In bridge, do people go through cycles of under- and -over bidding? In the board game Go, there are two basic styles, high and low. "High" is all the rage for about ten years, until people have forgotten how to play "low." Then "low" gets "rediscovered," and people win tournaments with itfor about ten years until high becomes popular again.

In bridge, people used to "underbid" in competitive situations. That is, they failed to overcall, make takeout doubles or "balance," even when it was to their advantage to do so (that is when the penalty for going down was less than the opponent's probably game). Then people learned these techniques and did them a lot. Have they ever overdone such competitive techniques (that is, give away more games or gone down more than they should have)?

Have people made "mistakes" in the past that would be considered such by today's standards, even though they may have been acceptable bids at the time they were made?

There is a famous anecdote of Hans Kreijns (playing with Bob Slavenburg) overcalling Benito Garozzo's 4 Spades pre-empt with a 4 Spades overcall, on 4 to two top Honours, sometime in the 1960's. That's an overbid.

Seriously, when I learned to play bridge in the early 1970's, overbidding was everywhere. Precision had just become famous, and everyone was opening ratty 10 and 11 counts because C.C.Wei's Precision team did it.

Since then overbidding has declined in the bridge company I keep, and so has underbidding. Of course, it is not the same company: the quality has increased substantially, and the bidding has generally become more accurate. Less overbidding, and less underbidding, because the bidding is simply better.

In the "old days" (before duplicate became popular in the 1960s and 1970s), people used to UNDER bid in competitive situations.

That was partly because the "Law of Total Tricks" hadn't yet been discovered (by Jean-Rene Verne in 1966), which stated that if both sides had (potentially) eight trumps in their best fit, (at least) ONE side could take eight tricks; if both sides had nine trumps, then nine tricks; and if ten trumps, ten tricks; even though they would average only 20 HCPs a hand.

The other reason was the likelihood of a "set;" people shied away from small minus scores, even though they might "save" a larger-scoring game which was reported as a PLUS score (for their opponents).

When duplicate became popular, people started to understand that what mattered was performance on the "curve," down two doubled non-vul (-300) was preferable to letting the opponents score a game. And techniques were developed for competitive bidding, including "pre-empts," takeout doubles, overcalls, "balancing," etc.

Nowadays, I believe that the spread of the above techniques may have caused the pendulum to swing the other way; that people pre-empt, overcall and balance with "junk," e.g. suits headed by QT (or less). That's not a bad idea at "favorable" vulnerability (non-vul vs. vul.) but may be overdoing it at other vulnerabilities. Down three doubled, is no fun, unless it's for -500 against a 620 game. And if you overcall at the two level with QTxxxx, and partner has "nothing," it's too easy for one opponent to double you with AKx. Besides, you don't really want an opening lead to your QTxxxx (one of the main purposes of an overcall).


Can a thief steal if he can't equip the item? If a thief is already wearing a hat in Munchkin, is it possible that he can attempt to steal someone else's hat, even if he can't wear it? What about if he sells it immediately?

From the rules:

All Items you have in play are considered "carried." Items that are actually giving you a bonus are "equipped."
Anyone can carry any Item (except for extra Big items), but you may equip only one Headgear, [etc.] ... If you are carrying two Headgear cards, for instance,
you can equip only one of them at a time.

This means that even if an item can't be equipped (because you already have an item equipped in that slot, or any other reason), it can still be carried, so a thief can still steal it and just carry it.

I found this on the munchkin forum.

  When the Item is stolen, it stays in play.

I guess this means in order to steal the item you must be able to keep it in play. If you have the open space, you can steal and sell immediately, but if you cannot keep it in play, you cannot steal.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=1047228&


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

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

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

I think there are three basic strategies for the UK:

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

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

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

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

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

I won a local A&A event with my German and Japanese blitz tactic.

Japan

DO NOT Pearl Harbor. Consolidate your whole Navy at Japan.  Buy infantry and transports until you are certain you can take India.
Take India.
Move the Japanese fleet with some infantry to Alaska to throw America off; they will freak out for a couple of turns.
Buy nothing but tanks and 1 bomber every turn. Industrial Bomb Russia every turn.  Suicide attack russia with tanks every turn over and over; they cannot afford the loss.

Germany

Destroy the British Navy; you can do this without losing fighters.
Try to take Africa with the transport in the Med. Sea. Don't spend too much energy; you cannot hold it very long but the temp. IPCs help.
Consolidate all of your tanks, fighters, bomber and infantry on Eastern Europe, leaving about 5 infantry on Western Europe to prevent an easy take over.  Begin buying all infantry every turn moving your Eastern Europe army one space a turn with 1 pile of infantry behind it.  Do not worry about Karelia yet.
When you reach Moscow, attack Karalia, then rotate between retaking Karelia or Ukraine over and over, never attacking Moscow directly.  Once they quit trying to retake those two territories start attacking Moscow but retreat after the first attack never allowing your tanks and aircraft to get hit. NEVER split your force to hold both Karelia and Ukraine; the point is to sucker them in to losing the money and a few infantry every turn trying to retake it.  Then reinforce the army with the infantry moving one space a turn from Germany. The combination of attacking once, retreating and reinforcing every turn is devastating to Russia.  This allows Germany and Japan to starve Russia of money and they cant hold out very long. The long term game is in the Allied favor they have 3 turns to your 2 with more money.

The key to the strategy is an early taking of India by Japan by not doing the "Pearl Harbor" and using the Navy to take India. This allows Japan to expand quickly and to starve Russia and to Industrial Bomb Russia and attack with tanks.  Usually 1 bomber 2 tanks from India every turn.  If you can afford it make a factory and do the same in Burma.

Germany just acts like a battering ram of infantry; sooner or later they're going to get in and it's game over.


Is it possible to set up a board state where neither player can ever win or lose except by conceding? A Platinum Angel and Laboratory Maniac for both players would take care of most game endings but either one could be removed from play in a variety of ways. Mycosynth Lattice and Darksteel Forge would negate combat damage and destroy effects but not exile or sacrifice effects.

Edit: Ideally, fo maximum troll the boardstate should be reachable with only one player working towards it.

Arcanist Lupis already provided a fine answer, which works in most circumstances, but you said that you wanted "maximum troll", so I'll provide an alternative solution, which doesn't require Platinum Angel or Abyssal Persecutor (Please note that this solution requires an arbitrary amount of mana):

Cast Temple Bell, Omen Machine, Auratog, and Hive Mind.
Cast Deadeye Navigator and Dualcaster Mage, and soulbond them.
Cast Oblivion Ring, and exile your Omen Machine.
Cast Enter the Infinite (which each player has to copy), then tap your Temple Bell. Each player now has every card in their library in their hand.
Sacrifice Hive Mind to Auratog (This prevents our opponents from messing up our combo in step 7).
Cast Worldfire.
With Worldfire on the stack, cast Pull from Eternity on any permanents in exile that have the potential to impact the board state after the Worldfire resolves, such as suspended cards or a creature exiled with Flickerform. Use the Deadeye Navigator to flicker the Dualcaster Mage, and copy the Pull from Eternity as needed. Note that in the case of Flickerform, you will always receive priority after its ability resolves, so you can still target cards that were exiled while Worldfire was on the stack.
Laugh maniacally (This step is very important!)

When Worldfire resolves, your Oblivion Ring will be exiled, returning Omen Machine to the battlefield. The result? No players will have any cards in their hands, libraries, or graveyards. The only permanent in play will be Omen Machine, preventing players from losing the game via decking themselves. Assuming no phasing shenanigans, no player will be able to do anything, effectively locking everybody out of winning or losing the game.

You can do this with Platinum Angel and Abyssal Persecutor together.

To keep them alive, you can use an Ascetism for hexproof and regeneration, or Cauldron of Souls with a few Chainbreaker to protect against sacrifice, too.

I can't say "neither player can ever win or lose", but for "maximum troll" and some more protection, check out Sen Triplets.


Ticket to Ride house rule to help players with short destination tickets The game balance in Ticket to Ride (in my social not highly competitive environment) seems to favour the person with the longest destination tickets and getting short tickets is almost automatically a loss.

I have been wondering about game balance in Ticket to Ride and thought a good idea might be to allow a player to draw a new ticket after completing a mission and being allowed to throw it back if they don't want it.

Perhaps we play in too friendly a fashion and the person with small tickets should be more disruptive of long routes but what are people's thoughts on the game balance and this suggestion?

The goal in TTR is not "complete the cards you're given", it's "get the most points". There are plenty of ways to do this with short routes (e.g. by focusing on building only length 4+, not going for longest route, and picking the spots where everyone wants to go).

If no one in your group wants to adjust their play style to match the cards they're dealt, then you obviously don't want to play the game as intended. A rule change might be an outcome, but this perceived unfairness might be part of the process of getting to know the game mechanics.

  I (...) thought a good idea might be to allow a player to draw a new ticket after completing a mission

This rule comes with a drawback. You would have to show your completed routes, which is something you would normally do at the end of the game. I would not recommend this as it would upset yet another part of the game.

I also feel as if the longer routes become an automatic win, what ends up happening with the group I play with, is one player hoards the cards and therefore I am left with the cards I am dealt with. The issue arises when there are three other players to deal with. A solution would be to divide tickets into three categories (short, medium and large) and when exchanging a card, the player must return one or more cards of the same category


Why would I want to use the activated ability of "Scalding Tarn"? I think I'm missing something here.  I thought that land cards that have two colors at the bottom mean that they can be used as land for either of the colors.

Take for example Scalding Tarn:

It looks like it's already a combo island/mountain card. So why would I want to use the activated ability which states:

  Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Scalding Tarn: Search your library for an Island or Mountain card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library

First of all, as the other answers have indicated, Scalding Tarn does not produce any mana, it just lets you search for another land that can. The colors on this card have absolutely nothing to do with its ability. The blue and red are just there as a visual reminder that the ability lets you search for an Island or a Mountain. The card could be orange, or pink, but the ability would still be the same.

So, down to the real question: why is its activated ability useful, especially since you have to pay a life?

Here are a few benefits/uses:

1) Flexibility

That Scalding Tarn in your hand could turn into, for example, Volcanic Island, Plateau, Underground Sea, or just a basic Mountain or Island. You have the flexibility to search for whatever land you may need to cast stuff.

Let's say in your opening hand you have a Scalding Tarn, a Lightning Bolt, and a Spell Snare. Play the Scalding Tarn, then you can wait to "crack" the fetchland until the last second. If your opponent plays a creature, grab a Mountain to cast Lightning Bolt; if they play a 2cmc spell, grab an Island to cast Spell Snare instead. Flexibility!

2) Synergy

Shuffling: Let's say you play a Brainstorm, and don't really like the cards you put back on top (maybe they're all lands that you don't need). Crack Scalding Tarn to shuffle your library! Better to shuffle hoping that you'll get something worth drawing than to sit there for a few turns knowing you'll draw crap that doesn't help you win.

Landfall: Let's say you have a Steppe Lynx in play. Then play your Scalding Tarn, immediately crack it, and grab some land you need. Two lands entered play, so now Steppe Lynx is a 4/5 monster (for this turn) that only cost you 1 mana and 1 life. Totally worth it. Landfall + Fetchlands can give you some bonkers plays.

Graveyard: By cracking the fetch, you put a card in the graveyard, which can benefit things like Grim Lavamancer/Tarmogoyf/Deathrite Shaman

3) Filtering/Thinning

Every time you search your library for a land, you reduce the chance of drawing a land the next time you draw. This is nice later in the game, when lands are typically dead draws.

Statistically, the "thinning" effect of a single fetchland doesn't make a big difference, but multiple copies can. If you play fetchlands and your opponent doesn't, you'll have a slight edge in terms of drawing potential threats (instead of lands), but at the cost of some of your life.

Remember, cards like Necropotence taught us long ago that life is just another resource; using your resources wisely will win you games. That being said, sometimes the life loss associated with fetchlands may not be wise. Some tournament-worthy decks run 6-8 fetchlands, others run 1-2, some run none at all. It depends entirely upon your deck versus the metagame you've chosen to play in.

IMHO, fetchlands are a much better choice when used for flexibility and/or synergy than for just deck thinning alone, but that's just me. You get the deck thinning automatically, but the flexibility/synergy comes with intelligent deck construction.

Anyway, if you don't want those Scalding Tarns, I'll take them. Aside from being good cards for all of the reasons I've just described, those suckers are worth something like $70 each right now!

Two words:

Lotus Cobra.

Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, add 1 mana of any color to your mana pool. Playing a regular land and a mana dork on turn 1 would allow you to play a lotus cobra on turn 2, and proceeding to play a scalding tarn (or one of his friends) to fetch another land and tap that land. Tarn triggers cobra for an extra mana, then the other land triggers cobra for an extra mana, then you tap the new land - suddenly you have 3 mana, two of which are any color, available on turn 2, even though you've already played a 2 drop this turn!!


Why is Royal Flush ever listed separately from Straight Flush? Many sources (including here, here, here, and here) explicitly list Royal Flush as the highest poker hand. This seems unnecessary - it's the highest hand anyway as the highest Straight Flush. When designing a ruleset, unnecessary is harmful (e.g. it gives new players more to remember). So is there a good historical or game-mechanics reason why we treat the Royal Flush as a special case?

There are a number of different hands that have a specific name. For example, A-2-3-4-5 is called a Wheel. The Royal Flush obviously gets its name from being the highest hand, and specifically having royalty in it (although one could argue so does a King high.)
As for the mistake of ranking of Straight Flush being lower than 4 of a kind, this is easily dispelled by looking at the math behind them. There exist only 40 straight flushes (of which 4 are Royal) and there are 624 unique hands that rank as four-of-a-kind.
One reason for it persisting would be in Video Poker where a Royal Flush tends to pay out significantly higher than the other Straight Flushes. This doesn't answer the question about how it managed to still exist before Video Poker was around, though.
I have had it conveyed to me recently that it's listed separately potentially due to wild-cards and how they affect the math - that perhaps a straight flush is not as difficult to acquire anymore where a Royal flush is. However I have not had an opportunity to run the math on it. I would welcome an addendum if someone does.

It is so the James Bond character player by Sean Connery in the 60's can arrogantly say Royal...   Strait...   Flush...    as he is slowly laying his hand down while raising his eyebrow & lighting his cigarette with his smug look on his face & then say Bond...   James Bond so the camera can then flash to the villain who is stunned by the fact that he lost even though he cheated for the camera to then flash to the "femme" fatal whom is giving off this  "Je ne sais quoi" look of admiration & seduction.
Yeah that's it...   Bond James Bond!
That's why the Royal Strait Flush is differentiated...
Because Hollywood did it!


Euchre played by a group of 3 people I have played Euchre for years.  Often a group of us finds ourselves one player short of the required 4.  We then usually joke that we should play Canadian Euchre, which apparently allows rules for playing the game with three people.

Is this even a real thing?  Has anyone ever played it?  I imagine it would be cut-throat, but I can't think of how it might work outside of that.

Three person Euchre is definitely a real thing and there are ten different ways to play it, according to Wikipedia. They pretty much all rely on:

Setting extra cards aside as a dummy hand (more rarely, removing cards from the deck or adding cards to the kitty)
Having players keep track of points individually, since they don't have a consistent partner (if they have a partner at all)

The one you described, Canadian Euchre, is indeed one of those ways, (it is also called Buck Euchre, especially in the Midwest of the United States, where I have indeed seen it played).

Four hands are dealt out, one to each player and one face down on the table. The dealer turns up the top kitty card, as usual, and this card is automatically trump; there is no bidding for trump. Instead, each player has the option, in clockwise order starting at the dealer's left, of playing the dealt hand or the blind hand on the table. If the player picks up the blind hand, he places his hand face down on the table and that becomes the new blind hand. Interesting play results if two (or more) players pick up the blind hand because the original owner of the hand knows what they have.
When bidding gets to the dealer, the dealer picks up the trump card and play begins. Normal Euchre play now applies, with each player on their own. At the end of the hand, each player gets one point for each trick taken. If a player takes no tricks, he loses five points.

Another one that I find is pretty common (at least in my region) is "Three Hand Dummy" Euchre, in which you set aside cards as if you had a fourth player, but just ignore them:

Another common three-player variation is played by dealing out four hands, but with the fourth hand acting as a dummy hand, known in different places as "the dummy," "the dead hand," "the imaginary friend," or "Johann." The player who calls trump on the current hand picks up the dummy hand and makes the best five-card hand for themselves out of his or her hand and the dummy hand. The player will now play alone against the other two players, who will play as partners for this hand. The two non-calling players will always play as partners which means that partners will switch from hand to hand depending on who calls trump.
The calling player will score one point for winning the hand and 2 points for taking all five tricks. The calling player can still elect to "go alone" by choosing not to pick up the dummy hand. Taking all five tricks here results in four points. Each player keeps their own score.

It's a joke. In Canada, when Dealer's partner orders Dealer up the dealer must play alone, with partner's hand returned to the deck. This optional rule is referred to as "Order Alone" or "Canadian", varying by region. It makes for a more challenging and interesting game, and is standard across Canada. I have never played without it since first encountering it in my pre-teens.

Thus to play Canadian Euchre would be tantamount to Dealer having to play alone every hand, either picking up the Top Card or declaring some other trump suit. In contrast to playing Canadian with four players, I suspect this would rapidly degenerate into an attempt to avoid dealing.

If your group is interested in stepping up to a slightly more challenging game, I would strongly recommend Nine-Five-Two (also called Sergeant Major)a s far and away the best three-handed trick-taking game.


In Settlers of Catan (like Diplomacy), is the secret to winning avoiding "peaking too soon?" In a two person game, one should try to make the "best moves." (If your opponent doesn't, you'll crush him unless the dice or other luck factors go very much against you.) That's not always true in a multiperson game.

In Diplomacy (which I know better), the player that goes from three to six cities in the first year becomes an obvious target. (Russia, which goes from four to six is the most frequent winner, but the second most frequent loser.) So in the beginning it's better to keep a low profile, do good but not great, let other players fight it out for half to two two-thirds of the game, and make a "run" toward the end.

Could a similar dynamic be at work in Settlers of Catan? That is, you want to do well enough in the beginning to "keep up with the pack," and yet not so well that other players see you as a threat and gang up on you? Is it even possible that bad play (or bad dice) in the beginning will generate a "sympathy" or "no threat" factor that will cause other players to treat you well later on?  And is one way is to get ahead quietly by accumulating good cards instead of good hexes?

It's impossible to pre-arrange this, but if I could, I'd arrange to have all my bad die rolls in the beginning and the good ones at the end so I could be "non-threatening in the beginning, and make a surge at the end. Are there other ways to accomplish this in the game?

I often write that it depends on the group, but I think that's especially applicable here. If you are playing against computer AIs for instance, of course you want to maximize your VPs at every step.

In general, though, I don't think it's wise to sandbag in Catan--or to inwardly cheer bad luck. In the worst case scenario, aggressive Robber usage and trade embargos will hold you back until someone catches up with you. At that point, you can earnestly point out that you are no longer winning. Even if you're the obvious leader, as long as you have no more than 6-7 VPs, you can often arrange a mutually beneficial trade with someone desperate enough for what you have to break the opponents' embargo.

Additionally, having a powerful position gives extra resources, which can help you forge ahead or expand a lead, even if the other players are trying to stop you. If you plan to take an early lead, I think it's definitely better to go for cities and settlements, not Longest Road. Definitely avoid going for the Longest Road early in the game, until you either actually need the road, or the 2 VP are close to mattering to decide the winner. Having the card paints a target on you as a leader, and distracts attention from other possible leaders, but doesn't help you generate any more resources. Another worry is getting two cities off the gate (maybe with an early ore/grain settlement placement) but being hemmed in without a decent third building site opportunity.

I've seen players try to stay at 7 VP and hoarding resources until they can make a big break by taking Longest Road and building 1 VP worth of stuff in the same turn. It's sometimes worked, but sometimes fallen flat as savvy opponents can look at the resources you've been gathering and guess what your opportunities are. And isn't the point of pondering strategy to prepare for savvy opponents?

Yes, this is very often the case.
In many instances, opponents will go after the player who has the most visible lead in victory points on the board, that is settlements, and cities, and longest road. In this case, the trick is to hide your strength by buying development cards instead of the more visible items.
Each development card is worth about a victory point (on average), but many players don't know this. Some development cards are exactly one victory point. Other development cards give you the equivalent: a road building or progress card is worth slightly less than one victory point, a monopoly card quite a bit more. Knights hard the hardest to judge; you need about four of them to get largest army and 2 development points, but they give you other advantages like saving you resources and helping you steal some from opponents.
Another possibility is to produce large quantities of a less strategic resource such as sheep or wood. "Everyone" knows that one sheep is worth less than the equivalent amount of any other resource--until you build a sheep port and trade sheep at a 2 to 1 ratio for what you need. At that point, "quantity becomes" quality but many opponents will not realize this.
Another issue is that bad hexes are so only ex ante. If you have been getting a disproportionate amount of a critical resource from 2, 3, 11, and 12 hexes, people may look at your "board" and say that you have a bad setup without realizing that you have already reaped the benefits of "lucky" dice.


In Axis and Allies, Should Russia Head East, West, Or Stay Put in the Early Going? Some Russian players like to send armies east. That is, to reinforce Allied outposts in Sinkiang and India. Maybe attack Manchuria on the first turn, if allowed. The theory is that Russia is strong enough to contain "only." Germany, so the need is to prevent Japan from becoming a swing factor in the game.

Other Russian players will launch spoiling attacks west as soon as allowed. Particularly in Norway, to open a window for Allied reinforcements.

A third strategy is "hedgehog." Push all the infantry into Karelia and Caucasus (roughly 2 to 1 in favor of the former) pull all the planes and tanks into Moscow for counterattack, and a last ditch stand. Then build 8 infantry each turn for about five turns. Here, the big worry is Germany. Let the Allies take care of Japan.

Which strategy do you prefer? East? West? or "Hedgehog?" And why?

You can have an Eastern front attack on Manchuria synchronized with the Allies to wipe out all of Japan/Asia on the third to fourth turn. Turn one, buy two anti-aircraft guns, three guys and a tank. Attack Belorussia with three guys and two fighters, Attack West Russia with four guys, a gun, two tanks. When successful,  move anti-aircraft guns to West Russia and Novosibirsk, move two remaining infantry from Russia to Caucasus, move a tank to Kazakh, one tank and one gun to Novosibirsk, two guys from Kazakh and two guys from Novosibirsk to Sinkiang, one guy to Soviet Far East and three guys to Yakut. Land your fighters in Caucasus. Phew.... place two guys and a tank and an a.a. gun in Caucasus and a guy and your last a.a. in Moscow.

Your Allies should build a factory in India, land the US bomber in Yakut s.s.r. US fighters and transport to prepare for an attack on Northern Europe. Secure the easy North Atlantic by the end of the first turn (or at least the second).

Second turn--you now have troops in place to secure Asia by the third or fourth turn. Buy whatever you want from now on and focus on the typical German slug fest. You are defended at home, have comitted a big enough force to make the diference in Asia and it's only the second turn. So... attack China with two tanks and four guys, and two planes if need be. Move the a.a. gun and the force in Novosibirsk into Sinkiang, the force in East Russia to Buryatia and get ready to take Manchuria. You can either hit it the next turn  or wait for the remaining force to arrive with the other a.a. gun. By now the US should be able to build two factories and have a force to hit Kwnagtung and UK should be able hit French Indochina. You can hit only one Japan land territory and mass, you can hit the zone with the factory, or you can take a weak sister and build a factory there.  Use your Asia allies to help destroy those lonely transports, have one ally clear the way for the next to hit a weak factory (if there is one). Don't forget, from Yakut the US bomber can hit either Norway or anywhere in Asia on the second turn.

IMPORTANT - for ally assisted operation, you must go US - Russia - UK   These all go before Japan gets another turn, you can use this formula to clean paths in mainland Asia, or even better, to hit and take out all three Japan land zones at once. But at the end of the first turn you've left Russia with a good army in West Russia, a strong force in Caucasus to defend and you've lost nothing in Asia. You've enabled at least one US factory, and with the added strength of two tanks and your fighters, on offense you should be able to take or assist in taking at least one if not all of the Japan land zones. You can also---on the third turn, before Germany even gets to go---have a factory in Karelia with British defense and US-occupied Norway. UK goes after Germany and can take Karelia, then the Russians move their force in and build a factory in liberated Karelia. These are a few neat moves for Russia to help in the battle for Asia. Any other ideas or great battle strategies I can use to whoop my friends (who are getting better each time)? Email me
john_ready@hotmail.com.

You should go for planes and infantry, and fight at the western front.
The americans will attack Japan, you just defende against germany. When Germany focusses on Britain, you then blitz attack with your airplanes and infantry, moving to the next country. So Germany has to attack you to hold stand against you.

You just build a factory when he goes on attacking Britain, and start producing tanks next round. Send these tanks to central Germany, to make sure he can't build troops anymore. When he attacks you the whole time, Britain can just attack Germany on the other side, which makes that Germany has to fight at two fronts.


If partner opens one heart, what do I need to respond with one spade? If my partner opens one heart, and I respond one spade, am I showing four or five spades?

In Standard American bidding (and 2/1 game forcing for that matter), after partner's 1H opening, 1S promises at least 4 spades. After 1H-1S, partner's mostly likely calls are 1NT (5332 shape with no more than 14 HCP), 2 of a minor (5-4 or better in the bid suits, may have anything short of a game force in terms of values), 2H (6+ hearts, probably less than 17 high card points), 2NT (18-19 HCP, 5332 shape), or some number of spades.

After 1H-1S-1NT, your rebids:

2H: This is a tough one. Probably 5 spades, a doubleton heart honor, and shortness in one of the minors. You're taking the position that playing 2H in a 5-2 fit is better than playing 1NT (if you had 3 hearts and a weak hand, you shouldn't have bothered to show spades).
2S: The 2S rebid shows a weak hand, usually with 6+ spades (though it could be an exceptionally weak hand with shortness somewhere and only 5 spades, e.g. Qxxxx x Kxx xxxx, which rates to take 0-1 tricks at NT but a few tricks with spades as trumps).
2NT: Invitational values, likely exactly 4 spades and 2 hearts.
3NT: Game forcing values, likely exactly 4 spades and 2 hearts.
2m: You should have a discussion with your partners about this auction, but SAYC says this should be non-forcing and natural.
3H: 3-card heart support, invitational values.
pass: any weakish hand not covered above.

After 1H-1S-2m:

Pass: A weak hand with 3- or 4-card support for the minor and usually a singleton or void in hearts.
2H: A weak hand, virtually guaranteed to have a heart doubleton (again, with 3-card support, why not raise hearts in the first place?)
2S: Shows 6 spades or better (or, more rarely, a weak 5-5 in spades and the unbid minor with a singleton heart). With other shapes and a weak hand, correct to 2H with a doubleton heart or pass partner's minor.
2NT: Balanced, invitational.
3m: 4-card support for the minor, invitational values.
3S: 6+ spades, invitational values
The fourth suit at the cheapest level: forcing for one round, unable to make a natural bid at this point. Examples:

Interested in 3NT but unable to stop the unbid minor.
Interested in slam in one of partner's suits and thus unwilling to jump directly to game.
Interest in a spade slam but require more information from partner

After 1H-1S-2H:
 - 2S: This shows a weak hand with 6 spades or better and likely a heart void; why else correct from partner's 6-card suit to yours?

2NT: Natural, invitational.
3m: Natural and game forcing.
3H: Invitational with 3 hearts.

Obviously, this doesn't cover all the bases, but it lays out some of the most common situations.

One spade over one heart may indicate transfer to 1NT by opener as one spade may have weak hand with minimum 3 carder weak Spade. After 1NT rebid it is passed so that strong hand does not become dummy


Is team approval voting kept secret? In The Resistance the rules state that everyone votes on the team selected by the team leader, and then reveals their votes.

However I was taught by a friend that the votes are randomized by the leader and then revealed to hide who voted what. This second way makes much more sense.

Is this a typo?
Has anyone played it both ways?

The rules say to do it without randomizing. This is from official rules (you can find the PDF file here, emphasis is mine):

  Mission Team Vote: After appropriate discussion, the Leader calls for
  a vote on the Team assignments. Each player, including the Leader,
  secretly selects one Vote Token. When all players have their selected
  Vote Token ready, the Leader asks for the Votes to be revealed. All
  players flip over their Vote Tokens so everyone can see how they
  Voted. The Mission Team is approved if the majority of Votes approved
  and fails if a majority rejected the assignments; a tied vote is also
  a rejection. If the Mission Team is approved, play continues in the
  Mission phase. If the Mission Team is rejected, the Leader passes in a
  clockwise manner and the Team building phase is repeated.

I actually don't agree with you that the second method makes much sense. You get way more information about the other players if you know how they voted in the past. Is player X always voting No, is he voting yes only if the player Y or himself get selected to the mission team? You wouldn't be able to tell any of that even after few rounds of play, and say, 10+ votes.

Another thing is convincig other players to vote for the team you want - if you know who voted No, then you present good argument why you think they should change their mind, and they got nothing to reply you with, or say that they agree with you... Then everyone will see if they actually changed their minds or only said so, but voted No anyway. If voting is secret, they could just listen to you, vote No anyway, and they say "Hey, I voted Yes, someone else must have changed his mind". And discussion can become dull.

I also think that randomizing votes would make things easier for the spies - they always should vote no (they might just win the round with 5 teams voted down), unless the team selected is perfect for they needs. They would never have to think harder than that, and that seems less fun for me. That's why I would generally be against secret voting, but might give it a try a couple of times. Hope this helps.

If you're interested in the history of the game, I'm sure you can easily see that The Resistance originates from Mafia/Werewolves games. In those games, players openly suggest who to "linch" each day, and voting is (at least in most cases) open for similar reasons. In the prototype version of The Resistance, actually using your thumb down/up was used to vote Yes/No, and this is the way I do it with in my group to this day.

I've been playing Resistance Avalon most of the time and I haven't read through the rules, but when I play the votes are anonymous and it had worked fine for us.

There are roles like Merlin who can use the anonymous vote to signal that there is someone evil on the team, but even when we play with no characters it has worked great. It definitely does give evil an advantage, but I like adding another layer of uncertainty.


Helping without being asked, is this legal? My brother and his friend were playing Munchkin Legends, and my brother helped him when it wasn't asked of or needed. He then stated that he was in the battle, and he tried to run away, even though he wasn't the one fighting or needed. He then played the Lemming Parade card so his friend had to run away. His friend and I thought that that was against the rules because my brother wasn't the one who had to run away. Is it against the rules?

No, a player may not foist help upon you.
The rules state "you may ask any other player to help you" at which point the player may accept or deny the request. There is no "involuntary" help.

In addition, in your specific case, since help was not needed, even requesting help is not allowed, according to the official Munchkin FAQ:

Q. Am I allowed to ask for help if I am currently winning the fight? The rules say I can ask for help if I'm losing, but nothing about if I'm winning.
A. That's because if you're winning, you don't need help, and a true munchkin would never ask for help he doesn't need. Unless a card says otherwise (and a couple do, for their own weird reasons), you may not ask for help if you are winning a combat.

Source: Official FAQ

Please keep in mind the pan-ultimate rule of Munchkin (which should be adopted for every game): The owner decides any unclear ruling issues.

Also, your brother couldn't have played the card, since he wasn't the one running away.


Texas Hold'em: The flop vs Turn/River In Texas Hold'em, the first common cards dealt are the three cards known as the flop. Then we proceed to deal the Turn and the River, which are single cards. Is there any specific reason why we first deal multiple cards and then single cards? How would the game be different if we dealt all five common cards separately, and have a betting round between each?

The flop eliminates a majority of reasonable players because they have such a low probability of winning anything. With a dripfed board, they would stay for longer and commit more, thereby being priced in despite having no real chance.

It avoids early big bets by high pocket pairs and (suited) connectors that have caught something from the first single card or the first two community cards, from taking a pot based on the luck of their pocket.

Overall, it turns a game based on luck into one that allows for substantial skill, without eliminating player choice in how to play the game.

Pot control
5 betting rounds is just too much betting.  Where we now have push fold charts at 20-30 bb would have push fold charts at 40-60 bb.
Narrow the range
It would take away from playing a drawing hands like 89s as you are facing too many bets before you know where you stand.  Even play 66 is not profitable as now you are 1/25 to hit rather than 1/8.  If you do hit on card 1 they did not so 1 street of value is gone.
Get value
If you smash the flop it already hard to get 3 streets of value.  Get 5 streets of value would be near impossible.
Multi street bluff is harder
Firing on 3 streets is already expensive.  5 streets would take at like 200 bb behind.  Would be forced to play hands fast (not see many rivers).
Hand is not defined
Your hand is not really defined until the flop.  No speculative hands get there until the flop.  Some interesting math comes into play by the flop.

I get there is another answer it would make it more a game of skill but I disagree.  So much more play would just be by charts.  Play a more narrow range is not good for pros.  If I don't hit on card 1 I kind of need to release unless holding an ace.

It would be so much more expensive I think less amateurs would play or they would play the penny games on line.  Pros want fish on the live table playing $2/$4 and that drop way down.

Would not be good for the game in any way in my opinion.


If you have multiple wonders do you get multiple special powers? In 7 Wonders some stages of building a wonder provide special powers.

For example stage of 2 of Olympia (side A) allows you to build one free structure per age. If you have built 2 wonders in this case can you build 2 free structures per age?

Each player has a single Wonder board, and each Wonder stage can only be built once.
The Quickstart rules cover this on the first page under Actions, but it is also covered in the main rules under Game Overview, Clarifications.  You may only build the stages in order from left to right, and each stage can only be built once per game.

build a stage of their Wonder(in the order given by the board, from left to right): the card is placed partially under the board, face down.
2.b. Build a Stage of a Wonder - [...] each stage can only built once per game. (page 5, main rules)

For example, if you have The Lighthouse of Alexandria, building the 3 stages of side (A) would give you 3VP, one Raw Material of your choice per build step, and 7VP in stage order. Building the 3 stages of side (B) would give you a Raw Material of your choice per build step, a Production Good of your choice per build step, and 7VP in stage order.

When building multiple wonders special powers accumulate. So if you build Olympia's special power twice you get 2 free structures per age. However for other structures such as Halicarnassus when you build it's special ability you only get to use it in the age that you built it.


Is there a good casual online place to practice/learn bridge? I know that Pogo.com (which powers Yahoo Games) has a long running online bridge game and that there are a handful of places for serious tournament/MasterPoint level bridge players online (though most seem based on software written a decade or more ago) but are there any places to play, practice and learn bridge in a more casual manner? Ideally via a well designed modern piece of software?

If you are looking for free online site, I would strongly recommend BridgeBase Online, or BBO for short.

You can create an account by just specifying a username and password and either login using the web browser or using their downloadable windows version of the software.

BBO has a lot of features, like partnership bidding rooms, GIB robots (which you have to pay a minimal fee, if you want to use them), tons of free tournaments. They also have two 'clubs', the Main Bridge Club and Relaxed Bridge Club, where you can play casual games (the Relaxed Club being more casual). Anytime I have logged on, there were at least 3000 players online!

There is also the added bonus that a lot of great players play there (look for some of the 'stars') and they have an excellent broadcast line up of high level bridge tournaments, with commentators giving insights, etc.

They also have a supporting forum where a lot of good players visit and you can discuss bridge/the BBO software/ or even Global Warming!

I have set up a website to practice card play: akqbridge.com


Battlestar Galactica vs. Shadows over Camelot I've seen these games compared very often, with steadfast advocates on each side. link1 link2 link3  I'm mainly concerned with:

depth of strategy
suitability for new players (length of time to explain, etc.)
overall feel of the game
what situations you would recommend playing each of them in.
anything else you think should be included in regards to comparing and contrasting them

Some things I've noticed:

Shadows supports more and fewer people better, and seems to be easier to understand.
Both are Cooperative with the traitor mechanic.
Battlestar seems to be the 'improved' version of Shadows. (What's really improved that was 'wrong' in Shadows?)

One thing I noticed is that Shadows is much more... unfocused.  There are a ton of quests all over the board, and the players are going to be split up doing various things the whole time.  They're not much interacting with each other, just responding to the general board conditions and their own quests.

In Battlestar, you still have multiple threats (4 dials, 3 kinds of Cylon ships, Cylon boarders) but it seems like you're all working together more against these threats.  Perhaps it's the fact that the roles (Political/Military/Pilot) make it clear that each person is most useful in one area (whereas in Shadows it feels like any character can do any quest, mostly).

Most of all, though, the fact that all players are actively involved in every skill check that happens gives Battlestar much more interaction - there's more opportunity to really sabotage, but more opportunity to be exposed, and the Brig offers a way to "hedge your bets" and contain someone you suspect to be a traitor.

I also really like the second round (Sleeper Agent phase) in Battlestar, where some players may discover they're a traitor after all.  This means nobody's past behavior can totally prove anything, and that in the first round nobody really wants to do TOO well as a human, lest they turn out Cylon and be hopelessly behind.

When Jeff declined to help us pass that skill check, was he really out of green cards?  Or is he a Cylon?  OR is he a human, but afraid he'll end up Cylon and lose to the humans?

One thing I can say about Shadows Over Camelot is that it does a very good job of creating the proper feel for the theme.

Camelot always stood on a knife's edge, with failure on either side. Arthur was the only thing between Britain and the Dark Ages and when he fell, the darkness consumed civilization. That's how SOC feels. Like every moment could be your last, like every decision could be the one that snuffs out the light of Camelot.

I have not played BSG, but I have heard (hearsay alert!) that it requires some significant knowledge of the relaunched BSG, that in some ways it is an engine for a group to "make their own fun." Which is not to say that it's not a good game, just that it may be less suitable for groups that aren't at least somewhat up on the ever-less-new BSG.


Does anybody need the 6th epidemic card in Pandemic? 4 epidemic cards in the pile are easy in Pandemic. 5 cards - it is interesting. Our win / lose ratio is about 50% with 5 epidemic cards. But I can't imagine how to play with 6 epidemic cards. Are you just very lucky to win this way, or are there are some strategy secrets I still don't get?

Btw there is a 7th epidemic card in the expansion "On the Brink".

Is there anybody who usually plays (and wins) with 6 or 7 epidemic cards on the pile? What's your secret?

We play with six epidemics most of the time and win about half our games, which is a good ratio for us.  My husband and I play a lot of two-player games, but we also play with three and four players and use six epidemics unless we have beginners.

We use a house rule of dealing two roles per player and letting the players choose.  Discussion is permitted.

The key to playing with six epidemics, in my experience, is to be ruthless in not wasting actions.  Yes, that isolated city with three cubes will have an outbreak soon; absorb it if you've got spare capacity so you can focus on getting the cards together for a cure or attacking bigger problems.  It can be tempting to say "while I'm in the neighborhood anyway why don't I...?", but you should always look at whether there are more pressing demands first.

My mom and I played just yesterday and I snuck in 6 cards without her knowing.I was actually too lazy to separate the piles and everything so I randomly put them in and got 4 right off the bat which was nice because it was uninterrupted playing. We found all 4 cures before the last two but by the time we finished the board was covered in cubes. My first hand I drew 4 red cards andred was cured in the second turn so that was lucky. It was funny my mom said "I'm glad all the epidemic cards are gone." after the fourth one to which I said "ha ha remember you love me, WE CAN DO IT!!"


When you King's Court a King's Court, when must you pick the three target cards? Bear with me here.  In Dominion: Prosperity you can play King's Court and choose another King's Court as the target:

The rules are clear on the basics of what happens here: you pick three cards and play each one three times.  My question is when, precisely, the picking happens.

If all three of those cards must be picked before executing any of them, it's a whole lot different from if you choose the cards one at a time.

Up-front

You must choose all three cards before playing card #1 three times.

One-at-a-time

You choose card #1 and play it three times, then choose and play card #2, etc.

We played it one-at-a-time since that seemed like it made a little more sense (and was more fun too).  If the first card you choose draws any cards at all, you have a high probability of picking up another action card to be the second target.

Anybody know for sure which method is correct?

Short answer: You do the "one at a time" option as you described.

Long answer:

This case is precisely identical to the more common question of using Throne Room on a Throne Room, as the two cards are worded identically except for the number and a "you may".

The official Dominion rules PDF says:

  You completely resolve playing the Action the first time before playing it
  the second time. If you Throne Room a Throne Room, you play an Action,
  doing it twice, and then play another Action and do it twice; you do not
  resolve an Action four times.

In your case, this means "completely resolve playing King's Court the first time before [starting to] play it the second or third time". This means that yes, if your first Courted action was a Smithy, you're going to have lots of choices for the second and third King's Court.

I am going to have to go with the up-front option. I must disagree with the logic used in previous postings. In the study of law there is a rule called the rule against impossibilities. The game rules are clear that you must have 3 action cards and that each action card is resolved individually. However, you create the possibility of an impossibility where you are able to play a king's court/throne room with the anticipation of drawing the necessary action cards. For example, say I have in my starting hand just 3 actions, 2 king's courts and some additional action card. Even where the action card allows me to draw several cards there is the very real possibility that you will not draw any additional action cards. I do not believe that the game creators would have intended someone to play a hand in hopes that the hand will be a valid hand only to find that it wasn't. This creates problems of either knowing what cards you are going to be drawing or shuffling cards into a different order, and by consequence potentially negating the effects of other players' cards (i.e. the bureaucrat).

A second option would be a hybrid where you have all 3 necessary action cards but you are able to supplement/replace those action cards with drawn action cards. This option is obviously riddled with problems. Such as, does a player have to reveal that they have the necessary action cards.

Anyway I full expect people to disagree. If you do find a flaw in my logic please let me know so that I can adapt my game play accordingly.


Where to find MTG statistics: Starting player winrate, average turns, polarity? A question about MTG statistics:

There are several MTG statistics websites (e.g. AetherHub, MTGArenaPro), which do a great job to provide specific statistics about how good individual cards and decks are doing. However, there are some more general metrics I am interested in and can't find anywhere. Namely:

Winrate when starting first/second, for BO1 & BO3
How many turns doesan average game take (histogram, if possible)
Polarity of the meta (Originally used in Hearthstone, it is a measure of rock-paper-scissors of the metagame. Here, polarity=0 would mean that for any two tier 1 decks the winrate of one against another would be approximately 50%, whereas polarity=1 would mean that for any two tier 1 decks the winrate of one against another would be approximately 100%)

If you know of a website that computes any of these three, please tell me. I am not sure why I can't find them anywhere. Maybe it is somehow unethical to ask these questions? If this is the case, tell me as well

Wizards of the Coast deliberately obscures this data.
Several years ago, some fans created a website that used bots to automatically crawl Magic the Gathering Online's matches to construct a table containing the meta percentages and the win/loss rates of each deck. However, Wizards later changed how MtGO's systems worked with the specific goal of preventing this, much to the disappointment of the MtG competitive scene. They stated that this was done in order to slow down the process of "solving" the meta.
To quote the article they posted announcing this:

As stewards of Magic, we in R&D feel that this action is necessary to prevent data mining that contributes to Constructed formats growing stale before their time. At its essence, Magic is best when it's a game of exploration and puzzle-solving: this is why providing new formats and new experiences are so important. By gathering large sets of data from Magic Online events, a given format too-rapidly changes from exciting exploration to cold statistical analysis. While the analysis may be fascinating, it generally makes for far less compelling gameplay. This leads to reduced enthusiasm about the analyzed format, which in turn ultimately hurts not just Magic content creators worldwide, but the game as a whole.

I have to say WoTc nailed it in that article linked regarding meta changes. We have seen this happening in Mtg Arena. Im glad they have welcomed 3rd party plug-ins for Mtga. That being said you should check out the Trackers and their websites for Arena. The fact that WoTc doesnt have a shelf life for MTGO the trackers could extend their support if the demand in there.
There's 2 ways stats are gathered from arena

Reading the output log. I dont know if MTGO has one
Reading from memory as matches happen live.

These are some of the Stats Trackers not mentioned in other comments
MTGAtool.com
MtTGAHelper.com
Untapped.gg (They do the hearthstone live stats and the retired Lotus Tracker) Might be your best bet for MTGO integration they seem to have a bit more corporate structure
MTGAZone.com
Draft stats for the above tracker use the same sources for set ratings in draft
17lands is another one but is strictly for Draft Stats and only uses stats aggregated from active users of their tracker. To be honest they are putting together some pretty cool and useful stats and comparisons. They have been around for over a year but are just now getting the recognition.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Then rule 118.9a says this:

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

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

I believe that a player has the right to choose an instant or sorcery card with  overload, and to play it through his overloaded ability too.
This is also because Gatherer's rulings on Weapon Surge card explicity say that (15/4/2013):

  "Casting a spell with overload doesn’t change that spell’s mana cost. You just pay the overload cost instead".

The fact that the overload cost is reduced to zero means nothing.
The Gatherer's rulings that say:

  "If you are instructed to cast a spell with overload "without paying its mana cost", you can't choose to pay its overload cost instead"

it only means that,if the player,for some strange reason,want to pay the mana, would not however: he cannot choose to pay the mana indicated by the overload ability even if he wanted to.
But it doesn't mean that the overload ability can't be played for this reason.
Thus, since Dreadhorde Arcanist has a power equal to 1, and Weapon Surge converted mana cost is 1 too, then everything is ok, and it would seem that the answer to this question could be:- "Yes" .

(In fact, my first answer to this question was just that. The following is not all flour of my bag, but is rather due to the inspiration followed by the vision of the excellent response of Murgatroid99, to which I refer).

But it is now important to say that:

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

Thus, it is for this reason that the answer to this question cannot be positive.
Since you are already forced to pay an alternative cost (that is "without paying its mana cost"), you cannot choose to pay for a different one.
In other words,you cannot pay the overload cost,since it is a kind of alternative cost.


What counts as a counter? Does Chief of the Edge's ability count as a +1/+0 counter? I want want to use it for other cards such as Ainok Bond-Kin's ability ("each creature you control with a +1/+1 counter gets first strike"). I cant find confirmation anywhere.

Only things that are actually referred to explicitly as counters are counters. And since Ainok Bond-Kin cares specifically about +1/+1 counters, you should be looking for cards that explicitly create +1/+1 counters.

So no, Chief of the Edge does not put counter(s) on anything, because it doesn't say the word "counter(s)". Rather, it creates a continuous effect granting +1/+0 to all your Warriors as long as it's on the battlefield, whether they entered the battlefield before or after it. If Chief of the Edge subsequently leaves the battlefield, that effect disappears and those creatures will shrink back down.

By far the most common kind of counters are +1/+1 counters, though there are plenty of others. Counters are used for things that are created at a single point in time, are associated with the permanent you place them on, and will stick around indefinitely. For example, Drana, Liberator of Malakir gives counters to your other attacking creatures, and those counters exist on those creatures independently of Drana, so they'll stick around even if Drana dies.

Side note: there are, by the way, some old cards that use +1/+0 counters, rather than a continuous +1/+0 effect like Chief of the Edge. But those cards would still not work with Ainok Bond-Kin, because it looks for +1/+1 counters.

No, it doesn't.  Even if it did, it wouldn't be a +1/+1 counter, so it wouldn't count.


Why it is important to make a delayed raise and not jump directly to 4-lvl? (System: simple SAYC) On responding with 13 pts and 4-card major support why it is important to make a delayed raise (e.g. change suit and only then jump to 4-lvl) and not jump directly to 4-lvl- what added value does it supply to the partnership? What would go wrong if I'd just jump to 4-lvl - would our partnership be deprived in some way?

A common bridge principle for SAYC is to bid up strong hands slowly, but jump to a high bid quickly with weak hands that have long suits or other preemptive features.

In the situation you describe with responder having 13 points, you'll want bidding space to communicate whether or not you should be in game or slam, because opener has promised 13-21 points (and therefore the combined hands have 26-34 points).

If slam is possible, most tables will bid it up slowly and find the right slam contract, while your hasty 4 bid lands you a mere game contract (which will give you the bottom score in duplicate bridge).

Therefore, in SAYC, the jump to 4 of the opener's major response is reserved for a weak bid that typically indicates a small number of points but good shape.

For example, with 6 low trump, a void, and a single Ace for high card points, that would be a perfect hand to jump to the 4 level because:

You have a great chance of making the contract
You may prevent your opponents from exploring game
You would have no interest in exploring slam with such a hand, even
if partner has 20-21 points.

If you jump from say, one spade to thtree spades (four spades in hand) or four spades (five spades in hand), you are saying that you have spades, and nothing else, with most of your 6-9 points concentrated in the trump suit. You might just make your contract, but even if you go down, the idea is that you will have kept your opponents out of a two-or three-level contract that would have scored higher than the penalty you suffered.

By using a delayed raiese, you show values in a "second" suit that offers an alternative to the bid suit, that could offer the possibility of a game in the second suit, or no trump. Let's say the bidding is one spade, two hearts, with your bid showing four hearts and three spades. If partner has four hearts, he might bid four hearts with a 4-4 fit and use the 5-3 spades as a side suit. If his distribution is 5-2-3-3, he might bid no trump.

Also, your delayed raise would show 10+ points. Opposite an opening hand, you probably have game if you can find a suitable fit; the bid of a "new" suit makes it easier to find the best fit.


Activate ignition effect from hand? I have 2 questions, one generally-scoped and one specific:

Can I activate the effect of Disenchanter while it is still in my hand?

In general, can one activate monsters' ignition effects from the hand?

Disenchanter:

Once per turn: You can target 1 face-up Spell Card on the field; remove 1 Spell Counter from anywhere on the field, and if you do, return that target to the hand.

Quite simply, no. It is common knowledge that a monster has to be on the field or revealed from the hand/graveyard/banished zone (if the card permits it) to be able to resolve ANY effect, given the conditions (if any) are met, unless the card says otherwise.

You can always play Disenchanter on the field,  THEN activate its effect.

No
Not unless it explicitly says so.

See this link for more details.


What are the mechanical differences between Doom and Descent from Fantasy Flight Games? I know that FFG's Descent and Doom board games use roughly the same mechanics, but my understanding is that there are numerous small differences that lead people to prefer Descent over Doom.

Beyond the differences in theme, what are the mechanical differences between these two games?

One significant difference that leads me to prefer Descent over DOOM is Ammo.
In DOOM, Ammo is "full of fail".  Ammo scarcity is a thematic element that happens to be implemented in an abstract way that is often flat out not fun.

The breadth of characters and skill and item combinations make Descent really come to life compared to the relatively lackluster variety in DOOM.

The surge mechanism in Descent is really novel and can give you a lot of interesting tactical options in battles.  DOOM has no analogue.

Descent actually has more character progression.  You gain more equipment than just guns as you advance.


The Duke - Assassin Movement We have been playing the game, The Duke, and confusion came up regarding the movement for the Assassin tile.

Based on the slide rules, a tile can move as many spaces as they want in the shown direction until they would hit another tile, friendly or enemy.

The jump rules state that a tile can jump over an adjacent tile to the space beyond it.

So the question is, for this tile with a jump slide, can the slide begin in the adjacent tile or must the assassin move at least two spaces away?

According to the official rules, the Slide and Jump Slide icons allow

  ...a Troop Tile to move any number of squares in the direction shown

It seems that the icons are place on the outside edges as emphasis that their movement is not limited in that direction.

Not sure if you are still curious about Assassin, but even if not, maybe someone other is.

So, briefly:

Assassin has to make a jump, and then slide. This makes impossible for him to move into adjacent square.
You cannot make a slide when capturing tile after jump.
Slide action is optional - you can stay in place after non-capturing jump.

Src: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/13008817#13008817


A opening bid of 1Club if followed by 1Diamond A opening bid of 1 Club if followed by 1 Diamond in Bridge shows no majors and 6-7 point, is this correct?

For the time being we would assume you are playing a Green system similar to SAYC.

There are mainly 3 ways of responding to a natural / semi-natural (2+) non-forcing 1C opening:

Up-the-line: You bid your 5-card suits if you have one. Otherwise you simply bid your lowest 4-card suit. Under this method, a 1D opening does NOT deny holding a 4-card Major - you may have zero, one or two 4-card Majors. Say you hold: 963 KJ87 QJ53 A8 , you will usually respond 1D. Opener may either raise, bid his own 4-card Major, rebid Clubs or just bid 1NT. This is very natural and practically does not require extra gadgets.
Walsh: You always bypass any length in Diamond in favour of a Major suit response, unless you hold game-forcing value. Therefore hands like 9 KJ87 QJT753 Q8 are still responded with a 1H, despite you holding much longer Diamond. This has the advantage of letting you find any 4-4 Major fits half a round earlier, but at the cost of bidding space: you are making a higher-level response (1M consumes more bidding space than 1D) which does not contain more information (Under this scheme, 1M response happens more often than 1D) than a lower response.
Transfer Walsh: In order to solve the dilemma between MAFIA (MAjor FIrst Always) and bidding space consumption, Transfer Walsh is designed. You bid 1D to show Hearts, 1H to show Spades and 1S to show Diamond or other minor-oriented hands. This keeps your bidding low while at the same time allowing you to prioritize showing Majors. However, this needs extra agreements with your partner about continuations, and your partnership must be able to cope with interference.

Therefore in response to your question:

Q1: ... shows no [4-card] Major...

A1: Not necessarily. Given your question suggesting 1D denying Major, I assume you are playing Method 2. It usually denies 4-card Major, but only usually, not always. A scenario that you can still hold 4-card Major is that you have game-forcing values and your Diamond is worth mentioning, e.g. x AQxx KQJxxx Qx . You can respond 1D first, and upon opener rebidding 1NT you can reverse into 2H, or if he bids 1S you can make a XYZ or 4SF to further investigate into an ideal game or slam.

Q2: ... and 6-7 points...

A2: No, suit responses are unlimited. Your next call will most likely reveal what strength your hand has. A weak hand will pass, make a preference or rebid his own suit, a stronger hand will move on to game or make forcing bids to find out more about opener's hand.

That's more or less the general rule, although I would amend your question in two ways.

The first is that the point range starts at 6-7, and is unlimited to the upside.

The second is that it shows no five card majors (assuming that you are playing five card majors). If you are playing some version of four card majors, it means that you have no biddable four card major. (AQxx is biddable in this context, Jxxx is not.)

Note that there are some partnerships where 1 diamond means less than 6 points, and is a mandatory bid, because the 1 club bidder may have around 19. These people would bid 1NT in places where you would bid 1 diamond with 6-7 (more like 6-9) points.


What do you recommend to learn Go? I am a beginner at this great game, and I would like to improve my skills at the game of Go. What resources would you recommend?

Once you have learned some basic strategy, the best way to learn is to play.  If you don't have a friend or neighbor to play with, then I highly recommend the American Go Association.  They have a great resources page, links to clubs, books and teaching software.

The AGA maintains a list of Internet Go Servers for on-line play, including some turn-based servers.  Turn-based servers are good for beginners because there is no pressure to move quickly — you play via email.  The Dragon Go Server is dedicated to Go.

The great thing about Go is that it is easy to handicap.  You and a much more accomplished player can both enjoy a game together, you just have to handicap the expert player.

My website at www.telgo.com is intended for players who have learned the basic rules, but don’t know where to go next. The site has been active for many years, and I have had many kind comments. Take a look.


Whats the perfect set for Agricola solo series using E, I, and K decks? Agricola solo series is all about your occupations.  Often I have a great card that will help my current game, but I am always thinking about what is the long term significance of keeping it forever.  I've found the biggest problem with solo series games is the lack of wood.  Without a fence builder or extra wood card, you will never be able to build 15 fences and 4 stables (which you need to keep the max number of animals).

Ideally, these are the best categories of cards I've found so far:

Tutor (played first) - worth up to 6 bonus points
Lord of the Manor - worth up to 8 bonus points
Church Warden - worth 3 bonus points and gives 4 free wood to start the game
Merchant (critical to give opportunity to play as many improvements as possible)
Either Hedgekeeper, fence deliveryman, forester, or some other sort of extra wood, extra free fences, or free stables card
At least 1 card giving additional actions (like Adoptive Parents, which gives an extra 3 actions throughout the course of the game for the low cost of 3 food)
1 card that provides either extra goods (like pieceworker) or extra plowed fields (like field watchman) or extra goods on your fields (like fieldsman).  These cards save actions which I consider to be the most valuable currency in the game
Extra stone is very very helpful through stone carrier or similar
Extra clay is very helpful or a card that makes all clay improvements and rooms cheaper (like clay mixer, clay deliveryman, or bricklayer)

As you can see I'm listing 9 categories, and we only get 7 so you can't obviously do EVERYTHING and you may get improvements that take the place of these occupations from time to time.

Any thoughts?

The way I like to play Agricola campaign mode is to pick 7 occupations and then play through sequentially. Each game I leave one more in play as permanent and leave the others in my hand in future games.

Probably my favorite seven to start with are:

Field Watchmen
Wet Nurse
Church Warden
Lord of the Manor
Manservant
Grocer
Pieceworker

I generally like them in this order (and leave them in descending order, too, so the first permanent one is Field Watchmen). First game get the Stone Oven for food production, doing double baking bread, by sowing 3 grain fields before the first harvest.

My first turns normally are something like:

Occupation (Field Watchman) / Take 1 Grain
Take 1 Grain / Day Laborer
Take 1 Grain / Sow
Clay (4) / Fishing (for 4 food)

At this point you've got 3 sown fields of grain, clay, and your next turns can look like:

Fireplace / Wet Nurse (with grain-->food)
Wood (12) / Reed (6)
Sheep to food (7x = 14 food) / build rooms (+2 people)

At this point you have some leftover food from the sheep still (only needed 8 that round) and are pretty setup. The rest is pretty straightforward.

Also, I normally setup the board slightly, forcing:

Sheep = round 1
Stone = round 5

The rest don't matter as much.

This combined with the above normally lets you get 65-70 points your first game, which then gives you 10+ food for your next starting game.  Wet Nurse is critical  in the campaign because once you get food supplies you can always add two rooms to your house on Turn 5.

Once you start getting significant quantities of food at beginning - which you will after your first game because it's pretty easy to have 15+ points over the game point values initially  and you get 1 food for every 2 points over -  the Pieceworker/Grocer become very useful and powerful, because you can buy extra resources earlier in the game (such as vegetables and stone).

After a few games of occupations, Manservant becomes very useful - it's easy to get a Stone House with 5+ turns remaining in the game after a few solo rounds so you get basically 15 food for this.

Generally, I like to also leave all the animals on the board until the last round (except I normally take sheep for food around turn 6/7, early enough when the food is helpful but also can let them replenish to 7 by the game end). Your first game this is often harder because you normally need to raid one of the animals for food and often can't swing the 4x Stable/3x pasture combination to give you space for all of them.

There are a lot of minor improvements that can make this strategy go on steroids too (like Axe, which means you can reliably add family members prior to the first harvest if you start with Church Warden and get the 4 immediate wood). Or Straw Thatched Roof which gives you three extra rooms with people pretty early with Church Warden, Wet Nurse, and Pieceworker.

Tutor
Lord of the manor
Church warden
Pieceworker
Forester
Chief
Chiefs daughter

Gets me to 40 games ... more if I am lucky with minor improvements.


How to solve Free Cell games fast? (in under 2 min) In freecell, I make the same number of moves as the best player, but she wins the game in a 1.5 minutes while I need 5.5 minutes.  Is there a trick to play fast?

My best time in Expert in FreeCell in Microsoft's Solitaire Collection is 1:04.

I think I obtained that time in one of the "Daily Challenges", so it may not have been a "real game". That said, I have reached close to that time on other occasions. In fact, while trying to obtain a screenshot of the score screen to include in this post, I believe I have gotten my second best time ever.

(I play all games to completion now, but I abandoned some games early on. My goal is to get the win rate to 99%, which requires playing another 2692 games.)

Rather than spending time pondering my next move, I prefer to experiment and use Undo with impunity. Undo can be performed rapidly by pressing Ctrl-Z. (Holding allows to quickly undo multiple moves, and even reset the board.)

Additionally, the discovery of "Single Tap To Move" option has greatly sped up my game significantly (although my best time was made without it this setting off).

With this option, I regularly get times around 2:00, which I would have considered exceptionally good before.

As for my actual strategy? I really wouldn't know how to describe it.

My fastest game thus far has been 1:08 on a regular game. I play all games at medium difficulty and I currently have an average time of 3:08, with a 99% win rate. I am over 2,500 games right now. Since my time has gotten better, most games now are played in under 3 minutes.

My strategy is, before starting the game, identify the location of all the aces. Of course, those cards have to be uncovered first. Make getting the aces out a priority. Then work on the 2s, etc.

Hint: It helps to clear a row, if possible; that allows you to move more cards, and it gives you a chance to move a bunch of cards off another row.

On the more difficult games, I have to think out some moves, but I often let the cards play themselves. That is, I just see what cards are available to play and use those, and go from there.

Be mindful of playing patterns. There are certain types of moves of the cards you will use over and over. Be aware of how you are playing. I've never developed names for these moves, though I started to do so once, but just be aware of the type of moves you are making. It helps your awareness, and it helps you better understand your options.

I hope that helps.


Flexibility in Opening two in third seat with 8 points and seven card suit? Is it against the rules to use your judgement as to whether to open two or three with a seven card suit?  Instance was third seat opening with a seven card suit, two of the top five, and 8 points with distribution - not vulnerable.  Playing with players that are very conservative in their bidding so opponents could easily had each held twelve points giving my partner a possible ten points if forth seat didn’t bid after my pre-empt.
Help - Opponants said I was going against the rules and had to open three with a seven card suit.  I can’t find any answer for this situation - unless it is obvious and you can never open two with a seven card suit.

You are, within certain constraints designed to prevent wholly destructive bidding systems, allowed to make any call that is:

any of a sufficient bid; a valid Double or Redouble; or Pass; and
not otherwise constrained by penalty under the Laws of Rubber Bridge consequent to a prior irregularity.

However your opponents are entitled to a full and complete description of the agreements and understandings between you and partner.

In particular, you are most definitely entitled to make a call based on your understanding of the opponents methods, in the context of the current auction. But if you make a habit of certain actions in common circumstances, such as a third hand opening following two passes as here, this must be added to the partnership agreements made known to the opponents.

Nothing you have stated in your post suggests to me that your opening bid is inappropriate. While not a call I would likely make myself, I see merit in your reasoning when playing against timid opponents.

It would seem that your opponents on this hand have conflated the rules of the announced bidding system (really just guidelines for improved play and partnership harmony) with the Laws of Rubber Bridge.

In the convention card, me and my partner have, it states that 2 or 3 level can be preemptive with a 6+ cards and 4 level has to have at least a 7 card.

We do this so with a hand of e.g.

KJ9853
4
J10753
85

We can preempt (because this hand is nicer than a 6-3-2-2.


Mono-Green Deck: Responding to Sorceries/Instants? I'm working on a mono-green overrun deck but I'm having some trouble responding to my opponent's non-creature cards.

Against another creature-heavy deck it does very well, but up against anything with creature removal, control, discard, milling...it just gets stomped and I feel like I really don't have a response to this.

I've played a lot of blue in the past so I'm used to being able to have access to "Counterspell" to handle situations like this.

Does green have a response to sorceries/instants that target you as a player, not your creatures?

The format you're playing is very important to answer this question. Playing Standard, for example, limits your options to the most recent few sets, while on the opposite end of the spectrum, playing Vintage or Commander opens up nearly every card ever printed.

Against removal, you can go for creatures with hexproof/shroud (Thrun, the Last Troll/Scythe Tiger), means to grant hexproof/shroud (Asceticism/Aspect of Mongoose), protection (Chameleon Colossus/Tel-Jilad Defiance), regeneration (Experiment One, Fortitude), indestructible (Predator Ooze, Thornling), etc.

Against countermagic, green is probably the best solution (besides perhaps also playing blue for countering the countermagic); there are a number of cards in green which either can't be countered, or make something else uncounterable. For example, Gaea Herald, Mistcutter Hydra, Savage Summoning.

Against discard and mill, green is probably second only to black in terms of re-using the graveyard. Gensis, Eternal Witness, Creeping Renaissance. Green and black are also the two colors of the Golgari guild, where the extremely powerful Dredge mechanic comes from (which involves self-mill).

Green is also quite good at noncreature removal; in fact, the majority of targeted removal in green is noncreatures only.

With a full card pool, you have a lot of options. For example, I have a mono-green Commander deck (Ezuri, Renegade Leader elf tribal) which often plays like a blue deck, thanks to cards like Ezuri or Wirewood Symbiote protecting my creatures (regenerate or return to hand to protect from removal), Gaea's Herald or Cavern of Souls stopping counterspells, Yeva, Nature's Herald letting me take "turns" during my opponents' turns, Survival of the Fittest or Fauna Shaman searching for answers to threats (especially with Masked Admirers creating an engine), Sylvan Library drawing cards, etc.

They way it should be handled is having a strategy that either ignore non creature permanent or that is fast enough to not care.


polymorphist's jest and emrakul Polymorphist's Jest says each creature target player controls loses all abilities and becomes a blue Frog with a base power and toughness 1/1. My question is...  how would this work with Emrakul? Like let's say a player attacks with Emrakul, you cast Polymoprhist's Jest and then lightning bolt Emrakul.

My assumption is that the defending player would still have to sacrifice six permanents because the attack is earlier in the stack.

And when Emrakul hits the graveyard does it go into the graveyard and stay there or does the graveyard still get shuffled into the library?

Defending player will still have to sacrifice 6 permenants, and Emrakul and the rest of the graveyard will still be shuffled into the controller's graveyard.

Anailator still happens, not exactly because the attack is earlier in the stack like you say ("the attack" doesn't go on the stack). But as soon as Emrakul is declared as an attacker, the "when attacks" ability triggers and goes in the stack. After that, it doesn't matter what happens to Emrakul. Best to kill it in the beginning of combat step.

It still gets shuffled back in because that trigger happens "when it is put into the graveyard". And by that time, it's back to normal, sitting in the graveyard with its abilities. Note that if it said "when Emrakul dies..." instead, then it would NOT be shuffled back in, because when it dies triggers care about the state of the object as it was on battlefield, and the ability didn't exist in the battlefield.

To "die" and "put into the graveyard" are the same thing (See rule 700.6).
In this case I think Emrakul's ability does not trigger.

700.6. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.” It is used only when referring
to creatures.


MTG: Is there a lower-limit for life total? If I am playing a game where I have a card in play that makes it so I don't lose from loss of life, and go to -1 life, would I need to gain 2 life in order to be safe without the anti-loss card anymore, or does the negative 'reset' to 0 after damage effects and cards on the stack resolve?

You can go into negative life totals. If that doesn't cause you to lose, subsequent events still affect your life total normally: you could gain life back to zero or above, and losing more life will push you further negative.

The rulings on Beacon of Immortality confirm this:

  2/1/2007  If you double a negative life total, you do the real math.  A life total of -10 becomes -20.

  7/15/2007     Beacon of Immortality's effect counts as life gain (or life loss, if the life total was negative) for effects that trigger on or replace life gain (or life loss).

So yes, if you're at -1 life, you'd need to gain 2 life to get back to 1 life and be safe without whatever was keeping you from losing.

Not true anymore.
Rule 107.1b says you can't gain negative life. So that beacon of immortality ruling is incorrect.

If an effect would double or half your life, while your life is less than 0, your life is treated as 0 and no life is gained or lost.

0/2 = 0,
 0 x 2 = 0


Getting started (Advanced) with Magic: The Gathering, and where to play I am a recent college grad without many friends who play MTG, but I am interested in starting to play again. I am familiar with most of the rules, including things like turn phases and the stack.

I have only played casually and do not know where to find any of my old cards. I am looking for a place to play with other people, and the first two things that come to mind are online applications and local board game clubs.

One thing that I am not sure about is how to stay up to date on the "relevant" cards. I have always been a casual player, mixing cards from 10 years ago with cards I just found in the newest release. I have heard that many players nowadays prefer only making decks with a limited pool of cards to choose from, but I do not know the names of the sets or the methods by which cards are phased out/in.

In short, I have three questions:

What are the available online communities for MTG?
How can I stay up to date on the current set of cards that might be used to play in more serious games and tournaments?
Is there anything else that a casual Magic player looking to return to the game in a more serious way should know?

Online Communities

There are a variety of online forums for discussing Magic, some more popular ones are:

MTG Salvation
TappedOut (This one also has a popular deck builder you can use to share and get comments on decks you build)
MTG Fanatic
Commander/EDH

There are many more out there, this is just a few from a search for 'mtg forums'

Staying up to date

Many of the above discussion forums have sections for MTG news, including spoilers for new sets (which officially start about 2-3 weeks before the set's pre-release), announcements of upcoming products, changes to banned lists, and various other Magic related info. You can also find most if not all of it from the official Magic website.

If you just want to know what is in Standard you can use the What is in Standard? site and it will tell you. Note that you can use any printing of a card as long as it was printed in one of the Standard legal sets (So you can currently use the Shards of Alara version of Knight of the White Orchid since it was also printed in Magic Origins which is legal in Standard).

Other useful info

To find the location of a store to play at you can use Wizard's Event Locator. To find lists of popular decks in a variety of formats you can use sites like Starcity games or TCGPlayer. Generally sites with decklists will also have various strategy articles and other information like that.

Online communities:

Magic: the Gathering Online (don't bother; I've heard that the barrier to entry is quite high, and with MTG Arena coming out, I think that MTGO might eventually get phased out, plus it costs money)

MtG: Arena (in beta, so apply now)

Staying Current:

Just buy new sets as they come out. You are the only one that can decide how much money you want to spend on cards per week/month/day.

Anything else you should know:

Ummm...no? Other than there's always more to learn.

As a side note, I would highly recommend you look into the EDH/Commander format. It's where people who like to mix old cards with new cards go.


Is using a distinct pitch or tone in your voice for your hint legal in Codenames? I.e., "colddd" to link "blanket" and "Arctic" To link "blanket" and "Arctic", "cold" could be a clue because the Arctic has subzero temperatures and a blanket is something you put on if you are cold at night. Saying "cold" with an extension of the sound in your tone like "colddd" could help your guesser hit "blanket" better because it gives the clue that cold can be an expression of someone who is cold.
Other examples include sounding out "ding" to "dingggg" if you want to hit "dent" but also "bell" and "phone" better since it might suggest to look for clues that sound like ding.

I gave a similar answer to a different question here But this is a different question with almost the same answer.
The rules here say

DON'T BE TOO STRICT

So if the word is a legal clue then there is nothing in the rule to say you can't use a certain voice.  I guess the balance is you couldn't use Western Film accent to say "Paris" to give a clue for "Cowboy" and "France".
Also its worth looking at the rules for Homonyms which say (emphasis mine).

Some people prefer to allow a more liberal use of homonyms. You can allow knight to be a clue for night-related things if that makes the game more fun for you.

You can apply that rule to making sounds with you clues.  Would saying "colddd" make the make more fun for your group?  If so then yes it would be fine.
In general if you're not sure if a clue is legal ask your self, Do the rules specially say you're not allowed to do it?  If the answer is no, and your group are having fun then the clue is almost certainly fine.

Codenames is not a hard game to break. All the clue giver needs to do is not have a full control of their facial expressions, and things are spoiled. Just reaching for a red or blue card too early can break things.
Even if players don't have facial expressions there are other ways to pass information completely legally that is not in the spirit of the game. Let's say you have your team read out loud all the words, and give your clue when they say your word. Legal, but I would not keep playing with that group.
Sp now we come to your question. This is just another way to leak information aside from the very analytical Codenames rule set. I would say don't do it. The spirit of the game is very explicit. You state one word, and it is a specific word. In fact the game tells you to spell the word if the specific word is not clear. It also tells you not to use words for anything but their meaning in relation to other words. Don't give card locations, or something about the spelling of the word. I am pretty sure the designer did not want you to use noises or intonations either.
The way I read the rules when you guess a word, you should be able to explain why that word, not the noise, not other hints, lead you to pick it. If you can't you are not following the spirit of the game.


What does "gain" mean? What exactly is meant by "gain" a card. For example, if I am asked to draw a card from my deck- have I gained the card? Or does gain only apply to cards from the lineup I gain for no cost (Cheetah,  Dark Knight )

To gain a card is to take it from the lineup and move it to your discard pile. From page 9 of the rulebook:

  Gaining Cards

    When a card tells a player to gain a particular card
    or a card of your choice, that card is taken and
    immediately placed in that player’s discard pile at no
    additional cost, unless otherwise directed by the card.

Additionally, if you get a card from another player that is considered gaining a card as well.


Should I trash Copper or Silver with Mine? Assuming I've got both Copper and Silver in my hand, which is better to trash in general and why?

I'm going to have to disagree with Pat; I hate having Copper in my deck, and rather have a consistent deck of Silvers.  Yes, it's nice if you get Gold - Copper - Copper in your hand, but Silver - Silver - Copper will buy the same amount.  Once you start running out of Coppers (or if you only have a Silver in your hand along with the mine), then you can start upgrading to Golds.

It's kind of hard to answer this question in vacuum, because there are so many different possibilities that could make one answer better than the other; for example:

If you're running an early Moneylender, upgrade the Silver to Gold, and use Moneylender on the Coppers to really ramp up.
If someone is playing multiple Thiefs, I may not even bother with the Mine.  Or if I do get a mine, I'll upgrade Copper to Silver since losing a Silver isn't as bad as losing a Gold.

I would argue copper to silver before silver to gold.  The copper to silver trade doubles the value of that card, while silver to gold is only a 50% increase.