Can Band of Misfits be played as a reaction card? Band of Misfits is an imitation action card from Dark Ages expansion:

Suppose there are also reaction cards in the Supply, such as Moat or Beggar:

For simplicity, I will refer to the player who has Band of Misfits in their hand as myself.

Can I play Band of Misfits as a reaction card when I am being attacked? The card says, "Play ...", which seems to mean that it can only be activated on my turn.
If I can play it as a reaction card, does it mean that it is still a Moat when my turn really comes?

No, you can't play it as a reaction card. Only cards labeled "Reaction" on the bottom can be played as reactions. Band of Misfits just says Action, so it may only be played during your turn.

When you do play it during your turn, if Moat is in the supply, you can certainly play it as a Moat, to get +2 Cards. But it doesn't copy another card until you actually play it, and you can't play it except as an action during your own turn, so you can't use it to get the protection from attack that Moat offers. When someone else plays an attack card, you have no opportunity to play an action card, so you can't play Band of Misfits then.


How do I create a deck of cards that generates a dungeon of an average particular size? I want to create a deck of cards where each card is a room in a dungeon. Each will have between 1-4 doors, one door per side of a card. This will create corners, T intersections, hallways, open rooms with a door on each side, and dead-ends.

How may I go about this (or what sort of math can I do) to show me how many cards of each number of exits to make (or how many of each type of intersection, preferably) so that a dungeon caps off after an average number of draws. Say I wanted a game to last 50 turns, I'd make a 50 card deck and want to know I'd draw at least 45 of them before there are no exits to connect on the board.

It wouldn't need to fit inside a grid, but limiting it's size to fit on a coffee table (instead of generating an overly horizontal or vertical bias) would be preferable. How would the math change if I were to fit it inside a grid, say 5X5 (max 25 cards), 5X9 (max 45 cards) or 10X10 (max 100 cards)? Assuming the edge of the grid would place a cap on an exit.

How do other games go about estimating this ratio?

I say cards, but the concept would be the same using square tiles or something similar.

This game mechanic introduces the problem of trying to establish the expected result of a dynamic series of events that can't be readily repeated. For common terms through out, I'll be using the following to describe the game pieces.

Tile   Doors   Effect
A      1      -1
B      2       0
C      3       1
D      4       2

Additional variables are:

  M = Totel Deck Size
  t = number of turns taken cards drawn
  a, b, c, d = Number of tiles drawn of that type
  A, B, C, D = Total Number of that Tile in the Deck

In the Worst Case, if you draw every other tile before you start drawing A's, you would need sufficient A tiles to close the open dungeon. For this:

  A >= 3 + C + 2*D

This is because you are starting on the south edge of the map with 3 open doors (west, north, and east). For the tiles you draw, C adds 1 door, D adds two doors, and A subtracts 1 door. If this equation is true for your deck of tiles, than there will be no open doors left.

Not yet addressed is the total number of tiles, needed to provide for an game of t turns, but I'll get there. Crunching the permutations.


In Quarriors, can the Portal Dice be used multiple times? Say I've culled most of my dice. I have 3 portals, 3 basic quiddity dice and 1 assistant.
I draw all but 2 portals from my bag, and the one portal die I do draw I roll a "2 portal". I draw two portals from my bag and roll them, and put the portal die I just used into my Used pile. Both portal dice come up "2 portal" I set one in my used pile, and refill my bag from my used pile.

I imagine you can see where this is going. Is it okay to tournament-short-cut 2 of the three portal dice to "1 quiddity" and then roll the last one? Or can dice rolled this turn not go back in the bag?

As of the Quarmageddon expansion, the rulebook has been updated. The change is this: dice (such as Portals) that are spent during the turn are placed into a separate Spent Pile, where they are ineligible to be put back into the bag until the end of the turn. This is a change from the earlier FAQ, and makes it much less likely that in the given situation, the Portals would end up producing Quiddity.


When playing the road building card, can a settlement be built between a free road and a free ship? In Catan seafarers expansion, when playing the road building card, can a settlement be built between building a free road and building a free ship?

No, it cannot. From the official Catan FAQ:

  Development Cards – Progress – Road Building - May I use a Road Building card to build 1 road and 1 ship?

    Yes. You must build them one after another though. You are not allowed to first build a road via a Road Building card, then build a settlement adjacent to that road by paying the required resources, and finally use the Road Building card once again, this time to build a ship.


Why does Online Dominion allow you to reveal reaction cards multiple times? In the FAQ for Isotropic's online Dominion game, the creator states:

  No, you really can reveal a reaction card like Moat or Secret Chamber multiple times. They are designed to be idempotent so there's no point in doing so, but allowing this avoids strange corner cases having to do with Secret Chamber drawing other reaction cards.

What, exactly, are these corner cases?  Can you reveal a reaction card drawn from Secret Chamber, or is there some other strange case drawing a reaction card with Secret Chamber causes?

Yes, you can reveal a reaction drawn by Secret Chamber.  For example, the following scenario is perfectly valid (according to BGG's Dominion FAQ)

Be attacked.
Reveal Secret Chamber.
Draw two cards (one Moat), replace two cards.
Reveal Moat to deflect attack.
Reveal Secret Chamber again.
Draw two cards, replace two cards (put Moat back on deck)

Most reaction cards, such as Moat, have no real value to being revealed multiple times during the same trigger.  However, since the rules do not explicitly forbid such behaviour and there may be other edge cases where revealing the same card multiple times has merit, it remains a valid option.


How to mitigate "bandwagon attacking" from players? Let's assume I am playing a board game with at least 2 other players and there is a clear way to see how well players are progressing. Also assume there is an attack mechanism that cannot be directly blocked. This is a scenario I have experienced across several such board games:

I find a way to progress relatively well.
Other players see this and team up to attack me.
I start to fall behind due to the attacks. Others progress past me.
Other players continue to prioritize attacking me.
I finish far behind in last place.

Up until step 4, this seems like a rational way for players to play. At step 4, however, it would make more sense to switch gears and attack the other players that have gotten ahead, but this either doesn't happen or it happens far too late in the game. It appears that there is some kind of psychological aspect wherein once players start attacking someone, they don't want to stop.

My question is: how can I mitigate this "bandwagon attacking" from other players? This is an issue for me because the game feels hopeless once I realize step 4 is occuring, and I find myself waiting for the game to end.

I have tried explaining to the other players that it would make sense to start attacking different players, but they write this off as me trying to protect myself (which isn't wrong). I have thought about quantifying the attacks by keeping a tally of some sort, but that feels a bit petty.

For reference, these are some games that I have experienced this in:

Lords of Waterdeep
Villainous
Survive - Escape from Atlantis
Blood Rage

Use this bias in your favor!
Some players just won't listen to the most reasonable arguments.  Trying to convince them that you were attacked enough won't work, instead use their biases in our own favor.  Don't lead on the start of the game, try to be the second strongest player, then stay quiet while others attack the leader.  It is nice to see everybody team up to destroy the leader, giving you an easy win.

In those kind of games, being second is usually the best in terms of winning probability.

I will add to the reference list:

Catan
Struggle of Empires
Munchkin

Of course this "stalling" strategy is groupthink dependent, looks like that in your gaming group it will work like a charm.


Does the event card "Build Master" force you to put the card back under the same pile as you choose to search in? I have a Dutch version of the Catan card-game so bear with me a little regarding translation to English.

My question refers to the event card that allows both players to search through a pile and put back one card from their hand. This event card is called "Bouwmeester" in Dutch, roughly translates to "Build Master" in English.

The Dutch text on this card is unclear about whether, when you choose to take a card from a pile, you need to put back your card under the same pile or may put it back under any pile.

So what is the formal ruling of this event card?

It is the same pile.

As in the English rulebook (p22):

  Examine your chosen stack. You may choose any one card from that stack. You may also choose not to exchange any cards. Place your discarded card at the bottom of the stack and return it to the table face-down.


Recording Settlers of Catan games? When I was learning to play Go, recording and reviewing my games helped me improve rapidly.  I'd like to do something similar for Settlers of Catan, but it's obviously much more difficult to record Settlers games.

  How do you / would you guys go about recording games (in enough detail to reproduce the entire game verbatim)?  Have any of you had success doing this in the past?

I've never seen an established lexicon for recording Settlers games, but I bet you could gin one up pretty quickly that would be able to capture everything of note. Here are the major things I think you'd need to capture and my ideas on some compact notation

Board setup. The tiles types are randomized, but the letters always play out in the same order. I'd just create a list with all the letters and then in table format list the tile time under that letter during your setup. Insert a row with no letter for where the desert is located. For example

A Sheep
B Ore
Desert
C Wheat
...

From here on out, you can use the letters as the signposts for where the action is happening. For example:

Intersection pieces (e.g. cities) are recorded by the letters of the three surrounding tiles.
Roads only require two letters.

Then number the players by starting order and record the staring information (i.e. settlement location). Now just record the bare minimum of action as the game progresses. For example:

Turn 1, Player 1
Roll: 6

No need to record what each player drew as that can be determine based on the board setup. Record any trades. Ports can just be player 0, where the ratio will tell you if it was a generic or specific.

P4: 1S, 1O; P3: 2W

Record any builds:

Road: B,D

Since the information to be captured is going to be exactly the same each game, I bet you could create a blank spreadsheet or table to help ensure you didn't forget anything important. It could have an area for the setup information and then columns for each player and each turn (that could just continue as long as required by the game).

EDIT

I didn't really discuss the private knowledge aspect of Settlers: the cards. This represents the most challenging aspect to capture in the game log because cards are private knowledge. (I'm assuming you don't have someone not playing who is dedicated to recording the game.)

In this case I suggest recording in the game log when a given player obtains a card, and then having each player record the cards they pull in order. Once the game is over, you can augment the official log with the notes from each player.


Destroying minions with extra power In SmashUp game:

When you have a minion that gets extra power, like the war raptor who gets +1 for every other war raptor including himself:

What is the power score that you use to determine if the minion can be destroyed?

If there's only one war raptor, it's total power is 3, while its base is 2. Then could the opponent destroy it with a card of 'destroy a minion of power 2 or less' ? or i would have to be power 3 or less?

Use the current modified stats, not the base stats printed on the card.
In your particular case, it would require a "Destroy a minions of power [3] or less" card. From the FAQ,

Q: "Destroy a minions of power [X] or less." Does [X] refer to a minion's base power (i.e. what's printed on the card) or the minion's current power?
A: Current (i.e. modified) stats.


Pukachu vs. Doppleganger? My friend was level 4, and tried to play his Doppleganger card against a Puckachu, which grants an extra level for defeating it, "without using help or bonuses".

'Help', apparently, only means other players, and 'bonuses' are weapons, armor, or potions. Bringing in your clone, according to him, means beating it yourself.

Nobody agrees. Is his interpretation correct?

He is correct.

"Helping" in combat is clearly defined as one and only one other player joining you in combat.

"Bonuses" are granted by Items (as can be seen from the James Bomb card FAQ entry), or the rule books example of Mace of Sharpness or a Race as in the Warrior ability below. For example, the Pretty Ballons grant a +5 bonus to either the Monster side, or the Player side.

From the Munchkin FAQ:

  Playing/using a one-shot Item during a combat that aids the munchkins (and not the monsters) does not constitute "helping" in combat, as described in the rules. This means that in any given combat, any number of players can play cards to aid or hinder either side as often as they want, as long as they have the cards. Only one other player can actually join the combat as a helper, however.

  Q. Does a Psychic still get his +2 "fighting alone" combat bonus if he has a Sidekick?
  A. Yes. Sidekicks are okay. A Doppleganger is OK. And if another player throws a grenade or something to hurt the monster and assist you, you don't lose your bonus. It's only when another player joins the combat as your helper that you lose your bonus.

  Q. James Bomb says to fight him with only my Level and not my items. Can I use non-item bonuses in the combat, such as those given from trainings?
  A. That sentence should read "Level only, no items or other bonuses." So, no, your non-item bonuses would not count. (This is official errata.)

  If a Warrior had already discarded a card to get a +1 combat bonus, and then stopped being a Warrior, he would keep the bonus, but wouldn't be able to discard any more cards for the Warrior bonus.

From the Munchkin Rules:

  Anyone can carry any item, but some items have use restrictions: for instance, the Mace of Sharpnesscan only be wielded by a Cleric. Its bonus only counts for someone who is, at the moment, a Cleric.

  To fight a monster, compare its combat strength to yours. Combat strength is the total of Level plus all modifiers – positive or negative – given by items and other cards.


Can I tap a land creature for mana *and* attack with it? If my friend has a land-creature and he tapped it for mana, can he attack with that land-creature after?

No, he can't. A creature must be untapped to be declared an attacker, so if it's tapped for any reason—including for mana—before attackers are declared, it can't attack.


Does reading strategy guides before a game night count as cheating? We play a board game once a week.  Before our last session I have read a good strategy article for Great Western Trail followed the strategy suggested there and won by a lot. (This was not our first time playing this game).
After the game, I told my friends about the guide and the main suggestions. Some of my friends said that reading the guide gave me an unfair advantage and that it is a form of cheating.  While I don't see it as cheating it did give me a huge advantage.
How should we properly approach setting up these rules/expectations so no one is frustrated?

This is all about your social contract1 - some groups play to win, in which case the behaviour you've described seems perfectly reasonable. Other groups play more for fun, and fun can often be reduced if one player is significantly better at the game than everyone else.
I'd wouldn't go so far as to call it "cheating" as you didn't break any of the written rules of the game, but it's obvious here that your friends had less fun because of your actions. At that point, it's behaviour that should be avoided.
How to avoid it? You already know the answer to that - talk about it beforehand, but with your group not with the Internet. Whatever you agree with your group that lets people have the most fun is the right answer (and sometimes that may involve people finding that they would have more fun if they played with a different group).
1. Link to Role-Playing Games SE, so obviously refers to some RPG-specific concepts, but the concept of a social contract applies across any group setting


Rules for giving away "big item" if you do not have 1000 gold pieces of items to sell In the instructions for Munchkin it states:

  If something lets you have more than one Big item (for instance, the Dwarf race) and you lose the ability, you must either correct the problem immediately or get rid of all but one Big item. If it's not your turn and you're not in combat you can sell the excess Big items (as long as you have at least 1,000 Gold Pieces of Items to sell). Otherwise, you must give them to the lowest-Level player(s) who can carry them! If any Big items are still left over, discard them.

What if there is a tie for lowest-level players? Do you split evenly? How do you handle an odd number in that case? What if you are the lowest-level?

Does this follow the same logic as the #4 Charity Phase?

I don't see any reason why either the Charity or the Looting The Body rules should apply here.  (Yes, this situation is somewhat similar to Charity, but it's not the same.)  Just taking the text literally, all it says is:

  [...] you must give them to the lowest-Level player(s) who can carry them!

So that's it.  The only restrictions the rules place on what you can do with your extra Big items are:

You must give them away (if you can; otherwise the next sentence in the rules kicks in, saying you must discard them).
You must give each of them to (one of) the lowest-Level player(s) who can carry it.

Obviously, that does not include yourself, or anyone else who's already at their maximum carrying capacity.  Other than that, since the rules don't say otherwise, you're free to choose among the lowest-Level eligible players.

Of course, if the player you choose to give one of your Big items to is not a Dwarf, they'll probably become ineligible to receive any more Big items, which means that you'll have to offload the rest of your excess Big items onto other players.  (Yes, you may use this tactically: first give your Huge Rock to the Level 1 Thief who just backstabbed you, and then spread your more valuable Big items among players you like more.)  On the other hand, a low-level Dwarf could easily end up collecting all of your suddenly-unwieldy loot, whether you want to give it to them or not.  That's just how things happen in Munchkin.


Is Circus Maximus solvable? Circus Maximus is a chariot racing game in which players place their 3 chariots within the starting gate, and then take turns racing around the oval course to be the first to place all 3 chariots at the ending squares,

Since there are only 15 starting locations, and each turn both players only have access to a move 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in a straight line cards (or pitch a card to change direction), but still must reserve a card for each chariot...

Shouldn't this game be solvable at least as a 2-player game with minimal computing time?
By solvable, I mean that a brute force solution can be obtained with PC hardware available to that average person, and a sequence of moves exists that if followed results in a win.

The rules can be found here.

I suspect that you're right that in principle and possibly even in practice an optimal AI could be built for this game to determine who can win from the starting position, though it would likely take more computing power than you're likely to have readily available.  The best approach for brute-force solving a game like this is something close to what user1873 suggests in comments: rather than considering all lines of play, simply consider all board positions and determine the value of each board position.  This is the approach that's typically taken for solving Chess endgames; while this board has many more cells (I count roughly 200, although the diagram isn't very clear) than the average chessboard, the fact that all the pieces are identical here does help a bit, and so it may be within reach; note that the chess endgames with 6 and 7 pieces have been solved for quite a while now.  There are roughly (200 choose 3) = 200*199*198/6 = 1313400 positions for one team's chariots, and so roughly 1.7 trillion positions for all the chariots that would need to be evaluated.

Now, note that you don't have to build a 'move matrix' of 1.7 trillion x 1.7 trillion entries explicitly; that would be too large.  Instead, the game could be solved with a sort of backtracking: first, identify those positions which are clearly won, and which person is winning them.  Next, 'backtrack' - that is, play a turn in reverse - to identify all of the positions from which won positions can be reached, and then forward-evaluate each of those positions with a short move tree for that one turn to determine which of these positions lead to a forced win by one player or the other.  You need a 'move tree' here because a turn isn't just a single move, but instead consists of multiple interlocking moves by the two players.  Once that first turn's worth of backtracking has been done, another turn's worth can be handled in the same fashion; positions can be continuously added to a queue for evaluation, with a bunch of new 'one-move-back' positions added each time the queue empties.

Unfortunately, the catch here is in that move tree; the branching factor there is large enough that it probably pushes an explicit solve out of the realm of practicality (although perhaps not out of feasibility for someone with enough computing power).  A 'move tree' consists of an assignment of the cards 1-5 to 3 chariots (plus a possibility of throwing cards away) for each player, plus some interleaving; this gives roughly (ignoring the throwaway) 75 moves at the first branch (3 different chariots that can be moved, times 10 (picking 3 cards from 5) + 10 (picking 2 cards from 5) + 5 (picking 1 card from 5) possible moves for the picked chariot) and up to 28 moves at the second branch (2 chariots that can be moved, times 4 (picking 3 cards from 4) + 6 (picking 2 cards from 4) + 4 (picking 1 card from 4) possible moves for the picked chariot).  Since cards can be thrown away for turns, we'll back-of-the-envelope bump these to 100 and 50, and call it 10 moves at the bottom branch; this gives roughly 50,000 moves for each player that have to be considered in the move tree, or about 2 billion possible branches to examine on the move tree.  I suspect this is highly overestimated - possibly by up to a factor of 100 or so - but a more careful analysis would be much trickier to finagle here.  Even so, I'd guess there are many million possible ways of each turn playing out, and while doing some standard alpha-beta pruning (using established positional values) will cut that back down, it's still likely to take quite a bit of work at each of the 1.7 trillion nodes to establish a value.

Since positions may have to be evaluated more than once (if the first time determines that they can't be wholly solved yet), the overall work done is likely to be on the order of several exaflop (i.e., quintillions of operations total) worth of computation.  That's a lot of operations - but note that you could get yourself access to a petaflop/second's worth of computational power, and thus do the whole solve in a few thousands of seconds - i.e., a few hours (possibly a few days).  The biggest bottleneck is likely to be access speed to the database of values for positions, since something on the order of a terabyte (the rough size of that database) is still a bit too large to be kept in memory at this point; it'd have to be carefully designed to keep as much as feasible cached in memory and to be very smart about its disc accesses.

That said - I'd say that this is right on the edge of supercomputer feasibility right now; if the game were a bit better-known, this would make an excellent graduate project for a sufficiently motivated supercomputer programmer (or team).


Battlestar Galactica: How to balance core game I never saw the human team win and I would like making it a little bit easier for humans to finish the game without losing.

How can I balance that? Is there anywhere a new set of rules that balance the game? Will I be forced to buy an expansion, or can I add/remove easily stuff without ruining the game?

From page 28 of the rulebook:

  To make the game easier for the human players, start the game with 2 more of each resource (10 food, 10 fuel, 12 morale, and 14 population).

However, it's worth mentioning that the core game is very balanced, especially with 5 players. The expansions arguably make it more difficult.

It sounds like you're not playing very well, but it's difficult to offer suggestions without knowing more about your group and how they play. You should be analysing everyone's moves and motives and closely inspecting the results of all skill checks. The Cylons should feel pressured to help out at every opportunity, lest they be accused and possibly brigged.


Are there differences between the different country's editions of Cards Against Humanity? Cards Against Humanity has different country editions, like UK, US, and AU.
Are there differences between these editions other than grammar? What are those differences?

Yes, I have both the US and the UK version. There are different cards in both editions. And there are cards with slightly different texts (for example Dear Abby in the US version and Dear Agony Aunt in the UK version).

And some names are different (Margaret Thatcher only appears in the UK version). The UK version also contains Scottish warriors lifting their kilts and pronouncing the names of Welsh towns.


Stealing Emissary of Grudges Player A plays Emissary of Grudges and chooses Player B.

Player C steals Emissary of Grudges with Mind Control. Can Player C look at the named player? Can they activate the ability and reveal the name if Player B targets them with something?

I'm getting thrown off by the phrasing of "Reveal the name you chose:". 'You' should refer to the creature's controller, but Player C didn't choose a name.

Player C has no access to Player A's secret choice and cannot activate the ability. We can see this reflected in a ruling on Emissary of Grudges:

  If you didn’t choose an opponent when Emissary of Grudges entered the battlefield, you can’t pay the cost to activate its last ability. This will usually happen because you gained control of another player’s Emissary of Grudges or because a creature already on the battlefield became a copy of Emissary of Grudges.

As you mention, Player C never made a choice, so they cannot reveal the choice they made. They also have no privilege to access Player A's secrets; they just control a creature.

We see this same ruling and behaviour on Stalking Leonin.


Space Marine squads and "Split Fire" rule With the 6th edition rules, squads must all fire upon the same unit. An exception is made if the unit contains at least one model with the "split fire" rule (6ED, page 42).

Neither the Devastors, nor Tactical squads, in the Dark Angels codex (6ED, page 103), nor in the Blood Angels codex (5ED, page 95) have the "split fire" rule. As a side note, some Dark Angel units have it but no Blood Angels have it at all.

This youtube video (starting at 6:50) suggests that the squads have "Split Fire".

First question: where in the 6ED rules is it specified that Devastator squads have split fire?

Second question: do Tactical squads have split fire? If so, where in the 6ED rules is that specified?

Devastator does not have split fire. No marine devastator-equivalent except Space Wolves Long Fangs have the ability to target more than one unit. Fritz either made a mistake or he meant that even if they were to get split fire for free, that's still a lot of points in one unit.


Settlers of Catan Data I'd like to do some statistical analysis on Catan games, but to do that I need data. Does anyone know of a place I can find empirical data on Catan play? The stronger the players, the better.

Awesome datasets include:Records of tournament play
Log files from electronic Catan games, with preference for strong human play

Analyses I'd like to do include:

 Empirical win percentages as a function of seat
 Total resources-spent by the winning player, by type
 Final assets of winning player, including all settlements, cities, roads, and development cards
 Total quantity of trading by the winning player

Really, I'd be happy if I could perform even one of those analyses.

Also, I can code, and I was a quant at an energy trading firm, so I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty if necessary.

I have a couple of friends who used to play a lot of settlers online.  Apparently there was once a site that had a lot of settlers data, but it went down.  You can see some of the archived data at the settlers 3d web.archive.org page.

There is now a forum in its place.  Maybe some of the posters there have a backup of the data?


How to measure the difficulty of a deal in Klondike-Solitaire? I want to measure the difficulty of different layouts in Klondike-Solitaire.  My question is, what are the parameters that determine the difficulty of a layout?

By layout I mean the permutation of the cards.  The difficulty is also a matter of the rules (deal-1 or deal-3 cards from the stock to waste (talon), assume the rules are fixed on one of the options)
At Microsoft Solitaire Collection, there are 6 difficulty levels.  From my personal experience, the differences between the first 5 are minor compare to the huge difficulty difference between the second hardest (Master) and the hardest level (Grandmaster).
I thought about the following parameters:

Solvable?
number of moves till solution
number of undo's
time taken (for a given user/solver)

From a human perspective I suppose one's interpretation of difficulty is quite subjective: what one person might find difficult another may find easy. If, for our purposes, we use a rough definition along the lines of, "how much time the average player spends on a layout", then there are a few interesting things we can say about the relationship between a layout's difficulty and its general features.
As your first point suggests, the solvability of the layout (i.e. does a sequence of legal moves exist that results in a win) is obviously key. Let's consider this case first:
Unsolvable Layouts
If a layout is not solvable then in one sense it's infinitely difficult. However, even for unsolvable layouts, the depth of the search tree can reflect a kind of difficulty.
In the extreme case, if to begin with there are no legal moves available in the tableau (main cards) or the stock, then although the layout isn't solvable, in a sense it is easy because you can immediately give up. Alternatively, a layout may have a huge number of promising moves, only to turn out to be unsolvable in the end.
Using a tool like Solvitaire (full disclosure: I am one of the authors of Solvitaire) can identify unsolvable layouts and record the number of unique states that needed to be searched to prove that there's no solution (often a very large number of states!). Another good solver is Klondike-Solver, although I'm not aware of what metrics it reports.
This isn't a perfect measure by any means. Humans aren't computers, and our brains probably aren't using depth-first search in the way a solver might. Without looking at human gameplay data though, this is probably the best heuristic of difficulty for unsolvable layouts.
Solvable Layouts
As was the case for unsolvable layouts, if one has access to human gameplay data then that's almost certainly going to be the best source of understanding how difficult humans will find a layout.
Let's assume though, that we don't have this data available, but we do have a computerised solver. Just looking at the static cards in the starting layout is unlikely to tell us much, but by running the solver we can deduce more about a deal's difficulty (for a human).
Here are some heuristics one could use instead:
Size of Search Tree
For a computer this is important, but in the solvable case it may not tell us much about human play. For instance, the search tree for a layout could be huge, but have one solution that's very obvious to a human. We would not want to classify such a layout as difficult just because it has a large search tree.
Depth of Shallowest / Best Solution
Based on the above logic, the depth of the shallowest (i.e. "best") solution in the search tree is perhaps a better measure. However, this still may not be ideal. We might label a layout as easy because it has a shallow solution, but if this solution is extremely hard for a human to spot then our heuristic will be misleading.
Number of different solutions
This heuristic could be quite accurate, although it's hard to say. Having a lot of different solutions in the search tree would suggest a human player is likely to come across a solution sooner, but there is no guarantee. This would certainly be something worth exploring further.
Number of states searched until first solution
This is probably the most obvious heuristic: how many states did it take before the solver came across the first solution? However, this measure can be deeply flawed. There is no guarantee that computerised solvers search in anything like the kind of order a human would search in (Solvitaire certainly doesn't).
Say move "A" obviously leads to a solution in a few moves, whereas move "B" leads in a very different direction. There is no guarantee the solver picks "A" first; it might instead pick "B" and try thousands or even millions more moves before it backtracks to the point where it thinks to try "A".
To make this kind of method work one needs a policy for which moves to try. For Solvitaire, which just wants to explore all possible moves, this doesn't matter, but for determining difficulty this is very important! If one could come up with a  policy which reflected closely how an average human would play, then the number of states searched until the first solution would be an excellent metric. But coming up with such a metric is hard, complex work.
What Is A Move: Dominances and K+
In all of these discussions we've talked about moves and states. But how we define a move in Klondike is actually not trivial.
Firstly, consider the stock. The standard rules require we turn over 3 cards in one go. A consequence of this is that at different times there are different groups of cards that are effectively "available" to us.
Bjarnason et al. use a solver which can move any of the available stock cards into the tableau in a single move (they call this the K+ representation). For a human, this is like saying "I remember there's a 5H in there, so I'll just loop back over the stock to get it". From the point of considering difficulty, one may wish to consider this sort of thing to be a single move, rather than several separate moves.
Finally, in our paper on Solvitaire we consider something called dominances. These are cases in which we can prove that one of the available moves is guaranteed to be a good move. For instance, sometimes it can clearly be shown that "putting up" say an ace, is always the right thing to do. This is often obvious to a human player and one might not wish to count this as a move (Solvitaire doesn't count this as an extra move).
In summary:

One must first consider solvability
Then if a layout is solvable, one can begin with easier, but probably less accurate methods like the number of possible solutions, or the depth of the best solution
Finally, and only if one can craft a good (human-like) policy for moves to try at each search step, a better approach may be to measure the number of states the solver searches until the fist solution


Is a reasonable level of knowledge of American Football advantageous when playing Blood Bowl? The rules of Blood Bowl are fairly short and comprehensive. Although a lot of parallels can be drawn between them and the real world game Blood Bowl is based on, American Football, there is no need to know the rules to the real world game in order to know the rules of, and play, the table top version.

However, I'm curious if having a reasonable level of knowledge of the tactics and strategies used in real world American Football can be used as an advantage when playing Blood Bowl?

Even with my limited knowledge of the sport there are a number of similarities that spring to my mind that could potentially be transferable from the real pitch to the game one:

Formations - the layout of players on the pitch
Team Composition - the amount of players in a team that excel at certain skills
Plays - the actions players take between touchdowns to try and score one
Style - when to play defensively and when to play aggressively

(This list isn't exhaustive, please do not just copy and paste it and give an example of each as an answer, especially if that answer is not backed by any evidence of the advantage it gives.)

Given the large amount of competitive Blood Bowl leagues that exist, and that it has a faithful video game conversion allowing competitive play against a world wide audience, is there any evidence that supports the theory that using tactics and strategies from American Football can be used reliably and repeatedly as winning strategies in Blood Bowl?

Knowledge of American football strategy is not helpful in Blood Bowl because Blood Bowl lacks the rule that shapes all of American football play, namely, down and distance.  In American football you have four plays ("downs") to advance the ball 10 yards.  If you manage to do so, then you get another four plays to go another 10 yards (a "first down"), and so on until you either fail to make a first down in the allotted plays, or you score.  Almost everything about American football strategy revolves around managing down and distance.

Suppose, for example, that you make four yards on your first play, and five yards on the second. With only one yard to go you would choose a short-yardage play that highly likely to gain the one remaining yard, even though it has virtually no chance of making a large gain.  Getting tackled after two yards in that situation is a huge win.

Blood Bowl really has no equivalent.  Once a team fields the ball, they pretty much have to keep advancing it until they score.  If the ball carrier gets knocked down, you won't get an opportunity to reset for another play; you'll just recover the ball with another player and continue advancing, or you'll lose possession to the other team.  (I.e., every tackle effectively results in a fumble.)

Therefore, in a Blood Bowl game you'll never get much of a chance to apply anything you happen to know about American football strategy because you essentially never run a play from scrimmage, and that is what football strategy is all about.


What, generally, happens to card prices when a new set is released? Journey to Nyx is about to come out an I noticed many of the websites have already priced the cards. I'm wondering if anyone has any advise on when the optimal time to pick up new cards is? I realize that these pre-release prices are somewhat arbitrary and will change. I expect many of the cards to jump in price as soon as they are released as everyone is scrambling to get them then I expect things will die down a little until the pros start making their decks at which point the cards that appear most regularly will sky-rocket. I am assuming that the best point is the trough in the middle. Is this a correct assumption and if so, when will this trough begin? I also guess that the risk here is that many cards that people think will be valuable might end up being duds and conversely, I may end up over-looking sleeper cards that no one guessed would be great cards. Am I going about this the right way or is there a better way? I would greatly appreciate any input.

**EDIT: This question has received several mixed votes on the basis that the answer is speculative. I want to make it understood that I am not asking for a specific or unanswerable question. An analogous hypothetical example to my question would be something in the vein of: When is the best time to buy electronics?

Answer: Prices generally spike right before Christmas and generally are discounted after the Holiday season and before the new models come out.

As it is not written in stone, my hypothetical question is, technically, speculative but given the fact that it happens every year I don't feel that it is an unreasonable question or unanswerable.

**I am not asking if there is a way to tell which cards will fluctuate or what price the will reach/fall to. I'm simply asking if there is, traditionally, a good time to buy new cards from a new set.

There is no way to accurately predict at what price a given card will settle during a Standard season. Pre-order prices generally spike for mythics and obviously good cards, but as the season continues, prices will fluctuate based on what decks make it in the meta.

Worse, some cards in Standard may find a home in Modern, Legacy, or Vintage (or Commander!), which alters the price in an even more unpredictable way given the larger card pool; at least in Standard you can fairly easily look at what combinations you've got available to you, with under 1000 distinct cards.

Judging what cards are low and will go higher, and what cards are high and will go lower, is a process called speculation. Speculation is not an easy thing to be good at, and there are people who make their (shaky) careers on it.


What is offensive about the card "Stone-Throwing Devils"? In 2020 Magic: The Gathering banned seven cards due to racist or offensive content. But I don't understand the inclusion of the card Stone-Throwing Devils on that list. It just shows a bunch of demons jumping over a fence and throwing stones. What is the problem with it? Everything on the web just includes it on the list of banned cards but doesn't explain why.

While sources are sparse and unofficial, it appears to be because of the name of the card itself. The term “stone-throwers” or “stone-throwing devils” is used as a derogatory name for Palestinians or Muslims.
Sources:
https://tappedout.net/mtg-forum/general/why-is-it-banned/

This particular card was banned because "stone throwing devils" is an old slur for muslims.

https://twitter.com/itsJulian23/status/1270998016766476288?s=20

What I found is that "Stone throwers" is a derogative term for Palestinians, especially kids.


Addon for Risk with cards I remember download a file in the emule some 15 years ago, with a lot of cards that works as an addon for Risk. For e.g., one card give you terrorism so you can attack from Irak to some region in US, or sattelite, so you can jump a region to attack another one.

Some one knows anything about it? Name, location to download, or anything?
Some similar addons will be value also.

Thanks a lot!

On Cardboard Republic I found a print and play version of an out of print unofficial expansion with action cards called One World Dominion.

Though it does not have the exact cards you describe, it seems to fit the bill.


If I play a card as part of a start/end of a turn effect, do I apply their start/end of turn effects as well? Say that I have a start or end of turn effect that requires me to play a card (such as La Capitan's La Paradoja Magnifica, where at the start of the villain turn I play the top card of the villain deck). In the event that the card I play also has a start or end of turn effect, do I activate that too?

According to the FAQ:

If a card comes in to play at the end of a villain turn, and it has an "end of the villain turn" action, does that action happen this turn?
Yes. You are still in the "End of Turn" phase, and all "End of Turn" actions in play must resolve for that phase to end, even if those cards came in to play as part of that phase.

It seems safe to generalize this to the start of the villain turn as well.


Who gets the Commander if it dies or is exiled with a coin counter from Athreos, Shroud-Veiled? In a game of Commander, I control Athreos, Shroud-Veiled and put a coin counter on another player's Commander.
If the Commander dies or is exiled, its controller gets to choose to put it back in the command zone, and the trigger says it should return to the battlefield under my control.
So who gets the Commander?
As a side note, this game took place before the Commander "dies trigger" rules change.

The commander's owner always gets to choose whether the commander remains in the graveyard to get returned, or whether it goes to (and remains in) the command zone. The only difference between the old and current rules is that under the old rules, Athreos didn't even trigger if the commander's owner choose to move it to the command zone.
Previously, moving a commander to the command zone was handled exclusively as a replacement effect. A commander that left the battlefield for any reason wouldn't even hit the zone it was going to, but straight to the command zone, if its owner chose to. In that case, Athreos wouldn't even trigger, let alone return the commander under your control.

903.9. If a commander would be exiled from anywhere or put into its owner’s hand, graveyard, or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. This replacement effect may apply more than once to the same event.

614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. [..]

Under the current rules, a commander moving to the hand/library from anywhere is still handled with a replacement effect:

903.9b If a commander would be put into its owner’s hand or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. [..]

However, a commander can now move to the graveyard or exile from anywhere and thus trigger all applicable triggers. In that case, its owner gets a choice to move it to the command zone, before anthing on the stack can resolve, as a state-based action:

903.9a If a commander is in a graveyard or in exile and that card was put into that zone since the last time state-based actions were checked, its owner may put it into the command zone. This is a state-based action. See rule 704.

That means that under the current rules, Athreos would trigger on the commander's death, but if its owner chooses to move it to the command zone, Athreos' ability will not do anything on resolution because the card it referenced is no longer in the appropriate zone.


Catan: Can I move my boat in the first round of the game? If I build two boats during the setup, can I move one of them during the first round of the game? Or does the setup count as the first round which would mean that I can't move the boat?

You can move a ship in the first round of the game.
The setup step is something that happens before the first turn of the game begins; it doesn't happen "during a turn". There's no difference between the first turn and any later turn in terms of moving boats or anything else.


Multiple "Security Testing" within a single server? Can I choose the same server for two copies of Security Testing and get 4 credits from the first run on it?

You can choose same server for multiple Security Testings, but you still would get credits from only 1 of them. Security Testing effect is a replacement effect which replaces access step. You have one access step per run and it can be replaced with any one applicable effect of your choice. So they all would trigger same time, but only 1 will get to resolve.

Moreover, other Security Testings wouldn't work on subsequent runs on the same server this turn, because it woudn't be a first successful run anymore and they can't meet their trigger.


Does "number of heroes when the haunt was revealed" include the traitor? (Haunt 17) Haunt 17 in the Secrets of Survival book states:

   When you have placed a number of Candle tokens equal to the number of heroes when the haunt was revealed, you exorcise the Poltergeist.

Does "number of heroes when the haunt was revealed" include the traitor? If the game began with 3 players, will the heroes need to place 2 or 3 Candle tokens?

When the haunt was revealed, one player becomes a traitor (or in some scenarios, is removed entirely), and the rest become heroes.

  Do the following at the start of the haunt:

  The traitor takes the Traitor’s Tome and leaves the room. The traitor reads only the haunt that is starting now.
  The rest of the players become heroes. They look up the haunt with the same number in Secrets of Survival and read it together. (The heroes should also
  talk briefly about their plan for survival.)

  [...]

So if the game started with three players, two of them become heroes. There weren't any heroes before that.

"The number of heroes when the haunt was revealed" is used instead of "the number of heroes" to avoid having the goal become easier as heroes are eliminated.


Removing Assassin in 3 players game In French rules, playing at 3 means having two characters at every rounds.
One character card goes face down then crown owner chooses a character and pass the rest to next player.
If the crown owner takes Assassin, he will assassinate without any risk because he can deduce two missing character cards.
I'm thinking a 100% hit ratio by Assassin is nonsense, assassination is a risky task and thus should not be at 100%.
Also, this can be extended this to the Thief with a 100% hit rate if taken by crown owner (and if Assassin is face down).

What do you think about removing Assassin and Thief and inserting Artist to make a more balanced 3 players game ?

I think this would actually be less balanced.

Assassin
From the perspective of the choosing player, the main strength of the Assassin is rarely the actual assassination. The Assassin's main strength is actually that since he plays first, he is able to avoid attacks by the Thief and Magician. (Occassionally the Assassin's player will benefit directly by eliminating the Magician or Warlord)

The player who generally benefits most from an assassination is the non-involved player, since (unless he took Warlord) is the only one who can take two actions towards city improvement.

Thief
The thief in a 3-player game still has a lot of things that can go wrong.

He could be killed by the Assassin prior to being able to steal.
If one opponent has coins and the other does not, he has a 50% chance to choose the wrong player and get no money.
If he only sees roles late in the rotation, (ex: Merchant and Architect), there is a good chance the target will also have an earlier role and have spent the money already.

Probable Effects of Removing Assassin and Thief
This would be extremely unbalanced.  Can you imagine a game where the Magician goes first every round?


Where can one find an up-to-date list of all accepted Scrabble words I would like a list of all up to date Scrabble words. Where can I find one in list form please? I have tried Tile Fish and also Collins.

According to scrabblepages.com"Any word that is found in a standard English dictionary can be used in the game of Scrabble. There are also Official Scrabble Dictionaries that can be purchased for more word options.

There are some words that are not allowed to be played and these include suffixes, prefixes and abbreviations. Any word that requires the use of a hyphen or apostrophe cannot be played in the game. Any word that required the use of a capital letter is not allowed.

When playing an English version of the game, foreign words are not allowed to be placed on the board. However, if the foreign word does appear in a standard English dictionary, it is allowed. The reason for this is due to the fact that the word is spoken enough and is considered part of the English language."

Now that being said there are words that are definitely not child or teen appropriate under that category and house rules are always fun to use.


Which creatures count as green creatures? This question works with the other colors too, but for now I'm mostly interested in which creatures are valid for benefiting from Rhonas's Monument:

  Green creature spells you cast cost {1} less to cast.

I can think of two options:

All creatures with green in their color identity. This means creatures like Sunder Shaman and Knight of Autumn are cheaper to cast when the monument is in play.
All creatures that only have green in their color identity. This would exclude multi-colored creatures.

A creature spell is green if green is one of its colors; it doesn't matter what other colors, if any, it has.
First of all, when an effect asks for the color of an object, it uses the following definition:

202.2. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame.

Some cards that would be colorless because of 202.2, such as Crimson Kobolds or the back face of most transforming permanents, have a color indicator that sets the card's colors.

204.2. An object with a color indicator is each color denoted by that color indicator.

Color identity is related to, but different from color. It is only relevant for building Commander decks. A card's color identity is the sum of colors of all mana symbols in that card's mana cost and rules text, plus color indicator:

903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).

With that being said, the answer to your question is option 1, if you replace "color identity" with just "color".
If a card has green among its colors, Rhonas's Monument will identify it as green, regardless of what other colors the card is:

202.2c An object with two or more different colored mana symbols in its mana cost is each of the colors of those mana symbols. [..]

If Rhonas's Monument would only apply to mono-green creature spells, it would explicitly say so. Generally speaking, whenever something ask for a property of an object, then it doesn't matter what all other properties of that object are.
For example, you might as well ask whether Rhonas's Monument also applies to "artifact creature" spells such as Verdurous Gearhulk instead of just "creature" spells. The answer would also be "yes", because an artifact creature is a creature, and for the Monument it doesn't matter whether or not it's also an artifact.
Also note that your one example of Sunder Shaman would still not benefit from Rhonas's Monument, because the Monument only reduces generic mana costs by 1. Sunder Shaman has no generic mana cost, only colored.

117.7a Effects that reduce a cost by an amount of generic mana affect only the generic mana component of that cost. They can’t affect the colored or colorless mana components of that cost.


Does an ability that refers to the name of the ability’s card have to refer to that instance of the card? The Question:
I believe I’m right here, but I wanted to get some consensus before I rely on it in a game: Can I apply the ability: "{U}: Untap Soliton" to a different Soliton than the one that activated the ability?
The Brief
I’ve been looking for an infinite mill combo using Soliton for a long time, and have been unable to find one, but I have come close. I now have a plan that will at least allow me to mill a player so much that it doesn’t matter that I can’t get the infinite mana needed to make the loop unending.
The Steup:

Soliton has the ability:

{U}: Untap Soliton

Stern Mentor has the ability to Soulbond, and if soulbonded has the ability:

{T}: Target player puts the top two cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard

If soulbonded to Stern Mentor, Soliton will also have the ability:

{T}: Target player puts the top two cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard

In a simple set up, of one Soliton soulbonded to one Stern Mentor, I can tap Stern Mentor and mill for two, then tap Soliton and mill for a further two, then pay one blue mana to untap Soliton, then tap Soliton to mill for two and so on… Assuming I have ten blue mana free this will allow me to mill for 24.
The Issue:
If I have two sets of Stern Mentor soulbonded to Soliton I can’t mill for any more than if I had just the one set because I am restricted by the amount of mana I have.
The Plan:
I also have several Illusionist’s Bracers. These have the ability:

Whenever an ability of equipped creature is activated, if it isn't a mana ability, copy that ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.

Now I had originally hoped to clone Soliton’s ability onto an island card and create an infinite mana combo, but then I realised that if I cloned the ability: "{U}: Untap Soliton" onto something else the ability would still be "{U}: Untap Soliton", and I couldn’t untap the same Soliton that had just been untapped.
I’m hoping that I can apply that ability to my other Soliton, that way, if I have two sets of Soliton equipped with Illusionist’s Bracers and soulbonded to Stern Mentor, I can tap one to mill, clone the mill ability inherited from Stern Mentor, do the same for the other set, then untap one Soliton and clone the ability across to the other.
This will allow two to be untapped for the price of one.
If we disregard cloning the ability inherited from the Stern Mentor this would up the mill to 44, but with the inheritance it would up the mill to 92. With 20 mana spare that we be upped to 184, that can be spread across as many players as I like.

The untap Soliton isn't a targeted effect; it only untaps the Soliton which used it. When a card's name is used it really means [THIS-CARD]. If it said U:Untap target creature named Soliton, then you could untap any Soliton, but it just says Untap Soliton, which translates as Untap ~this card~.

You will still clone the ability though, and one will resolve before the other allowing you to untap your Soliton, then tap it to mill 2 cards, clone the mill ability to mill 2 more cards, then untap it again, and mill 4 more cards! So you get 8 cards for 1 mana instead of 2 cards for 1 mana.

If you start with a tapped Soliton, it works like this:

U:Untap Soliton added to stack
Bracer's Fires, adding a second untap Soliton to the stack (Has to be the same card)
Let one untap resolve, stack still has 1 untap pending
tap soliton to add mill 2 cards to the stack
a second mill 2 cards added to the stack
4 cards are milled, then pending untap fires, soliton is untaped
tap soliton again, add mill 2 cards to stack
bracers add a second mill 2 cards
4 cards are then milled, stack empty.


Is a spell or ability, targeted against a permanent with protection from that spell or ability's color, an illegal play? Example.

My opponent has an Auriok Champion in play.

Even though this creature has protection from red, can I still attempt to cast, say, Lightning Bolt on it? Or is that an illegal play? If I can attempt to cast it, does it simply just fizzle? Would it count as a spell cast in the case of something like Aetherflux Reservoir?

It is illegal to cast it at all.

Among other things*, protection prevents things from being targeted by certain things:

  702.16b A permanent or player with protection can’t be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can’t be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.

See this question for details on what would happen if you started to cast Lightning Bolt, but there was no legal target on the board. In summary, the game would rewind to the point before you started to cast it; it will never have been considered cast.

*Those other things being damaged by, enchanted or equipped by, and blocked by.


Bridge bidding - how do I decide whether or not to bid 1NT with weakness in a particular suit? If I'm inclined to bid NT with 15-17 points, but am weak in one suit, how weak can I be, and still bid 1NT, as opposed to bidding 1 club, to find out if my partner can show strength e.g. a stopper in my suit, by bidding it?

Your partner's response(s) ought to give you a good idea of whether a no trumps contract is the correct one to pursue, or if you might be better off looking elsewhere.

Perhaps your partner will bid Stayman over your NT bid.  If you find a satisfactory fit in hearts or spades, then the question of whether you have a shortage somewhere else becomes irrelevant (in fact, it turns into a bonus).

Otherwise, your partner may well - indeed, is statistically quite likely to - try to bid the suit that you are weak in.  If he does, then this reinforces your initial assumption that a no trumps contract may be a good place to be.

If your partner avoids the suit you are weak in - especially if he avoids it twice, then perhaps NT is not such a good idea.  However, if this is the case then he has almost certainly bid in a suit that you hold 4 cards in, by now.  If so, you have a pretty good option to shift to, outside of no trumps!


Has Marty Bergen's hand evaluation system been validated experimentally? The classic hand evaluation system in contract bridge assigns 4 points to each ace, 3 to each king, 2 to each queen, 1 to each jack, and in a suit contract, an additional 3 points for each void, 2 points for each singleton, and 1 for each doubleton.

Marty Bergen's writings describe a more complex system that makes a number of adjustments to this system:

Slightly different values, supposedly from computer simulations, for high card points (A:K:Q:J:T = 4.5:3.0:1.5:0.75:0.25)
Downgrades for dubious singletons and doubletons
Upgrades for long suits and quality suits
In a suit contract, upgrades for declarer only for extra trump length and 4+ card side suits
Short suit points are counted using different systems for declarer and dummy

I'm curious whether people have run computer simulations that compare Bergen's system as a whole with the simple classic system, and whether or not they find that Bergen's system is significantly more accurate at hand evaluation than the classic system. If so, where can I read about the methodology and results?

I'm also curious about various subsets of Bergen's system. For example, how much improvement we get over the classic system by incorporating downgrades for dubious holdings only (something that should be easy to explain to beginners).

Has Marty Bergen's hand evaluation system been validated experimentally?

Yes - but not (as far as I know) with a Monte Carlo simulation. Experts have long known (and I mean long known - since before I learned the game in 1972) that Aces were undervalued and Quacks (Queens and Jacks) over-valued in Work's Point Count. Numerous remedies have been suggested over the years to address this. When you hear an expert talk about "a good 15" or "a bad 11", for example, they have performed the analysis above and noted that the hand has more Aces than Quacks perhaps, or no Aces at all, or weak spot cards in support of the Honours.

However, past attempts to devise a more accurate system, such as the following, have all relied on overly complex adjustments or expertise not available to average players:

add a point for every Ace-Ten in the hand past the first; subtract a point if none.
Use a 5/4/3/2/1 point count for Ace through Ten; and multiply the result by 2/3 to restore the count back to a 40 Point deck. My recollection is that this system has been verified with a Monte Carlo simulation - but I read that over 10 years ago and cannot remember the source.
Establishing minimum Quick Tricks standard for certain bids, especially openings - which weights Aces and Kings preferentially relative to Quacks:

  Ely Culbertson had it right when Bridge was in its infancy. He said that an opening bid should have around 2 1/2 quick tricks. This standard, he said, could be a benchmark for judging defensive capabilities of openers & general trick taking potential for competing [to] games & slams. In my opinion, quick tricks should be more than just a requirement for an opening bid. You should evaluate your hand re quick tricks for penalty doubles, forcing pass theory, T/O doubles, overcalling & balancing also.

  Edmonton Bridge Centre, Alberta, Canada

Apply personal fudge factors ( requires thousands of hours of experience to do correctly)

So if you are wondering if Bergen's proposal is more accurate than a straight Work Count - absolutely.

As for the other evaluation suggestions mentioned by Bergen - All experts - and I mean all - have made these adjustments for at least 75 years. Culbertson, Lightner, and Jacoby were making them, and teaching them, in the 1930's, as was Goren in the 1940's and 50's. Anyone who doesn't make these adjustments suffers poor results - in short order.

If you are wondering if it is the most accurate possibility - most likely not. However Bergen has managed to come up with a modification that is an improvement, and is fairly simple to evaluate. That latter is a big plus.

Additionally, there are two problems with using Monte Carlo simulations in analyzing Bridge:

Resulting is the practice of judging a bid or call solely by its results on a particular hand. Beginners are prone to this, and need to unlearn it as one prerequisite to becoming intermediate. Bids and calls are properly judged by the expected result, in a statistical sense, based solely on the information available at the time from the auction.
Double Dummy analysis is interesting, but Bridge is played as a Single Dummy game. That a particular result is possible on a hand does not necessarily imply that it can be reasonably reached at the table. This is one of the ways in which cheaters are detected - though it takes time to compile sufficiently robust statistical arguments.


Are cloned cards considered as "tokens"? My question relates to 706. Copying Objects, more specifically 706.1 which states:

  706.1.: Some objects become or turn another object into a “copy” of a spell, permanent, or card. Some effects create a token that’s a copy of another object.

Does this mean that a "copy" is not a "token"?

The scenario was that I had an Anointed Procession which states:

  If an effect would create one or more tokens under your control, it creates twice that many of those tokens instead.

Then I cast Clone which states:

  You may have Clone enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield.

So my question is simply, would I only get one copy of that creature? Or 2 because it is a "token"?

Clone has no interaction here with Anointed Procession. Clone does not make tokens, and it is not a token.

Tokens are defined in rule 110.5:

  Some effects put tokens onto the battlefield. A token is a marker used to represent any permanent that isn’t represented by a card.

In your situation, Clone is a card, not a token.

In addition, the full text of the rule you mentioned, rule 706.1 is

  Some objects become or turn another object into a “copy” of a spell, permanent, or card. Some effects create a token that’s a copy of another object. [...]

This is describing two different kinds of effects. Clone is the first kind of effect: it becomes a copy of a permanent. Some other effects will explicitly say that the create tokens, or they will create tokens with some specific keyword abilities or actions like Populate or Fabricate.


Exert Ability Workings with Untap Abilities My main question is can you exert a creature twice in the same turn?

For example, if I were to attack with and exert Champion of Rhonas, then activate Aggravated Assault's ability to untap and attack again, would I then be able to exert again giving me the ability to put another creature on the field?

Yes, you can Exert a permanent multiple times in the same turn like this. The rules on Exert very helpfully clarify this:

701.37. Exert

701.37a To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step.
701.37b A permanent can be exerted even if it’s not tapped or has already been exerted in a turn. If you exert a permanent more than once before your next untap step, each effect causing it not to untap expires during the same untap step.
(and a couple of other lines)

Very conveniently for us, all the Exerts only apply to the very next untap step. We won't have any Exerts "lagging behind", they all wear off simultaneously.


Karlov attacking together with a lifelink creature If I attack with Karlov of the Ghost Council and another creature with lifelink, is Karlov getting 2 counters before he deals his damage this turn? Or are both damages dealt at the same time?

All damage is dealt at the same time, so Karlov of the Ghost Council will only get the +1/+1 counters after it has dealt damage.*

Combat Damage Step

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.
510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously.

*Unless the Lifelink creature also has First Strike or Double Strike


Bonus points using card combinations in Tute The other day we were playing the card game "Tute" using Spanish "naipes" and we were told there were some card combinations that score bonus points: gaining a King and a Knight, things like that.

Is there a list of all card combinations that score bonus points?

In Tute, "las 20" or "las 40" can be called when you have 11 & 12 (caballo & rey) of the same suit, STILL IN YOUR hand after you took one trick. 40 is if you have the pair matching the current trump, 20 is for the other suits. Each 20 points are signalled by putting one card (two cards for las 40) upside down on your pile of collected cards perpendicular to the rest of the cards. If you want to call more than one set (e.g. you have more than one pairs of 11 & 12 matching the same suit) you need to take al least one trick for each call. Other players may ask the caller to show their matching cards, but it's considered bad etiquette since everyone should be paying attention and know if one of the cards has already been played.

These points are added to the rest of your hand at the end of the round. Other cards are worth:

Aces: 11 points
Threes: 10 points
Reyes (12s): 4 points
Caballos (11s): 3 points
Sotas (10s): 2 points

All other cards have no value.

In Tute Cabrero, the person taking the last trick takes 10 extra points (las 10 de última). Also, if someone manages to take all tricks in a round, it's considered they did Capote and automatically win the game, regardless of current score UNLESS they had also claimed "20" or "40" on that round, in which case they lose.

You can read more details in https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tute and https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tute_cabrero.


Can I prevent my opponent from looking at cards with Vizier of the Menagerie while I'm Mindslaving them? Vizier of the Menagerie says "You may look at the top card of your library," and Mindslaver says you "make all decisions for the player."

What I'm wondering is can the player who's being controlled see the top card of their library as their turn is taken for them? In other words, if I'm Mindslavering someone and I get to make all decisions for them, then I get to decide when they look at the top card of their library, so I can decide that they don't get to look at it.

I'm not sure about this, but based on all the Gatherer rules, I would say that the controlled player and the controlling player can both look at the card because the card becomes part of the "known information" to the player who controls the Vizier (so they can always know it) and since they always know it, the Mindslaver controller also knows it.

Yes, the Mindslaver's controller may prevent the controlled player from taking that specific action.

Mindslaver's rulings say:

  You get to make every decision the other player would have made during that turn. You can’t make any illegal decisions or illegal choices — you can’t do anything that player couldn’t do. You can spend mana in the player’s mana pool only on that player’s spells and abilities. The mana in your mana pool can be spent only on your spells and abilities.

Since looking at the top card of your library is an action you may take while controlling Vizier of the Menagerie, the player controlling the turn may simply choose not to take this action.


Does the mana ability restriction of Pithing Needle refer to the cost or the effect of an activated ability? Pithing Needle affects cards with activated abilities, unless they are mana abilities. An activated ability comes in the form:

[Cost]:[Effect]

"A mana ability is an activated ability that creates mana." In other words, it seems like it refers to the [Effect] component of the activated ability. I'm assuming that naming a Black Lotus or Mox would not prevent their mana-generating abilities from being activated.

If Pithing Needle names a card X that has:

R, tap: Deal 1 damage to target player.

It seems like Pithing Needle would prevent X from having its damage dealing ability activated, even though it requires one red mana to activate. Is this correct?

You are correct.  Pithing Needle cannot stop Black Lotus, but it would stop your second example.

605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets all of the following criteria: it doesn't require a target (see rule 114.6), it could add mana to a player's mana pool when it resolves, and it's not a loyalty ability. (See rule 606, "Loyalty Abilities.")
605.1b A triggered ability is a mana ability if it meets all of the following criteria: it doesn't require a target (see rule 114.6), it triggers from the resolution of an activated mana ability (see rule 106.11a) or from mana being added to a player's mana pool, and it could add mana to a player's mana pool when it resolves.

Mana abilities are specially designated because they need to not use the stack.  If generating mana used the stack, then it could be responded to.  Opponents would be able to take advantage of their chance to respond to mana abilities to use spells and abilities before the player with priority had a chance to use theirs, thus making "priority" as a concept insignificant.
In extreme cases, you could end up with extremely complicated stacks as players tapped their lands in response to each other in a fight to get their effects out first.
This is an undesirable play state, so Magic avoids it by keeping mana abilities off the stack.  Since mana abilities almost always do nothing but produce mana, removing opponents' ability to respond to them doesn't hugely detriment someone trying to react to changes in the game state.
As a side bonus, allowing mana abilities to be activated during the casting of a spell or ability means that the common idiom of declaring what you want to cast before deciding how you are going to pay for it is in fact a legal move, which is nice.
As a general rule, WotC considers disruptions to a player's mana base to be unfun.  That's why targeted discard almost always has a "nonland" rider to the effects, and modern land destruction rarely dips below 4-5 mana in cost.  If Pithing Needle could name lands, it had the potential to severely injure an opponent's mana production. (If they were playing a monocolor deck with only basic lands, it could potentially render the deck unplayable on the first turn.)  They could have chosen to have Pithing Needle name a "non-land" card, but instead chose to guard all mana abilities from it.  This has benefits of not shutting down mana production from non-land sources like Llanowar Elves, and allowing Pithing Needle to shut down non-mana abilities of lands like Faerie Conclave.  I don't know which, if any, was the driving force of the choice.

As a side note, the existence of mana abilities is almost certainly the reason that Priest of Forgotten Gods targets any number of players, rather than just affecting all opponents, like many cards do.  If it didn't target players it would qualify as a mana ability, and as a primarily offensive ability WotC wanted people to be able to respond to it.
On the other hand, Selvala, Explorer Returned does have a mana ability even with the side effects.  This has some interesting consequences as described in the Gatherer Rulings, namely that normally if you discover that a spell is uncastable in the middle of casting it (because you don't have enough mana, for example) everything you've done in the process of casting the spell is reversed, but Selvala's ability can't be reversed because its side effects have already changed the game.
Also, you can force players to draw cards without using the stack.  This is rarely relevant, but I'm sure it could be at some point.


What is the safest way to approach discussing a prize split? This came up for me at a tournament this weekend. I made it into the final where the first prize was sealed product with a value for the sake of discussion to be $100, and second prize was store credit to the value of $50.

I discussed with the store owner prior to discussing with my opponent, because I did not want to put myself into the position of accidentally offering a bribe and being disqualified.

after this discussion the split was offered, my exact words being "shall we split?", the response being essentially "yes" and we then discussed resolving that. We split the $50 store credit quite easily, and agreed that the best solution was for one of us to take and sell the sealed product and then split the proceeds after the fact.

this seemed like an optimal solution in this situation, but there are plenty of situations where apportioning prizes can be much more challenging. a prime example being when one player wants "bye"s to a tournament that the other is not attending.

1. What is the safest way to evaluate the value of the prizes during a split, without accidentally offering a bribe.

2. If players initially agree to a split, is the subsequent debating of the value of prizes vs byes potentially still going to lead to bribery?

A 'split' is only possible if everything is divisible.  It is basically just a shortcut for all remaining (generally 8 or 4) players all having to go around and individually agree with each other to evenly share any product they may win.  Then separately all going back around and all agreeing to drop from the tournament.  This is all completely allowed.  The 'Split' rules just spell out explicitly and reassure organizers (who aren't by any means expected to be rules wonks) that this particular scenario that comes up often when FNM runs late is allowed by DCI.

You can make an agreement to share prizes any way you like, then actually play the match for real and report the real result.  Or ID, or one player may choose to concede/drop.  As long as there is no link between prize agreement and match result, it's fine.

If specific match results (including dropping from the tournament) are discussed, requested or offered, it's bribery, simple as that.

Sometimes it is not possible to agree to share a prize (like byes and blue envelopes) without implicitly offering a match result because DCI requires the prize be awarded to particular finishing positions.  You are allowed to agree to split however you like only in the final round of the tournament.  Basically at this point you're not harming other people's prospects in the tournament, forcing someone to play for a prize they won't use is stupid, and forcing "fake" matches harms the integrity of the game far more than letting people work out dividing prizes they don't want/won't use.

So to your two questions:

1) Don't mention or make any arrangements about match results and you can agree to do anything you want with transferable prizes you have won or may win.

2) If you've made an agreement that requires reporting a particular match result such that one player advances to claim a particular prize, that is bribery.  If it's the final round of the tournament it's allowed for a player to drop.


How would Master of the Wild Hunt be worded if it targeted multiple creatures? Master of the Wild Hunt says:

  [...] {T}: Tap all untapped Wolf creatures you control. Each Wolf tapped this way deals damage equal to its power to target creature. That creature deals damage equal to its power divided as its controller chooses among any number of those Wolves.

The way that MotWH works is that you choose a single target creature, and when it resolves you tap all untapped wolves you control and they deal damage to the single target creature amd that creature divides its damage among the wolves.

How would you word the ability if you wanted each wolf to be able to target a different creature?

Does a template already exist for this functionality?

For example Raiding Party allows you to choose plains (not exactly targeting)

  [...] Sacrifice an Orc: Each player may tap any number of untapped white creatures he or she controls. For each creature tapped this way, that player chooses up to two Plains. Then destroy all Plains that weren't chosen this way by any player.

and Living Inferno is only a single creature that is splitting its damage (the wolves would each target a single creature, but their might be multiple wolves)

  {T}: Living Inferno deals damage equal to its power divided as you choose among any number of target creatures. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to Living Inferno.

The easiest way to do it is to change the operation slightly. Instead of having each wolf deal damage, have the lord deal damage.

  {T}: Tap all untapped Wolf creatures you control. ~ deals damage equal to the total power of those Wolves divided between up to X target creatures, where X is the number of Wolves tapped in this way. Those creatures deal damage equal to their power divided as their controllers choose among any number of those Wolves.

This would be a functional change, for example you could have a black wolf, like Carion Howler, and your opponent could have Darkwatch Elves, who has protection from black, on the board. Under my change, the damage from the howler could be dealt to the elves. Currently, it couldn't (even though the Master does the targeting, the wolf does the damaging). I think the simplicity of it allows for such a sacrifice.


How long does it take to play Elder Sign? This dice game version of Arkham Horror is about to be published by Fantasy Flight but a lot of gamers have already picked it up or at least demoed it at GenCon and PAX Prime. I've read a few comments that stated Elder Sign did not play in one hour as advertised, but these comments were rather vague.

Is there a group consensus on how long this game takes to play?

Boardgamesgeek suggests it takes 120 minutes.

I don't know where your "one hour figure" comes from, whether it's written on the box or not, but I'd definitely tend to take the word of the diehard gamers at BGG over the word of the manufacturers, every time!


What's new in A Game of Thrones 2nd Edition? I recently acquired the 2nd Edition of A Game of Thrones: The Board Game. I've played the older edition for years.

I'm having people over to play the new version later today, many of whom are familiar with the old version, but I haven't exhaustively read the new rules yet. I noticed in the quick reference sheet that there are minor (but important!) rules differences, such as how the Star Raid order works.

What rules changes have there been since the first edition and its expansions?

Well, according to this post at BGG, the rules changes are

Unit counts - each house has 5 knights and 2 siege engines, instead
of 4 knights and 3 siege engines.
Setup changed to include various neutral forces tokens.
Wildling Attack cards added.
Garrison token of 2 for each house's starting position.
Play to 7 castles regardless of player count.
Wildling threat of 12 triggers an attack.
Messenger raven allows you to look at the top card in the Wildling Attack deck (OR replace an order).
Raiding a Consolidate Power order makes the target lose a power token (in addition to the raiding house gaining a token).
When playing your 7th house card, you get the other 6 cards back, but not that last one played.
Special raid order can remove a defense order, but NOT 2 orders.
Special consolidate power order can muster units OR gain power tokens as usual.
4 player game is played without Tyrell (instead of without Greyjoy).
Tides of battle cards.


What is the "pause" rule for dummy play in tournament bridge? My understanding is that in a bridge tournament, that the declarer must pause for some time (X seconds) after the dummy goes down, in order to study it, before playing to the first trick.

What is that time interval (i.e. what is X in terms of seconds)? Does this apply if dummy has a "forced" play such as a singleton in the led suit?

My further understanding is that East is allowed to take this pause (for X seconds) if, for some reason, declarer doesn't. Is this the case? And is East allowed to take an additional X seconds (or more) if declarer takes X seconds for study?

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge do not specifically address the pace of play following the tabling of Dummy, but rather more generally state (my emphasis):

  Law 73(A)(2): Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. ....

  Law 73(D) Variations in Tempo or Manner
  1. I t is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. ....

and

  Law 74(C)(7): varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

Any unduly or abnormally rapid play from Dummy (ie without consideration of the entire hand) would be a clear violation of all of these mandated Proprieties and Etiquettes, and subject to disciplinary action under Laws 73(F) and 90.

As with all occurrences of irregularities, the appropriate action is to call the Tournament Director as per Law 9.

Updated 2019-01-23

It is possible you are confusing this situation with the skip-bid pause mandated by some organizing authorities following any bid at a strictly higher level than sufficient in that denomination. It presumes that a bid skipping the level is always unexpected, and requires that:

the skip bidder announce prior to his call: "Skip bid; please pause."
the next player to study his hand for ~10 seconds before making a call.

However, except for the Rules guidance above, no such requirement is made following the opening lead and tabling of Dummy, for any organizing authority that I am aware of.


What are the rules when accessing a remote server with upgrades? Android netrunner has a seemingly endless and complex set of rules. I was hoping to get a clarification on how accessing a remote server works. In the rules it states you get access to all cards when accessing the server.

Say we have a server with two upgrades, one of which prevents me from getting the third card - an agenda. Even though I can't get the card I want, can I still trash the other cards in the server? Can I trash any/all of them if possible?

Thanks in advance and thanks to all the others who have already answered my netrunner questions.

When accessing multiple cards (this is the heading you are looking for in the manual, page 18), you access one at a time. So you can't look at both upgrades and the asset and then decide which to trash. You pick one at random, decide to trash or leave it, then move on to the next. You get to access all the cards in the server but only one at a time.

Here is the relevant page from the manual:

  When accessing multiple cards, the Runner accesses them one at a time
  *in any order he likes*. For example, the Runner may access a card from
  HQ, then an upgrade installed in the root of HQ, and then another card
  from HQ, if he has the ability to do so. When accessing multiple cards
  from R&D, the Runner must draw them in order from the top of the deck,
  and must return any cards not scored or trashed in reverse order, so
  as to preserve their positions in R&D. The Runner must fully resolve
  his access to a card (steal it, pay to trash it, etc.) before
  accessing the next card. If the Runner scores an agenda that gives him
  seven or more points, he immediately wins the game, even if he would
  otherwise access more cards.

This means that if there is an agenda in a remote server, but also a trap and you access the trap first... it is possible to get flatlined before you win from the stolen/scored agenda.


Is the "Choose Game" an actual game? This reddit post explains an episode of Seinfeld:

  When deciding who gets the new apartment, Jerry tells George he'll 'choose' him for it after a failed attempt at coin flip. Jerry takes odds and George takes evens. What the hell are they doing? I have never heard of this game.

The answers link to an urban dictionary entry:

  Choose Game
  Basically, you choose odds or evens and remark "Once, twice, three, SHOOT!" each player either holds out a closed fist, 1 finger, or 2 fingers, therefore the total can either add up to 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4. If it is 0, no player wins. If it is even (2,4) the evens player wins and if it's odd (1,3) the odds player wins.

  Seinfeld: George and Jerry played the Choose game in 'The Robbery' Episode to decide who should get the apartment, Jerry ends up winning.

Is the "Choose Game" an actual game?

I've never seen odds and evens played in real life, but I have seen it several times presented in media. It appears to be a reasonably common method of resolving disputes, similar to rock-paper-scissors, with the advantage of draws being less of an issue. It does have the disadvantage, however, of the different options being less distinct; it is easier to switch two fingers into three as you see what your opponent is doing, than it is to switch paper into rock.


Betrayal at the house on the hill arsenal room and puzzlebox If you open the puzzle box while standing in the arsenal room how many cards do you then draw?
The Arsenal Room text says:

When you draw an item card in this room, draw 2 cards and choose 1 to keep. Discard the other.

The Puzzle box says:

Once during your turn, you can attempt a knowledge roll to open the box:
6+: You open the box. Draw 2 item cards and discard the Puzzle Box.
0-5: You just can't get it open.

The arguments that was presented during my game was as follows:

"The text on the room tile applies only to the item you have to draw when you discover the room"

"When you open to puzzle box you get 3 cards and gets to keep 2 of them"

"When you open the puzzle box you get 4 cards and gets to keep 2 of them"

I think that none of the three interpretations you present are likely to be the intended one.

"The text on the room tile applies only to the item you have to draw when you discover the room": This seems contradicted by the general "an" in "When you draw an item card on this room..."; if it referred to only the item from discovery it would probably say something more specific like "...the item card...".
"When you open the puzzle box you get 4 cards and gets to keep N of them": This is stretching the "choose 1 to keep. Discard the other" rather far - that language really only makes sense if the choice is between two cards.

Instead, the interpretation I'd favor is:

"Draw 2 cards" from the puzzle box means draw a card and then draw a second card, so each of those draws would get replaced by the arsenal effect and you'd end up drawing 2 and keeping 1, then drawing 2 again and keeping 1 again.

There are also two other interpretations I think are somewhat supported by the text:

"Draw 2 cards" means draw a card and at the same time draw a second card, so with the Arsenal effect that becomes drawing two pairs of cards at the same time and keeping one card from each. (This is almost like your draw 4 keep 2 option, except you have slightly less freedom in which cards to keep.)
Just draw two (with no bonus from Arsenal Room) because Arsenal Room only helps when you draw "an" item card and instead you drew two item cards. (This is the same result as your first interpretation, but for a different reason.)

The way I chose my top interpretation of these 3: Whenever rules are ambiguous, as they are all too often in Betrayal, I try to fall back on the most similar rule from MtG since they've thought of pretty much everything. In this case, rule 120.2 says

  Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.


What's the longest possible forced repetition in Go? Assume no superko rules so the game would end with no result. And both players are willing to play the shortest possible cycle as long as they don't give their opponent a chance to win.

There are 4 moves in the example of eternal life, 6 moves in triple ko. And I think I have seen a 8 move one. Is there a known longer one? Is that proven to be the longest possible?

Molasses ko: http://denisfeldmann.fr/bestiary3.htm#mol

"The semeai in figure 11 is probably the worst known case of repetition. Known as "molasses ko", ..."

Denis Feldmann's Go Bestiary is a compendium of various things (interresting semeai, life and death, edge cases, incredible problems, rules edge cases, weird sekis, etc).


Equip Phases / Puresteel Paladin I am unsure whether the "equip ability" can be played as often as I want during one round when using Puresteel Paladin, or by simply paying the equip costs.

Example: A creature is equipped with Whispersilk Cloak and I want it to have other equipments on it. Due to shroud that would at first not be possible.

Can I therefore within the pre-combat phase attach the Cloak onto another creature using the Paladin's ability, then attach the other equipments onto the first creature, and then re-attach the Cloak to that first creature?

Or could it be that I can only equip (or attach equipments) one time during a turn or within a specific phase?

You can shuffle around euqipment all you want with the Puresteel Paladin, as long as you have at least three artifacts in play.
The only restriction there is to activating the Equip ability, is that you can do it only any time you can play a sorcery (ie on your turn, in a main phase, when the stack is empty).
The rules on Equipment (specifically, the Equip ability) state nothing about how often you can activate it:

702.6. Equip
702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”
702.6b For more information about Equipment, see rule 301, “Artifacts.”
702.6c If a permanent has multiple instances of equip, any of its equip abilities may be activated.


Can you Swerve Bioshift? Since Bioshift targets a creature, THEN another one for the recipient of the counters, can I use Swerve to change the target? If so, which target can it be, the first or the second, or any?

Just to expand on what Matt said, Bioshift has two targets, both of which must be declared at the time of casting. Even if a spell specifies that one effect happens after the other, like Biomantic Mastery, the targets must still be declared together and Swerve won't be able to target the spell.

This also applies to spells that have two separate effects that target, such as a Cryptic Command cast for its first and second modes. Cast like this it cannot be Swerve'd, but if it were cast for the first and third modes then it only has one target, and you can use Swerve.


Abilities with the "until" clause and the stack If an effect or ability (are these two different cases?) lasts "until" a certain effent occurs, does this "delayed" condition use the stack? For example:

I remove the Banishing Light is there a trigger placed on the stack afterwards? Or is the permanent placed on the battlefield while the spell/ability which removed the banishing light resolves?

If Banishing Light leaves the battlefield, the card it had been exiling returns immediately.

The "enters the battlefield" ability of Banishing Light uses the stack. When it successfully resolves, it creates a one-shot effect that exiles the targeted permanent, and another one-shot effect that happens as soon as the event happens; in this case, when Banishing Light leaves the battlefield.

  610.3. Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.

This is not to be confused with a triggered ability, which would indeed go on the stack. Banishing Light could be worded to use a triggered ability to return the card, but it wasn't. Some earlier cards with the same idea as BL but with a triggered ability to end the effect do exist, the canonical example being Oblivion Ring.

An effect is just something that happens because of a spell or ability. Only spells and abilities go on the stack. It's important to separate spells, abilities, and their effects.

  609.1. An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects. Text itself is never an effect.

When the ability created by BL has finished resolving, it has created two effects: One that exiles the target, and another that returns it later, when the condition is met. Both happen without them using the stack. Only the triggered ability from BL entering the battlefield uses the stack.

For example, if you had a spell that reads "Destroy all enchantments, then destroy all creatures", where the destruction effects are separate and BL has exiled a creature, then the exiled creature would return immediately after all enchantments are destroyed, then the creature would be destroyed by the "destroy all creatures" part of the spell.