Forbidden Island - Extending to 5 players I'm having friends over this weekend and we are going to play Forbidden Island, we are 5 all in all and was wondering if we can play Forbidden Island with 5 players. Are there any adjustments to be made? Will the additional player make the game too easy or all in all break the game?

Thanks!

I tried: you can, but each difficulty level is to be considered one lower.

In order to be able to have a chance to win with your friend if they have never played the game and that you want to start easy, you have to put the water cursor below the first line, adding a new level of difficulty: "extra-novice".

But if you intend to have more than 4 players regularly, may I suggest you buy another cooperative game that is suitable for 5?

Atlantis Rising (2-6 players) takes some of the same principle of drowning land, without being exacly the same game.
Battlestar Galactica (3-6 players) is a team vs team game, except you don't know in which team you are until the middle of the game.
Shadows over Camelot (3-7 players) allows each player to follow his own quest, but be sure to find the traitor and don't let him ruin your work!
Hanabi (2-5 players) asks every player to launch fireworks by playing cards in the right order (exactly like Ligretto) except you hold your cards backwards and everybody sees them except you.
There are 3319 co-operative games (when I write this answer) listed on Board Game Geek!


Is there any "simultaneous-turn" based game where all players play till the end of the game? I use to play diplomacy with my work mates, the good thing of this game is that we can play with long turns (36 hours) so anyone can play whenever they can, and the turn is resolved when the time passes or when everybody has declared their movements. We use http://webdiplomacy.net/ to manage the movements.

The bad thing of diplomacy is that the usual thing is that around mid-game some players are destroyed and they stop playing, having to wait till the end of the game (what can mean even weeks) to start playing again in a new game. Playing more than one game in parallel is not an option, we tried that and is a bit crazy, and requires much more time every day.

Do you know any game with similar turn-based rules but where the players can keep playing along the whole game?

UPDATE: After some discussion, more explicit requirements:

All turns are played asynchronously (each player can choose all
their actions for the turn at any time).
All actions of each turn are played simultaneously.
All players can play along the whole game (no player elimination).

Nice to have:

During the turn time some type of negotiation is encouraged between players.
Web version.
Game for more than 4 players.

As an example, Diplomacy would fit with all requirements except the third one, and also with the nices to have.

Yes, A Game of Thrones is such a game. While a complete elimination is possible, the game plays in 10 rounds, and it is very difficult to achieve a complete elimination.
Many people say the game plays similarly to Diplomacy.

To begin the game, each player receives an army of Footman, Knight, Siege Engine, and Ship units, as well as a set of Order tokens and other necessary components. Each player also receives a deck of unique House Cards, which are used as leaders in battles against rival Houses.
Each round in the game is made up of three phases: the Westeros Phase, the Planning Phase, and the Action Phase. The Westeros Phase represents special events and day-to-day activities in Westeros. There are three different Westeros Decks, and each denotes a different global action, potentially affecting all players.
The Planning Phase is perhaps the most important. Here you secretly assign orders to all of your units by placing one order token face down on each area you control that contains at least one unit (Knight, Footman, Ship, or Siege Engine). This portion of the game emphasizes diplomacy and deduction. Can you trust the alliance that you made? Will you betray your ally and march upon him? Players may make promises to each other (for aid or peace, for example), but these promises are never binding. The result is tense and compelling negotiations, often ending in backstabbing worthy of Westeros!
During the Action Phase, the orders are resolved and battle is entered! When armies meet in combat, they secretly choose one of their House cards to add strength to the battle. Finally, the Houses can consolidate their power in the areas they control and use that power in future turns to influence their position in the court of the Iron Throne and to stand against the wildling Hordes.


Can I transform Westvale Abbey during either assign attackers or assign blockers phase Wanting to know if it is possible to sacrifice creatures during assign attackers or assign blockers in order to transform Westvale Abbey and use him as an attacker or blocker.  It would also require taping lands to generate the mana required or maybe artifacts.

You can transform Westvale Abbey at several points of the Combat phase and potentially use Ormendahl as an attacker or blocker.
The Abbey's abilities other than its mana ability are normal activated abilities that require you to have priority.
There are 5 steps to combat:

506.1. The combat phase has five steps, which proceed in order: beginning of combat, declare attackers, declare blockers, combat damage, and end of combat.

During beginning of combat, everyone gets priority in APNAP order and you can transform Westvale Abbey. This is your last chance to transform if you want Ormendahl as an attacker this turn, and the other players will still get the opportunity to play instant spells and abilities after the Abbey has transformed.

Beginning of Combat Step

507.2. Second, the active player gets priority.

After everyone has passed priority, attackers are declared. If you are the attacking player, you can declare Ormendahl as an attacking creature if you controlled the permanent (Abbey/Ormendahl) uninterrupted since the  beginning of your turn, i.e. it has no summoning sickness. Directly afterwards, players again have the opportunity to cast spells and activate abilities. If you want Ormendahl as a blocker, now is your last chance to transform the Abbey.

Declare Attackers Step

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. [..]
508.2. Second, the active player gets priority. [..]

Note that this means that as soon as the declare attackers step has started, anything that isn't already a creature cannot be declared to attack, and it's too late to transform the Abbey.
Next, blockers are declared (including another round of priority). Again, anything that isn't already a creature can't be declared a blocker.

Declare Blockers Step

509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers.
509.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority.

Finally, damage is dealt and combat ends.


What is the best method to make new Settlers like tiles I am trying to make some new Settlers tiles and would like to know what is the best method to make Settlers like tiles that are roughly the same size and thickness to standard settlers tiles with a custom printed image.

If you have access to a die-cutting press, as many teachers might, one can buy a hexagon press die.

Google Sizzix/Westminster Bigz Dies  Hexagon and you find several sizes.

They make a block of 6x 3/4" and 1" hexes (suitable for counters), and one of 4x 2" hexes, and one which does 2.5" hexes.

Check your local craft stores and school supply stores.

The presses run from $50 to several hundred dollars, and the dies $20 to $50 apiece, so this is not an inexpensive solution. Nor is it efficient; you'll need to manually line up the graphic. It will, however, allow for leather, magnet, chipboard, and other non-paper samples to be easily made in a regular size.

Using them without a suitable press requires a firm hand, a smooth hard surface, and a rolling pin that can take your weight...


Scion of the Ur-Dragon and Torrent of Souls When Scion of the Ur-Dragon enters the battlefield it attracts a lot of hate. So my plan is to reanimate it using Torrent of Souls to hit a surprise 16 damage attack using Scion's ability to copy Atarka, World Render. To do this I need to copy Atarka first and then attack. I want to know if Scion will lose the haste obtained from Torrent of Souls when it copy Atarka. Are there other sources of haste that disappear when Scions copy a dragon?

Determining how continuous effects interact is done using a system of layers (see also: How do Layers work?)

Copy
Control
Text
Type
Color
Add/Remove
Power

In this case, Torrent and Scion both create continuous effects that affect the P/T and abilities. Layers gives us the order in which to apply them, even if the effects were created in a different order.

Scion's copy ability applies in layer 1. So, there, it becomes a copy of Atarka.
Torrent's haste and +2/+0 are applied in layers 6 and 7. So, "Atarka" gains haste and +2/+0.

When "Atarka" attacks, it gains another ability in layer 6. It doesn't conflict with anything, so it's just added. So, you'd have an 8/4 Flying Haste Double-Strike after declare attackers.


If a creature with an effect is destroyed by blocking do other attacking creatures lose the effect? I have a Rageblood Shaman that says:

  Other Minotaur creatures you control get +1/+1 and have trample.

If I attack with it and multiple other creatures any my opponent blocks it and destroys it do my other creatures still have +1/+1 and trample when their damage is dealt?

I think I might have found my own answer writing this ask but I'll post it so others can comment if I'm wrong and learn if I'm right:

Yes given rule 510.2 which says:

  510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt. This is a change from previous rules.

If combat damage is done simultaneously then the damage is done to the Rageblood Shaman at the same time that the other creatures affected by the Shaman are dealing damage, thus it has not been destroyed yet and the effect still applies.


Can I get help identifying these models? These models were for sale on a site and I was wondering if anyone could help me identify what these models actually are before I decided to buy them.

Looks like two Space Marine Commander. That box can be used as either a Captain or a Lieutenant.

This box set contains one multi-part plastic Space Marine Commander, including nine different weapon options, three variant heads and additional parts to further customise your model.

Left is a Captain with a combi-plasma and a power fist; Right is a Lieutenant with two power swords.


Is Splendor accessible to those with red-green color-blindness? I was recently discussing Splendor with a friend who in turn has a friend who's colorblind, and my friend was wondering whether his friend would be able to play the game.  Color-coding shows up in several places; on the chips and the tops of cards the gem types also have different shapes, so someone who can't distinguish colors would still be able to tell them apart, but the prices on the cards and the nobles have consistent shapes.  Thus, it comes down to whether those particular shades of red and green can be distinguished.

Board Game Geek has the following photo of game components, though it would probably be better if the question could be answered from direct experience and not from a photo (which can distort colors):

(source: geekdo-images.com)

OK, I have red green colorblindness.  It comes in a continuum from "severe" to "mild".  I am near the midpoint (sort of halfway between mild and severe, called "partial"), so there are people worse than me.  Note that while the term refers to red and green, it really isn't that red and green can't be distinguished, but is more complicated (having to do with the sensitivity of the various cells in the retina).  For example I often find blue and purple the hardest to distinguish in games that use those colors, because I'm less sensitive to the red that distinguishes them.  Also, if the game was designed with this type of colorblindness in mind, they might use, for example, baby blue and really dark purple, so that the saturation can be used to distinguish them.  Although I might not be able to name them, I can tell them apart.  I like games that have taken the care to make this additional distinction.

So, enough background, on to the actual answer.  All this later discussion is based on my red green colorblindness, if it's a different kind or a different severity, some of these conclusions might be different.  In fact, growing up I knew someone who was completely colorblind and only saw shades of gray.  That would be completely different.

In the picture in the question, I do have a little difficulty telling some of the colors apart.  However, in the larger version of that picture that you link to, I see the following colors as backgrounds to the numbers (what your comment said were important to distinguish): White, Green, Red, Black, and Blue.  If there's supposed to be an additional color, that's the one I can't distinguish.  When the red and the green are on the same card I can easily see which is which, but they are sort of close.  The card that you point out in a comment (second row, third card) is, in fact, the hardest for me to distinguish, but I'm pretty sure it's red over black.  But I got this by comparing it to a nearby card that had both, I'm not really sure how easy it would be in complete isolation.

And that brings up another point about playability that I've found important as someone partially colorblind.  Does the game have the players hold cards that are "secret" or not?  If there actually aren't any secret cards, I can ask other players about the colors I can't tell (which may give away some strategy info), but if there are secret cards that I have to do the color distinction on that are in my hand and not near the board, I can't do a side-by-side to tell, and I can't ask.  So that makes it harder.

On the other hand, if the backs of the cards need to be distinguished, I can tell you that in that picture the two lower face down stacks look like they are supposed to be different colors, but I'm not sure and definitely couldn't tell which of the two a particular card in isolation was supposed to be.

Now, the page you pointed to has a link to an even larger version of that picture.  Having clicked through to that, I can tell you that in that picture, I have no problem distinguishing any of these colors, even the card backs are clearly different in that picture.

Actually having stared at the larger photo a bit as I wrote this, I think I've actually played this game once and don't remember it as one of the "no play" games.  Having thought this, I clicked through to the description page at BGG, and, sure enough, I remember it.  So, unless your friend's friend is severely Red Green Colorblind, it should not be a problem.  I can't really be sure about more severe cases, but that's my guess.  And, again, if the nature of the colorblindness is not red green colorblindness, then none of this applies.


What is the logic behind the bean cards to be removed from the deck in Bohnanza? With 3 players, remove the Cocoa Beans
  from the game.

  With 4 or 5 players,
  remove the Coffee Beans from the game.

  With 6 or 7 players , remove the Cocoa
  Beans and the Garden Beans from the
  game.

What's the logic behind this? Is there any reason cocoa beans only work with a medium number of players? I can see the potential logic of wanting to keep them occurring at a certain frequency, but how does that 'improve' the game. It they are common, players will scramble to get them due to rarity, and with more players they will be powerful in trade. These are key elements to the game, and I don't see why the rules specifically try to prevent these conditions that are just a natural part of the game. Same thing with coffee beans, why do the most common beans only work with a medium number of players? What effect will changing these rules have on the game?

It seems clear that the very valuable, very scarce beans will work best when there are neither too many nor too few players at the table.  With too many players, these beans are too hard to make work: if you take a risk and plant one, at a competitive table you may never be allowed to plant another!  Conversely, with too few players, these beans are too easy to make work: you stand a good chance of just randomly drawing into them on your turn and making a killing.

I suspect the Coffee Beans exist to make up the numbers in games where the Cocoa and/or Garden beans have been removed.  They are a pretty generic bean, plentiful and of low value, unlikely to rock any boats.  I don't think the Coffee beans would be unbalanced in a 3/6/7 player game in and of themselves; but they need to be removed just because, if you'll allow me to mix my metaphors, too many beans spoil the broth.  The more types of bean you have in the mix at any one time, the more random the draws become, and the less easy it is to discern a hopefully optimal strategy.  (Equally, of course, too few beans makes it too easy to see the "best" plays.)

Keeping the number of beans in play down to 9 or 10 at any one time keeps it easy, but not too easy, to wrap your head around the numbers of what's going on.  If you just want a fun, random, noisy bean-collecting game where you don't really care about the finer points of game balance or cutthroat competitive strategy, I'd suggest that it's probably not worth your while removing and adding different types of beans between every game.  Depends entirely on your motivations for playing Bohnanza!


How does this ability resolve? Mizzix of the Izmagnus has an ability that gives you an experience counter as long as you cast an instant or sorcery that is of a higher cost. If I have 5 copies of him and 4 experience counters, and I play an instant that has a converted mana cost of 5, will I get 5 experience counters as they all trigger at the same time?

You get 5 experience counters, because the "with converted mana cost greater than the number of experience counters you have" is checked only when determining if the ability triggers. It is not checked when the ability resolves.

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose.

Note that this would work differently if the ability were worded

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, if its converted mana cost is greater than the number of experience counters you have, you get an experience counter.

In that situation, the ability has an "intervening 'if' clause", which would cause the "if" condition to be checked again when the ability resolves, and the "if" would only be true for the first trigger to resolve; it would fail for the rest.

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

Only mentioning this to point out that Mizzix does not have an intervening "if" clause, and thus it doesn't matter how many experience counters you have when each ability resolves.


In Terraforming Mars, do special tiles count as tiles you own when placing greenery tiles? When placing a greenery tile in Terraforming Mars, you have to place it next to a tile you own. Let's say all you own is the "Mining Rights" tile and you are now playing a greenery tile. Do you have to play your greenery tile next to it?

Yes.

Special tiles have your player marker on them, so they are your tiles, just like greenery or city tiles.

From the rules, page 5:

  Special tiles: Some cards allow you to place
  special tiles. Any function or placement
  restriction is described on the card. Place the
  tile, and place a player marker on it.

And

  Player markers: Each player uses his own color
  to mark TR, ownership of tiles, production
  (see page 6), and to indicate used blue card
  actions (see page 11).


Do Collective Restraint and Nylea's Presence work together in a non-5-color EDH deck? Say I have a four-color commander deck that includes blue and green. I have a Collective Restraint on the field and I cast Nylea's Presence on one of my lands. Do my opponents need to pay 5 to attack me now, even though my deck is missing a color of mana?

Yes.

Since Nylea's Presence turns the enchanted land into every basic land type, it means that you have all basic land types under your control. Whether you could have originally have them or not doesn't matter to either continuous effect of your enchantments.

Here's a ruling that supports this:

  2/1/2009: A number of nonbasic lands have basic land types. Domain abilities don't count the number of lands you control — they count the number of basic land types among lands you control, even if that means checking the same land twice. For example, if you control a Tundra, an Overgrown Tomb, and a Madblind Mountain, you'll have a Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest among the lands you control. Your domain abilities will be maxed out.

This doesn't refer specifically to your question, but as you can see, since your enchanted land will have every basic land type, Collective Restraint's ability will consider it as being a Forest Mountain Swamp Island Plains land.


Does Alien Fuel Refinery count as having a trade power in Race for the Galaxy? In Race for the Galaxy, does the Alien Fuel Refinery restriction ("you may not trade a good from this world") count as a "trade power" for the purposes of Trade League, or in other words do I score a point for having Alien Fuel Refinery in my tableau if I also play Trade League?

It seems a bit strange to me that Trade League gives you points for not being able to trade, but (unless I've miscounted) Keldon's AI thinks that it does. Is there anything more official out there as a ruling on this one?

It does count. The Alien Artifact rules actually cover this!

  Consume powers, such as Trade League’s power, can be used.
  Trade League and Wormhole Prospectors do score for this world.

Similarly, the Brink of War rules explicitly state that Trade League does score for the can't sell power of Alien Oort Cloud Refinery (bottom of page 13)


King of Tokyo - All Monsters in Tokyo Is it possible for all monsters (in a 3 player game) to be in Tokyo at once? If so, how is damage inflicted? How can a monster leave if no damage is inflicted?

No.

If there are 4 or fewer players currently in the game (i.e. not including players who have been eliminated), then there can only be 1 monster in Tokyo, occupying Tokyo City. The only way for another monster to enter Tokyo is for the monster in Tokyo to leave, and unless someone uses an ability to kick the monster in Tokyo out, then this only happens if a player damages the monster in Tokyo, causing them to yield (and hence leave Tokyo).

If there are 5 or more players, then Tokyo Bay is also available to be occupied by a single monster. If the monster in Tokyo City leaves, then the monster in Tokyo Bay moves to the City and the monster who caused the departure moves into Tokyo Bay. If both monsters leave Tokyo, then the monster who caused their departure moves into Tokyo City and Tokyo Bay remains unoccupied until another player rolls claws.


Clarification re: Nazgul and characters, can you attack them as a single? I haven't played War of the Ring yet - I'm reading through the rules and I have a question that needs clarifying.
For ordinary Free People leaders, they always have to be with an army, so that's simple, and no worries
For Nazgul however, the rules (2nd edition, p8) say:

The Nazgul are not obliged to be part of a friendly Army and can move on their own, flying to any region (even regions containing Free Peoples units) on the game board with a single movement.

And regarding characters, both Free Peoples and Shadow:

In game terms, Characters act much the same as Leaders, but they do not suffer the same restrictions and can move on the game board on their own, ignoring the presence of enemy Armies.

Now as I understand it, leaders and characters don't offer any combat strength themselves. All they're good for is rerolls (and character abilities).
The question I have then, say the Shadow player flies their Nazgul to adjacent the current known location of the ringbearers, but then Free Peoples player musters and moves some armies:
Does this result in combat? The Nazgul having no combat strength, it instantly dying?
Same goes for Characters. Say the Free People player has split off some companions and they're heading toward a city and get caught by a Shadow army, do they instantly die?
Or does the army just occupy the same territory and no combat ensues?

Combat can only occur between 2 armies. Companions or minions by themselves do not form an army. They are only part of an army if there are friendly army units in the same region.
They cannot be killed when they are in a region without friendly army units. (Except when specifically mentioned on a card, like the Ent-cards kill Saruman)
They are perfectly fine walking (or flying) about in the same region as characters or armies of the opposing side.

The question I have then, say the Shadow player flies their Nazgul to adjacent the current known location of the ringbearers, but then Free Peoples player musters and moves some armies:
Does this result in combat? The Nazgul having no combat strength, it instantly dying?

No. Nothing happens. There are no Shadow units in the region, so the Nazgul are not part of an army.


Are the Germans' winning chances in Afrika Korps concentrated in 1941? I played several games as a teenager, but never lasted beyond November 1941 on either side. That's when the British get massive reinforcements for Operation Crusader.

As I remember, the Operation Crusader reinforcements were very nearly the size of the whole original German force. So the Germans win if they capture Alexandria before the British get the Crusader reinforcements, and maybe they can win if the original British force is on its "last legs," by November, 1941 so that the Crusader reinforcements don't give the British the advantage.

My recollection was that the Germans received somewhat more reinforcements for part of 1942, but they also have severe supply problems then. Do they have a "second chance" if they haven't beaten the original force and the Crusader reinforcements piecemeal? Or are their winning chances "bunched" before November, 1941?

To quote from John Lockwood's excellent article Afrika Korps Theory (Avalon Hill GENERAL, Sep/Oct 1980, Vol. 17 #3):

  Once November [1941] rolls around, most British players breathe a big
  sigh of relief, thinking that the game is won. Although the British
  receive a big boost in their force position and may even outnumber the
  Germans on the board, the advantage is not entirely in he British
  favor. For one thing the supply table from December 1941 until the end
  of the game is highly favourable to the Germans. As illustrated earlier
  they will be enabled to maintain a constant attack for as many as 75%
  of the remaining turns. Coupled with their ten factors of replacements
  this bodes ill for the British if they are backed up too close to their
  home base. ....

The middle game in Afrika Korps can be regarded as beginning once Tobruk has been invested by the Germans; the end game once Alexandria has likewise been invested, or nearly so. However just as in Go, the endgame can be quite lengthy. It is an endgame because the strategic positional phase portion of the game has completed, and only tactically significant positional considerations remain. In a game between two strong players this slugging match at Alexandria and then Tobruk (usually) will decide the match, according to the small advantages each has managed to accumulate in getting there. This rarely starts before November 1941 for two strong players.


What are all the previous Oracle text revisions for Time Vault? On Gatherer, I can see the original wording for Time Vault:

  Tap to gain an additional turn after the current one. Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn. Time Vault begins tapped.

And I can see the most recent errata:

  Time Vault enters the battlefield tapped.
  Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
  If you would begin your turn while Time Vault is tapped, you may skip that turn instead. If you do, untap Time Vault.
  Tap: Take an extra turn after this one.

Using Google, I was able to find a few more revisions:

  Time Vault comes into play tapped.
  Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
  Skip your next turn: Untap Time Vault and put a time counter on it.
  T, Remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability if only there's a time counter on Time Vault.

  Time Vault comes into play tapped.
  Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
  At the beginning of your upkeep you may untap Time Vault. If you do, put a time counter on it and you skip your next turn.
  T, Remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability only if there's a time counter on Time Vault.

  Time Vault comes into play tapped.
  If Time Vault would become untapped, instead choose one -- untap Time Vault and you skip your next turn; or Time Vault remains tapped.
  T: Take an extra turn after this one.

... But are there any more versions? For the sake of historical curiosity, I'm interested in seeing every revision listed in one place.

According to MtG Goldfish the different erratas of Time Vault are as follows.

1993, the original printing:

  Tap to gain an additional turn after the current one. Time Vault doesn't untap normally during untap phase; to untap it, you must skip a turn. Time Vault begins tapped.

1996, made some power level errata to make it go from broken to useless:

  Does not untap as normal. If Time Vault is tapped and does not have a time counter, you may skip your turn to untap Time Vault and put a time counter on it. {tap}: Remove the time counter from Time Vault to take an additional turn immediately before the next normal turn.

1998 & 2004, edited the template to match current rules. (this is the 2004 text):

  Time Vault comes into play tapped.
  Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
  Skip your next turn: Untap time vault and put a time counter on it.
  {T}, Remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability if only there's a time counter on Time Vault.

March 2006, to stop an unintended combo with  Flame Fusillade abusing unlimited untaps:

  Time Vault comes into play tapped.
  Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
  At the beginning of your upkeep you may untap Time Vault. If you do put a time counter on it and you skip your next turn.
  {T} Remove all time counters from Time Vault: Take an extra turn after this one. Play this ability only if there's a time counter on Time Vault.

July 2006, as far as I can tell there isn't a reason for this eratta (other than bad Mizzium Transreliquat combos):

  Time Vault comes into play tapped.
  If Time Vault would become untapped, instead choose one -- untap Time Vault and you skip your next turn or Time Vault remains tapped.
  {T}: Take an extra turn after this one.

2008, Wizards finally decides to remove all power level errata and returns Time Vault to its original functionality just with an updated template:

  Time Vault enters the Battlefield tapped.
  Time Vault doesn't untap during your untap step.
  If you would begin your turn while Time Vault is tapped, you may skip that turn instead. If you do, untap Time Vault.
  {T}: Take an extra turn after this one.


Which has to be declared first: Marklights or Jink? Situation: A squad of (jet)bikes has several Markerlights on them. The tau player is about to shoot at them with some Plasma or other weapon w/ low enough AP to punch their armor.

Does the Tau player have to declare Markerlight usage before Bike player Jinks? Or do the Bikes have to declare Jink before finding out whether the Tau player is going to use the Markerlights to ignore cover?

I am ONLY concerned with 7th Edition rules. 6th Edition was clear cut as Jink was automatic.

ETA:
Jink (7th Edition):

  When a unit with any models with the jink special rule is selected as
  a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will jink. the
  decision must be made before any of the to hit rolls have been made.
  If the unit jinks all models in the unit with this special rule gain a
  4+ cover save until the start of their next movement phase, but they
  can only fire snap shots until the end of their next turn.

The reason its important is not for the jinking itself, because you don't "roll" jinking, you are simply given a 4+ cover, which doesn't even come into play until you take potential damage. The defending player can't avoid it, Scour doesn't remove jinking or strip cover saves directly, it simply gives all weapons shooting the "Ignores Cover" rule. It doesn't matter if the jinking player declares it before or after, he ain't getting his cover save.

This is why you can't get Cover Saves from Markerlights because they don't inflict wounds and you only get cover saves from inflicted wounds/pen or glancing hits.

But its still important because Jink makes you fire Snap Shots. So if the defending player knows he's not getting Cover Saves anyway, he can wait for you to use the Scour ability -2 counters and then let you waste it by not Jinking at all. That way, if the unit survives, it isn't on Snap Shots.

I agree that the word MAY for Jink specifies that anytime within the Select Target steps does the player determine Jinking in effect so long as it is done before rolls are made, even waiting until after the first weapon is selected.

Markerlights are more restrictive, and specify "immediately" before a unit shoots their use must be declared, but how they are expended is declared before the shooting attack, which I agree is before the first weapon is selected (which is part of the shooting attack).

So before you state the weapon you are using, those counters must be used. Markerlight declaration is very clearly before that and the defending player can choose anytime before To Hit rolls.

Tau are my primary army so I'm hurting myself by honorably letting my opponents know before I nominate anything to shoot.


Sakashima's Student and Stinkdrinker Bandit I play a rogue tribal deck that features Stinkdrinker Bandit. I plan on putting Sakashima's Student in.

When an unblocked Rogue I control attacks, I'd switch it with Sakashima's Student and have it copy a StrinkDrinker Bandit on the board. Say, I also have other attackers that are unblocked. Does Sakashima's Student's copied ability of Stinkdrinker Bandit apply to the other unblocked attackers as well as itself?

No, the Ninjutsu'd Stinkdrinker Bandit's ability will not trigger.

Stinkdrinker Bandit's ability is a triggered ability. When the defending player has decided on his blockers, it triggers for every Rogue that is now unblocked. It will not trigger again during the current combat phase.

If you want to Ninjutsu your Stinkdrinker Bandit with Sakashima's Student, you can only do so after blockers have already been declared because of Ninjutsu's  timing restrictions: An unblocked creature is any attacking creature that, after the blockers have been declared, has not been assigned a blocker. By that time, it's too late for the copied Stinkdrinker Bandit to trigger his ability.

For your combo to work, Stinkdrinker Bandit's ability would have to be a static ability and read something like "Attacking and unblocked Rogues you control get +2/+1". In that case, it wouldn't matter when the Stinkdrinker Bandit would enter the battlefield, as long as it's before the end of combat.


How has the rise of limited formats affected MTG set design? One of the great thing about playing limited is that you have to work with what you've got, no matter how bad it is. This means that even some of the worst cards will occasionally see limited play even if they would have zero chance of making it into a competitive constructeddeck. I assume this has had a strong effect on how Wizards of The Coast designs their cards (especially commons), but I'm curious as to how designing a set for limited AND constructed formats as opposed to constructed only has affected their choices.

What sets were the first to be influenced by the rise of limited formats?
How did/do limited formats affect the design of MTG sets and cards?

Can't answer number one but there have been a number of articles published regarding number 2. When designing sets Wizards takes a serious look at the rarity of each card and its effect on limited. Its okay for a mythic rare to be completely, off the wall busted in limited (though they do try to avoid it) because the odds of pulling that card will be so low that it won't have much effect on any given limited tournament. Odds are even in a tournament with 16 people and 3 packs per person that card might not show up at all. The odds are even lower that that specific mythic will show up more than once and even lower still that the same person will be able to get it more than once.

Uncommons and especially commons on the other hand are a different animal. Its a common occurrence in drafts for players to have multiple copies of common and an uncommon cards and for multiple players to have copies of those cards thus the power level of these cards in relation to the rest of the limited environment needs to be more closely tested. Similarly because the bulk of all limited decks will be commons and uncommons wizards needs to make sure of a couple of things.

First they need to make sure that certain roles are filled by the commons and uncommons. This is the reason there will always be some form of common creature removal, common mana fixing (espescially true in a multi color oriented set) and likely some form of common draw and common non-creature removal. It is also one of the reasons that every set will contain common red burn, common blue draw, common green creature pump, common white weenie cards, common black discard ect.

If the set has a new theme or mechanic to it, as most sets do (I can't think of any in recent years that don't) Wizards also needs to make sure those themes and mechanics appear in some form or fashion at the lower rarities and that there is synergy among the cards at those rarities.


Playing around a flag bearer I'm playing a mono-Green infect Pauper deck that relies heavily on instant-speed pump spells in order to win. My opponent ruins my day pretty badly by playing a Standard Bearer:

Fortunately, my deck also has Vines of Vastwood and Ranger's Guile.

It occurs to me that I might be able to play one of these spells on the Standard Bearer, rendering it an illegal target for that turn, then play my other spells on my own creatures as intended. But will this actually work? I'm not sure about the subtleties of interpreting these effects when the target creature and the spell have different controllers, and I didn't get a chance to try it before the match ended.

Unfortunately, neither of these spells will help you in this situation.

Vines of Vastwood, sadly, doesn't actually grant hexproof.  It appears to, as it has the same wording (and the latest Oracle text keeps this wording), but it doesn't actually give hexproof to the creature. This is an important distinction, because even if you play it on an opponent's creature, it doesn't prevent your spells or abilities, only those of your opponents, as worded.
(It really should be reworded to hexproof, but it hasn't been.)

Ranger's Guile is no use for a simpler reason: you can't cast it on the Standard Bearer, because it can only target a creature you control. Even the Standard Bearer's ability doesn't redirect Ranger's Guile; as the bearer isn't a legal target for the Guile, the ability never triggers.


Whist Variant with points suit This variant played as a normal Whist, with the last card dealt face-up to determine the trump suit.  the other suit with the same color as the trump suit is now the point suit.  For example, if hearts is trump, then diamonds is point.
There are there new rules:

You get points by how many point-suited cards your partnership has taken (same as in Hearts).
The "breaking hearts" rule - A player can not lead with a point suit until a point suit has been discarded. This rule to prevent the partners with high point suits from dominating the game early.
Point cards are anti-trump - If a player leads with a point suit, then any other suit can trump it. (Trump will trump non-trump trumps, obviously).

(Personal Note: This variation also makes use of the fact that there are four suits but only two colors in a traditional deck, which always bothered me a little.)
Questions:

Are there any problems with this variation which make it unplayable, or unbalanced?

Is there a way to exploit the rules, or a way to play where understanding the rules more deeply conveys an advantage?

Does this variation add to the complexity and fun of the game, or is it merely a complication which adds nothing unique or interesting to standard whist?

Would the game play better with only one of the rules rather than both?

After some play-testing with friends, the complexity was intimidating, and so we settled on these rules:

  The last card is dealt face up, and it is the point suit.

  There is no trump suit.

  You cannot lead with a point suit until a point suited card has been discarded.

  When a point suit is led, any other card can trump it.

The results were interesting: Once players caught on to the game, they would discard points often rather than hording them, hoping their partners can pick them back up.  Teamwork seemed more vital in this variation than any trick taking game I've played.

It turned out that having a both trump suit AND an anti-trump suit was an unnecessary complication. The goal was to acquire point-cards which could be trumped by any card, and so having a trump suit felt superfluous.

Alternatively, we played the following variation:

  The trump suit is the last card dealt, the point suit is the other
  suit of the same color as the trump suit.

  The point suit cannot be led until a point suited card has been
  discarded.

  The point suit is a normal suit, and is not trumped by  any suit
  except the Trump suit.

This variation worked well, and it satisfied my requirement that the game make use of the fact that there are four suits but only two colors.

However the first variation in this answer seemed more fun.  I'm not sure why.


Mustangs and Messerschmitts Rules I am looking for a copy of the rules to a long since gone game called Mustangs and Messerschmitts. Does anyone have a source to the rules?

Available for sale in PDF form from https://www.wargamevault.com/product/219901/Mustangs-and-Messerschmitts


Making sense of this app's territory resolution In this "Go Free" Android app, I'm trying to make sense of the information it presents, in an effort to better understand the game.

In the screenshot below:

I'd be grateful for any assistance understanding these points:

Marked with α, how is the (assumingly) score/territory value, B: -13.5, calculated? (and why is it called B anyway?). I mean, I, as the black player, have 9 black squares (territories?), while the white has 13 squares + one circle (obviously denotes a value of half...), so shouldn't it be 9 - 13.5, meaning -4.5 ?
Marked with β, why does this black stone have white dot? What does it mean?
When there are closed areas, I understand that the enclosed zones are called "territories", but in this screenshot there are still no surrounded areas, so why this app marks certain spots with territory squares (black & white squares)?

The score is B: because you're playing black, and it's showing your score.
The black stone with the white circle on it is probably being scored as a dead stone right now - it's inside White's "territory".
Many apps do this if you try to score in the middle of the game - they estimate which parts of the board each player will end up with, and show a score based on that.  These estimates are usually not very accurate.

White gets some extra points called komi, because moving second is a disadvantage.  It looks like this game is probably giving White 7.5 komi.  I'll add this up using Chinese scoring, so you get one point for each point of territory you have surrounded, and each stone that is alive.  Black has nine points of territory and two living stones, for a total of 11.  White has 14 points of territory (the one under the "dead" black stone counts too) and three living stones, giving 17.  Once we add in 7.5 komi, black is behind by 13.5.


Commanders with at least four colors in their color identity I am looking for a list of all legendary creatures with the number of colors in their color identity equal to or greater than four.

In Gatherer I can only get a list using the mana colors in the cost of the cards. For example: WUBRG spells.

I would really appreciate if someone can help me with this.

The four-color commanders in Commander 2016 were a big deal because there weren't any before. (People sometimes use the Nephilim, but they're not actually legendary.) So, there are the five-color ones you already know how to find, and the five from Commander 2016.

It's not too hard to go through all the possibilities to confirm this, but since there's only one result for each query, these searches all currently redirect right to the card:

WUBR
WUBG
WURG
WBRG
UBRG

If someday they print some more, those queries will find them! But don't hold your breath; there's not a lot of design space in four-color cards. Since they're good for commander but not for standard, if they ever do make more, there's a good chance it'd be in a commander set (but not too soon after the current one).


Can two Creepers be attached to the same Keeper? Some Creepers say they must be attached to a Keeper if you have a Keeper in play. If you end up with two such Creepers, and only one Keeper, can both Creepers be attached to the lone Keeper? Or is there a limit of one Creeper per Keeper?

I haven't found anything in the official Rules or FAQ, which came with the game, to address this scenario.

From a discussion on BGG http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/917715/multiple-creeper-question

  Q:Can a single keeper have more then one creeper attached? Evil/Malfunction, two Brain Parasites, etc.

  A:Yes, as long as both Creepers are allowed to attach to the card, there can be two Creepers attached to the same card.

  Q:Also, do you choose which keepers get the attached creeper if you can?

  A:Yes, if there is more than one Keeper that a Creeper can attach to when it's played, you get to choose. If it can't attach to anything when it's played, it stays unattached and attaches to the first Keeper it can.


Settlers of Catan - turn completion Possible Duplicate:
  Take Back Turns / Forgotten Privileges

I recently played and during my final turn, I placed five roads to reclaim the Longest Road. However, I quickly realized that I could place two roads and a settlement elsewhere which would break up the Longest Road, let me reclaim Longest Road, and give me the additional one point for the settlement that I needed for victory. So - I rerouted two of my roads, took back three brick and three lumber from the bank, and made a settlement. 10 points - victory. Was this legit, or is a road laid a road played? I assume from my guilt that it is not legit, but wanted to check with the pros. I didn't pass the dice and then realize my mistake. This was all pretty immediate. Had I only done it to begin with, there wouldn't be the guilt.

I tend to take a pragmatic view of taking moves back, in casual gaming: did you gain any immoral extra information between the initial move and the improved move?  If you play a move in chess and your then opponent reaches for the piece that will take your queen, it's obviously extremely dodgy to ask for a takeback...

In your own situation, if you genuinely were just thinking through your move and realised the better one while going through the motions of playing the first one, I wouldn't have a problem with the takeback in such an situation.  That's far better than forcing players to sit there in a state of silent "analysis paralysis" for 5 minutes each time, scared to start playing a move until they are absolutely sure that no better move exists.

On the other hand, you could have gained information in this scenario.  When you started playing out your roads, did another player breathe a sigh of relief or even just relax in their chair?  If they did, and you noticed this, then your takeback is much less conscionable.  That's why in tournament situations, once you start playing a move, that's it.  In a casual setting it's a question of your own sense of honour.  But hopefully you are good friends in your gaming group and all trust each other!


Why is Pandemic's Bio-terrorist Challenge not recommended with five players? The rules say the bio-terrorist challenge is for three and four player games and is explicitly not recommended for five players. Why is that? If it's a difficulty issue, couldn't the number of Epidemic cards be adjusted to compensate? As easy as it is to tweak the difficulty of Pandemic, it's hard to imagine there isn't some way to get it to work.

Am I missing something? Is there some reason it just can't work?

Good question! Amazingly enough, there's a definitive answer. The reason is described in detail in this board game geek thread, where game designer Tom Lehmann explains that playtesting showed the game became too long and boring with 5 players. Basically the game becomes 50% longer, and there are large gaps where individual players don't get to do anything. The detailed analysis he provides is quite interesting.


Play all but one rule is into play. What if play one extra card rule is also in play? In our last game, the "play all but one" rule was into play .
But also a rule (dutch fluxx) that said the one with the most keepers can play one more card.

Does this mean he can play all his cards, or should he still keep one left in his hands? (Translated into English the dutch card reads: Save one card in your hand and play all the rest.)

Since the dutch fluxx card says "the one with the most keepers can play one more card" (as opposed to must play one more card) then it would be that player's choice if they want to play the last card or not.

The key is in the compulsion, since "can" is not compulsory. It is possible that the wording in dutch has different compulsory connotations, but based on the English translation, I can only conclude that it is not required.


What happens to the target of Oko, Thief of Crowns' second ability when it is put in the graveyard? An artifact or creature becomes a 3/3 green Elk creature due to Oko, Thief of Crowns' second ability. What happens to that artifact or creature when it is put into the graveyard? Does it remain a 3/3 green Elk creature? Or does it revert back to it's original state once in the graveyard?

For example, Death's Shadow is turned into a 3/3 green Elk creature. For the purposes of using Unearth, when in the graveyard does it remain as a 3/3 green Elk creature, or does it revert back to being 'Death's Shadow'?

It will become a Death's Shadow again. Whenever an object changes zones, e.g. when it goes from the battlefield to the graveyard, it gets completely 'reset':

  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.

The rules list nine exceptions to this, but your situation is not one of them.


Is there a Magic card that rearranges the stack? I'm thinking of a card that can do this:

I have Niv-Mizzet, Parun on the battlefield.
Opponent casts Aether Gust on Niv-Mizzet. Niv-Mizzet triggers.
Usually the trigger would resolve before Aether Gust. Instead I cast [mystery card] (or activate [mystery ability]) which rearranges the stack to make Aether Gust resolve first, which allows Niv-Mizzet to draw itself.

Does the mystery card/ability exist? Using the Scryfall database, I'm not getting results for the words "rearrange" and "stack", but it's possible I'm looking for the wrong words.

No, there is no such card.

This search lists all cards interacting with the stack, excluding Split Second, ending the turn, and cards from Un-sets.


Does Infect count as damage? I have a card named Dissipation Field that reads, "Whenever a permanent deals damage to you, return it to its owner's hand."
If my opponent attacks me with a creature with infect (i.e. Cystbearer) while I control a Dissipation Field, does his creature return to his hand after combat damage is dealt?

Yes. The damage is still damage, and any triggered abilities based on damage will trigger. The only thing different is the effects of the damage, since you gain poison counters instead of losing life.


Dungeon petz 2 or 3 player game: how many cages should be replenished? The rules has a separate passage for replenishing cages:

  If one of the two cage-buying action spaces is
  blocked by a neutral imp, you deal only 1 new cage, leaving one pit empty. Apparently, the neutral imp took one cage before you could get there.

This rule seems to assume that the board starts with one cage and 2 open slots every round: replenish one, leave one open.
What if the board starts with any other number of cages? We had rounds starting with both 3 and 2 cages. In these cages we would possibly not replenish? Or even remove a cage?

The first two sentences of that section still apply, and state

  At least one cage will be left over from the previous round. Take the
  lowest of the leftover cages, put it in the uppermost pit and discard
  the rest.

It isn't possible for all 3 cages to be purchased in a turn, so at least one will always be there.  Keep the lowest, move it to the upper slot, and get rid of the rest.  That way you are guaranteed to always have a single slot filled.  Then you either deal 2 more, or only 1 more if a neutral imp is blocking a space.


In Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle, can we use the Transfiguration proficiency when the Basilisk is out In Harry Potter Hogwarts Battle, game 7, we ran into a situation with the Basilisk and the Transfiguration proficiency.

If the Basilisk is out, it says we can't draw any additional cards.

The Transfiguration Proficiency says whoever has this proficiency can discard an Item to search our deck for a card with a value of 5 or less and add it to our hand.

Is this allowed under the rules while the Basilisk is out?  Can we use our Transfiguration ability to get a card in our deck to put in our hand?

Yes. In many cases like this the right answer can be found by looking for "keywords". In this case the keyword is "draw": the Basilisk does not allow you to "draw" additional cards. If an ability does not use the word "draw" then it is allowed even if it involves adding a card to your hand. In this case, "searching" your deck or discard pile and "adding" a card to your hand is not "drawing" an additional card as the term "draw" is not used. So the answer to the question should be Yes, you can use Transfiguration when the Basilisk is out.


Can I intentionally play cards that cannot damage obstacles? If I cannot do any damage to obstacles, can I intentionally play cards that are useless just to reduce my hand size to 3 to draw two cards? It seems like the game would stall badly otherwise.

Yes you can play cards that will not do damage. The turn order is set up so that you have played all cards you will be playing before you actually apply damage.

Play Cards
Apply Damage
Take Damage
Draw & Buy Cards
End Turn

From page 6 of the rules

This section states you can play cards even if there is no obstacle to use their damage against

  You play cards from your hand during your turn, one at a time.
  If your cards have any abilities other than damage on them,
  resolve those abilities when you play the card. Your starting
  decks don’t have any cards with non-damage abilities,
  though. When you play a card, you don’t put it into your discard
  yet. Instead, put it next to the obstacle that you want to
  damage with the card (you can damage obstacles facing any
  runner). You don’t place cards into your discard until after you
  apply damage. You are allowed to play cards even if there is
  no obstacle to use their damage against.

This section says you can partially damage an obstacle on your turn

  If an obstacle has a damage track level that requires
  4 damage to clear, and you can apply only 3 damage
  to it, the damage on that level will reset at the end of your
  turn. The next runner will still need to deal 4 damage to it
  to clear it during their turn.


Who Takes The Trick In Rage If Everyone Plays A Black Card? We've often had it happen that when playing rage, no one plays a "suit" card.  First player plays "Change Rage", second player plays "Out Rage" etc. etc.

In this case is there a rule as to who takes the trick?  Would it be the first player or would the trick simply be set aside and not count towards anyone's total?

According to the official rules (see p. 3):

  The first color or Wild Rage card played will determine the lead suit of the trick.  If only Action cards, not including Wild Rage, are played, the first card played in the round wins the trick.


What is the 'Liverpool Shuffle'? Watching A Hard Days Night and they're playing cards in the train. Ringo shuffles the cards and someone (John?) says "Aye Aye, the liverpool shuffle" as Ringo doesn't actually shuffle the cards.

He splits the pack, riffles them (but the halves are a few inches apart), and then puts the two halves back together again.

Why is this called the Liverpool Shuffle?

I think this is because Liverpudlians, especially back in the 60s, were stereotypically a bit cheeky (as in, untrustworthy).

John is saying that it's the usual Liverpool way of shuffling so as not to shuffle at all, and likely the cards will be stacked in Ringo's favour.


South African Unrest clarification The mid war card South African Unrest seemed perfectly clear to me, until I read the Twilight Strategy article on it. How, exactly, can the event be played?

South African Unrest reads:

  USSR either adds 2 Influence in South Africa or adds 1 influence in South Africa and 2 Influence in any countries adjacent to South Africa.

The confusion comes in from the Twilight Strategy article:

  Despite a possible interpretation of the event’s text otherwise, you cannot use this for 1 in Angola and 1 in Botswana: it has to be 1 in South Africa plus 2 in Angola or 2 in Botswana.

Prior to reading Twilight Strategy I thought the following 4 options could be played:

Place 2 Influence in South Africa.
Place 1 Influence in South Africa, and 2 Influence in Angola.
Place 1 Influence in South Africa, and 2 Influence in Botswana.
Place 1 Influence in South Africa, 1 Influence in Angola, and 1 Influence in Botswana.

I think the Twilight Strategy note is saying that #4 is out. Is that right? If that was so, shouldn't the card read "In any one country adjacent to South Africa"?

The text on this card was changed from the second edition to the Deluxe Edition, altering any country to any countries.

From the Official FAQs:

  #53 South African Unrest

  Note the Deluxe Edition card text allows the option of 2 Influence in "...any countries
  adjacent to South Africa." effectively allowing one each in Angola and Botswana.

This allows the 2 influence to be placed either in Angola or Botswana or split between both countries, getting one each.


What is the broader acceptance of resignation? Games that have developed a strong professional circuit generally consider resignation a courteous behavior. Some consider not resigning discourteous. This question is about the rest of board gaming: When (if ever) is resigning acceptable?

I would say that resignation is perfectly acceptable as long as

1) It was preceded by a good-faith effort to play optimally.

2) All parties who are affected by the resignation agree on its timeliness.

The only times I feel a resignation is discourteous is when it negatively impacts people who were depending on your continued presence;  for example, if Japan were to unilaterally resign from a game of Axis & Allies despite the objection of Germany.


Captain Sisay and flip legendarys from Kamigawa? Can Captain Sisay search for a card that is only legendary when it is flipped? ex. Bushi Tenderfoot

No, Captain Sisay can't find cards that are only legendary when flipped
From the Comprehensive rules:

709.2. In every zone other than the battlefield, and also on the battlefield before the permanent flips, a flip card has only the normal characteristics of the card. Once a permanent is flipped, its normal name, text box, type line, power, and toughness don’t apply and the alternative versions of those characteristics apply instead.
Example: Akki Lavarunner is a nonlegendary creature that flips into a legendary creature named Tok-Tok, Volcano Born. An effect that says “Search your library for a legendary card” can’t find this flip card. An effect that says “Legendary creatures get +2/+2” doesn’t affect Akki Lavarunner, but it does affect Tok-Tok.


Maxed Out Energy / Ecology values What happens when a player reaches one beyond the maximum possible value on their individual board's economy or ecology tracks ?

Do energy and ecology values start being tallied beyond 7 ?

This thread on BGG suggests a co-designer has clarified that -7/+7 is not a hard limit.  I couldn't find the exact post to clarify that but one of the designers has been very active answering questions.

Something in the rules here say is.

  Note: at any time, the players can recalculate their energy and
  ecology totals to check that they haven’t made a mistake

This to me would imply that you can move beyond -7/+7 as it can be recalculated at any time.  If you stopped moving at the extremes then its possible that the total couldn't be calculated in retrospect.


How does Talisman 4th Edition compare with earlier versions? I played Talisman back in the 1980s - I don't know whether it was the first or second edition. I enjoyed it.

Lots of years later I'm back into board games - particularly Catan, Dominion, Carcasonne.

I see that the latest version of Talisman is a 4th edition.

How does this most recent edition compare with the original game? What has changed?

According to the posters on this thread, the only changes between 1st and 2nd edition were cosmetic.
 Although one poster mentions slightly different wording on some of the wands.

The differences between 2nd edition and 4th edition are noted on this thread.

  Cosmetic changes, including larger board, cards, plastic bits, and cardboard cutout characters.

RULES and GAME Mechanics

  6) Major Difference - Craft can be gained for every 7 points of craft monsters defeated.

  7) Major Difference - Spell Casting Limitations - In their turn, the maximum number of Spells a character may cast is equal to the number of spells, and whichever spells they possessed at the start of that Turn. A Character may only cast one Spell during another Character's Turn. This does not apply to the Command Spell. (If you ALWAYS have a Spell due to the Wand or Ability, you draw your 'new' spell at the end of your turn)

  8) Major Difference - Mules are NO LONGER OBJECTS, they are considered 'FOLLOWERS' "The mule can carry an extra 4 objects for you while it is your follower. If you lose the mule, you will leave any surplus objects of your choice in the space you are in." I.E Mules can be 'Mesmerised' by the spell but NOT 'Acquisitioned' by the spell, hence if you win a character to character battle, you can no longer 'take' the mule, as its no longer an object.

  Visiting the Villiage shops is not optional, Market Day allows everyone to buy from a market rather than trade with each other, Orb of Knowledge is no longer one use.


What Makes Buildings Valuable In Puerto Rico? I'm just learning the game, so some of my comments may seem ill-informed. But it seems that strategies fall under two categories, a commodity-based strategy and a building-based strategy.

Commodities are simple enough. Produce a lucrative commodity (and take on roles that will increase production or profitability), then "cash out" for victory points at a high rate in foreign markets. This is what I call a "constructive" strategy.

Another strategy is to invest in the local economy in the form of buildings. At first blush, this seems less lucrative than selling commodities. But many winning players prefer this strategy, perhaps because it gives them some "veto" power over other players' shipments. This is what I call an "obstructive" strategy.

In a game such as backgammon, I would use a "constructive" (running) strategy if I got high rolls early in the game. With low rolls, I would use an "obstructive" strategy of building hurdles to make opponents "waste" rolls. Could an analogous dynamic support the acquisition of buildings in Puerto Rico?

It also seems that with buildings that there are hidden "synergies" or feedback effects. For instance, the "list price" may be five doubloons for a building with three victory points. But under some circumstances, the building "kicks back" two doubloons, which may be used to buy another building (and more victory points. Or it may "kick back" a colonist that may be used to upgrade another building. Meaning that the five doubloon building actually costs "less" than its "list price."

Could it be that buying buildings is a highly  "constructive" strategy, but only if you buy several of them in tandem?

The value of buildings comes from 2 sources

Providing a direct VP contribution to your strategy
Providing money to implement your strategy

As you have correctly determined there are 2 archetypes of strategies:

The Shippers
The Builders

Shipping Strategy

Obviously they try to win by shipping more goods than the other players. They will choose buildings that give them better yield and control over shipping.

Building Strategy

This strategy is based on filling your city with high scoring buildings a quickly as possible so to end the game before the shippers can play their advantage. They will try to go for at least one big building (depending on what gives them the best score).

Supporting the Strategy

Equally important to both strategies is money. Without a decent income you cannot develop either strategy. So early and mid game the focus will be on buildings that improve the yield of your trades or your chances for getting a trade. Another form of income are quarries. So building that support you in getting one are also good early choices.

What is generally not a good choice is to buy something another player wants but you don't need. Aside from the fact that most buildings exist at least twice and you can only have one, even if you can buy a coveted building from under the nose of an opponent you'll be set back just as much by that buy. The other players will thank you for it. As such, "obstructive building" is not recommended.

Generally speaking the question is not what buildings have good synergies with each other. The question is what buildings have good synergies with your particular strategy.

I suggest you browse the forums over at BoardGameGeek for more strategy on Puerto Rico. There is at least one very in-depth strategy guide there that explains the mechanics far better than I could here.


How does combat damage work with Party Crasher if he is both Attacking and Blocking simultaneously? In the Unstable set there is a creature named Party Crasher who has the following ability:

  You can attack with Party Crasher once each combat during each opponent's turn.

This leads to some strange interactions and combat phases. The one I am specifically interested in is, what happens when Party Crasher is both attacking in blocking in the same combat phase?

For Example:

It is your opponents turn, they control 2 Hill Giants (3/3 creature). You control a Party Crasher (3/3 creature) that has been given both vigilance and lifelink.
During combat your opponent attacks with one Hill Giant (A), you also attack with your Party Crasher.
During blocks you assign your Party Crasher as blocker for Hill Giant (A), and your opponent assigns Hill Giant (B) as blocker for Party Crasher.

Now what happens? Which creatures die? How much Life do you gain?

Party Crasher simultaneously deals damage equal to its power as an attacking creature, and again as a blocking creature. At the same time, creatures that it is blocking and creatures blocking it deal damage to Party Crasher equal to their power.
The combat damage step rules have these subrules:

510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. A player assigns a creature’s combat damage according to the following rules:

510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Creatures that would assign 0 or less damage this way don’t assign combat damage at all.

510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt.

For this card, the first rule has to be modified to account for how this card works. I would say that the first sentence should say this instead:

First, each attacking player announces how each attacking creature they control assigns its combat damage, then each defending player announces how each blocking creature they control assigns its combat damage.

Then, this process would play out for the given example as follows:

Each attacking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. In this case, there are two attacking creatures, each blocked by one creature, so Hill Giant A assigns 3 damage to Party Crasher, and Party Crasher assigns 3 damage to Hill Giant B.

Each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Hill Giant B assigns 3 damage to Party Crasher, and Party Crasher assigns 3 damage to Hill Giant A.

All combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. Hill Giants A and B each deal 3 damage to Party Crasher. Party Crasher deals 3 damage to each of Hill Giants A and B. Party Crasher's controller gains 6 life.

State based actions are evaluated. All three creatures have been dealt lethal damage, and die.

This is backed up by two questions that Mark Rosewater answered on his Tumblr blog:

mroltv asked: Party Crasher: how does a creature that's both attacking and blocking assign combat damage? If it isn't blocked, does it have to deal damage to the creature it's blocking before the player? Does it get to deal damage to both?
If it is both blocked as an attacker and blocks as a defender, all damage in combat is done at the same time (save last strike, first strike, double strike and triple strike).

otterofslaughter asked: In regards to the question about Party Crasher, we know WHEN it does damage, the problem is if it's both attacking and blocking, does it deal damage to what it's attacking AND blocking or do you divide it's damage between the things it's hitting
It does its full damage to each creature and takes full damage from each creature. It’s simultaneously fighting.


Can 'whenever' abilities trigger multiple times per turn? Let's say that I have an Utvara Hellkite and 3 other dragons on the battlefield. Do I get a 6/6 Dragon for every Dragon that's attacking, or just one?

On the card it says you get a 6/6 dragon token whenever a dragon you control attacks.

  112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and include (and
  usually begin with) the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” Whenever the
  trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a
  player would receive priority and stays there until it’s countered, it
  resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, “Handling
  Triggered Abilities.”

So every time the trigger event occurs. But you can't activate abilities when attackers are being declared.

  603.2a Because they aren’t cast or activated, triggered abilities can trigger even when it isn’t legal to cast spells and activate
  abilities. Effects that preclude abilities from being activated don’t
  affect them.

There are two types of abilities (that use the stack): activated abilities (which can also be loyalty abilities) and trigger abilities. Trigger abilities can trigger whenever; hence the word whenever/when.

  603.2c An ability triggers only once each time its trigger event occurs. However, it can trigger repeatedly if one event contains
  multiple occurrences. Example: A permanent has an ability whose
  trigger condition reads, “Whenever a land is put into a graveyard from
  the battlefield, . . . .” If someone casts a spell that destroys all
  lands, the ability will trigger once for each land put into the
  graveyard during the spell’s resolution.

For every occurrence. Even if no one can react between those occurrences.

So you get as many dragons as you attack with.


In Go can you put a counter in a place that had a prisoner I just purchased Go, I have read two different sets of instructions but are still unclear on two points.

If you surround a piece so all their liberties are taken, do you have to remove the prisoner there and then or not.
If you do remove it is that space dead for the rest of the game, or can they later on put something into that space if it that leads to enclosing some of your pieces.

After a piece and/or group is completely out of liberties, it is removed immediately.

The only rule that would really prevent you from placing a stone back on the captured space is the ko rule, in which you can't re-place exactly the same stone that was just captured in such a way that it completely re-creates the board position from the previous turn (otherwise, you'd basically be stuck in an infinite loop of capturing and re-capturing the same stone ad nauseum and that ain't no fun).

If re-placing your stone doesn't re-create the board position, it's fine.

For example:

$$ A simple ko
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . O 1 a X .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . . . . . .

When white plays at a, the black stone at 1 is immediately captured. Black can't then play again at 1 immediately since this would re-create the entire board position (black would be capturing exactly the same stone white just played to capture the original black stone). Black needs to play somewhere else first.

However:

$$ B Not a ko
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . X O O . .
$$ . X 2 a 1 O .
$$ . . X O O . .
$$ . . . . . . .

The black stone at a will capture the white stone at 2, however in this case white can play back at 2 immediately since that move will capture both the black stones at 1 and a: This is not re-creating the board position so it's completely legal.

The ko rule only applies to the turn immediately after the capture; once you've played somewhere else, and your opponent has played somewhere else, you can go back and re-capture the stone (if he hasn't defended it) by playing in your original spot just like normal.

Of note, there is another related rule known as the superko rule, which is basically the same thing except it's not limited to the immediate next move. For example, any move that results in the exact same board position being re-created, even if that takes place two or more turns later, could also be prohibited. However, the superko rule isn't as universal as a regular ko, and the exact implementation (or whether it's implemented at all) would depend on your particular ruleset. In casual play, it rarely if ever comes up.


Can my opponent play a madness cost of 3 or below if "Brisela, Voice of Nightmares" is in play? Let's say I have a Brisela, Voice of Nightmares and my opponent tries to cast Voldaren Pariah for its madness cost of BBB.

Would the rule in Brisela, "Your opponents can't cast spells with converted mana cost 3 or less" stop my opponent from doing that?

No, Brisela will not prevent your opponent from casting Volarden Pariah for its madness cost.
"Mana cost", and by extension "converted mana cost" specifically refers to the cost printed at the top of the card. The relevant rules are here:

202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card. (See rule 107.4.) [...]

202.3. The converted mana cost of an object is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its mana cost, regardless of color.

So, Volarden Pariah always has a mana cost of {3}{B}{B}, and a converted mana cost of 5.


Why are there illegal cards? I mean: why the Egyptian God Cards are not just forbidden cards? Why there's a separate category for illegal cards.

I understand that the difference is that you can use Forbidden cards in a private duel if both players agreed to it before, or in a Championship if its regulations allow it. But you can never use illegal cards. Why not?

In the anime they said that the Egyptian God Cards are so powerful that if someone loses the control over them in a duel, then they can destroy the world.

Is that the official reason?

What's the difference between a Forbidden card and an Illegal Card?

I understand that the difference is that you can use Forbidden cards in a private duel if both players agreed to it before, or in a Championship if its regulations allow it. But you can never use illegal cards. Why not?

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding between what an "Illegal" card is and what a "Forbidden" card is.
Basically, a Forbidden card is one that was at one time legal to play in OCG or TCG Advanced Format tournaments, but are no longer legal in one or both of them. Note that the TCG also has the Traditional Format, which does not have a Forbidden List.
An Illegal card is one that was never allowed to be played in a tournament. All of the cards have the text "This card cannot be used in a Duel" or a similar phrase written in the bottom left corner, aside from four tournament prize cards that are also considered illegal. Also, counterfeit and unofficial cards are automatically considered illegal. Illegal cards are the only cards that are not allowed to be played in the TCG Traditional Format.
Why are cards made Illegal?
While you can't use Illegal cards in a tournament, there is nothing stopping you from using them in a private duel with your friends. But almost all of the Konami-produced Illegal cards are such because they are pretty much unplayable (by which I mean it is impossible to have a meaningful, fun duel by playing them).
Quite a few Illegal cards, such as Legendary Dragon of White are Match Winner cards meaning that you automatically win not just the duel, but the entire match if you bring your opponent's life points to zero with a direct attack from that monster (tournaments are usually held with three duel matches). The problem was that players would surrender before the player with this monster resolved the attack, which led to accusations of bad sportsmanship. So these cards were banned from tournaments, and Match Winner cards are useless in a casual game with your friends since you aren't playing in a tournament setting.
Other ones include ones that are only playable if you attended a certain tournament (e.g. Get Your Game On!). I imagine that these are Illegal because someone could demand you show proof you were there, which pretty much stops a duel in its tracks.
There's also cards like Card of Last Will that were based on absurdly powerful cards in the anime. Basically, there wasn't really a way to make it playable and still resemble the anime effect, so they just made them as Illegal cards to be fun promo cards (and it says a lot that this card is too powerful given that it's actually weaker than the one the anime had).
So making a card Illegal generally is Konami's way of indicating that "this card is unplayable even in casual duels with your friends".
Why are the Egyptian God Cards Illegal?
Regarding the Egyptian God Cards, the originals were also unplayable. For instance, The Winged Dragon of Ra had ATK ? / DEF ?, but the card didn't tell you what that meant or how it could change. Same with Slifer the Sky Dragon, which had ATK X000 / DEF X000 with no description of what that meant. Obelisk the Tormenter at least had ATK 4000 / DEF 4000, but no other abilities to make it useful, and the blue color might have caused confusion with Ritual Monsters. While it might have worked as a high point Normal Monster, I suppose they probably just made it illegal to match the other two Egyptian God Cards.
Put another way, these Egyptian God Cards are just fancy pieces of promo art that don't have enough rules on them to be playable.
But I heard that there were some legal Egyptian God Cards!
While the original prints were Illegal, Konami made rereleases of these Egyptian God cards that are actually playable and are completely legal to play in tournaments (and they lack the "This card cannot be used in a Duel" text). They are all Effect Monsters and have their abilities explained (which are more balanced than the ones in the anime). Check out The Winged Dragon of Ra, Slifer the Sky Dragon, and Obelisk the Tormenter. Most of these were distributed as promos: I got the legal version of Obelisk when I went to see Yu-Gi-Oh! The Dark Side of Dimensions at my local movie theater.
Will the Egyptian God Cards destroy the world if I play them?

In the anime they said that the Egyptian God Cards are so powerful that if someone loses the control over them in a duel, then they can destroy the world.
Is that the official reason?

I can assure you, Konami does not make the original set of Egyptian God cards Illegal because they fear that a random duelist will summon the card and lose control of them, inadvertently destroying the world. I have played my Obelisk before and the world is still intact. But then again, maybe it's only a risk if I grow hair as crazy as Yugi's ;-)


Where do I find the Magic: the Gathering article about varying card backs? I remember reading an MTG design article back during the Time Spiral on a what-if scenario where every MTG set would have a different card back.

I've tried looking through the MTG archives, but all I can find is this one;

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/almost-different-back-2002-08-05

Which talks about how that almost happened, but isn't the expanded article that I remember. Did I imagine this?

(I hope this is on topic, but I'm afraid it might not be as it's a question about an article about a game, rather than a question about a game.)

I've found a couple of articles on MtG's card backs, aside from that one in your original post.

One of them is fairly old, from 2002, and it talks about how Arabian Nights was conceived.

The second one is from October 2017, where Wizards of the Coast unveiled their new MtG logo. This one specifically talks about how they have no intention about changing the card backs at any point for the foreseeable future.

I'm still on the hunt for the specific article you mentioned, but I've not yet managed to find it.


For one who likes trading games like monopoly what's the closest 2-player game with similar dynamics? I've recently kindled my spouse's joy in board games but she has always enjoyed Monopoly as a child and tends to have that bias when selecting games.

We've played Carcassone and she genuinely enjoys it but is still looking for that trading like game mechanic but mostly in a two player setting. Are there any games that can be considered as such?

Monopoly is purely a chance-based game that involves trading and making money by earning rent and selling property. The main mechanic she tends to favor is the trading and money making. I'm not aware of two player trading games which involve some kind of score (like amount of money) to determine the winner. I would like to know if something like this exists and is worth buying/playing especially for two players.

How about Traders of Genoa?

  This is a game of trading, wares, and negotiation. The players take
  the roles of traders in Genoa in the 16th century. They fulfill
  orders, deliver messages, and take ownership of buildings in the city.
  Of course, this is not possible without the help of the other traders
  - thus, the need for clever negotiation. And that can cost money and other valuable goods! The player who earns the most in the game is the
  winner!

http://riograndegames.com/Game/200-Traders-of-Genoa

It's a fair amount more complex than Monopoly, but much less random and there's a lot more negotiation and trading involved. It plays with two, although it is better with more, much like Monopoly. It'll probably take about 90 minutes to play to completion with two.

Currently officially out of print, but you shouldn't have too much trouble tracking down a copy. It's sometimes known as "Genoa" rather than "Traders of Genoa" but it's the same game.


What are some basic strategies for Labyrinth? My comp sci class currently is on the topic of AIs and we're tasked to write an AI for Labyrinth (the Ravensburger game) and have them play each other to see who wrote the best AI. As someone who's never heard of the game or even touched before I can only think of a limited amount of strategy for the game. Can anyone who has played Labyrinth bestow some common and advanced strategies upon me? Thanks in advance.

A few tips:

Static tiles are more stable (duh!), so going there is a bit more predictable. If you have goals on those, they have lower priority.
Static tiles are more stable (again), so staying on a static tile at the end of your turn will assure you you are at the same place when you begin the next one.
Manhattan distance (dx + dy) may be important because being close to a goal makes it easier to reach if you are not sure of what the board will look like on your next turn.
Don't forget to use the "shortcut": if you stand at the edge of the board and you are pushed out, you teleport to the other side.
Having a large reachable zone at the beginning of your turn allows you to adapt easily: if you can go to a lot of places, you can change your mind when trouble arrive.
Play the anti-game. Even though I would never recommend that to any living player, as your goal here is clearly to win and not at all to have fun while doing it, crush your opponents completely without mercy! Sometimes, reaching your goal is more complicated that putting your opponent(s) in a tricky situation. Keep in mind who is about to win and don't be nice with him (or should I say "it"?) Everything that I said higher can be applied negatively to the others.


When does a Leprechaun's Ongoing ability activate? Consider the following scenario:

Leprechaun (Tricksters Minion):

  Ongoing: After another player plays a minion here with less power than this minion's power, destroy it (resolve its ability first).

Commission (Bear Cavalry Action):

  Play an extra minion. Then move another player's minion from the extra minion's base to another base.

The Play

A Leprechaun has a power of 5 and has been previously played on a base.
An opponent later plays Commission as their action, playing their extra minion on the same base as the Leprechaun.

Assumed Order

Several actions happen here, what order should those actions happen? My assumption is that they happen in this order:

Play extra minion
Resolve the ability of the extra minion
Move the Leprechaun to another base
Destroy the minion if it is less power than the Leprechaun.

Is this correct? If not, what should it be? I wasn't able to find in the rules that addresses all these types of actions.

Why does this matter?

If the Leprechaun should destroy the minion before it's moved, it may have a different level of power before it's moved. For example, if the Leprechaun is moved to a base with the Sleep Spores action played on it, it has -1 power. This could affect whether or not the extra minion is lower power than it.

The correct order is:

Commission is played. This triggers two abilities in order. (Step 2 and 4)
An extra minion is placed on the base. This triggers the ongoing ability of the Leprechaun. (Step 3)
The new minion has less power so it will be destroyed. But it's ability is resolved first. If any. At the end of this step, the minion is gone.
The next ability ability of Commission is now executed. And Leprechaun is moved to another base.

The rules of Smash-up are vague and conflicting (even the rules admit this). So you need common sense to resolve this. But in this case it is clear that both actions of Commission are executed in order (Play an extra minion. Then move another player's minion from the extra minion's base to another base.)


Axis & Allies - Opening strategies for the U.K. I haven't played Axis & Allies in a while, and I'm currently getting my butt handed to me in an online match (partly due to a failed Kwabang attack).

I've got what I feel is a solid grip on Russia and US strategies (build tons of infantry, and put pressure on Africa and the Pacific, respectively), but I'm rusty on my U.K. strategies.

Assuming that Germany has taken out the U.K. fleet, and still has a strong fleet/air force available, what are the best opening moves for the U.K.?

I think there are three basic strategies for the UK:

Focus on India - with this approach, the UK cedes Africa to Germany. On the first turn, the UK builds a factory in India and uses its transport to move its two troops in Egypt to India, as well as the Egyptian tank and Syrian infantry into Persia (to move into India next turn). The fighters that start in the UK are moved to Karelia and then to India. For this tactic to work, UK must build troops and tanks in India each turn and continually harass Japan in Burma.
Focus on Africa - here, UK cedes India to Japan and focuses on holding Africa. UK starts by moving her troops and fighter from India into Egypt. Sometimes people will build a factory in South Africa when going with this approach.
Ignore Africa and India in the Early Game - with this approach UK does not build any factories. Some players build a bomber the first turn to have two bombers to take out the German fleet in the Mediterranean. Others build nothing the first turn, saving it for a carrier and transports for turn two. The general strategy here is to bide your time, prepare for a joint invasion of Africa and/or France with the US, and then make your move. In this approach, Germany will usually take Africa early on (although they won't hold it presuming their navy has been sunk) and Japan will take India early (and will hold all of Asia for most of the game).

The Focus on India approach is designed to slow Japan down, to make her focus on building up forces and taking India rather than moving west toward Moscow. Against weaker players you may be able to force Japan off Asia from this factory (with reinforcement fighters from UK via Karelia), but against stronger players the factory is doomed.

The Focus on Africa approach is aimed at bottling Germany up in Europe. This works best if you still have your Med sub after turn one and if you were fortunate enough to take out a number of German fighters when they attacked the UK sea zone. With this approach you need to kill off the German Med navy ASAP and then reclaim Africa from within. This almost always works against weaker players, and usually works if Germany has poor rolls at the beginning. If Germany had decent rolls and the player is good, you're going to lose your South African factory sooner than later.

Personally, I prefer and usually play the Ignore Africa and India in the Early Game, especially if I'm going against someone who is a strong player. With this approach you don't spend any additional money or time on India or Africa in the early game. Instead, you build transports, a carrier, and coordinate with the US to take Africa back later (after the German Med navy is destroyed) via landing at Algeria from Spain Sea Zone. With this tactic you are letting Japan have Asia without much effort, so you'll need to make sure Russia heavily fortifies her capital and ensure that the US/UK can get their troop pipeline into Karelia going sooner than later.

If you haven't yet read Don's Axis and Allies Strategic Essays, I heartily recommend them. They give a good overview of the Axis and Allies primary goals and tactics, and then delve into suggested opening moves and game-long plans for each power. (Don is a proponent of the Focus on India strategy for the UK.)


What is the reasoning behind some of the allies, in 6th edition Warhammer? I find some of the alliances in the new edition of Warhammer confusing.

Looking at Tau, for instance, they are Battle Brothers with Eldar and Spacemarines, although neither of these are, to my knowledge allies of the Tau in the fluff.

Likewise, I noticed that Eldar are Battle Brothers to Dark Eldar...hang on, I though that these were deadly enemies of one another?

Also we have the blood angels - necron pairing (fluff), and the Sisters of Battle - Grey Knights as allies of convienince only (anti-fluff).

Are these pairings in the rulebook based on fluff? On the mechanics of each army? Something else?

I'd say the reasoning behind the allies matrix is 60% fluff, 10% balance, and 30% Matt Ward lolz.

A lot of the matrix is what you would expect from reading the basic fluff.  Guard working with the other imperial factions and with a few of the others to represent renegades.  Tyranids can't ally with anyone because they would just eat them.  Tau will work with anybody if it will advance the greater good.  There's been some talk of the Emperor giving instructions to certain Marine legions to protect a certain alien race(hence the Marines and Tau being battle brothers).  And the Eldar/Dark Eldar works a little better if you consider one part of the pair to be Eldar Corsairs instead of true Craftworld or Commorragh Eldar.

The fluff is in a state of flux right now.  The Matt Ward authored codexes have done a number on established cannon.  This is behind some of the weirder combinations you see in the matrix.

I think game balance was secondary to fluff when deciding who gets to ally with whom.  Otherwise the Tyranids would have at least one ally option.


Why do player start with fighting for the corners in go? I saw that in most go games the opponents started by placing chips 3 vertices away from the corners. Both players started fighting for the centre only after half of the game had passed. Is there any particular reasoning for this?

Common starting practices are to open by placing stones on a Hoshi (4-4 point), or close to it, in order to "claim" that corner. As the players are trying to secure as much area as they can, it makes sense to start out in a place that is easily defended, and that is something that's true for corners more than for any other location on the board at the start of the game.

Taking control of the center is much easier if the player has a solid base or even a number of solitary stones already placed, which obviously isn't the case at the start of the game. Furthermore, by trying to gain control of the center, your opponent would likely take all or most of the corners for themselves, which will eventually result in having to defend the center against all flanks.

In a real game, of course none of this will be this clearly separated, but those are the essentials it comes down to. Generally, you're not looking to immediately engage with your opponent, but rather to define areas of advantage for yourself first.

Because this question, just like most questions about Go, pose a larger complexity than would be feasible to go into here, I'll leave it at that and provide a few links that are likely to be reachable in the future to read further:

First moves
Open in the corner
Why don't we open at tengen

It should be noted that this is true for 19x19 boards - on 9x9 boards, you will much more commonly see players starting out at the Tengen (center starpoint), or at the very least try to compete for it much earlier on, simply because there isn't as much area to gain in the corners by comparison, and approaching the same strategy as on a 19x19 board would have you run into your opponent much faster than you'd like.


Who gets to "search target player's graveyard, hand, and library?" When a spell says, Search target player's graveyard, hand, and library for X, as is the case with Memoricide and Surgical Extraction, does that mean the casting player gets to look? (Thereby being able to take a mental inventory and gain insight into what he or she would apply a subsequent Memoricide to?)

Yes, when a spell has an instruction, it is instructing its controller to take that action. According to rule 608.2c, the third step of resolving a spell or ability is

  The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.

That does mean that when you cast those spells, you can look through your opponent's hand and library.

Imagine if the spell was instead instructing that player to search their own hand and library. How would you verify that they had found all copies of the named card?


Do you forfeit that piece if you do not take a compulsory move? If your opponents misses a compulsory jump that would capture one of your pieces and moves elsewhere
...do they forfeit that piece

That is an optional rule called the Huffing Rule.

Capturing pieces is compulsory. It is both players responsibility to make sure that is enforced.