there isn't such a thing as an official ruleset, despite in Spain is very common in universities and seems to exist some tournaments there.


Lazav Ability on the Stack I have gained control of my opponent's Lazav, the Multifarious. I activate it's ability targeting the Clone in my graveyard. If the ability resolves, Lazav will die, becoming a 0/0 with no abilities, as it didn't enter, and so is unable to copy anything.

My opponent, in a desperate measure to keep Lazav on the field, casts Dominate with Lazav's ability on the stack targeting Clone. He then proceeds to cast Essence Flux on the Lazav that he now controls, flickering it.

In this scenario, does removing the source of the ability (temporarily) stop it from resolving properly, thus fizzling the ability? Or would his ability resolve, targeting Clone, as Lazav is now back on the field?

Does it work the same as flickering the target of a spell to make it fizzle if you flicker the source of an activated ability in this manner?

Additionally, would the ability fizzle because Clone is now no longer in the graveyard of Lazav's controller, or does it only check the location of the Clone relative to who controlled Lazav when the ability was activated?

The Lazav that entered after Essence Flux is a new Lazav

Any old abilities that may be on the stack only see that the Lazav that they were supposed to change is no longer on the field.

This is similar to flickering the target of a spell or an ability to 'dodge' the ability (such as using Essence Flux to flicker a creature that is targeted by Murder) in that both interactions are governed by rule 400.7

  400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

There are 9 exceptions to this rule, and none of them apply here.

If Lazav changes controllers with its ability on the stack, that ability will still resolve.

In the secondary question (assuming Lazav wasn't flickered), the ability that targets Clone in your graveyard will resolve. Although Lazav changed controllers, the ability on the stack did not change controllers. "Your" in Lazav's ability on the stack still refers to you (the player who previously had control of Lazav), and Clone is still in your graveyard, so it is still a legal target. That ability will still find Lazav, even though it changed controllers, because it didn't change zones.


What's the difference between the different Bohnanza expansions? How do they change the game? My friends have grown to love Bohnanza for its simple rules and constant negotiations, so I've grown curious about the expansions. Here are a few of the higher ranked:

Bohnaparte
high-bohn plus
ladybohn
mutabohn
several more here

Here's my questions:

What does each one add to the game?
How does each change the strategy and gameplay?
How does each one change the overall feel of the game, in terms of competition, complexity, etc.?
Which are your favorites and why?

Any other differences or recommendations would be awesome. :D

I can't answer your question in its fullness, as the only one of these expansions I have played is Bohnaparte, and it was once and a couple of years ago!  But I can tell you what my impressions of that were...

Bohnaparte constitutes a pretty drastic reworking of the Bohnanza game (to use a topical example, it's on a par with how Zooloretto expands on Coloretto).  Instead of a simple bean-farming game, you are now playing a Napoleonic wargame!  Albeit a simple, cartoonish one.  You lay out a map with areas of varying strategic import, and you now have to conquer it with your bean-troops, as well as growing beans in the usual way to maintain your economy.

At the time, I wasn't really a fan.  It didn't seem to me like a particularly deep wargame, or a particularly logical extension to the Bohnanza theme.  However, I do recall some nice mechanics: I believe the "valuable" beans (like Red) are weak in combat compared to the "common" beans (like Blue) - so it was a lot less clear which were the best beans: do you put a premium on combat or economic profit?  On the minus side, I remember the scoreline of our game being very close, and the result being basically decided on one player getting an extra turn over me due to the vagaries of the seating order.  That is probably true to the spirit of the original Bohnanza, I guess, but I remember being quite miffed at the time!

I guess if you play a whole lot of Bohnanza, to the point where you're getting jaded, Bohnaparte will certainly inject fresh interest into proceedings!  But I did think it was more of a novelty expansion than a must-purchase.  Unless your two favourite things in the world are the Napoleonic era and Bohnanza.  Then you should almost certainly buy it without delay!


Possible to use mana ability in response? Mana abilities don't go onto the stack and are resolved immediately. If my opponent tried to play Shock (deal 2 damage) to Maraleaf Pixie, would I be able to use its mana ability in response? (Tap: add G or U).

There's a lot on forums about the other way around. If I initially tapped Maraleaf Pixie, and my opponent tried to kill it, they would not be able to because the mana ability resolves immediately.

Yes, you may.
The pixie's ability is an activated ability that happens to be a mana ability as well. Unless otherwise stated, you can activate those any time you have priority, so it's possible to do so in response to Shock.

602.1. Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]”
605.1. Some activated abilities and some triggered abilities are mana abilities, which are subject to special rules. Only abilities that meet either of the following two sets of criteria are mana abilities, regardless of what other effects they may generate or what timing restrictions (such as “Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant”) they may have.


Can the initial Rummikub meld build on other player's tiles? When playing the initial 30 points, can I use a tile from an existing meld on the board to complete my meld without using the points from that tile? For instance, I have a red 9, 11, and 12 in my rack, which is 32 points, but I need the red 10 on the board to play them. Is this a legal move?

From the rules (emphasis added):

  After players have made their initial plays, they can also build on other sets on the table...

I think this implies that while you are making your initial meld, you cannot use the existing melds.


Quoridor rules when faced the opponent I could not find an official rule that states directly what exactly to do when 2 pawns are face to face. It says that you can jump over it to go it's behind if there are no walls between the opponent and it's behind.

At this point it is not certain if we can also move diagonally whether or not the behind of the opponent is blocked.

Please check the visuals below (red is about to make a move):

In the first one above, red can move diagonally and it does not care if behind of the blue player is blocked or not.

In the second one below, red cannot move diagonally because behind of blue is not blocked by anything (edge, other players, wall).

I have seen both usages but there should be 1 original rule. I do not want to use house rules. This is not directly documented in the original game. What do you think?

The 3rd one is interesting. It may solve the question or add another question.(because this time, the direction of the movement may be a parameter too.. Should diagonal-rule work only while going towards north or not..):

According the rules, You may only place next to the opponent's pawn (i.e. you may only "move diagonally") if there is a fence behind the said pawn. Note how the diagonal squares are not permissible destinations in figures 2, 3 and 6. Only when the oppenent's pawn is backed by a board (figures 8 and 9) is the diagonal move permissible.

As such, diagonal movement is not allowed in the scenarios in the question, so your first image is incorrect, and your second and third images are correct.


Player count variants for Pitch Pitch is one of my favorite card games but it is sometimes hard to have the correct number of people to play. There are 2 main variants we play where 1 will play 4 people with fixed teams and the other will play 5 people with variable teams.

Common Rules

Played with a 52 card deck plus 2 jokers. Each hand will have 10 points total. The winning bidder will pick the trump suit. The point cards in that suit are the Ace, Jack, Off Jack (OJ), Big Joker (BJ), Little Joker (LJ), Ten, Three (worth 3 points), and Two (worth 1 point to whoever played it). The order of trump cards is (High) A, K, Q, J, OJ, BJ, LJ, and 10-2 (Low). All cards besides the trump suit (off) are basically no value. If an entire trick only has off cards in it, then the last winner still leads the next trick.

Bidding starts to the left of the dealer and each person can either increase the bid or pass. The minimum bid is five so everyone could pass and leave the bidder with a 5 bid. The bidding only goes around once so you have to bid high enough the first time.

The winning bidder leads the first trick. Only point cards are kept from each hand and the rest are discarded.

4 Player Variant

Your partner sits across the table from you. Everyone is dealt 9 cards (generally dealt 3 at a time) to start. After the winning bidder names the suit, everyone throws away all their cards that are not in that suit except for the winning bidder. Usually they are thrown away face up to make sure no trump cards are thrown away. Then the dealer deals everyone back up to 6 cards except for the winning bidder who gets the remainder of the deck. At this point the winning bidder must make a 6 card hand from all of their cards. This may also mean that they have to burn trump cards. They can only burn non-point cards.

Then the winning bidder leads and play continues with the winner of each trick leading until all 6 tricks are played. Each team gets the number of points they actually got that round unless the winning bidders team does not make their bid. In that case, they go negative the amount they bid.

Play continues until one team reaches 42 points.

5 Player Variant

In the 5 player variant, each player is trying to win individually. Ten cards are dealt to each player which leaves 4 cards. Each person bids just like in 4 player with the winner picking the trump suit. The difference is that the winning bidder will get the 4 remaining cards and then call for his partner. To call for his partner he will ask for a specific card in the trump suit. Whoever has that card will be their partner for this round. The other 3 people will be on a separate team this round and try to set the winning bidder and their partner. Everyone discards down to 6 cards and the play proceeds like in the 4 player variant.

For scoring the round, the winning bidder and his partner will both get points equal to the points their team got and the other 3 players will get an equal amount of points based on what their team got. For example, if the winning team got 8 points, then both the winning bidder and their partner would have 8 added to their score and the other three players would all get 2 added to their score.

Question

Are there good way to do 2, 3, 6, etc. player versions of either of these variants?

I'm an avid pitch player as well, 4pt 10pt and 13pt :)

For 2-3 players, you can play 4 point pitch with no teams! I find 4 point perfect for times when you need something to do but don't have a whole lot of time! You can also play 4 point pitch with 4 players, having 2 teams of 2 players.

In 4 point pitch, the points are: 'High','Low','Jack','Game'. High being the highest trump card played (Ace usually), Low being the lowest trump played (two usually). Jack is the Jack in the suit that is trump. For 'High' and 'Jack' whoever takes these tricks and wins those points. For 'Low' whoever plays that card, regardless of who takes it in the trick it is played, will get that point. 'Game' is a sum of cards that you take in your tricks that you win. In any suit, Aces = 4pts, Kings = 3pts, Queens = 2pts, Jacks = 1pt, tens = 10 points. 'Game' can be tricky in this but it makes it interesting! Once all 6 tricks are finished, you add up the cards you took in the tricks to get your score for 'Game'. Whoever has the highest amount of points for 'Game' gets the single Game point.

In this game you play with all suits, but the first trick you still have to lead what you say is the trump suit. Minimum bid is 2, maximum bid is 4. You are dealt 6 cards and that is all you play with, the rest of the deck is not used and jokers are not used. Trump will win the trick if the other players do not play trump. If the first player of a trick plays trump, you must play trump if you have it (in other words, you must follow the first suit played, otherwise you can trump in at anytime or sluff off in a different suit if you cannot follow the first suit played). You can play to 11pts, 14pts, or 21pts.

For 6 players, you can play 10 point pitch which you explained in your post! The only difference, every player gets 9 cards and there is no deck left over. You play your hand with what you are dealt.

For 13 point pitch it is the same as 10pt pitch, you just play with with off 3 :) meaning if trump is hearts, the 3 of hearts and 3 of diamonds are both worth 3 points! so be very careful. You can play this with 4, 5, or 6 players.


Is a land a colourless spell? I know lands are colourless, but is a land a colourless spell? Would it activate Molten Nursery or any other card that is activated with a colourless spell?

Lands are never spells, even if they have other types like Dryad Arbor.

  305.1. A player who has priority may play a land card from his or her hand during a main phase of his or her turn when the stack is empty. Playing a land is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115). Rather, the player simply puts the land onto the battlefield. Since the land doesn’t go on the stack, it is never a spell, and players can’t respond to it with instants or activated abilities.

  305.9. If an object is both a land and another card type, it can be played only as a land. It can’t be cast as a spell.


Games with features like Battlestar Galactica's "Traitor" Mechanic? My local gaming group has been playing the heck out of Battlestar Galactica for some time now.  Are there any other board games that can be recommended that have a similar theme, or similar mechanics?  Obviously, we're not talking about clones or rip-offs here, but games that embody the "Everyone's in it together except for 1 or 2 who are out to get you.  You better find out who they are!" theme.

There are many games with a "traitor" or "uninformed majority" type mechanics. In some of them, such as Mafia and Are You The Traitor?, that is the main point of the game; you are trying to discover each person's role, with not much else on top of that. In others, it's a more incidental feature, usually involving the win conditions for each player or team, but with more traditional gameplay mechanics for the main duration of the game. In the following descriptions, I sketch only out how the "traitor" mechanics work for each game, not how the whole game works.

There's Mafia, also known as Werewolf or Assassin, which is probably the most well known, and one of the oldest, of the genre. In its most basic form (using Werewolf terminology), you have two Werewolves, one Seer, and the rest are Villagers, though only the Werewolves know who each other are. Each day, everyone (Villagers, Seer, and Werewolves) try to decide who the Werewolves are, and hang one person. Each night, the Werewolves silently and secretly choose one person to kill. Each night, the Seer gets to discover, silently and secret, whether one player is the Werewolf. The humans (Villagers and Seer) win if they kill both of the Werewolves, the Werewolves win if they equal the humans in number. The Seer is trying to help guide the Villagers to kill the Werewolves instead of innocent Villagers, without revealing himself as he will be killed by the Werewolves the next night (unless he identifies both of them openly; but of course, a Werewolf could also claim to be the Seer...).

In Are You The Traitor? from Looney Labs, there is a Key-Holder, trying to deliver a key to the Good Wizard, while the Evil Wizard tries to get the key instead (only the wizards know which is which). The Guards are trying to help the Key-Holder get the key to the Good Wizard, but there's a Traitor in their midst, who's trying to (secretly) reveal to the Evil Wizard who has the key, without being caught by the Guards. The Good team wins if the Key-Holder delivers the key to the Good Wizard, or the Guards catch the Traitor. The evil team wins if the Key-Holder accidentally delivers the key to the Evil Wizard, the Guards attack someone other than the Traitor, or the Evil Wizard catches the Key-Holder is before the Key-Holder delivers the key (the Traitor can never win directly, only by communicating secretly to the Evil Wizard). It's an interesting twist on traitor mechanics, lots of different roles, all with very different goals, but still has the basics of the traitor mechanics.

The multi-player version of Homeworlds, an Icehouse game has a traitor mechanic, though the 2 player version, Binary Homeworlds, is more popular. In the multi-player version, players are secretly assigned Good and Evil roles. The basic mechanics of the game are an abstract strategy game, in which players are trying to eliminate each other (I won't go into the details, as they aren't relevant to the traitor mechanic). The Good players are on a team; they win if all Evil players are eliminated. Each Evil player is playing for themselves; they win if they eliminate any other player, Good or Evil. So, Good players are all cooperating, and Evil players are all competing.

Bang! is a spaghetti western card game, with a Sheriff who is known to everyone, and Deputies, Outlaws, and a Renegade. The Outlaws are trying to kill the Sheriff, the Sheriff and Deputies are trying to kill the Outlaws and Renegade, and the Renegade is trying to be the last man standing.

Napoleon is a trick-taking card game (played with ordinary playing cards) originally from Japan (and apparently over 100 years old, though not in its exact present form). 10 cards are dealt to each player, and two blinds are left. The players bid a number of tricks and a trump suit, similar to Bridge. The winning bidder is Napoleon. He names another card, and the player who has that card becomes his General (but only the General knows that); they together need to make the bid to win the game. Napoleon now gets to take the two blinds, and discard two cards; if the card he named was one of the blinds, he's playing alone, with no General. The game is then played as a trick taking game with the named trump. No one but the General knows who that is, and Napoleon and the General (or Napoleon alone) are playing on a team against the other players, who are also on a team.

Shadows Over Camelot is a cooperative game, but there is a variant in which one player might be a traitor (or there may be no traitor). The players are working together against the game, but the traitor will try and sabotage the progress of the other players while remaining undiscovered. The loyal knights may accuse someone of being the traitor; if they're correct, they get an advantage, if they're wrong, they're set back; of course, depending on the game, there might not even be a traitor. If the traitor remains secret until the end of the game, he can set the players back and turn victory into defeat.

In The Resistance you are a group of resistance fighter running missions against a corrupt and evil government. However, there are government spies in your midst. You need to complete three out of five missions successfully, without a spy sabotaging the mission. Each round, a new player is the leader, and must select a team, trying to choose only loyal resistance fighters and no spies. After selecting the team, the players vote on whether that team should be formed. If the spies sow discord, and no team can be formed after 5 tries, the spies win and the government crushes the resistance. Otherwise, they go on the mission; but any spies on the mission have the chance to sabotage it, causing it to fail. If they do, however, they risk being found out.


How To Mitigate The Random Factor In Agricola? Agricola is my favourite boardgame and I'd love to reach a level where I could call myself a master of it.  However, having found a place to play it online and gotten a lot more games in, I've been finding myself a little frustrated by the random elements of the game, which are few in number but can have an enormous impact.

In particular, I'm talking about the Family Growth spaces that become available in Stages II and V.  It seems to me that if you're the only player planning ahead for room building and Family Growth becomes available in Round 5, you can get a substantial advantage in terms of extra actions by having a third person to use early.  However, if Family Growth doesn't show up until Round 7, the other players have more time to play catch-up (and reap the benefits of having sown fields or obtained a breeding pair of sheep before the first Harvest).

And then this happens again with the Family Growth Without Space action.  It feels like someone getting this at the start of Round 12 can really influence the way the endgame plays out, such that there's often a big race to grab Starting Player in Round 11.  But if by chance Plow & Sow is revealed instead, dreams can easily be crushed - especially as the starting player typically then changes before Round 13!

What's the best strategy for playing Agricola in order to maximise your chances of doing well whatever order the action spaces become available?  Is there a "middle-ground" approach that allows you to do well whether or not the ostensibly more powerful actions show up early?  Or in the end is it better just to roll the metaphorical dice and take your chances?

It sounds like it's not the randomness of the action spaces that bothers you, but the unknown factor. If you're playing in person and others share your opinion, I'd suggest revealing the cards after they're shuffled and just use something else to track what round you're on. You'd have to keep an eye on upkeep to make sure you're not letting things accumulate too early, but that seems like it would address all the concerns you brought up.

If you want to play with the rules as written, you really can't assume that something will come up in any particular spot. For the first Family Growth, what you're describing is exactly the dilemma; if you invest early actions in the hopes of growing your family in Round 5, you have no way of knowing if that will pay off or not, and that's not something that will change with experience. You just need to factor your decision to build early (or not) with the possibility that it will not work out for you. I don't think there's anything you can do about that. For the second family growth, if it's that important to your strategy to get that first, I would say plan on being the start player in both Round 12 and Round 13, probably holding back some Minor Improvements so that it's not a total "waste" of the first move in Round 12 if the Family Growth action isn't the one that comes up.

In general, I think your question is looking at Family Growth in a vacuum, which seems to run contrary to the idea of Agricola. The best path to victory (generally) is diversity, and I realize that Family Growth is instrumental to that since it gives you precious additional actions, but regardless of what you're trying to do, relying on a specific space to be there exactly when you need it is risky. Competent opponents will often block you if possible (since there are few actions that would be detrimental, only slightly less attractive in a vacuum that would be pushed over if it both benefits them and hurts you), and if you spend too much time trying to manipulate turn order, you won't do well. Agricola is also not Chess; the random bits mean that there's not really an "if X, do Y" truism that will be a silver bullet winning strategy.

The way the question is worded makes it sound almost like you consider Agricola to be a zero-sum game, but it's not - it's more along the lines of a Nash equilibrium, even when played two player. I guess my answer to your question would be to "always have a plan B", or maybe plans 1-n where n=the number of players. If you have multiple viable options at all times, you can't be blocked easily (I've never seen the entire table collectively decide to leader-bash in Agricola, and I play with a cutthroat group of people). Ways to do this will vary considerably with the cards you get, the cards your opponents get, and what their biases are (e.g., I've played games where the 3 Wood space was taken literally every Round because most of the table thought they needed to have a 5 room house and use all of their wooden bits - as you may imagine, that took a big strategy adjustment). If you're looking to master Agricola, I think the best thing to do would be to understand how ROI works with scoring in the different categories and watch what everyone else is likely to go for. This extremely long analysis might be a good place to start in terms of Agricola's in-game economy.


What is this game with 9 sticks with black and white beads? I found this game at my house, and I don’t know what it’s called, or how to play it. Can someone please help me.

BoardGameGeek has a similar game called Rex which only has 3 beads per peg. But it is basically a 3 in a row game (horizontally, vertically and diagonally) with the twist that the center 3 pegs allow one to form a triangle too. No doubt one could also play a scoring version to see who gets the most points when the pegs are full.

Exactly what you version of the game might be called, or who made it is a mystery. But for such simple games many "folkart" versions have been made.


In Hearts, played by experts, what is ratio of shooting the moon? Because nobody knows the game-theoretical-optimal strategy in Hearts, I am looking for an approximation based on empirical data. For example, based on logs of games between expert players from an online server, or from records of championship events.

I'm particularly curious about the J♦ variant, and the difference in the shoting the moon ratio w/o the J♦ variant.  In that variant, the J♦ is worth -10 points.

NOTE:  This is not a duplicate of this question.  That question doesn't qualify in what context the game is being played.  This question does, and as such, it will have an objective answer, but only if someone has access to a decent data set of games.

Hearts involves the concept of (A) deciding exactly 3 cards (at least in the common 4 player variant) to change between each hand in 3/4 of the hands and (B) to keep all cards in 1/4 of them.
A major enough distinction that I think they probably need to considered in these 2 different groups. Lets consider what hand distributions capable of taking all cards would look like and consider group B as more important as it is easier to site and is based off of which players will decide which cards to pass from their hands anyway.

There are a total of 39 distinct hand suit patterns, there is a large scale experiment of computer shuffled hands and results here
http://playbridge.com/pb_shuffle_project.php

These are suit independent so multiplication to increase these percentages is not needed, but certain constraints need to be taken into consideration and will reduce the percentages a significant amount.
Basically to get the total you would need to add up the favorable results you get from each of the 39 hand patterns to get the total % of being able to shoot the moon.

Below this point might be considered a tedious explanation on how these numbers are derived and in excess of what the question asked for, but in case of more curious readers, I thought I would include the general process as it can be used of any of the 39 hand patterns :) Edit: section added after to account for hand passing as requested.

Lets illustrate with having 2 sample hand patterns for a key in what to look for, will do 5-4-3-1 and 7-3-3-0 as examples.

5-4-3-1, about 12.93% likely to get without caring which cards are in the suits. There are 24 possible arrangements between the suits in this chosen hand pattern,  lets add what restrictions we need 1 suit at a time.

For the 1 card suit we have 13 combinations of those, in 6 of the 24 suit arrangements this suit is clubs and does not need any restriction as a point card cannot be played on the first trick, for the other arrangements having the ace is safest and so would need to divide by 13.
For the 3 card suit we have 13 choose 3 combinations of those (or 286) and only 1 of them realiably has us winning all tricks (akq) and so would need to divide by 286 for all other arrangements.
For the 4 card suit we have 13 choose 4 combinations (or 715) and akqj would need needed a high percentage of the time so will need to divide by 715
For the 5 card suit we can finally have a little leeway; 13 choose 5 combinations (or 1287) and the suit could reliably run with just akqj, having those 4 cards accounted for
we have 9 choose 1 combinations left so basically divide by 1287 and multiply by 9.

This leaves the result looking visually like this:
5-4-3-1: 12.93%
A. 3.233% of which has 1 club.
B.  9.967% other arrangements

A. 3.233%/286/715/1287*9 or    1.11e-7 % or 11.1e-8 %

B. 9.967%/13/286/715/1287*9 or 2.55e-8 %

for a total of 1.365e-7 %

7-3-3-0, about 0.2652% likely without caring about which suit or which cards. There are only 12 possible suit arrangements 6 of which have three clubs for instance, again going 1 suit at a time.

For the suit with no cards in it, no restrictions as nothing can be done about it anyway

For the suits with 3 cards 13 choose 3 (287) if one of them is clubs, (edit: this also holds true if the hand has no clubs at all) that suit can have ak and any of the 11 cards, the second 3 card suit for safety should probably be akq; thus the need to divide by 287 twice.

For the 7 card suit, we have 13 choose 7 (1716) combinations, since the suit is substantially longer, we probably only need akq for a relaible run most of the time, akqj for a nearly everytime running leaving 10 choose 4 (210) or 9 choose 3 (84) open slots.

So In total

0.2652% /287/287/1716*210 or 3.94e-7 %

Hand passing section:

For the cases where 3 cards are being passed, people try to shorten their already short suits and lengthen their strong ones. It can be helpful to pair
your hand with that of the person passing to you, combining their suit lengths with yours, below is a table of the 44 fit classes breifly mentioned in the comment, the first 10 are by far the most common and in cases of passing across cannot be changed by the passing, placing a logical upper bound on how uneven the suits can be distributed.

(from Thomas Andrews Deal 3.1 documentation)
There are 103 fit patterns, or 65 if we consider our fit pattern and opponent's as the same (e.g., that 8-6-6-6 is the same as 7-7-7-5. If the sum of the longest fit and the shortest fit is 13, then the pattern is self-dual, for example, if our fit pattern is 9-7-6-4, then so is the opponent's.)

Normalized |  Squares sum | Patterns

     0 |          170 | 7-7-6-6
     1 |          172 | 8-6-6-6,7-7-7-5
     2 |          174 | 8-7-6-5
     4 |          178 | 9-6-6-5,8-8-5-5,8-7-7-4
     5 |          180 | 9-7-5-5,8-8-6-4
     6 |          182 | 9-7-6-4
     8 |          186 | 10-6-5-5,9-8-5-4,8-8-7-3
     9 |          188 | 10-6-6-4,9-7-7-3
    10 |          190 | 10-7-5-4,9-8-6-3
    12 |          194 | 10-7-6-3,9-9-4-4
    13 |          196 | 11-5-5-5,10-8-4-4,9-9-5-3,8-8-8-2
    14 |          198 | 11-6-5-4,10-8-5-3,9-8-7-2
    16 |          202 | 11-7-4-4,11-6-6-3,10-7-7-2,9-9-6-2
    17 |          204 | 11-7-5-3,10-8-6-2
    18 |          206 | 10-9-4-3
    20 |          210 | 12-5-5-4,11-8-4-3,11-7-6-2,10-9-5-2,9-8-8-1
    21 |          212 | 12-6-4-4,9-9-7-1
    22 |          214 | 12-6-5-3,11-8-5-2,10-8-7-1
    24 |          218 | 12-7-4-3,10-10-3-3,10-9-6-1
    25 |          220 | 12-6-6-2,11-9-3-3,11-7-7-1,10-10-4-2
    26 |          222 | 12-7-5-2,11-9-4-2,11-8-6-1
    28 |          226 | 13-5-4-4,12-8-3-3,10-10-5-1,9-9-8-0
    29 |          228 | 13-5-5-3,12-8-4-2,11-9-5-1,10-8-8-0
    30 |          230 | 13-6-4-3,12-7-6-1,10-9-7-0
    32 |          234 | 13-6-5-2,12-8-5-1,11-10-3-2,11-8-7-0
    33 |          236 | 13-7-3-3,10-10-6-0
    34 |          238 | 13-7-4-2,12-9-3-2,11-10-4-1,11-9-6-0
    36 |          242 | 13-6-6-1,12-9-4-1,12-7-7-0
    37 |          244 | 13-7-5-1,12-8-6-0
    38 |          246 | 13-8-3-2,11-10-5-0
    40 |          250 | 13-8-4-1,12-9-5-0,11-11-2-2
    41 |          252 | 12-10-2-2,11-11-3-1
    42 |          254 | 13-7-6-0,12-10-3-1
    44 |          258 | 13-9-2-2,13-8-5-0,11-11-4-0
    45 |          260 | 13-9-3-1,12-10-4-0
    48 |          266 | 13-9-4-0
    50 |          270 | 12-11-2-1
    52 |          274 | 13-10-2-1,12-11-3-0
    54 |          278 | 13-10-3-0
    60 |          290 | 12-12-1-1
    61 |          292 | 13-11-1-1,12-12-2-0
    62 |          294 | 13-11-2-0
    72 |          314 | 13-12-1-0
    84 |          338 | 13-13-0-0


Can I target a hexproof opponent in order to trigger prowess? Let's say an opponent has hexproof due to Leyline of Sanctity.  Can I still cast a spell like Thoughtseize against them, just to let it fizzle and trigger prowess?

No, you can't. Part of the process of casting a spell is checking whether it's legal to cast:

601.2e The game checks to see if the proposed spell can legally be cast. If the proposed spell is
illegal, the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed (see rule
721, “Handling Illegal Actions”).

If any chosen target is illegal, the game reverts to its state right before you started casting Thoughtseize, so Prowess never triggers.


If partner opens and I have 7 in a suit, do I go to game? Partner deals and opens 1 club.  I have 8 points and 7 diamonds. Opponent has passed.  Should I say 3 diamonds to show 7 card suit?

What do you mean 8 points?  If you have 8 high-card points and 7 diamonds, your hand is probably too strong for a preemptive jump, especially if most of your points are in your long suit.  With a fantastic hand like

     ♠ 3 2   ♥ 2   ♦ A K J 9 7 5 4   ♣ 4 3 2

you could easily have 3NT opposite a minimum opening such as

     ♠ A 5 4   ♥ Q 10 4 3   ♦ Q 2   ♣ A 7 6 5

With such a nice hand, your main concern should be whether your partner has major suit stoppers.

In a standard american (or 2/1 game forcing) system, you should start by bidding 1♦, and then letting the auction develop.  If your partner rebids 1NT (showing a balanced minimum with stoppers in both majors), you could conceivably raise to 2NT or even 3NT, depending on the type of scoring and your partnership style.

If you have 8 points including distribution, e.g.

     ♠ 3 2   ♥ 2   ♦ A J 9 7 6 5 3   ♣ 4 3 2

then a preemptive raise is more reasonable, depending on your partnership agreements.


What is a winning strategy for Italy with Diplomacy Italy is almost the worst country to start with. But that makes it a nice challenge.

What is your winning strategy with Italy?

Make sure EVERYONE knows that Italy is the weakest country, by reminding them of it constantly, both during the game and every time the subject of Diplomacy comes up in conversation generally.  Hopefully this will lull them into a false sense of security, so that you can actually get somewhere with your beleaguered green armies.  Certainly if anyone starts picking on you, you are entitled to complain loudly: "C'mon! Everyone knows that Italy doesn't stand a chance of winning this game! Stop hassling me!"

Of course, this meta-strategy can easily backfire: if you become just too annoying and whiny, people may start attacking you just in the hope of shutting you up!  But generally I think it's perfectly reasonable, given the common knowledge that Italy is far from the strongest position in the game, to present yourself as an underdog and no real threat... until you've rallied your forces sufficiently to strike.  It's all part of the fun of the game!


Can you use one creature for both convoke and delve for Hogaak? Hogaak, Arisen Necropolis has both Convoke and Delve, meaning that its cost can be paid for by tapping creatures, and by exiling cards from your graveyard.

Can I tap a creature for convoke, sacrifice it to Ashnod's Altar, and then exile it for delve?

I know that I couldn't sacrifice the creature to something like Altar of Dementia, because you can't activate abilities while casting a spell.  But Ashnod's Altar is a mana ability, so I should be able to use it while casting Hogaak, even though I can't use the mana to pay for Hogaak (because of its first ability), right?

Does this work?  Could I pay Hogaak's 7 cmc cost using 4 Grizzly Bears?

The ordering of when Delve, Convoke and mana abilities are activated mean that you cannot use both Convoke and Delve on a single creature/card.
Essentially you activate mana abilities as part of 601.2g, then pay costs as part of 601.2h, this is where Delve and Convoke come in.
So you can activate Ashnods and then Delve the sacrificed card, but cannot Convoke before the sacrifice.

601. Casting Spells
601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If multiple cost reductions apply, the player may apply them in any order. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can’t be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, any effects that directly affect the total cost are applied. Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.
601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.
601.2h The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.

702.50. Convoke
702.50a Convoke is a static ability that functions while the spell with convoke is on the stack. “Convoke” means “For each colored mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature of that color you control rather than pay that mana. For each generic mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature you control rather than pay that mana.”
702.50b The convoke ability isn’t an additional or alternative cost and applies only after the total cost of the spell with convoke is determined.

702.65. Delve
702.65a Delve is a static ability that functions while the spell with delve is on the stack. “Delve” means “For each generic mana in this spell’s total cost, you may exile a card from your graveyard rather than pay that mana.”
702.65b The delve ability isn’t an additional or alternative cost and applies only after the total cost of the spell with delve is determined.


Custom game boards and pieces for existing games With the huge growth in the 3D printing and CNC areas over the past few years, you are starting to see a lot of custom pieces for existing board games. For instance, Risk boards made of walnut or Settlers of Catan pieces made from various exotic hardwoods and a plethora of customized replacement pieces. In the vast majority of cases, the items being made are of vastly superior quality and in some cases were designed to replace boards or game pieces that are no longer in print.

So my question is, what legal ramifications are there when creating these items in the U.S.? Technically it's a copy of an existing game both in name and rough design, but the actual product is often very different.

I am not a lawyer, but as long as you just create things for personal use, you're probably fine.

Even if you make pieces and sell them, it's probably ok. You can already buy meeples and assorted tokens online. Both shops are around for years already, so I guess it's fine.


Are solved games worth playing? Many simple games, such as Nim or Connect 4 are solved meaning that there is an unbeatable strategy for the person who either starts, or plays second.

Despite knowing this - People still play these games, why?

Here are 3 reasons why I sometimes play solved games:

For the benefit of the other player. I play connect 4 with my 4 year old nephew. The point of the game for me is the bonding part. For him, its bonding, thinking ahead, playing to win and the tactile feedback of playing with the pieces
To find the solution independently. I was introduced to Nim in a mathematics lecture, where the problem was to solve the game and prove the solution works. The point of the 'game' in this context is not to play it at all, but to have a concrete subject matter to apply abstract reasoning to
To add more complexity later. Tic-Tac-Toe on a 3x3 grid is solved, but I'll introduce the 3x3 grid to new players before going to larger grids


MTG Arena - casting during opponent's upkeep In MTG Arena, I keep trying to set a stop after my turn so that I can cast during my opponent's upkeep, but it always appears to skip right into their main phase.

It's been a while since I played Magic, but casting spells during opposing upkeep used to be a mainstay of my play (i.e., tapping a land with icy manipulator during upkeep so that the mana isn't available during the main phase).

Is this no longer something you can do in Magic, and if so, how do I set it up to allow me to do it in MTG Arena? Even with full stops enabled, it appears to breeze right past upkeep.

There're two ways to do this. The first way is to hold full control. The default keys to do this is Ctrl + Shift, and it'll keep full control on until you turn it off.

The other way is to set a stop on your opponent's upkeep. You do this by clicking on the icons under their avatar (not the ones just above the "pass" button on the bottom right), and the game should auto-pause on their upkeep and draw steps.


Can I counter a spell that can't be countered? Specifically, can I counter Dragonlord Dromoka with Voidmage Apprentice's triggered ability?

No, you cannot counter Dragonlord Dromoka with Voidmage Apprentice.

Dromoka cannot be countered at all, it doesn't matter what is trying to counter it.

Also "When ~ is turned face up, ..." is a triggered ability. So flipping a card face up is a special action that doesn't use the stack, and once the card is face up its ability triggers and is put on the stack.

If instead you were trying to counter something like Abrupt Decay that "can't be countered by spells or abilities." you still couldn't counter it because you would still be using an ability to try and counter it. The "by spells or abilities" rider is there on spells with targets so that if a spell has no legal targets it can still be countered by the game rules.


Putting creatures into play in alternative ways to summoning them Cards like Quicksilver Amulet or Sneak Attack allow me to put creatures into play.

I wonder if the following statements are correct:

Cards put into play this way cannot be countered in an ordinary way; such as with cards capable of countering summoning spells, such as Remove the Soul, or with a generic counter such as Cancel when summoning a creature by paying the mana cost, as usually happens.
It is possible to counter the respective activated abilities of the two cards above - for example, in the case of Quicksilver Amulet, with Rust; or in the case of Sneak Attack, with Trickbind.
Countering the activated ability in such a way will prevent the “putting into play” of creatures, even when is explicitly reported on their card text the phrase "[this creature] can't be countered", like Kavu Chameleon, or Emrakul, the Aeons Torn.
If Emrakul is put into play with the ability of Quicksilver Amulet or Sneak Attack, the text of the card  that reads "When you cast this spell, take an extra turn after this one" will not apply, so the player who puts Emrakul into the game will not be able to have an extra turn, since he has not materially "cast" it.

Cards like Quicksilver Amulet and Sneak Attack provide an alternative way to put creature cards into play, instead of casting them as normal. This has the following differences to casting them as normal:

Cards put into play this way are never on the stack; only the ability that puts them there is
The creature card will never be considered cast, and never be considered a spell
The controller of the ability doesn't have to announce the creature card until the ability resolves (at which point it can't be countered anymore). They don't even have to put a creature card on the battlefield at all if the ability resolves.

At the time you activate the ability of one of those cards, no creature card is involved at all. If a player chooses to Stifle the ability, it will be countered. Emrakul, the Aeons Torn's ability does not apply, because not only is it not a spell - it isn't involved in the situation in any shape or form until the ability resolves and the controller chooses a creature card to put into play.

Likewise, a triggered ability that triggers when a creature is cast only triggers when that creature is put on the stack as a spell (note how this is made abundantly clear by both of Emrakul's abilities referring specifically to spell). Using one of the cards in question, this never happens, so the controller will never get the benefits of a cast trigger by simply putting the creature into play.


What's the point of the covered character in the Bang! 2-player variant? The official two-player variant rules say that at the start of the game, you get two character cards, and you choose one to be your "exposed" character and one to be your "covered" character. You can only use the abilities of your exposed character, unless your covered character is specifically targeted by your opponent.

What is the point of the covered character if it's just always going to be in the background? Do the covered character and exposed character ever change during gameplay?

I haven't played this game, but the rules seem fairly clear to me.

1) You can swap which character is covered, and which is exposed, each game turn. So they don't have to stay in the background.

  At the beginning of any turn, after dealing with such cards as Jail
  and Dynamite and before Phase 1, the active player chooses one
  character to be exposed and the other to stay cover. In order to do
  this, push the exposed character towards the center.

2) You only get to use your exposed character's ability. The exception is when your covered character is targeted, in which case you get to make a response from them instead (poking their head out of cover).

  During your turn, or your opponent’s turn,
  you can only use the ability of your exposed character. However, if
  your covered character is the target of a card (BANG!, Indians!, Duel,
  etc...) you temporarily get the ability of your character in cover
  (and lose the ability of your exposed one), for the short time needed
  to respond (see example below).

3) Your hand size is determined by the life remaining of your exposed character.

  When you declare the end of your turn, you must discard from your hand any
  card exceeding the current life points of your exposed character.


In Arkham Horror, do you ignore counting items that can't be lost or stolen when going insane or unconscious? The Arkham Horror errata says on page 6:

  Q: Some Items state that they cannot be lost or stolen unless you choose to allow it. When does this ability come into play?

  A: It would come into play when an investigator goes insane, gets
  knocked unconscious, or defaults on a bank loan. It would also come
  into play when any other game effect specifically instructs you to
  lose an item or tells you an item is stolen.

This answer is vague. Since you are choosing which items to lose when you go insane or unconscious, the only way I can see this answer making sense is that they are claiming these particular items could cause you to not lose half of your items (rounded down).

My interpretation is that if you have two items, both of which can't be lost unless you allow it, then you can retain both when you go insane/unconscious. What if you have 4 items that can't be lost and 2 that can.  Do you get to lose only 2 of the items in this case?  If you have merely 1 item that can and 1 that can't, is it basically no different than if you had regular items (and would mean you are simply choosing the one to get rid of)? This leads me to think that this quality of items only really comes into play if greater than "half of your items rounded up" have this quality. i.e. 3 out of 4, 4 out of 5 items, 4 out of 6 items, 5 out of 7 items, etc, in which case you could avoid losing the full "half rounded down" amount.  Do I have this right?

While the ruling may seem a little bit weird, everything they say in the errata section makes sense.

During an unconscious or madness scenario, you are the one looking at your items and choosing to remove them.  You still count the amount of items you have, as a whole.  However, you are allowed to pick which ones get removed to satisfy the requirements of the event.

So, for example, you have six items in total and two of them have the "KEEP" status (the status we're talking about).  You get knocked out.  At this point, you have to choose three items to remove, because you have six items total.  Since you're the one that gets to choose, you would see three of these items go away and may choose one of the KEEP items to remove to fulfill the requirement.  This seems all by the rules at this point.

However, let's say you hold all of the KEEP items.  Now, you have two KEEP items and one other item.  Let's say you keep going and find another KEEP item.  You now have three KEEP items and one normal item.  You go mad now, for whatever reason.  At this point, your total is calculated again.  Four total items mean that you have to remove two items from your inventory.  The logic of the board dicates that either you, as the player, decide to remove two items of your own or it forces you to remove two items.  You can still choose, if you wish, to remove a KEEP item to satisfy the request.  However, since you cannot be forced to remove these items, you can instead have the logic of the board remove your one normal item.  Once it's done that, the board would then need another item...but since all the rest of your items are KEEP items, it fails to take any more items from you.  Thus, you are now able to keep all of your items.

That is the basic way the rule works in terms of the knocked out or insane status.


How are the Spiel des Jahres decisions made? The Spiel des Jahres is one of the biggest, if not the biggest award in European gaming.  It is estimated that winning Spiel des Jahres can increase the sales tenfold.

I am interested to know what process is used to come to the decisions for the winner of the Spiel des Jahres. Obviously there is a jury and a list of nominations; but how are the nominations and the final decisions about the winners made?

From the Spiel's website (the English version at least):

  Jury The jury consists solely of journalists who specialize in game
  reviews, have worked for extended periods for newspapers, magazines,
  and broadcast organizations and who have thereby proven their
  competency and ability to make sound judgments. The association's
  charter forbids jury membership to any person involved in any way with
  games publishing and sales.

  Election Procedure The jury will consider all new family and adult
  games published during the current and previous calendar year. There
  is no separate request for submissions. The election procedure goes
  through two phases: an information gathering phase and an initial
  evaluation phase.  After the two phases end, the jury meets in
  conference to create a list of candidates. From this list a shortlist
  of three nominees is selected for the main award. The winner of the
  Spiel des Jahres award is elected the evening before the announcement
  of the award.

  Judgment Criteria The nominees for the main award and the special
  awards are judged on the following aspects:

  Game idea (originality, playability, play value)
  Rules design
  (structure, clarity, understandability)
  Layout and presentation (box,
  game board, rules)
  Design (features, workmanship)

So the jury are pretty powerful as far as I can make out.  But hopefully unbiased!


Why didn't whomever created EDH allow Planeswalkers to be Commanders? I know only legendary creatures can be commanders unless stated otherwise (for example Daretti, Scrap Savant).  Have the creators of EDH ever explained why Planeswalkers cannot be commanders by default (except with rules exceptions like the one on Daretti's card)?

I'd like to know because my favorite card is Sorin, Solemn Visitor and I would've loved to make a deck around him.

The simple answer is because they didn't exist yet.  The origins of the Commander (or Elder Dragon Highlander) rule set date back to 1996, as discussed in this forum post.  They've been modified many times by various people since then.

So the real question is, why didn't the official Commander rules get modified to include Planeswalkers when they were introduced?  The most likely answer seems to be that many Planeswalkers would not be well balanced for Commander.  Searching the internet will reveal a whole lot of complaining when WoTC started allowing any Planeswalkers to be used in Commander, and Mark Rosewater discusses in this article about introducing them that

  Ethan knew there were two major hurdles the team had to overcome. One,
  they had to prove that they could make designs that would work.
  Planeswalkers are not always a perfect fit for the Commander format,
  so the design was going to be tricky.

So it seems that rather than allow them, but then go through banning a bunch that didn't work, they were just disallowed completely, and exceptions like the recent ones are just written on the card itself.


What happens when destroying something that gives flash to a spell on the stack? Say Player 1 has something like Shimmer Myr that reads:

  You may cast artifact cards as though they had flash.

Then when that player tries to cast an artifact as an instant, Player 2 places something like Naturalize on the stack to destroy target artifact (the Shimmer Myr). What happens to the artifact being cast?  What about the mana used to cast it?

Player 2 can't really stop player 1 from casting an artifact as if it had flash, outside of destroying Shimmer Myr while player 1 is tapped out.

At any given time, one player has priority. If player 2 has priority first and casts Naturalize, player 1 can respond by casting an artifact. If player 1 has priority, they can cast an artifact. Once they do so, it's on the stack and it doesn't matter if player 2 casts Naturalize; the artifact has already been cast and will eventually resolve unless it's countered.

That is, Shimmer Myr's ability only matters while they're casting the artifact. (Same goes for flash.) You check whether you're allowed to cast a spell as part of casting it, not later, and timing restrictions are part of that.


Dragon Ball Z TCCG (old style before GT came out) collectors sales costs I have have a collections of many dragon ball z tccg cards since they started to come out. I have them in a collection as well as personally played with ones (collection ones aren't played with).

I have been saving them for years to sell. The rule of thumb is that anything that is a collections gains value over time. It's been about 15-18 years since I bought these.

However, about 8 years ago I went looking for prices and I found them to be worth pennies... now I am looking again and they are even more worthless!

This game rivaled Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh back then, so I am unsure of why these cards are now worth so little, can anyone explain this to me?

These cards are out of print and not sold anywhere anymore. Many of the cards in the collection I have are holographic first edition/ second edition cards. There is no way that these are worth .35c to a 1.50 still after almost 20 years.

I’ll borrow an answer from The Street.

  The collectible market is a tricky one, and a lot of what people believe will be valuable winds up becoming completely worthless (remember that '90s Beanie Baby craze?). The sector evolves over time, and interests -- and generations -- change.

The basics of supply and demand. You unfortunately selected a collectible that has little demand.


Texas holdem who wins So in Texas holdem if two players have a straight with the same card who wins, (one player has a pair of 6s and the other player has a king)??

In Texas Hold'Em you use the strongest five-card hand that can be made using your two in-hand cards and the 5 board cards.  The two cards that you do not use are ignored completely and have no effect on the hand rankings.  (This is similar to 7-card stud and other 7-card variants)

In the example you present, it sounds like each player has an identically-ranked straight as their best five cards.  The pair of sixes would be ignored, as would the high-card king.  This would be a tie and the two players would split the pot.


Do Manifested or Morphed creatures count as tokens? Does a manifested creature or even a morph creature count as a token? I was told yes, but I was also told that a card can never be considered a token! So I'm asking you guys!

No.

Both the morph and manifest abilities that allow you to have a face-down permanent apply only to cards (morph works on creature cards in your hand, and manifest on cards from your library). The other two ways to have face-down permanents (Illusionary Mask and Ixidron) apply either to creature cards or nontoken creatures.

If some effect (e.g., Fated Infatuation) makes a token copy of a face-down creature, it will simply be a 2/2 creature with no text, name, type, nor mana cost. It cannot be turned "face up" because being "face down" is NOT a copiable characteristic. Therefore the token is not actually "face down".


What happens when a miracle trigger is copied? One of the newly spoiled cards in Magic 2014, Strionic Resonator, allows you to copy a triggered ability you control. This allows you to copy any of a number of things that previously would happen only once.

If you used this card to copy a miracle trigger such as Terminus, what happens?

You can choose to play the card for its Miracle cost on either the original or the copied triggered ability, or not at all, but not twice.
From the comprehensive rules:

702.93. Miracle

702.93a Miracle is a static ability linked to a triggered ability (see rule 603.11). "Miracle [cost]" means "You may reveal this card from your hand as you draw it if it's the first card you've drawn this turn. When you reveal this card this way, you may cast it by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost."

702.93b If a player chooses to reveal a card using its miracle ability, he or she plays with that card revealed until that card leaves his or her hand, that ability resolves, or that ability otherwise leaves the stack.

The triggered ability that gets copied is the "you may cast it (the card) by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost" part.
So now you have the revealed Miracle card in hand, and 2 of those triggers on the stack.
When the first trigger resolves, you may choose to play the card for its Miracle cost.
If you do, you cast it, and eventually the 2nd trigger gets to resolve. However, the card the trigger refers to is no longer in your hand and the trigger simply vanishes without further effect. That also applies if another effect (such as Remand) returns the card to your hand before the second trigger resolves, because it's a new object.

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

If you don't cast the card on the first trigger, the card will remain in your hand, revealed, and you may choose to cast it for its Miracle cost on resolution of the 2nd trigger.


What happens to the coins on a killed character? In the game "Oriflamme", when killing / eliminating a character in the line that hasn't been discovered and that contains influence points on it; what happens with those coins ? Are they lost, or gained by the assassin, or retrieved by the user who stacked them there in the first place ?

I've not played or heard of the game before but reading the rules file On BGG here this seems to be covered in the Resolution phase example.  (and probably should be under the 'eliminate a card' rules section as well.

The example given shows that influence on an unrevealed card is discarded when the card is discarded.

  Blue's card is a Soldier which must eliminate and adjacent card.
  Blue chooses Red's second card, and reveals it.  Blue discards the
  influence on it.

I think this means that no player gets the influence on the discarded card.


Cribbage muggins on the final hand Score after last pegging:
Player 1 (dealer) = 120
Player 2 = 114

Player 2 counts his hand first and says he has 10 points which puts him at 124 BUT, he missed 6 points in his hand. Does player 1 get those muggins and thus win the match with 126 points?

The muggins claim by Player 1 cannot be made until the peg is moved by Player 2 and released - which in this case wins the game.
Even if this is not a written official rule, it is the only sane way to play muggins. There must needs be an official start to the muggins claiming period, which definitively indicates that Player 1 is satisfied with his hand count. Moving the peg and releasing it is exactly that.

Update
Here is the official American Cribbage Congress Rules of Muggins. It specifically states (my emphasis):

Rule 10.2. Situations That Apply
Except for the situations listed in rule 10.3, muggins is applied to the underpegging of the full value of any points during the play or scoring of the points in the hand or crib.

and further down

c. For points missed in a hand or crib:

(1) The dealer must call muggins after the pone has finished pegging the score or states there is no score and before the pone's hand is mixed with other cards or the total count of the dealer's hand is announced.


Risk - Play by mail/email In Risk (or Risk Legacy), is there an established way of playing the game by mail/email/..?

I'm considering setting up a game between friends, but am struggling to work out how the moves can be played out in a manner whereby the game doesn't take forever. Is there perhaps some kind of well-established rules that would allow players to send in their moves simultaneously, without being aware of the other's actions? (ie a bit like Diplomacy, whereby the moves could be sent to an independent arbitrator who could resolve the winners of those conflicts)

Unfortunately, play-by-mail isn't really an appropriate medium to play Risk, for a number of reasons.

Gameplay is too long, even when just considering playing in person.
while only one player can "act" during a turn, defending players get to roll defending die on each attack
choices to invade where, and in what quantity, are made by evaluating the whole board--something that can't be done if played simultaneously.

Gameplay is too long

Risk can, depending on the players skill levels, take several hours.  This is with immediate feedback from rolls and direct communication. To turn it into mail adds months to complete a single game.  I'm not sure a single game of Risk can maintain engagement over that long a time.  Even with email being much faster, it still suffers the other below issues.

Defending players

It is definitely possible that the defending players' rolls can be taken by the player staging his attacks, but this has a number of drawbacks.

The defending player doesn't get the enjoyment of defending his own territories with his own rolls, and thus all he/she gets in return is a summation "sorry, you lost the following territories; they are now occupied with my armies in these quantities".

It is a necessity that the attacking armies do the rolls for both the attacking die and the defending die (whether manually or assisted with a phone app or website). If the defending player is given the opportunity to make his own rolls, that actually means EACH attack requires a round-trip of correspondence: one to declare the attack, how large, and what the rolls were; the other to defend the attack and what the rolls were.

Only after it has resolved could the attacking army know whether to press the attack, to give up, etc.

Simultaneous play

Even two players couldn't decide to play simultaneously, much less more than two.  Take for example, two armies incidentally and simultaneously attacking a third party's territory.

Whose resolves first?  This is natural to playing on a board, where you might just go clockwise, but simultaneous play will have to 'emulate' what it means to go clockwise then--and if so, then it's no longer simultaneous: whoever falls lower on the priority of his turn--his actions are pretty much null and void.

Consider players A and B attacking player C with only 1 defending unit.  If A and B both send 15 armies after C's 1 unit, and A is determined to resolve first, B's entire plan of taking a territory, then adjacent territories no longer is applicable.

Conclusion

In short, the nature of Risk is synchronous and to modify it to play via a medium--mail or email--is too much work for the reward.  If none of these are compelling enough reasons, even just consider the setting up the board: do you really want to send an email after each ONE army is placed, and have dozens or hundreds of emails (with their delay) to get the board set up?


Would enchanting an opponents Stuffy Doll with Pariah cause a Draw? I'm not sure how I haven't stumbled upon this amazing combo of cards before! I was just thinking, would it cause an infinite loop if I controlled a Pariah that was attached to an opponents Stuffy Doll?

In turn would this be a draw?

Yes, that would be a draw as soon as any damage would be dealt to you or the Stuffy Doll, assuming that you are the chosen player for Stuffy Doll.

Once damage would be dealt to you or Stuffy Doll, that damage is dealt to Stuffy Doll. Then Stuffy Doll's triggered ability triggers and it tries to deal damage to you, but it deals that damage to itself instead, which triggers its ability again. This creates an infinite loop, which results in a draw because of rule 719.4:

  If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)


Talisman - Do war horse effects stack? I just got the Sacred Pool expansion which adds a bunch of war horses to the game for the Dread Knight's sake. If you obtain two war horses, is there any reason their effects would not stack? May I add my craft to my strength in battle twice?

Flavorwise, the idea of riding multiple warhorses definitely falls flat.  However, there is nothing in the rules indicating that only one is allowed at a time.  The power is held somewhat in check due to a single loss of life in battle/combat resulting in losing all of the Warhorses.
While not answering for this specific card, the FAQ indicates that multiple "Add Craft to Strength" effects can be applied to a single battle:

Q2: Can the Monk use his inner belief to add his Craft value to his
Strength during battle and then cast the Psionic Blast Spell to add
his Craft value to his Strength again during the same battle?
A: Yes

To alleviate the flavor concerns, I like the response from this FFG Forum Post:

It seems to me that many people think it's weird because a human being
can only be mounted on one horse at any given time.  While this is
true, who says that the player is mounted during combat?  Sure it
makes the most sense, to have the horse biting and hoofing while its
rider slashes with his or her sword, but there's no reason that a well
trained warhorse couldn't be flanking and opponent with its faithful
companion.  When you consider this, two horses, or three or four or
whatever, are irrelevant.
But this is all superfluous, anyway.


Why are there generic ship class cards in Star Trek Attack Wing? The base game of Star Trek Attack Wing consists of three ships, one for the main factions.

Every ship has one ship card that marks it as a capital ship, for the Federation it naturally is the Enterprise.

Additionally, there is a generic ship card that marks the ship only as "Galaxy Class":

The generic ship is of course a little bit weaker than the capital ship. Why is this second card even there? Under what circumstances would I play with a weaker "Galaxy Class Starship" instead of the stronger "U.S.S. Enterprise"?

See that yellow starburst to the left of "U.S.S. Enterprise-D"? See also that there's no yellow starburst to the left of "Federation Starship"?

That starburst is the "Unique Icon" which denotes that the card is unique, which means you can only have one copy of it in play at any given time.

Being a Unique ship, you just can't have multiple U.S.S. Enterprise-Ds running around at once, no matter how awesome (and canonical) you might think that'd be. The Federation Starship, on the other hand, is not Unique: This means you can make a whole fleet of Galaxy-class starships if you wanted to (within your squadron point limit, of course), regardless of whether or not the U.S.S. Enterprise-D is already there.

Other than that, I guess maybe you might want to save two points and bring in the cheaper 26-cost Federation Starship instead splurging on the better 28-cost one.


Can double-faced cards still transform if they have lost all abilities? Let's say I have a Lone Rider and I've gained enough life to trigger it. Opponent is holding a Merfolk Trickster and wants to stop Lone Rider from transforming. Can opponent use Merfolk Trickster on my end step (after Lone Rider has triggered) or must opponent cast it in the main phase before the end step?

Usually removing the source of the trigger doesn't stop the trigger, but in this case, after Merfolk Trickster revolves, Lone Rider has no abilities anymore. Does an ability-less Lone Rider still "know" it can transform?

A Merfolk Trickster can stop a creature from transforming itself, but only before that creature's ability triggers (or is activated, as the case may be).

Once an ability triggers, it exists independent of the object that created it. That means that if the object changes zones or loses the ability or has its text changed in some other way, that doesn't affect the ability on the stack. And "transform" is just a keyword action that is applied to a permanent. The permanent doesn't "know it can transform", it just has ability whose effect includes that instruction.

That same keyword can be found on cards that don't themselves transform, and can be applied to permanents that don't have abilities with that keyword. For example, Waxing Moon can transform Ulvenwald Captive's back face Ulvenwald Abomination, even though Ulvenwald Abomination can't transform itself.


Do [spoilers] leave a corpse when they die? Since the quetion is about a mechanic revealed in Chapter 3, I'll leave most of it in the spoilers.

   We recently added Inhabitants to our game. The rules say that when they die, we "turn over the token representing them." Does this turned over token count as a corpse for items that would care about corpses?

Inhabitants will not create a corpse.

The term "corpse" is mentioned one time in the rulebook (not counting an example haunt), in the Dying section. This refers specifically to one of your traits moving to the skull, which kills the character and creates a corpse.

  DYING

  Once the haunt begins, if any of your traits moves to the skull, then
  you die. Tip over your figure on your tile. DROP all your Items,
  Omens, and Objects. You are now a corpse.

  Even if the traitor dies, as long as the monsters can complete the
  haunt’s goals, the monsters still get their turn (under the traitor’s
  control) and the traitor can still win.

From the Rulebook PDF

   Your traits refers to the traits of a player's character.


Acol Bridge card game I am playing game in 4 hearts and get four.  The opponents revoke on the 12th trick. If they had not revoked they would of taken us down one trick.
Do we get our four hearts?
I know a revoke does not get a penalty with the last two tricks of a hand being played.

From the ACBL Rules:

Law 62.D is first applied:

On the 12th trick, a revoke, even if established, must be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board.

In Switzerland we have the same ruling for a trick 12 Revoke.
So the revoke will be fully corrected without penalty and the hand is one down.


In Chess, Why Does Black Sometimes Play "Cramped" Openings? I'm referring to openings such as d6 (Pirc Defense) or e6 (French Defense) in answer to say, e4. These openings often make it more difficult to develop pieces than say, c5 or e5. In particular, the black squared bishop needs to be fianchettoed after d5, and the white squared bishop is locked behind a wall of pawns after e6 (and d5). For these reasons, White (almost) never begins a game with d3 or e3. A certain chess master had the opinion that "Cramped positions carry within them the germ of defeat," and would play c5 as black, whenever possible.

Do such openings (French and Pirc defenses) represent a desire for a "closed" game style of play? Could black be trying to get white to overreach? Or is it that these are among the better choices available to black, given that s/he moves second, with the other openings offering problems of their own?

"Cramped" openings are generally used by players who are good at piling up strong defenses for the opening and who hope to encourage overextension on White's part, in order to take advantage of it; or to fend it off till it has passed, and then muster an attack of their own.  After 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5, which is the common continuation of the French Defense, Black main drawback is, as you mentioned, his Queen Bishop, which cannot usually enter the play until the endgame.  However, after ... c5, attacking the newborn White Pawn chain, Black's Pawn center may become threatening, and can grow into a major defensive asset, either forcing White to give up the center, or tying down White's pieces to defense of the center.  The point is that Black has many attacking chances as well, and while his first moves appear conservative, even "cramping", he is merely being more patient than in the alternative openings.  He uses more moves to get where he wants, but the extra moves can reap dividends when White comes to attack.

So a closed opening which is handled by a patient player holds much potential defensive advantage, and it is often played with a definite view toward strong reactions after White has burnt himself out trying to effect a successful attack.

Naturally, not all closed openings are effective.  More than one kind of cramped opening exists: the kind that looks cramped, but is in reality compact and smooth (closed), and then there is also the kind that is really unworkable and impossible to manipulate (cramped).  The latter turn into big mistakes, even worse than they look, especially when played by one who is more used to aggressive technique than the patient biding of time.  It wouldn't be recommended to play these unless you are the patient type, or unless you can force yourself to play quietly and defensibly until it's time to strike.

Edited later to say that there are closed openings for White, as well.


Do these count as electronics for the purpose of Electro? I played munchkin marvel for the first time last night and had a problem when we encountered the monster Electro.

The munchkin marvel faq (sorry, need to ctrl f to it) did not answer the issue we had.

  Q. Which cards count as "electronic devices" for Electro?
  A. None. Electro's text means actual electronic devices: smart phones, laptops, etc.

Our issue was centered on what was an electronic device. One of us had a wallet on the table and a player with an engineering physics degree argued that all of the cards with tap and pay type technology counted, but that chip cards and swipe cards were not. There was also a phone which had some high tech stylus which had a button and was argued that it was part of the phone as well as being its own electronic device. Are these valid examples of electronics?

The most basic definition of electronic device is probably anything which has one or more transistors (or possibly diodes), and which is thus leveraging the tunneling of electrons across a heterogeneous semi-conductor boundary.

  Electronic devices are components for controlling the flow of electrical currents for the purpose of information processing and system control. Prominent examples include transistors and diodes.

I would agree with your Eng. Phys. friend on everything except for chip devices. The chip on a chip card is actually a small CPU which receives power once inserted into the reader, thus clearly passing the possessing transistors test:

  The computer chip inside a chip and PIN card functions like a small computer. Not only can the chip store data, but it's also a data processor. One of the reasons why chip and PIN cards are so secure is that the chip uses cryptography to protect secure data when communicating with a card reader. The chip itself has no power source, but it leaps into action when it comes in contact with a checkout terminal.

However, as with all Munchkin games, the final rule arbiter is always the owner of the primary game set being played.

  Any other dispute should be settled by loud argument, with the owner of the game having the last word.