Getting Joker from the existing groups in Rummikub I have a group of tiles made up of 3 fours and a joker:

  4 4 4 Joker

Now, if a player removes the joker, do they have to replace it with another 4?

The Joker has poorly written rules, and the version of the rules you are playing by matters.

First of all, sets of 4 tiles are never required to remain as 4 tiles, the minimum of 3 tiles is the only requirement. So a fourth tile can always be removed from a set without needing to be replaced.

By the latest version of rules, if you have (4-4-4-Joker) as a set, the Joker is already clear and ready to be used elsewhere without needing to be replaced. Here's why:

OLD RULES:
The 2009 version of rules says (emphasis added):

  A joker can be retrieved from a set on the table by a player who can replace it during his turn with a tile of the same numerical value and color it represents. The tile used to replace the Joker must come from a player's rack and not from the table.

This version is very restrictive, and even though it says can and not must, it does not provide any alternative examples of how to clear the Joker. So if you want to play in a way where the Joker MUST be replaced no matter what, then these are the rules you want to follow.

But the game has been improved since then, so I suggest following the new rules. It makes for much more interesting manipulation of the table, where the fun of the game lies.

NEW RULES:
The 2017 version of rules says this about Jokers:

  A joker can be retrieved from a set by replacing it with a tile of the same numerical value and colour it represents. The tile used to replace the joker can come from the player's rack or from the table.

Notice the small update there so that Jokers may be cleared now either from the rack or from another tile on the table. The rest is still worded the same but it does say can instead of must.

HOWEVER, this version of rules includes a section, 4 ways to clear the joker are:

1 Joker is replaced.
2 Joker is not replaced
3 Joker is not replaced
4 Joker is not replaced

There is nothing in the rules that differentiate between Jokers in groups and runs, so the fact that example 1 shows replacing in a group should not be taken to mean that Jokers in groups must be replaced but Jokers in runs do not need replacing. If Jokers in runs do not always need replacing, then Jokers in groups do not always need replacing.

Also, rummikub.com/rules/ has a video tutorial for the basic game. Watch the section on Jokers here:

  @2:30 "You can clear the Joker with tiles from your rack, or by manipulating the table."
  @2:45 "Cleared Jokers on the table are waiting to be used again, as long as 3 tiles remain in every set"

While explaining, the video shows the same example (#2) in the image above. There is no mention of needing to replace the Joker. That line has been updated to simply say "as long as 3 tiles remain in every set" as the only requirement. Sometimes you have to replace to achieve that, but not always.

Another source is the Official Rummikub App, where the Joker can be cleared from a group of 4 tiles without needing to be replaced. Below the game on that webpage, another version of rules are written. About Jokers it says:

  Sets containing jokers may be split and manipulated like regular sets.

And under Manipulation Examples of regular sets it has:

  Removing a fourth tile from a set and using it for a new set

So if the Joker (or any tile) is a fourth tile of a set, then it can be removed without needing to be replaced.

Sorry to disagree with you. All the people that I play with agree that if you clear a joker from a group you must replace it with the number you replaced it with either in a 3 tile group or 4 tile group.


Should every Fatty still come with two Walkers? In Zombicide, whenever a Fatty is spawned, it comes with two Walkers as an "escort".

However, I couldn't pinpoint this rule in the Zombicide Black Plague manual. Is that still the case?

For further clarification, my question arose from a passage from the translated manual that came in my box. In the official english rulebook, on the end of page 24, there is the following excerpt:

  The Fatty joins one group of Walkers, and a second Fatty is added to the other group.

In the pr-BR translated version, published by Galápago Jogos, however, the same paragraph is phrased in the following form:

  O Balofo se junta a um dos grupos de Lerdos, e um segundo
  Balofo é adicionado ao outro grupo (esse novo Balofo não vem com
  Lerdos extras).

Which roughly translates to (emphasis mine):

  The Fatty joins one group of Walkers, and a second Fatty is added to the other group (this new Fatty does not come with extra Walkers).

Which implies on regular spawns it does come accompanied. But this is certainly a silly translation error, that always happens with pr-BR things. I should've checked the original manual first.

While explicitly pointed out in the Zombicide rulebook and extra attention called to the additional Walkers, there is no such note in the Black Plague rulebook.

Since no rule requires it, and these are distinct games with separate rulesets, you do not add the two Walkers escort.

I know that this is a super old question but the correct answer doesn't seem to be given. The rule in which you are referring to is for splitting groups, not spawning fatties. Fatties have no rule requiring them to have extra walkers with them.


How do you find not-quite-club level human opponents to regularly play bridge with? What's a good way to to go about finding human bridge players (kids or adults) that is less intense than what you find at duplicate bridge clubs, but more competitive and learning oriented than playing rubber bridge with friends once every few months?

Though I've played (and enjoyed the challenge/competitiveness of) duplicate bridge at clubs in the past, my 6-year old bridge-loving son is nowhere near the level of bidding, play, or (especially) maturity where a club would be appropriate. The etiquette alone would prove too stifling.

I've also met several people throughout my life with a desire to play bridge at a level of play that was less intense than that found at a typical U.S. duplicate bridge club, but more intense and learning oriented than what you can get from casual play with friends a few times per year.

I'm interested in answers that involve 4 people (kids, adults, or some mix of both) physically getting together. I already know about bridge software and online bridge options and while we use bridge software some as a learning tool, that's not what I'm after with this question.

Your question intrigues me because I'm an oddity--a purely sociable bridge player who has written about bridge history and I've done a lot of THINKING about bridge as popular culture--where it is, where it's going, what it needs to do if it is ever to become the mass fad it once was.  My experience writing a book about the pop culture of sociable bridge, and a blogezine as well (http://bridgetable.net), tells me you're not alone. You have lots of kindred spirits out there. There's much dissatisfaction with the bridge Establishment and today's bridge world.

I think the only answer is YOU (with others) organizing something (via the internet and Meet Up) between the world of sociable players (like me) who have no organization whatever AND the ACBL world.

Launch a website, come up with a set of standards/rules for your ideal way of playing duplicate bridge that would be good for your young son as well, give it a catchy name, and start and promote to people who agree with you. Who knows, you could be the creator of something new in bridge that goes national at some point. Who knows? Maybe someone else with feelings like you has already launched a website to reach others like you? Read again about Ely Culbertson--he told the bridge Estabishment to go to hell and just promoted bridge the way he knew it would work rather than go along with the Establishment. He's my hero.

I'll bet if you Googled "How to start a national organization via the internet" you'd find all kinds of instructions. Come to think of it--I should do that myself for MY "cause" too!

Create a few Google Alerts of selected key words and phrases and see what you find. That's how I find content for my blog, I have Google Alerts for "play bridge" and "nonagenarian" (because part 4 of my blog is looking for bridge-playing 90-plussers, and do I ever find them!!) That's how I found you in fact.

I'll bet a Google Alert for "play duplicate bridge" and "play duplicate bridge without masters points" or even the words you used in your question "play less intense duplicate bridge" -- do that for a month and see what you come up with. Can create as many Google Alerts as you want.

My progress with my cause (that sociable bridge survive after the bridge-playing old ladies like me (91) are dead and gone) goes slowly. BUT I'm OLD and TECH ILLITERATE (have to have a Virtual Assistant or I could never do a blog) while YOU are YOUNG and like most of the young into twittering and facebook and all that stuff I loathe doing. Even so, got a couple of very good breaks these past two weeks that may make a huge difference eventually in my subscriber list. Anyway, what I do is one of my bucket list causes and makes life interesting for a nonagenarian.

Alternatively online would be non-threatening.  Such as teaching tables on www.bridgebaseonline.com


What is the original purpose of Bazaar of Baghdad? I have a lot of interest in Bazaar of Baghdad

  {T}: Draw two cards, then discard three cards.

I know how powerful this card is in a Dredge deck in Vintage and thus why it's banned in Legacy, but since the Dredge mechanic has been introduced in the Ravnica block in 2005 and Bazaar is a card printed in 1993 in Arabian Nights: what was the purpose of that land?

I suppose there must have been another use other than "create a card disadvantage for me" (even One with Nothing had one!), so I'm wondering how and how much was Bazaar used in those twelve years and if its price has risen so much only after Ravnica: City of Guilds.

You get to draw two cards. This (at the time of printing) was 5% of your deck. At worst case, the two you drew were not as good as what you had in your hand and you will get rid of them, and chances also are that you had one card you would be willing to get rid of, or at least would be worth the risk.
You get to discard AFTER drawing the two cards. If the two cards you drew were crap, you don't have to keep them. It would be much worse if it was {t}, discard three cards: draw two cards.
You don't have to draw the cards you drew later. Key to the design of magic is the ability to make a comeback win, and this comeback typically comes with a top-deck bomb. Sometimes there's only one or two cards in your deck that can allow you to win, and the rest of your cards are just to keep you alive until this bomb gets on the board. So in that sense, this card could be {t}: draw two cards, then discard cards from your hand until you have one card left in hand. and it would probably still be sought after for that purpose. (Actually, the dredge crowd would salivate over this card even more if it did that...)

Check this deck list, just look the Championship decks, I think you'll learn more


Quick engaging card games that can be learned quickly by a new group Possible Duplicate:
  What are good games to play during a one-hour lunch break?

I'm looking for some games to play in short 10-15 minutes breaks in between classes. Here's some of my priorities, more or less in order:

Quick to learn. Total teaching time preferably less than 3 minutes before gameplay starts. Have to be able to teach new people quickly.
Transportable. I'm mainly looking for stuff with regular decks of cards, but if other inexpensive proprietary games meet this criteria they're fine.
Short playing time, preferable less than 10 minutes. Obviously I'd love to be able to play a full game of Settlers, but we just don't have enough time for playing or even teaching it.
Engaging. Fairly quick turns, more or less constant action. Inter-player interaction is always good.
A moderate level of luck is fine, but not a TON, like Uno, if possible.

Any suggestions for 'in-between-classes' games that meet the criteria?

Fluxx springs immediately to mind: almost zero teaching time ("The rules are on the table!  Draw a card then play a card!"), can easily be over inside of ten minutes, inconsequential enough that no one will really mind if the bell goes and you have to quit before anyone has won the game.

Lunch Money could probably work inside the given timeframe, but a disturbing game about children beating the crap out of each other in the playground might get you some strange looks, or even disciplinary action, in an academic environment :D

I thought of a couple more good options, so I'm editing them in:

Parade has really taken off in our group lately - it's simple but brilliant.  There are 6 suits of (Alice in Wonderland-themed) cards, valued from 0 to 11.  Beginning with a "parade" of 6 random cards, each player adds a card to the end of the parade.  You must then add to your collection all cards that are equal-or-higher-valued or same-suited as the card you just played - except for the n cards immediately in front of your card, where n is your card's value.  (i.e. if you play the 10, you pick up nothing unless the parade is now 12 cards long.)  At the end of the game, you score negative face value of card, UNLESS you have the most cards in a suit, in which case they're only -1 each.  Trust me, it's really good.

Coloretto is a simple card game which happens to be the engine behind popular boardgames like Zooloretto and Aquaretto.  Players either draw a card and add it to a pile or take a pile.  Most of the cards have a colour: at the end of the game, you score positive points for cards in 3 of those colours, and negative points for cards in other colours.  Pick up piles too early and you may end up short of cards; wait too long and the other players will screw you by leaving you with a pile of cards of multiple different unwanted colours.  Simple but a lot of fun!

Try something like Set. Rather specific, but I like it.
UPD Removed luck-dependent Uno, sorry for that.


Adding zombies, what order It's stated in the rules that you add from 1 to 6 sequentially, but what I find unclear is if it is per turn or always.

Example (reduced to 3 entrances for simplicity)

z = zombie, - empty

Round 1 looks like

1 z--
2 z--
3 ---

adding 2 zombies the next round, should i start from 1 again and get

1 zz-
2 zz-
3 ---

or do i get

1 zz-
2 z-
3 z--

Starting from 1 makes it easier to overflow since you start adding there each time, but seems most logical and easy to do. But not sure if i interpret correctly. :)

If you look closer at the rules it is explained that you always start placing the zombies at spot 1 when adding new zombies. Also of note if you have to add more then 6 zombies in a turn you cycle around from spot 6 to spot 1 again

  Whenever adding zombies, they are added 1 at a time until
  all zombies that need to be added have been added.

  When adding zombies to the colony, always place the first
  zombie on any empty space in entrance 1, the second zombie
  on any empty space in entrance 2, the third zombie on any
  empty space in entrance 3, etc. until all of the zombies that
  need to be added have been placed. When adding a seventh
  zombie, place it on any empty space in entrance 1 again, an
  eighth zombie on any empty space in entrance 2, etc. If there
  are no empty entrance spaces in the entrance the zombie
  would be placed but there is a barricade token in one of
  those spaces, destroy that barricade token and remove the
  zombie that would have been placed. If there are no empty
  spaces and no barricade tokens, the entrance has been
  overrun, remove that zombie and kill the survivor at the
  colony that has the lowest influence value. If there are only
  helpless survivors at the colony, kill a helpless survivor. If
  there are no survivors at the colony remove the zombie that
  would have been placed without further effect. Every time a
  survivor is killed (including a helpless survivor), decrease
  morale by 1. When adding zombies to non-colony locations
  follow all of the same rules, except there is only 1 entrance to
  place zombies in so all of the zombies are placed in spaces at
  that entrance.

I believe that
1 zz-
2 zz-
3 ---

is the correct interpretation of the rules.  I'm not sure that it makes much difference, though, as long as you are consistent with the placement from the beginning, and everyone knows it, so they can predict (and eliminate zombies as necessary to prevent overflow).


How many cards should be collected using the Mining Progress card? The Cities and Knights expansion to Settlers of Catan has two cards that have caused us a bit of disagreement.

Take the Mining Progress card for example.  It says "...collect two ore for each mountain hex adjacent to one of your cities or settlements."  If I only have one settlement and one city and they are both adjacent to the same ore hex, should I collect two cards or four?  If you are to count mountain hex then it should be two, but if you are counting cities/settlements it should be four.

The same questions exists for the Irrigation Progress card.

You only collect two ore.

The 4th edition cards(pg. 15) contain updated text which makes this clear.

  You may take two ore cards from the bank for each mountain hex which is adjacent to at least one of your cities or settlements.

You can purchase an updated card deck.  I think this is all you need to update your set to the latest edition.

It would count twice (so four ore) in your example if the rules would have stated for each mountain hex adjacent to each of your cities or settlements, unfortunately it doesn't and you have to pick one of your cities or settlements to process the cards for, which one is up to you.


What happens to cards cast from exile? There are a few cards that allow you to exile cards and then cast them later (Narset, Enlightened Master for example). After a spell cast this way resolves, does it go back into exile, or does it resolve normally including being placed in its owner's graveyard? (assuming nothing else effects where it would go after being cast)

What happens to a spell after it's been cast is not affected by where it was cast from. It's the usual rule about cards being by default "reset" whenever they move from a zone to another.

Unless the spell itself (e.g. Pull from the Deep, White Sun's Zenith...) or another card (such as Rest in Peace) says it doesn't go to the graveyard, that is where it will end up.

If a card is exiled and played, then when it dies it will go back to exile,this is because when its exiled it is considered to be "out of the game" but it is still usable if you cast it, this is just the same as Spawnsire of Ulamog's ability or the affect from Coax from the Blind Eternities.


What cards can give an opponent control of an Island so I can use Islandwalk on them? I'm working on a blue/black deck with some cards that have Islandwalk and I'm trying to find cards that can force an opponent to control an island. I have Stormtide Leviathan but I was looking for something less costly that can exchange one of my Islands for one of their lands or just give them an island.

There is an artifact that slowly turns all lands into Islands: Quicksilver Fountain. There are also a few auras that turn the enchanted land into an Island (or any type, including Island): Convincing Mirage, Lingering Mirage, Nylea's Presence, Phantasmal Terrain, Sea's Claim, and Spreading Seas. There is also a sorcery that turns a land into an Island, Aquitect's Will. Some other cards that can turn lands into any basic land type, including Island, are Mystic Compass, Dream Thrush, Illusionary Terrain, Jinx, Moonbow Illusionist, Reef Shaman, Sea Snidd, Shimmering Mirage, and Tideshaper Mystic.

In addition several creatures turn lands into Islands:

Dreamwinder temporarily turns a land into an Island at the cost of sacrificing an Island. Kukemssa Serpent does the same.
Floodchaser temporarily turns a land into an Island at the cost of a +1/+1 counter.
Sealock Monster permanently turns a land into an Island when it becomes monstrous.
Streambed Aquitects, Tidal Warrior, and Tundra Kavu can both tap to temporarily turn a land into an Island.

There are also cards that you can use to make an opponent control one of your Islands, including Bazaar Trader, Donate, Gauntlets of Chaos, Political Trickery, Shifting Borders, Shifting Loyalties, Sky Swallower, Vedalken Plotter, and Zedruu the Greathearted. You can also use Yavimaya Dryad to search for Breeding Pool or Tropical Island and put it into play under your opponent's control.

The ultimate troll card beckons you - Puca's Mischief


What is the penalty for failing to follow suit? Assume the mistake is unintentional, what course of action should be taken when this occurs and is discovered?

If the person discovers themselves that they earlier made the mistake, is the penalty different than if an opponent discovers it?

In Duplicate Bridge the penalty for a revoke (failing to follow suit) is very clear.

The official rules handle revokes in Laws 61 to 64.  Wikipedia's summary of 61-64 is

  A revoke may be corrected (correct card substituted) without trick penalty before any player of the offending side plays to the next trick; otherwise, it becomes established. If a revoke is corrected, the exposed card becomes a penalty card and the opponents may change their played cards as they see fit (however, the revoking side may not take advantage of those seen cards—see Alcatraz coup). When a revoke is established, in general, one of subsequent tricks won by the offending side is transferred to the opponents. If the revoke card has won the trick, that trick is transferred too. (If the offending side did not win any subsequent tricks, no penalty is assessed). Additional tricks can be transferred if the revoke has caused more damage to the opponents than was redressed by those penalties.

If the revoke is not immediately corrected, there is no difference in penalties based on the person who establishes the revoke.  It makes no difference whether the mistake was intentional or unintentional.

The revoke (renege) laws are complicated!

If a player discovers that they have revoked before the side has led to the next trick OR if the revoke occurred at trick 12 OR both sides have revoked at the same trick and only one has led to the next, then the revoke is NOT established. It must be corrected and, if a defender, the revoke card becomes a Major Penalty card. The player after the revoker can change their card without penalty (information about the card withdrawn is Authorised for the non offending side but unauthorised for the offending side): if they do then the partner of the revoker can change their card - but the original one remains a major penalty card.

If the revoke IS established then there may be an automatic trick adjustment - this does not happen if the card that was used to revoke was already visible i.e in dummy or a major penalty card, at trick 12 (see above), if it is a second revoke in the same suit, or if both sides have revoked on the same trick, if the round has ended or the non-offending side has called on the next hand. Law 64 B

The automatic trick adjustment is:

If the revoke card won the trick - this almost always means that it trumped in the trick (although it could be that a player was required to lead a suit because of a previous infraction and failed to do so when they could) - then THAT trick is transferred over to the other side.  ONE more trick is transferred over but ONLY if the offending side won the trick AFTER the revoke.

Finally there are some situations where the non-offending side are not adequately compensated for the effects of the revoke - in which case the Tournament Director restores Equity.

In summary - when attention is drawn to a revoke- call the director! Do not accept or agree to any statement made by the opponents as to the correct rectification.


How to find people to play Magic the gathering with? I started playing Magic about six years ago, and I live in a very "Intelligence Deficient" Town. I have tried playing online and I Don't have a game shop nearby. Help me please??????

It's illegal, but you can always play for free on cockatrice or mws (never tried mws). Look the link in mtgsalvation.com forum (im typing from mobile).

You can also play on mtgo, which is legal, but i think doesn't worth it.

You can also ask your friends to play it too.

Good luck


What happens when I remove Mistbind Clique with its champion trigger still on the stack? So, this recently happened to me in playtesting:

It's my upkeep. My opponent casts Mistbind Clique.

I don't have a relevant counter, but I do have Path to Exile. He has multiple fairies on the field, as well as enough mana to animate his Mutavault, so I can't get a two-for-one by Pathing anything before the Clique resolves. I let the Clique resolve.

Mistbind Clique's champion trigger goes on the stack. In response, I Path the Clique before its champion trigger resolves.

Path resolves.

What happens when the Clique's champion ability resolves after it's already been exiled?

My understanding is that my opponent still gets the option to exile a faerie (which would stay exiled, since the Clique has already left the battlefield). If he does so, though, does the Clique's tap-down ability apply?

  When a Faerie is championed with Mistbind Clique, tap all lands target player controls.

You are correct in thinking your opponent still gets the option to exile a faerie. However, if he/she does so, the Clique's tap-down ability does not apply.

Mistbind Clique's ability reads "When a Faerie is championed with Mistbind Clique, tap all lands target player controls." The when there implies that it is a triggered ability:

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

Since Mistbind Clique is no longer present on the battlefield when the Champion triggered ability resolves, the tapping triggered ability will not trigger.

You said yourself, you Pathed the Clique before its champion trigger resolves, so it would make little sense to assume that your opponent still exiles another faerie.

If your opponent had exiled another faerie, then of course the tap-down ability would apply, but since the champion trigger didn´t even resolve, there also is nothing to tap-down - simple as that.


A board game called PALM BEACH or something to that effect Does anyone remember a board game called PALM BEACH or something to that effect that was played similar to monopoly ? I am looking for a copy or more info.

From what I can remember, The characters all started out with $1,000,000 dollars except "the count" who started out with $500,000 -- that is the most distinct memory of the game I have that might assist someone in remembering.

Does this sound familiar to anyone ?

Also, it was not "palm-beach-opoloy" nor was it a monopoly re-skin - it was a distinct game onto itself.

Followup Q&A:
Q: when did you play it ?
A: it must have been around 20 years back

This must be it.

1976 Board game:  Palm Beach

Source: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/lifestyles/blast-from-the-past-groovy-vintage-palm-beach-find/nWDNK/

Found an old ebay listing with more photos here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1976-Palm-Beach-Game-Complete-Monopoly-Style-Board-Entertaining-Fun-/230915467545?nma=true&si=w8Yhok%252BHv7Zg0Y1acAhEKk1lbZU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

I have the game.  It is a 1976 board game called "PALM BEACH" A GAME.  The box is lime green, pink and white with black lettering. Looks like a Lilly Pulitzer print.  It looks as though it has never been played.  The money, cards and playing pieces are in pristine condition as is the board.  The game is complete and includes the instructions.


Tapping land for mana with free cast and X in cost If I have Galvanoth out and the card that is revealed is Skyscribing, am I able to tap lands to pay for the X amount?  Would this be any different with Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge?

No, in both cases, you cannot tap additional lands to pay for the X. X, if it's not specified on a card, is always considered to be zero. In both cases, the spell's cost is not being paid for, it's being replaced. Galvanoth and Jeleva aren't saying "Add mana to your mana pool equal to the casting cost", they are replacing the cost altogether. So you can't add anything addional to the spell.

Relevant Gathering rules for Galvanoth:

  If the card has an X in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as its value.

X always = 0 for CMC (converted mana cost) when X cannot be tapped for mana.  As far as the 2nd question Jeleva's CMC would be 4. (edit) But the X amount paid would thus be 0.


When a card modifies how many copies of that card a deck can have, does that affect the sideboard? I'm using MTG Cardsmith to design custom cards for a casual tournament with friends. My goal is to design some cards that make sense within the current rules of the game, while still being flavorful and interesting; one of my ideas is for a card that can only be played as a singleton (one copy per deck), in any format. But I'm not sure how best to write the rule text when sideboarding is taken into account.

I thought I'd follow the wording of Persistent Petitioners, which reads:

  A deck can have any number of cards named Persistent Petitioners.

The problem with this is that it's ambiguous whether "a deck" is inclusive of the sideboard or not. It doesn't really matter for Petitioners, because if the point is you can play as many as you want, a) you don't really need the sideboard and b) if you wanted to somehow side into Petitioners, it would be inconsistent with the spirit of the card not to allow you to add 15 of them.

But if you're limiting the card to one copy, then it becomes important to know whether that's one copy in the main deck plus another one (or three) in the side, because of things like wishes.

I check the comprehensive rules and it seems they define a deck as follows:

  100.2. To play, each player needs their own deck of traditional Magic cards, small items to represent any tokens and counters, and some way to clearly track life totals.

  100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates their own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. A constructed deck may contain any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card with a particular English name other than basic land cards.
  100.2b In limited play (a way of playing in which each player gets the same quantity of unopened Magic product such as booster packs and creates their own deck using only this product and basic land cards), each deck must contain at least forty cards. A limited deck may contain as many duplicates of a card as are included with the product.

And a sideboard as follows:

  100.4. Each player may also have a sideboard, which is a group of additional cards the player may use to modify their deck between games of a match.

  100.4a In constructed play, a sideboard may contain no more than fifteen cards. The four-card limit (see rule 100.2a) applies to the combined deck and sideboard.

(And so on.)

The implication of "combined deck and sideboard" in 100.4a is that the word "deck" technically refers to what we more loosely call a "main deck" and is exclusive of the sideboard.

Furthermore, the four-card limit of 100.2a explicitly applies to the "combined deck and sideboard." However, 100.4a does not explicitly state that any restriction on the number of copies of a card that may be played is necessarily applied in this way.

So, my gut feeling is that the rules text of the card should be worded like this:

  A deck can not have more than one card named [this card].

If Wizards were to print a card with that wording today, would the limitation apply only to the (main) deck as defined by 100.2, or would it apply to the "combined deck and sideboard," consistent with 100.4a? Is there some basis for an official ruling here, even though the wording is essentially hypothetical? Or should I resign myself that this needs to be interpreted as a house rule?

Rule 100.4 clearly distinguishes between the deck and the sideboard, by using the word "also". That is, a player must have a deck of minimum size and may choose to have a sideboard of maximum size.
Rule 100.4a again makes this distinction, and clarifies that the deck and sideboard together may contain a maximum of four copies of the same card. This ensures a person cannot "accidentally" end up with more than four copies of the same card when making changes between deck and sideboard, or "accidentally" mix up the two sets of cards to disguise excess use of one card.
Rule 100.4c gives further insight into the separation between decks and sideboards, by telling us that all cards not in the decks of either player are in the sideboard. A card cannot both be in the sideboard and in the deck, therefore the sideboard cannot be part of the deck.
Consider the outcome of counting the sideboard as part of the deck: someone could pick just 45 (or 25!) cards for actual use in the match, shuffled to form their library. If this was intended, the rule writers could, and given the clarity of the Rules as a whole, assuredly would, have said so.
All told, this would mean a card that says "You may only have one copy of [Card Name] in your deck" would not disallow having three copies in the sideboard as well. However, none of those other copies could be brought into the game by an effect that accesses the sideboard (if such an effect were to be written). To avoid the loophole, the card should say "... in your combined deck and sideboard".

Yes, the word "deck" includes the sideboard.

From the Gatherer rulings of Persistent Petitioners, we have (emphasis mine):

  The last ability of Persistent Petitioners lets you ignore the “four-of” rule. It doesn’t let you ignore format legality. For example, during a Ravnica Allegiance Limited event, you can’t add Persistent Petitioners from your personal collection, no matter how much they ask.

As you have pointed out in your question,

  ... rule 100.2a explicitly applies to the "combined deck and sideboard."

That rule is referred in the card as the "four-of" rule, which seems to imply it will apply to both main deck and sideboard.

Furthermore, when cards refer to your deck as being only the "main deck", the wording used is "(your) library" instead.

Regarding your other question:

  If Wizards were to print a card with that wording today, would the limitation apply only to the (main) deck as defined by 100.2, or would it apply to the "combined deck and sideboard," consistent with 100.4a?

A card with that specific wording seems highly unlikely to be printed. However, in the event such a card is printed with that wording, it would most likely have a Gatherer ruling specifying that it would apply to both main deck and sideboard combined, since it would make no sense to restrict a card to one copy in the main deck while allowing extra copies to be put in the sideboard. As you mentioned, since this is a very hypothetical question, we cannot, alas, be sure of how WotC would apply such a ruling.


Contract Bridge Better minors Using better minor convention partner open one club, and I have five diamonds with three honors. I answer two diamonds to show the diamonds. Is this correct?

No, playing a natural system such as Goren or Two Over One the jump shift response into a new suit shows about 17-18 points in addition to the good suit. You have the good suit but (at time of writing) not the requisite overall hand strength. If the suit being bid is not at least 5 cards in length then the bid must also show 4+ card support in Opener's suit..

In addition to the above the bid announces that:
- The opponents shall not be allowed to play undoubled;
- Slam will be bid if a fit is found and sufficient controls are present.

It is because of the first point above that the bid should be made on HCP rather than playing strength. Good suits with playing strength but less defence can make a delayed jump shift, a delayed jump raise, or a delayed jump rebid. These now deny sufficient defensive strength for the initial jump shift. The jump shift response must never be made with a two suited hand unless the second suit is Opener's first bid suit.

When partner opens 1C it is very likely (especially playing a Strong 1 NT) that partner intends to rebid either 1 or 2 NT. Narrowing the jump shift response to slam going hands leaves more room for additional exploration below game, which will not only improve any NT games stumbled into but also find more good minor suit slams.

No.

Playing Standard American or Two-over-one the classic agreement is to play strong jump shifts in a non-competitive auction. In that case a 2D bid after a 1C opening would show not only a 5-card suit including at least 5 HCP, but also at least 17 points in the overall hand. Such a bid is forcing to game.

However, many of the stronger players now prefer to play Weak Jump Shifts in which a bid of 2D over an opening 1C would show a 6-card suit, and 2-5 HCP in the total hand. Over such a bid, opener usually passes or bids the final contract. A bid of 2NT is forcing and asks the responded to further describe his hand.

Playing SA or 2/1, a bid of 1D over 1C often indicates a 5-card suit. With a 4-card or longer major, the responder will usually bid the major unless the diamonds are significantly better, and the hand is strong enough to reverse by bidding the major later. Therefore only hands which are 3-3 or shorter in the majors (or rather strong hands) will bid 1D. Many (but far from all) such hands have 5+ cards in the diamond suit. Therefor opener should be prepared for a 5-card diamond suit, and responder does not need to jump to show it, unless the hand suits the partnership agreement for a jump-shift, weak or strong.  If the bidding has gone 1C-pass-1D, the responder will probably rebid Diamonds later to show such a good suit as 5-cards with three honors. Remember that as a new-suit bid from an unpassed responder, 1D is forcing 1 round.

To anyone thinking that "Standard American" should include 4-card major systems, and so this answer should have discussed such alternatives: that was once the case, but has not been for several decades. No North American tournement or club player describing a system as "Standard American" will mean a 4-card major system. This has been true since not long after the final edition of Goren's Bridge Complete came pout in the early 1980s with the Goren system fully reworked on a 5-card major basis. There is a case to eb made that a 4-card major system is better in many cirumstsancecs. But what ever one might call such a system, it isn't "Standard American" (much less SAYC), and it isn't common in NA duplicate play.


What is the name of this snakes-and-ladders-like race game? Someone taught me a game that they remember playing many years before. They drew the board from memory, it looks mostly like this:

 _____________
|  __________ |
| |E|   |   | |
| | | | | | | |
| | |<| |<| | |
| | | | | | | |
|S|___|___|___|

Each player began at the start (S), took turns to roll the dice and move, to see who could read the end (E) first. In some places, there were shortcuts (<) allowing players to move ahead more quickly.

There is a classic game in Spain called "El juego de la Oca", which in english is known as the "Game of The Goose". There are thousands of variants for the board (including bridges, ladders etc.), so maybe you saw a Chinese version

I remember playing it when I was young. Here is wikipedia entry for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_Ladders


What was this Mouse Trap-like game with a basket, stairs, and metal parts? It was similar to Mouse Trap but it had metal parts vs. plastic. It may have been more of a maze but there was a basket & perhaps stairs. It's been driving me crazy because I loved it & want to find for my kids. I played with it in the mid 80's  so it could be from that point back.

I'm not sure if it ever included metal parts, but that sounds like it could have been crazy clock

Other than that possibly Flying Finnegan or Grape Escape

I believe it is grape escape. i can only remember that and mouse trap. both games are similar in design.


Is Parcheesi simply an alternate name for Pachisi? Or are they significantly different games? There are a few board games that are the exactly the same as each other, but have different names. For instance, Reversi and Othello are exactly the same game, but the latter is a trademarked name. Similarly, Star Halma and Chinese Checkers are exactly the same game.

As a result of a recent meta discussion on tag synonyms, I'm wondering: is Parcheesi simply an alternate name for Pachisi? Or are they significantly different games?

My initial searches were inconclusive. According to Board Game Geek, they are the same game. However, there are separate Wikipedia articles for Parcheesi and Pachisi.

In modern, Western usage, they are the same game

Consider these two games:

1981 Pachisi by Whitman Games

1982 Parcheesi by Selchow & Righter (later republished by Milton Bradley)

Both of these have similar boards with only cosmetic differences. They also both use dice, are played individually rather than in teams, and have similar rules.

There are some historical differences

Bruce Whitehill published an article about Pachisi and Parcheesi in the September 2007 edition of Knucklebones games magazine. He defines some clear differences between the two:

Pachisi was designed for team play, Parcheesi for individual play

  Pachisi was designed to be played by four players acting as two teams, unlike Parcheesi, in which each player plays independently; team play significantly raises the level of strategy required for the game.

The boards have a different appearance and sequence of play

  The Parcheesi board still has the appearance of a cross, but the main paths have been moved to form a path around the edge of a square gameboard. Parcheesi pieces begin in individual areas in the corners of the board (one color per area), whereas the “men,” as they are often called, in Pachisi begin and end in the same center square.

Traditional Pachisi uses cowry shells, Parcheesi uses dice

  One more significant difference (there are other minor ones) is that the moves in Parcheesi are governed by dice, whereas Pachisi uses cowrie (or cowry) shells.

However, most modern versions of Pachisi and Parcheesi do not have these differences, as shown above.

I suspect that the differences could be likened to regional variations of the game, or a change of the rules over time. This might be compared to Chess. Over the course of hundreds of years, the pieces on the board and the rules of movement have changed, yet the game was still "Chess". In fact, Whitehill's article lists many alternative names for the game, noting that some contain regional rule variations of Pachisi.

It seems that in this case, the rules of Pachisi have changed over time or had variations, and Parcheesi is just another name for the same game.

Parcheesi and Pachisi were originally different games although they have many similarities. Parcheesi was based on Pachisi and was produced and sold originally in the U.S. Unfortunately, even though Parcheesi was produced in large enough quantities to become standard, the rules for the newest version (from Hasbro) are not precisely the same as the rules for older versions (by Selchow & Righter). "Parcheesi" is currently a trademark, now held along with the copyright for the game board cosmetic design by Hasbro. There are still a few other versions with the same travel path (space count, etc.) for the pawns, slightly different rules, and slightly different name spellings, produced by other companies. "Pachisi" was the Anglicized spelling of the original Indian name and has been used either inadvertently or intentionally for new versions.


How do I put a double-faced card in my deck? I was reading recently about double-faced cards. Basically, they are cards that are otherwise typical creature cards, but some condition allows you to flip them over so that they become a new card.

Meld cards, introduced in the Eldritch Moon set, are one fairly noteworthy example. For instance, this

Becomes this when you flip them over

How do you actually put double-faced cards like this in your deck, given that they do not have Magic: The Gathering card backs? Is it only playable with sleeves (requiring you to pull it out and flip it over)? Or is there some other aspect that I'm unaware of?

You can use card sleeves, as you suggested, or use checklist cards, which were included in booster packs of Eldritch Moon. These checklist cards are single faced, and included a list of all of the double faced cards in the set. I've also seen people write on basic lands to note the card (though this isn't allowed in tournaments).

Depending on how many double sided cards you have in your deck it may get expensive or difficult to get your hands on enough of the checklist cards. For the custom werewolf commander deck I built I had around sixty or so cards that were double sided. Since i do not play in tournaments or anything I had the idea to try a dealer shoe. This worked out great. I did angle the shoe away from me so that no one could see the top card, but this allowed me to keep the cards all in the same clear sleeves, together, organized, and easy to play. The one thing I might try to do differently is to not buy one as large as I did. I think a three or four deck shoe would work... This is the one I purchased:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FSSQRG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s02?ie=UTF8&psc=1


What's different in San Juan's second edition? I just bought a copy of San Juan after playing it a few times on iPad and loving it. When I got it home, I saw that it is the second edition. On Board Game Geek, first and second editions have their own entries. What's new/different in San Juan's second edition that it would get classified as a separate game?

Artwork and the following.

The Prefecture now costs 4 instead of 3.
With the Goldmine, you now get to keep the cheapest card instead of any card.
With the Guildhall, you get 1 point per production building and 1 point for each different production building.
New building Hut: "In the trader phase, the owner of a hut draws one card from the supply if no good was sold by any player during this phase."
The Bank now costs 3 instead of 4.

And yes this is a copy paste from BGG, if you don't want that please explain how BGG didn't fully explain this.

Link: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1330934/differences-between-1ed-and-2ed

San Juan Second Edition has full-colour cards and the addition of the Cathedral card


In Pandemic, at the end of your turn can you discard even when you have fewer than 7 cards, so the Archivist can pick up that card on his next turn? In Pandemic, at the end of your turn can you discard a card even when you have fewer than 7 cards, so that the Archivist can pick up that card on his next turn?

No, discarding is not one of your choices of actions, and the discarding to hand limit is very specifically only for when you have too many cards.

If you want to discard a specific card like this, your best available option is to use it for an action: fly to that city, fly from that city to anywhere, or build a research station.

I would beg to differ with Jefromi.  As per the On The Brink expansion instructions, if a player wants to discard a card voluntarily it will cost them an action.  This is explained on the back page under the Archivist section.


In Midway, how do I manage the "inferior" Japanese fleet on day 1? This is a reference to the Avalon Hill board game.

Historically, the Japanese fleet approached Midway in four waves. The first wave (a strike force of four carriers and supporting ships) was slightly inferior in power to the American forces (three carriers, cruisers, and a "fourth" carrier on Midway). On the second day, the Japanese receive two more waves of reinforcements of surface ships that give them a decisive superiority over the Americans at sea (but not in the air).

As the Japanese, how do I hide/avoid combat on the first day until my reinforcements arrive, given the Americans' full board "search" capabilities?  Or should I accept the possibility of combat, hope for a more or less even result, and then hope that my second-day reinforcements can overwhelm the Americans?

Would your answer change between the Basic game (air combat only, on more or less even terms) and the Advanced game (which allows ship-to-ship combat that favors the Japanese)?

The other answer got me to look up the game again, and here's what I found.

If the Japanese player is worried about the balance of power on Day 1, he should stay out of the range of planes based on Midway (about half of those of an American carrier, although Midway has a greater CAPACITY than any carrier). This means the normal 7-square "round trip" range, and even the 14-square "suicide bomber" range (the rules provide that if some of an attacker's planes are making suicide attacks, and he suffers combat losses, he can count those losses against the "suicide" planes first).

For the Japanese players, that means staying in columns "A" and "B" near the western edge of the board on Day 1, close to Day 2 reinforcements. If the Americans want to attack beyond the range of Midway based planes, they will do so at a disadvantage. This is particularly true in the advanced game, where Midway would have to send additional fighters to bring the American carrier groups to parity with the Japanese, meaning that the carriers would have room for fewer dive bombers.

On the other hand, the Japanese player may want to seek aerial combat on almost even terms on Day 1, in order clear the way for later waves. With their (future) edge in ships, "attrition," provided that it is balanced, favors them. On Day 1, they enjoy "draw odds," that is if they "draw" on the first day, their reinforcements make them likely to win.

On Day 2, the focus of the game changes with the arrival of the Atago, a cruiser whose importance is as the flagship of the transport fleet bound for the invasion of Midway. (The way to attack the transports is to attack the Atago.) The Americans can try to prevent the invasion of Midway by sinking the Atago. or follow the historically-based strategy of sinking the Japanese carriers, but they might not be able to do both.

One way for the Japanese to win is to "take out" enough American air power on the first day so the Americans can't prevent the invasion from the Atago. The other, safer way, is to concentrate forces on Day 2 in order to maximize the chances of a successful retaliation against a "first strike."

I'm sorry I don't have the knowledge to answer your question.
I assume you're asking about the original 1964 edition, as
opposed to the 1991 "Smithsonian Edition"; unfortunately, I'm not
familiar with either one.

Have you looked for answers on www.boardgamegeek.com?  Each game
has its own web-page there, with a (usually very useful) forum
section:

1964 edition
     http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2250/midway#forums

1991 edition
     http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1373/midway#forums

You might also find useful information on the forum at
talk.consimworld.com:  Boardgaming, INDIVIDUAL GAMES . . ,
Era: World War II (INDIVIDUAL GAME), Pacific Theatre,
Midway (AH) .

Good luck!


How can we use multiple Carcassonne expansions without the game taking forever? My wife and I were playing Carcassonne last night with several of the expansions and we found that the game was taking a ridiculously long time.  We had the base game, the River, Inns & Cathedrals, and Traders & Builders all in play at once.  I am hoping to find a way to minimize the tiles in play without sacrificing the variations created by the expansions.  Any suggestions?

The simplest way is to simply shuffle up the tiles, then pull about 60-150 of them for use. This will typically mean a 1-3 hour game, depending upon player speed and exact number of tiles. It also limits the needed table space. It does, however, also mean it is possible to not have any tiles turn up from a given expansion.

Also, don't use the River nor River II, nor the Count. The River I & 2 simply lengthen setup and increase think-time needed at start.... in addition to taking time to start, and adding 10+ tiles each. The count, by allowing reinforcement as it does, really adds to tactical think-times.

If using princess and dragon, you may want to hold out one volcano, and shuffle it into the play stack after generating the ones you're going to play with. This way, you know the dragon WILL show up, but might not be showing up twice. Same for Tower tiles from The Tower.

Another method we used in our games, which also cuts down on randomness is to give each player a "hand of tiles" — three was the optimal number for us — from which they can use one each time. Theoretically, that's increasing the number of options for play, but it actually tends to focus people one one "good" move which they pick before their turn.


Banishing Spell Cards from the graveyard I'm looking for cards that allow me to banish one or more Spell Cards from my own graveyard repeatedly. By repeatedly, I mean that they can be used several times per turn, including with some workaround. An example of what cards fit my needs is Spell Striker, who banishes one Spell Card to Special Summon itself, then if I somehow get it back into my hand, I can use it again.

What I'm not looking for:

Trap Cards. I need cards that work immediately.
Cards that banish any number of Spell Cards once. I need to use them again and again, banishing my Spell Cards one by one. Banishing all at once doesn't help unless I can do it as often as I like.
Cards that banish a specific Spell Card. Like Spellbook shenanigans. I need to banish generic Spell Cards.
Cards that banish only non-Normal Spell Cards. I need to banish Normal Spell Cards. If a card can banish other Spell Cards too, it's still fine, if it can banish only Normal Spell Cards, no problem. But it has to be able to banish Normal Spell Card.

Also, Monsters that must be Normal Summoned are of limited use unless their effect can be used as often as I like. Chaosrider Gustaph comes to mind, but he's more or less useless because he banishes 2 cards and that's it.

From my preemptive search, I found litterally no cards that fit my description except
Spell Striker and Banisher of the Light / Radiance (which needs to be on the field before the Spell Card is played). I'm hoping someone knows more cards I can use to achieve this.

Due that I'm not familiar with the type of Deck you have I'll add various card suggestions:

Unfortunately, I couldn't find other card than Frost Blast Of The Monarchs that could be useful for your Deck and matches with your requirements.

Another options could be:

Option 1: Pseudo Space

  Once per turn, you can remove from play 1 Field Spell Card in your Graveyard to have this card be treated as that card, and gain the same effects until the End Phase.

Strategy:

Use "Terraforming".

Option 2: Shuffle Reborn

  If you control no monsters: Target 1 monster in your Graveyard; Special Summon it, but its effects are negated, also banish it during the End Phase. You can banish this card from your Graveyard, then target 1 card you control; shuffle it into the Deck, then draw 1 card, also during the End Phase of this turn, banish 1 card from your hand. You can only use this effect of "Shuffle Reborn" once per turn.

Strategy:

Don't set monsters on the field in the turn you use this card.
Have (al least) 1 monster card in the Graveyard.
Have (al least) 1 card in your hand for banish.

Notes:

All previous cards can be used once per turn, but if you use these cards together, you can get the results that you desired.
You can still use Chaosrider Gustaph o Spell Striker and other cards that allows you get back your summoned monsters to your hand like Spirit monster cards.

If you're interested, you can check this link from Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia that lists all cards that banishes from your graveyard.

You can play with the query for get more concise results.

Treasure Panda may be the card you're looking for, but you need to have tons of low level normal monsters in your deck.


Is responders suit change after 1NT rebid by opener forcing? (System: simplified SAYC) Auction: 1C - 1H - 1NT - ? (opener has 3 hearts, 12 pts ; responder has 5 hearts, 13 pts)

In case of responder having 13+ pts yet lacking NT distribution, how does partnership get to game with 13+13 total points and 3+5 major fit, after 1NT rebid by opener?

P.S. This is an unfinished question, I might edit it in the future to further elaborate my inquiry on partnership getting to game with 12+13 points by both partners and 1nt rebid by opener.

P.S.2. The inquiry is about the very basics, as this page says: http://larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=462 -- paraphrasing: "The worst mistake I see: Not reaching game when there is enough for game.  If your partner opens the bidding and you have 14 points, please don't ever make any bid which your partner can pass"

This link outlines the system behind SAYC in fairly simple terms. The bottom of page 7 notes that on the auction of interest, responder must reverse or jump shift to create a game force. However, a simple new suit bid should be treated as a one-round force, 10+, game invitational.

Most established partnerships now play some form of either Check Back Stayman (CBS) or New Minor Forcing (NMF). Both of these are predicated on the requirement that Opener's 1NT rebid categorically denied 4-card support for Responder's major suit response.

If partner rebid 1NT over your 1H response with 4-card Heart support, rightly take that as a gross insult to your card-play. Find a new partner promptly , before this one ruins your bidding.

If i'm playing with an amateur partner using just the simplest system ever, then I would bid 2S. This bid promises 5-card hearts, at least invitational values (10+ points) and it is forcing. Have in mind that 1NT rebid by opener denies 4-card spades, so there is no danger of playing in spades. Partner will bid hearts if he has 3 of them.

in the simplest system ever i think that after 1C-1H-1NT:

2C =sign-off
2D =sign-off
2H =sign-off
2S =5h,4s 10+
2NT=4h, 10-11
3C =4?h, 4+c, 10-11
3D =5h, 4d, 12+
3H =5h, 10-11
3S =6h,5s FG
3NT=4h, 12+

if you want to improve your bidding you should use the CBS(checkback stayman) convention, along with canape-bids.


Does taking first strike damage before gaining life from normal lifelink cause me to lose the game? Two creatures are attacking me and one has first strike and I have one blocker with lifelink.  If I block the creature without first strike and take lethal damage from the first strike creature, would I lose the game before I gain the life to live from my blocker with lifelink?

Essentially do you lose the game at the end of the first strike combat step or is this checked at the end of both combat steps?

You lose the game. Each player gets priority in the combat damage step, after damage is dealt. When there is a first strike or doublestrike creature attacking there is a second and separate combat damage step. So you would lose when state based actions are checked, before players receive priority in the first combat damage step.

  Combat Damage Step

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

    510.3. Third, the active player gets priority. (See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.”)

    510.4. If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike (see rule 702.7) or double strike (see rule 702.4) as the combat damage step begins, the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step.

Yes, first strike happens first, and you lose as soon as you get lethal damage before your creature with lifelink was able to deal damage and you gain life due to it.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for a total of 1.365e-7 %

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

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

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

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

So In total

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

Hand passing section:

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

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

Normalized |  Squares sum | Patterns

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

Undefined.

You have made the question a contradiction: There are no "perfectly playing agents", and thus there can be no empirical data on their results.

Reason: Hearts, like Contract Bridge, is a stochastic game of incomplete information: There is incomplete data throughout most of the play of each hand, meaning statistical likelihoods need to be estimated by each player for several rounds. There is no theoretic framework for such, and no evidence that even AI can do so in a foreseeable future.

Even in Contract Bridge, where additional information about the hidden hands is available from the bidding and one hand is face down on the table, there is o such thing as a perfectly playing agent, even considering just the play of the cards. The closest that is available is termed Double Dummy Analysis, which presents an assessment of makeable contracts when both opponent hands are assumed visible for the play.

So, until such time as a perfectly playing agent has at least been constructed for Contract Bridge, a game with one hand on the table for all players to see, there can be no such thing in the much more challenging conditions of a Hearts game, with all opponents always hidden.

Addendum

In card games such as Hearts and Contract Bridge, one of the most powerful analysis techniques is that of:

drawing correct inferences from what other players have not done;
then from an assessment of their habits and presumed skill making an assessment of holdings they don't have; and
from this finally creating an assessment of what they might have by removing the eliminated possibilities.

This is an extremely challenging skill to master, even in Contract Bridge where at least one partnership, and often both, have participated in the auction and described their hands in considerable detail to both partnerships - as there are no secret bidding or play agreements in Bridge.

If this cannot even be approached perfectly in Bridge, imagine how much harder it will be in Hearts, where only the three cards you received on the Pass is available information about the other hands when the play starts.


Questions about the game-play of Cluedo While playing the game, "Cluedo: Discover the Secrets," we always seem to have an argument about what we can do and what we can't. So, I've came here to put the questions to rest and hopefully have them answered.

Case 1:

Assume I am in the Living Room, and I roll a 10. I walk toward the observatory and enter the room. Can I use the secret passage to go to the Kitchen on that same turn? Same idea should apply to other secret passage rooms.

Case 2:

Does the pool count as a room? I ask this question because the new Cluedo requires you to go to the Pool to make the accusation. So, if one was White, she has the power to go to any room that doesn't have a secret passage. Does that power extend to going to the pool and making the accusation? Same question for the intrigue card of similar ability.

Case 3:

The Patio's doors are unclear in the board. Does it have one door or multiple ones? There is a bench that seems to be a door and their a stairway that seems to a decorative element of the room. Which is what?

I would appreciate any answers. Further, if someone has a reputable site that explains such cases and rules in detail, then can someone please add its in his/her answer.

Case 1: No, you must stop movement upon entering a room.

  Rules for Moving - If you enter a Room, STOP MOVING.

Case 2: Yes, the pool is a room. Someone contacted the designer, Rob Daviau, and he confirmed this. He also notes that using this power only happens during the move phase instead of rolling. (I.e. You cannot start a rumor in another room, then warp to the Pool to make an accusation.)

  Q. The Pool (1) Is the pool a room?

  A: Yes.

  Q: (2) Can this be used as a kind of "fast effect" anytime during her turn, or is it only applicable during her "move phase"?

  A: Only on her move phase, instead of rolling.

Case 3: The patio has 4 entrances. They start at the white steps which connect to the house and descend to ground level. No doors are printed on the board for this room, unlike older editions of Clue that actually write "DOOR" directly on the board. The Patio is based on the older edition's Ballroom and has a similar floor-plan. (The whole house does actually, albeit rotated 90 degrees in the linked image)

I disagree. If the pool was a room then there would be a room card for it. White becomes too powerful if she can move there without rolling. Plus Mel always chooses White and I'm tired of her beating me!


Can I have two planeswalkers with the same planeswalker type out on the field? Can I have two versions of Huatli out at the same time even though they are the same planeswalker, just with different names?

Yes, you can have multiple Huatli planeswalkers on the battlefield at a time.
This is a recent change when it comes to magic, but planeswalkers are now Legendary permanents so planeswalker type is no longer considered for determining if it gets to stay on the field.

306.4.: Previously, planeswalkers were subject to a “planeswalker uniqueness rule” that stopped a player from controlling two planeswalkers of the same planeswalker type. This rule has been removed and planeswalker cards printed before this change have received errata in the Oracle card reference to have the legendary supertype. Like other legendary permanents, they are subject to the “legend rule” (see rule 704.5j).
704.5j: If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”

So as long as the two planeswalkers don't have the same card name, you can have them both on the battlefield simultaneously.

If those are the two cards you are meaning then no because of the  Legendary Planeswalker - Huatli


Can you play base-game Claustrophobia scenarios with De Profundis included? Perhaps stupidly, I bought both Claustrophobia and its De Profundis expansion both at once.

After doing so I discovered that the designer has stated the scenarios in the base game are not suitable for playing with the material from De Profundis.

This is a colossal pain because it means sorting and removing all the cards and tiles from De Profundis every time we want to switch back to a base game scenario.

Does anyone know why this advice was given? Does it actually break the game somehow, or it merely untested? And has anyone actually tried it to see if it works okay?

Do you have a link for where the designer stated this?

Nobody I know cares about sorting out the cards to switch back to a base-game scenario. The only concern with using De Profundis with the base game is to impose a 3-card hand limit on the Demon player's Event Cards (because the expansion cards are more powerful). You also probably don't want to use the Hellhounds.


What happens when a creature with flying blocks my non-flying attacker? I’ve declared a non-flying attacker, and my opponent declared a flying blocker. When combat damage is dealt, I deal damage as normal, but can the damage dealt by the flying creature be absorbed by my non-flying creature, or do I have to absorb it with my life?

It's your turn and you are attacking your opponent; that means you won't lose life from combat damage. The flying creature will deal combat damage to your non-flying creature. The fact that it has flying has nothing to do with it; that just determines whether it can block or be blocked.

Everything you need to know about this is covered in the basic rules; look for the section 'ATTACKING AND BLOCKING'.

  An attacking creature that is blocked deals damage to the creature or creatures that are blocking it, and vice versa.

If there is no trample (or any other abilities involved) combat between creatures will never cause damage to players.


How do you handle two epidemics in a row in pandemic? Instructions on epidemics ask that the discard pile be reshuffled and put back as the last action to take with the card. This means that if a player draws two epidemic cards at the same time, there won't be a discard pile for the pandemic to use for the outbreak step.

What's the most appropriate way to handle this situation?

You completely resolve one epidemic card and then the other. I don't have any concrete rule to back that up but consider what would happen if you drew the two cards separately:

In this case it would be obvious that you resolve each card.

And now consider if there should be a difference to what happens in the game depending on how you draw your cards...

The Epidemic-shuffling instructions in the Pandemic rules seem to sort of lower the odds that two Epidemic cards are ever adjacent:

  Divide the remaining Player cards into a number of piles according to how diﬃcult you’d like to make
  the game. Make the piles as equal in size as is possible.

  Shuﬄe an Epidemic card into each pile. Stack the piles on top of each other to form the Player
  Draw Pile. (If the piles aren’t exactly the same size, stack them so that the larger piles are
  above the smaller piles.) Put any excess Epidemic cards back into the box.

This will obviously spread the Epidemics out throughout the deck, but my group also interprets "shuffle into" to imply that we shouldn't let the Epidemic we're putting in each pile to end up on the top or bottom.  As long as the Epidemics are somewhere in the middle of each pile, you won't get two in a row.  Although you might get two very close together and it certainly does suck when that happens.

Setting the deck up in this way will guarantee you don't get a double-epidemic.


Creative handicaps in Settlers of Catan? I've gotten really into Settlers of Catan recently.  There are a few people I regularly play with and these games are really fun / intense; however, when any of this group splits off to play "friendly games" with "casual players", the games are really one-sided.

"Playing easy" on purpose isn't fun for anyone involved; is there a more creative way to introduce a handicap?  I would prefer something subtle, in which the casual players aren't even aware that a handicap is involved.

An example would be "don't buy any development cards" (development cards are the bread and butter of my current play style), but I'm hoping to get some (more creative / more varied) suggestions.

[Edit] As a disclaimer, I am by no means calling myself "a good player"!  I'm just pointing out that I've played a bit more (30+ games?) than most casual players that have only touched the game a few times, and that as a result, I've gotten used to certain strategic ideas that casual players haven't been exposed to yet.

The best handicapping is to require the more skilled player to have no 6's nor 8's in their chosen starting spots; a step harder is to also block the 5's and 9's, but that often results in not being able to find a spot to place starting bits.

Commensurately, the biggest problem for casual players is NOT picking at least one common number spot...

An additional option is to restrict the number of cities and settlements for the experienced players. Reducing one each still makes the 10 point win possible ((3x2)+4), but only just.

You do not need any handicaps. After just a few games, you will automatically get handicapped when other players unite against you (no trades, using all cards against you, blocking roads etc) so that you do not win.


Is it possible to win in MTG when you don't have enough cards in your library to complete your draw phase? I am confused about the following MTG rule:

104.3c. If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

The following scenario came up in a Magic game I played recently.
My opponent had 3 untapped Howling Mines at the start of his turn. Each Howling Mine makes him draw an additional card during his draw phase, which means he needed to draw 4 cards. However, his library only had 1 card left in it.
Is it possible for my opponent to win the game here? It seems like priority passes basically when my opponent does anything at all, so why does the rule not just say they lose the game immediately? What is the point of allowing them to draw the one card and then move on from the draw step to their first main phase?  I'm assuming there is some scenario in which they can still win, but I don't know what that could be.
Me and my opponent are both new to Magic, so we actually assumed "priority" meant the next time it was my turn he would lose. We ended up letting him play out his whole turn and he actually beat me on that turn by playing a couple spells I couldn't stop. But after looking up what priority actually is I think I probably won?
Thanks!

Sure it's possible, but you'd need to win at instant speed. An example: your opponent has 3 life left, and you're holding a Lightning Bolt. Then when the Howling Mine triggers but before it resolves (which would kill you), you point Lightning Bolt at him and kill him. You could also do this on your upkeep, before the draw phase.
Or are you asking why the rules says "he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority" as opposed to simply "he or she loses the game the next time a player would receive priority"? That would be because it's possible to not lose the game even though you are supposed to lose. For example, if you are controlling Platinum Angel, then you don't lose for trying to draw from an empty library. In that case it makes sense for you to draw the remaining cards anyway.

No, players can't use the cards drawn in the draw step to win the game if the draw would make them lose.
Priority does not pass when a player does "anything at all". The points when players get priority are well defined:

117.3. Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:
117.3a The active player receives priority at the beginning of most steps and phases, after any turn-based actions (such as drawing a card during the draw step; see rule 703) have been dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step have been put on the stack. No player receives priority during the untap step. Players usually don’t get priority during the cleanup step (see rule 514.3).
117.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
117.3c If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward.
117.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, they announce what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.

We care especially about 117.3a. In the draw step, players do indeed get priority after they've drawn their card. However, Howling Mine's card draw is not a separate event, it modifies the special card draw in the draw step, so that you draw 1+x instead of just 1 card. Only when all 1+x draws have been completed (or failed, as in your case) does the active player get priority:

Draw Step

504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. [Your opponent would draw 4 here instead of just 1 because of the Howling Mines]
504.2. Second, the active player gets priority. (See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.”)

It should be noted that getting priority doesn't kill you, it's the state-based actions such as the one mentioned in 104.3c that do. They are checked first whenever a player would get priority. So it might look like getting priority kills you, but in fact, players lose the game just before they would get their next priority.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event.[..]


In Poker, what happens if paying a blind puts a player all-in? I have a question regarding increasing blinds in Texas Hold-em poker. I am developing a poker website. During tournaments players are not allowed to buy chips. Each player starts with 1000 chips to play. We always keep all amounts on the table (player pot, player bet, table pot etc.), in multiples of the smallest denomination, i.e. small blind.

But when blinds are increasing automatically, what should I do in the case when a player is left with a chip smaller than the small blind? Should that player be able to continue the game, or are they busted immediately (and lose the tournament)?

Example : In a tournament of four players, all players begin with 1000 chips to play. After some time, one of the four players remains with 10 chips in the pot, and blinds reach to 500/1000 (SM/BB). What should I do with that player?

If a player cannot cover a blind, that player is all-in and the bets are handled just as if that player had gone all-in on an ordinary bet. The main pot gets an amount of money from each player who bets equal to the all-in player's stake. Any further betting goes into a side pot, which the all-in player is ineligible to win.

calculate the odds, seek for on line poker odds  calculator, i think it should not pose a problem. But I think it is necessary to include it so the program will not crash. I would suggest the remainder to go into the next pot or a random generator pops up and notifys players of who gets it. Hm maybe it would be fair the remainder to go to BB.

Sorry if there are rules about this, but haven't seen it yet


In Carrom, What happens if the Opponent coin and striker are pocketed at the same time? Can anyone tell me what happens if the
Opponent coin and striker are pocketed at the same time?

You have to put your coin on board as penalty and pass the striker to the opponent


Should I tell my opponent about a jump they don't see? In checkers If I see my opponent can make a jump and they don't see the jump should I tell them?  What if I have a plan for after they make the jump and they don't take it. That spoils my plan.

It depends on if you are playing with mandatory capture rules or not. If you are playing with mandatory capture and they make a move instead of capturing a piece then you should tell them because they would be required to make the capture instead of another move. If you are not playing with mandatory capture then it doesn't matter but you can still tell them if you chose to.

If a Jump is available and the opponent doesn't see it, You have the CHOICE of forcing the jump or taking the checker for not jumping.


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.

The card says:

Sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones

This is a clear reference to the Bible quoting Jesus as saying:
John 8:7

"Let him that is among you without sin, cast the first stone at her"

As evidence that the card could be considered offensive to some Christians, see this Christian Gaming review of Magic the Gathering:

it's use of Christian themes and images are poorly handled and missused


Where can I get my Magic the Gathering play critiqued? I started playing Magic again last year right after the release of Dark Ascension after a long hiatus. I decided to get more serious in trying to win, but I've hit a roadblock in my play. I go x-1 in my FNM booster drafts regularly, but also regularly lose to the top players at my store.

I also play the Swiss draft queues  on MTGO, but while I do win the tournaments there sometimes, many times I feel that I am not drafting the right archetype, missing signals, or not really playing well. This also applies to my deck building and play for Constructed as well (mostly Standard).

Is there a place where I can get my deck building choices and technical game play critiqued so that I can get better?

Interesting question. I would generally say that there's not much point having your play critiqued in general - you want to be critiqued by people who are better than you.  But the real pros are generally too busy winning drafts to offer commentaries on other people's (they'd be in serious demand if they weren't).

I therefore have an alternative suggestion: forget about other people discussing your play, just go to a good pro draft videos site like channelfireball.com and try to understand the choices they make (and discuss them with others in the comment section if you don't understand them).

That alone is a bit of a non-answer to your question, I guess.  If you really want to create transcripts of your drafts and offer them up for others to analyse, I'd recommend the MTGSalvation Limited forum.  Not that you can guarantee that people will be interested in going through your picks with a fine-toothed comb and debating them, but you stand a better chance there than in most places, I'd have thought...

Either you have a close friend which will discuss things with you, or practice drafts at cockatrice (it's "illegally" free, but it's useful to increase your draft and constructed, since it cost you no money at all).

After you learn stuffs, then move back to MTGO / real life drafts.

This apply to constructed as well.

Source : personal experience.


Where can I find "Risk Express" dice? Risk Express (or Age of War if you prefer) is a great game and I'd like to create my own version. That's easy, the game contains just a bunch of cards and 8 dice. I'm interested in such dice, they are six sided, but have army symbols (a cannon, a dragoon(?), musketeers e.t.c.) instead of numbers.

Where can I find such dice? Not necessarily with the same symbols, anything war related may do, I'll re-theme the game anyway, no sci-fi or modern guns though, I want to keep it in ancient, medieval or Napoleonic age. I searched a lot in dice shops but found nothing...

On the BoardGameGeek Store, they sell an item called "Rattlebones" Prototyping Dice. These dice have snap-on faces so you can changes how many times a given colour face appears on each, and in addition you can draw symbols on those faces.

You can get Chessex.com to make custom Risk dice for you as I have.


Is it mandatory to draw more Destination Tickets when they are completed? In TTR USA, does a player have to draw more Destination Tickets when they run out?
(Meaning they've completed all the ones they started with.)

Or can they simply continue to play by extending their longest route or blocking other players?

No. Your opponents should not know when you complete a route until the end of
the game. Also, you score points for every track you lay down, so you aren't just playing to block other players or to get he longest route. Completing routes is simply one of the ways to score points, it is not "the object" of the game.

No, you are not required to draw more destination tickets. Nor, do you "run out" of destination tickets because they are kept hidden until the end of the game from players.

From the rules:

  Players keep their Destination Tickets secret until the end of the game.

This hidden information can additionally be used to bluff your opponents, by making them think you have more or less points than you actually do!


What are effective strategies for passing cards in Hearts? In Hearts, before three out of every four hands you get to pass three cards to another player. Some people seem to always pass the Queen of Spades while others like to keep her under certain conditions. Some people like to drain themselves of a suit, while others seem to like ditching hearts as a top priority.

What strategies/considerations do you evaluate when deciding what to pass, and why? Does your decision depend on if you're passing left, right, or across?

As with most strategy games, I don't think there's an optimal way to answer this.  I tend to focus on what cards I want to keep.  I'll address a non-Shoot-The-Moon hand because that's the majority of hands I play.

I like the Ace of Clubs.  Having the early lead puts you in control.
I prefer to void Clubs or Diamonds as soon as possible.
I won't ever pass 2 through Jack of Spades to void the suit.  That leaves you open to get passed a single high spade that might stick you with the Queen.
I'll hold the Queen of Spades if it's protected by several other spades and I can easily void another suit.  Otherwise, I say pass it so you reduce the risk of being stuck with it.  Again, it's about being in control.
I like holding A-2 of Diamonds.  I'll pass middle Diamonds to set that up.  You can usually win an early trick (before Hearts are broken) with the Ace, then lead the 2 (or similar low card) to void the suit.
I don't mind holding a high Heart or two.  At worst it's 4-8 points, and you have a play to stop a Shoot-the-Moon by someone else.

I've never really considered where I'm passing cards.  I probably should, but I'm not serious enough of a player to learn why it might matter.  My main goal is flexibility.  Unless I'm holding 2-5 of each suit, I'd rather not have to play follow-the-leader.

Don't break hearts with the Ace.  If you pass the Q of spades and then lead spades, you won't be invited back.


What happens if you reach the gold with both (blue and green) doors? If you construct a path from a ladder to an end card with a blue or green door in the path, the end card is flipped. If the card is the gold, all dwarves on that colored team (blue or green) win, as does the boss and profiteer.

What happens if you construct a path from a ladder to an end card while both doors are in the path?

The game designer, Frederic Moyersoen, discusses the answer to that question on BGG. Essentially, only the Boss wins

  If there is a path with a blue and green door, the boss is the only player who can win through this path (4 points). This can be a winning strategy for the boss.

You say that the geologist never wins or looses. But the rule says:

.Both teams win (along with all other “non-Saboteurs”) if The Boss, The Geologist or The Profiteer creates the connection to the gold and the way there isn‘t blocked by a door of the other color.

"Win (along with all other non-saboteurs)" makes me understand that geologist is also counted as a winner.


Can Turn to Frog prevent 'enter the battlefield' abilities? Can my opponent cast Turn to Frog, to prevent 'Enter the battlefield' abilities?

There are two cases of "Enter the Battlefield" abilities.

If the ability is on the creature entering the battlefield, such as Abbot of Keral Keep, Turn to Frog isn't an answer. You can't target the creature until it has entered the battlefield. Once it has entered the battlefield, the Ability has already been triggered and is being added to the stack.

However, if the ability is on a creature already on the battlefield, such as Agent of Erebos or Ivy Lane Denizen, Turn to Frog is a valid answer. In response to any number of effects that would cause creatures to enter the battlefield, casting Turn to Frog while they are on the stack will pre-empt the ability. Turn to Frog will resolve first, affecting the target with the Enter the battlefield effect. When other creatures enter the battlefield, the ability no longer exists.

In magic, when it said "target creature", that means that the spell can only target a creature that already is on the battlefield.

Some spells can target a creature (or other permanents) that are in the graveyard, or exiled, or the players themselves, but it's said explicitly in the spell. (thanks RainBolt)
The conterspells target the spell itself and not the creature or whatever that the spell will summon

So all effects occuring when entering the battlefield already happened... and changing the force of the creature will not change that


Whats a good house rule to give the Rogue a chance at winning Dungeon? I was playing the new release of Dungeon! by wotc with about 6 young players.  Looking at the cards, I noticed that its nearly impossible for the Rogue to ever win.

What is the best way to give the rogue a fighting chance?  Should we reduce the amount of loot required to 5,000 or 8,000?  Or should we perhaps give the rogue a "sneak attack" +1 to all dice rolls (on top of the magic sword)

I would agree that the Rogue is the weakest class, although I don't have hard data to back that up. The reasoning is simple: she needs the same treasure count as the cleric, but is weaker in combat. Their special power to pass secret doors is a very poor compensation, not least because it's unreliable, and is easily copied with a secret door card.

The easiest adjustment is to change the amount of treasure required to win, but I have little idea what an appropriate target would be. Instead, you might consider adjusting the Rogue's special power:

Have Rogues find secret doors all the time, without a dice roll.
If they pick up a secret door card, treat it as a +1 magic sword (which compensates for their combat weakness).

Personally, I find it more fun just not to use the Rogue. Four is a sensible number for a good game of Dungeon, and two clerics and two warriors offers good balance, simple rules (no special powers) and plenty of competition without too many players hunting in the same levels.

I don't know why you say the Rogue can never win.  How many times have you played Dungeon?

You might be interested in the variants posted on Board Game Geek, such as Class powers, Chambers, and so on:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1339/dungeon#files