In Settlers of Catan, if you have unrevealed victory point cards that would make you win, are you forced to declare victory? If you have enough points to win on your turn, but only by including your unrevealed VP development cards, are you forced to win?

E.g. I have three cities (6 VP), three settlements (3 VP), and I buy a development card, which ends up being a victory point card. Can I wait until my next turn where I believe I'll have a chance to steal longest road, and end the game on 12 VP, or do I need to declare victory now?

The reason why I ask is that we keep a running total of stats from the games we've played over the years, and finishing on a higher total would bring up my average VP per game score.

You have won the game as soon as your have 10 points on your turn, there is no requirement to "declare" victory. So no, you cannot keep playing extra rounds. From the official FAQ:

  Victory Conditions - May I continue scoring points after having reached the number of victory points required for a win?

    This could make sense in a private tournament where the scores from several games are added up. For individual games and official tournaments, the following applies: You have won as soon as you have reached the required number of victory points on your turn – and then the game is over.

http://www.catan.com/faq/4613-victory-conditions-may-i-continue-scoring-points-after-having-reached-number-victory-points

and:

  Victory Conditions - What if someone has reached the required number of victory points for a win but is unaware of it? Did this player win anyway?

    Yes. The game ends as soon as a player has reached the required number of victory points on his turn. If he’s unaware of it, you should tell him, because you can’t take an already gained victory away from him.

http://www.catan.com/faq/4616-victory-conditions-what-if-someone-has-reached-required-number-victory-points-for-win

Note that you have the point from VP development cards as soon as you buy the card. You don't "play" the development card to get the points; you already have those points.

I think the answer has already been stated. IF you are playing a 'regular' game or a tournament where you win and advance, declaring victory is required when it happens.

However, if you are playing a tournament where the number of points matters - as it does in the world qualifiers at GenCon - then, yes, you can hold onto those point. Of course, it would not be so good if someone else won before you did because you got greedy....


Angel's Grace and Phyrexian Unlife I am at -10 life from Ad Nauseam but I don't lose due to Phyrexian Unlife. If my opponent attacks me with all their creatures (for infect-> poison counters) and I use Angel's Grace what happens to my life total? I know it doesn't go back to 1 but do I get poison counters or just one poison or does nothing happens?

Similarly,

If my health is already below zero and I don't have Phyrexian Unlife if my opponent keeps attacking on the turn I'm still using Angel Grace what happens?

thanks

In the first scenario,
Your opponent's creatures deal damage to you in the form of poison counters.[CR 702.89b] This damage does not reduce your life total, so it's not affected by Angel's Grace. Even if you now have ten or more poison counters, you do not lose at this time because of Angel's Grace.
Eventually, your turn ends and the continuous effect Angel's Grace's created to keep you alive ends. Specifically, this happens in the Cleanup Step[CR 514.2]. At this point, state-based actions are checked and you lose if you have ten or more poison counters.[CR 514.3, 704.5c]

702.89b Damage dealt to a player by a source with infect doesn’t cause that player to lose life. Rather, it causes the player to get that many poison counters.

In the second scenario,
Everyone's life totals are checked whenever someone is about to get priority (when someone gets to cast a spell or activate an ability except when instructed by an effect)[CR 116.5].
If your health is below zero, and you don't have Phyrexian Unlife to keep you alive, then you've already lost. As soon as Ad Nauseam finished resolving, before anyone could have done anything else and before the attackers could deal their damage, state-based actions were performed[CR 601.2h] and you lost the game for having having non-positive life.[CR 704.5a]

601.2h Once the steps described in 601.2a–g are completed, the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell’s controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.
116.5. Each time a player would get priority, the game first performs all applicable state-based actions as a single event [...]

Do note that Angel's Grace cannot raise your life total. As stated in a ruling, "If your life total goes below 1, being dealt damage will not increase it back up to 1."

Instead of that, try running form of the Dragon instead. Because combat damage is dealt at the same time (unless a creature has first strike/double strike) you're life will just reset to five at the end of the turn. I run that combo in a lot of my white decks and it's always been extremely effective.


What cards give +1/+1 counters to all friendly creatures? I wonder if there is any card that gives +1/+1 counters to all creature I have on the field? I have Krenko, Mob Boss, Abzan Battle Priest and Mirror Entity so it would be awesome to have +1/+1 counters on all my goblins.

Ajani Goldmane's -1 ability will give counters to all your creatures and also give them vigilance until end of turn:

  −1: Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control. Those creatures gain vigilance until end of turn.

Ajani Steadfast's -2 ability will also give counters to all your creatures

  −2: Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control and a loyalty counter on each other planeswalker you control.

Abzan Ascendancy also gives +1/+1 counters to all creatures you have on the battlefield at that moment:

  When Abzan Ascendancy enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

Archangel of Thune will work awesome with Abzan Battle Priest(the one you already have):

  Whenever you gain life, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

Borborygmos may also be used to get +1/+1 counters. And it's a big 6/7 Trample creature

  Whenever Borborygmos deals combat damage to a player, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

But Cathars' Crusade might actually be (one of the) best for your scenario. That card and Krenko, Mob Boss... I'm adding red to my Abzan deck!

  Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

Celestial Ancient can also give +1/+1 counters to all your creatures:

  Whenever you cast an enchantment spell, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

Decree of Savagery for four +1/+1 counters

  Put four +1/+1 counters on each creature you control.

Mikaeus, the Lunarch a Legendary Human Cleric that will only cost you 2 mana to get a +1/+1 counter on all your creatures(Mikaeus might die in process)

  {T}, Remove a +1/+1 counter from Mikaeus: Put a +1/+1 counter on each other creature you control.

Phalanx Leader's Heroic ability can also give all your creatures a +1/+1 counter

  Heroic — Whenever you cast a spell that targets Phalanx Leader, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

Tempt With Glory

  Tempting offer — Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control. Each opponent may put a +1/+1 counter on each creature he or she controls. For each opponent who does, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

Titania's Boon

  Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

As Mephy pointed in his comment, Gavony Township can also be used to give all your creatures a +1/+1 counter.

  {2}{G}{W}, {T}: Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

Vigor, is a good 6 drop that will give you what you need for the krenko.


Is Pandemic harder with fewer players? I've played a couple of Pandemic games with 2, 3 and 4 players.

From my point of view, the game should be harder with only 2 players since it will be more difficult to get a medic and both players will have to stay virtually close to each other most of the time in order to share knowledge, therefore cover less ground.

On the other hand, with more players, obviously the deck will run out faster.

From my experience our group WIN/LOSE ratio is very similar and does not depend that much on the player count.

Is it really harder with fewer players?

Actually, I've found that it's easier with fewer players.  My husband and I play two-player games with six epidemics and win about half our games, but when we play with two other (competent) players five epidemics gives us that win rate and six is hard.

While, with fewer players, you have fewer roles in the game, that's offset by not having so many other actions between your turns (that can completely change the board and thus your plans).  Some roles work better the more turns that role gets, e.g. dumpster-diving abilities and once-per-turn special actions.  You'll run through the deck at the same rate no matter how many players there are.

The medic is not necessary, and sometimes having that role in a two-player game is counter-productive.  Remember tha the goal is curing diseases; it's easy for the medic to get so pre-occupied with the board that he doesn't contribute enough to cures.  Medic as one of four roles is great; medic as one of two requires restraint.

In our games we deal two roles to each player and let the player choose one (consultation is allowed).  That hasn't hurt our two-player games even though the medic will only be an option about a third of the time.

I played it exactly once. There were four of us and I had the role that lets other people take an extra move. By me basically coordinating the entire group we won easily. Once this strategy was obvious, no one wanted to play such an easily beat game any more...

So while my answer is that it's easier with more people, the real answer is that it's easier with more coordination.


If someone casts an aura on my creature, do I still control the creature? Some spells and abilities let you gain control of a permanent. Most of the time, this means the card will move from your opponent's side to yours. But for Auras or Equipment attached to other cards, the controller changes but it doesn't move.

I'm very new to MTG, and read official rules (above) - it says that if someone adds an aura on my creature, this means that I'm no longer controller of that creature.
So, for example, someone casts Sleep Paralysis on one of my creatures. After, I want to use Fling. Can I sacrifice my creature tapped by Sleep Paralysis?
Or, for example, I want to cast Certain Death on my creature tapped by Sleep Paralysis. Will I get 2 damage, or my opponent? I'm very confused about creature controlling.

Some spells and abilities let you gain control of a permanent

Sleep Paralysis does not change control of permanents. Lay Claim is an example of an Aura that changes control of a permanent. It has

  You control enchanted permanent.

This ability transfers control of the enchanted permanent.

  Most of the time, this means the card will move from your opponent's side to yours.

Say you have a creature to which you have a Bone Saw attached, and your opponent attaches Lay Claim to your creature.

Your opponent controls the creature, so it moves to their side, and they can attack with it and use its abilities (but you can't). You can't sacrifice it to Fling (but they can), and they would lose life if it's targeted by Certain Death (and you wouldn't). It even gets the +1/+0 from Bone Saw.

However, you still control Bone Saw. As an Aura or Equipment, it physically stays with the creature to which is attached. Only you can use its activated ability (say to equip Bone Saw to a creature you still control).

  But for Auras or Equipment attached to other cards, the controller changes but it doesn't move.

Say you have a creature to which you have a Bone Saw attached, and your opponent attaches Lay Claim to Bone Saw (not the creature).

You control the creature, so it stays on your side, and you can attack with it and use its abilities. You can sacrifice it to Fling, and you would lose life if it's targeted by Certain Death. It even gets the +1/+0 from Bone Saw.

However, your opponent controls Bone Saw. As an Aura or Equipment, it physically stays with the creature to which is attached. Only they can use its activated ability (say to equip Bone Saw on one of their own creatures).

I see you have a struggle which isn't totally answered and I'll try to explain it once again, and give an answer which I think is right. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The first problem is answered I guess, but the second problem you encountered is a little different. You suppose you have a creature with Sleep Paralysis enchanted to it. Of course, you do not like this at all and you think your creature is better off in your own graveyard. You have a Certain Death in hand and you cast it with your own creature as target. It does resolve. What happens with the life totals of the players?
110.2. A permanent's owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it's a token; see rule 110.5a). A permanent's controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller.
608. Resolving Spells and Abilities
608.1. Each time all players pass in succession, the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves. (See rule 609, "Effects.")
(...)
608.3. If the object that's resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it's an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller.
608.3a. If the object that's resolving is an Aura spell, its resolution involves two steps. First, it checks whether the target specified by its enchant ability is still legal, as described in rule
608.2b. (See rule 702.5, "Enchant.") If so, the spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller attached to the object it was targeting.
111.2. A spell's owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it, unless it's a copy. In that case, the owner of the spell is the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A spell's controller is, by default, the player who put it on the stack. Every spell has a controller.
Because your opponents casts the enchantment doesn't mean he controls the creature (exceptions for cards like lay claim). You are still the controller of the creature in this example, which means you both lose and gain 2 life, the creature is moved to your graveyard and the aura is moved to the opponents graveyard.
In the case the aura was a lay claim and not a sleep paralysis, your opponent loses 2 life and you gain 2 life, the creature is moved to your graveyard and the aura is moved to the opponents graveyard.


Do tokens ever go to the graveyard and can they be sacrificed or exiled? If I had a card that said something like, "Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for every creature in your graveyard". Would that also apply to tokens which died in previous turns? Also if I play a card which says, return target creature from the graveyard then can I choose a token?

Right now I use Dice to represent tokens, but not sure what to do once any of my tokens die.

Also for cards which say sacrifice a creature or exile a creature, would these apply to tokens?

If I had a card that said something like, "Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for every creature in your graveyard".

There cannot be such a card.

Since "creature" means "creature permanent" which means "creature card or token on the battlefield", and since a card or token cannot be in the graveyard and on the battlefield at the same time, the enchantment would never affect the attached object's power and toughness.

The ability would likely read "Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for each creature card in your graveyard" like Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord's, which means it wouldn't count any tokens since tokens aren't cards.

Let's assume there's a card that has the ability "Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for each creature card and each creature token in your graveyard".

  Would that also apply to tokens which died in previous turns?

Tokens go to the graveyard just like a card would. However, they only stay there for a very short period of time. The next time State-Based Actions (SBAs) are performed, they will cease to exist.

Tokens placed in the graveyard on a previous turn will have ceased to exist long ago.

In fact, the effect checking for tokens in the graveyard wouldn't even see the tokens that died this turn except for an extremely short (and practically useless) period of time. The longest scenario might be when the tokens are put into the graveyard during the resolution of a spell or ability, because the SBAs will be only be performed after the spell or ability finishes resolving. It could matter if your opponent has Hidden Predators, but that's about it.

  if I play a card which says, return target creature from the graveyard then can I choose a token?

There cannot be such a card.

Again, creatures (aka creature permanents) cannot be found in the graveyard. It would be impossible to pick a legal target.

The effect would read something like "Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield". This excludes tokens since they aren't cards.

You will never find "Return target creature card or token from your graveyard to the battlefield." for two reasons:

Even if there was a token was in the graveyard when targets were chosen, it would have ceased to exists by the time the spell or ability resolved.
A rule prohibits the tokens from changing zones once they've left the battlefield.

  110.5g A token that has left the battlefield can’t move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.

  Right now I use Dice to represent tokens,

It's a poor (and illegal) choice to use a die to represent a type of token since a die can't be tapped.

  but not sure what to do once any of my tokens die.

Your tokens would move the graveyard, and soon after they will cease to exist. Most people don't bother physically moving them to the graveyard. Simply adjust the count.

  cards which say sacrifice a creature or exile a creature, would these apply to tokens?

Yes. "Creature" means "creature permanent" which means "creature card or token on the battlefield".

I think tokens can die but they never go to graveyard. they remain on the zone then cease to exist when state-based actions check next time. lets say if 3 tokens die this turn i cannot play ravenous trap for a 0 cost.


Multiple players considered last on Charity board in Medieval Academy The rules state that when multiple players are at square 0, all of them are considered last on that track. But there's only one -10 Chivalry Points token for the Charity track. What happens if two players are considered last on this track?

As you say, the rules (quoted below) cleary state that in case of a tie on the "0" spot of the track, all tied players are supposed to get the whole penalty. I would use substitute (unused coat of arms for a value of -10 for instance) to track that...

  If your disc has never moved on a track, you are automatically
  considered last on that track. As such, you can not get
  anything positive from that game board (no positive Chivalry
  Points, no bonus from the Gallantry game board), or if it is
  a game board that gives negative points, you and every other
  player on square 0 of that track will be considered last and
  will get the corresponding coat of arms. If 2 or more player
  get last place this way, no negative points will be given to the
  players ranked second to last.

If you look at page 6 of the rules

  f your disc has never moved on a track, you are automatically
  considered last on that track. As such, you can not get
  anything positive from that game board (no positive Chivalry
  Points, no bonus from the Gallantry game board), or if it is
  a game board that gives negative points, you and every other
  player on square 0 of that track will be considered last and
  will get the corresponding coat of arms. If 2 or more player
  get last place this way, no negative points will be given to the
  players ranked second to last


Is anyone aware of any score keeping apps (BB10 or Android) that can keep track of score (including extra meta-data)? I know there are lots of apps (eg: keepscore, scorekeeper, endless variations of those words) that can keep a simple tally for various players for generic games. I am looking for one that can:

Keep track of current scores, for players and/or teams.
I would like to be able to track bids for current rounds of many card games, eg: spades, bidwhist.

BONUS:

Keep histories of specific players, win records, stats, etc...
Integrate a dice and or timer.
Somewhere to track custom meta-data. For example bidwhist, has a rotating trump suit. I can jot down, Round 1=Spades, 2=H,3=C,4=D, 5=NoTrump, etc...

I had an IOS app that did some of this, but have yet to find an Android, or BB10 app. Does anyone know of or use one? I hate having to dig up a notepad.

My friends and I use rankade, which has an app both for iOS and Android (but I prefer the webapp, personally, as it has the graphs). You can use it for every game, and the thing I like the most is the fact that it gives you the whole history (and rankings) for both the group (collective matches) and for each single boardgame. I don't think it can track every single metadata you're asking, though.

Hands down the best for Spades scoring is RenegeAid on Android.  www.renegeaid.com
We play a lot of spades and made this for serious Spades players since we couldn't find any other app that did it right.


What is the difference between "flying" and "this creature can only be blocked by creatures with flying"? Tons of creatures have flying in Magic:The Gathering, but I noticed Treetop Rangers have this ability:

  Treetop Rangers can't be blocked except by creatures with flying.

Obviously this means that Treetop Rangers can't be blocked by creatures with Reach, which can block creatures with flying. Is that the only difference? When else would this distinction matter? Is Treetop Ranger's ability generally 'better' than flying?

I know it's the "simple answer", but I have to add it for completeness' sake!

A creature that "can't be blocked except by creatures with flying" has about half the functionality of a creature with flying.  In terms of its evasive power, it's quite similar to a creature with flying; a little better because it can't be blocked by the likes of Giant Spider, and "super-high-flyers" such as Cloud Elemental.

In terms of its defensive capabilities, however, it's much worse than a flyer, since it can only block ground creatures, never a flyer!  And as David Z rightly points out, it is susceptible to a different class of spells such as Earthquake, while laughing at the likes of Hurricane and Plummet...

Unless the rules have changed recently (which is entirely possible), treetop rangers can be blocked by creatures with reach, since reach allows a creature to block as if it had flying.


How many players realistically possible in Pandemic Board Game 2nd edition I love playing Pandemic, but the one of the biggest holdups for me is how you can only play 4 players. However, in the box there are 7 roles! (Scientist, Researcher, Medic, Quarantine Specialist, Dispatcher, Operations expert, Contingency planner).

Has anyone had experience or would like to hypothesize playing with 5, 6, or all 7 players at once? If so, what additional rules do you incorporate (if any) to keep the integrity of the game (i.e. starting cards, number of actions, etc.)?

I'm aware that there are only so many city cards to use so 7 players would really make you be super sensitive in how you use the cards. And I'm sure there are other things to consider also.

I'm just very curious to know what all of your experiences are! Thank you for your time.

The On the Brink expansion does allow for five player games . I believe the only rule change in On the Brink that would affect this is only shuffling two event cards per player into the deck. I'm not sure if this would affect only playing with the base game (the expansion includes many more event cards which makes this necessary), I can't remember how many event cards there were with just the base game.

The main issue you face with playing with more people is the game's built-in time limit (when you run out of city cards). I've never tried altering the rules to better accommodate more players.

I can't remember where I saw it posted. But I believe the creators of the game said that they limited the number of players to such a small number as playtesters didn't find it to be fun having to wait so long between turns. If a player traveled to a city to treat diseases on their next turn. A game with five other players meant that ten more infection cards would be played before they had a change to clear anything up.

You could play with 7 people but you'd have to do 6 card limt. Reshuffle all the player cards as needed but all 7 infection cards to insure ot would be constant threat of death. There would be no time limit but 8 outbreaks and you die


Should I Use A "Negative Double" Over a Possible "Short Club" Bid And Overcall in Bridge? Playing Standard American, partner opened 1 club. Right hand opponent overcalled 1 spade. I raised to 2 clubs with:

♠xx ♥Axxx ♦JTxx ♣Qxx

Everyone passed. Partner had 13 points and a "short" three card club suit and we went down one (not doubled, not vulnerable), because of our club shortness. Our system allows us to bid short minors, although most of the time we have have four, or even five of the minor. But switch the club and heart suits, and I would have gladly raised to two hearts with Qxx because we were playing five card majors.

Someone suggested that I use a "negative double" instead of raising one club because of the potential short club problem. What exactly is its meaning and purpose, since partner already bid? It's not exactly a takeout double, but it seems to have the connotations of "I don't like your suit, could you bid another one." Or does it?

And, in fact, is a negative double the best action in this case since I have only seven points? (What little I was taught about this bid was that it showed 8-10 points.) I'm actually quite happy with the result because we shut out a one spade bid that would have made, perhaps with overtricks.

Your options are:

Double

Double would suggest that you have at least 6 points and that you have at least 4 of the unbid major suit (hearts). I think this is the best bid as it accurately describes your hand. Now that your partner has this information he can decide how best to proceed. If your partner has hearts he can bid them, if he has a strong club suit he can rebid that.

With 10+ points you could still double, but it's often preferable to bid something that shows the extra strength.

2 Clubs

You would normally need 4 clubs to bid this, so this is not a good bid if you only have 3 of them. It happened to work out OK for you on this occasion, but you could easily have ended up in 3 clubs (possibly doubled). There's obviously less risk with this kind of bid when non-vulnerable, but even then it's very unlikely that this is your best option.

Pass

This isn't a particularly poor bid, but double is better. If you'd passed it's quite likely your opponents would have ended up in 1 spade which presumably they would have made.

If you'd only had 6 points and were vulnerable you might prefer this over doubling.

You have a variety of options here, and a lot of it depends on partner agreement. How competitive are you when bidding? Some prefer solid bids, some prefer to be more aggressive.  As long as your partner is not going to get upset at a raise w/ 3, a 2 club bid here is fine. I would likely have made the same bid, since you are not vulnerable. This is going with the odds, as the odds are only like 17% that they only have 3 clubs.

Expected club length for a 1♣ opener (using "Standard American" guidelines)

3-cards : 17%

4-cards : 26%

5-cards : 38%

6-cards : 15%

7 cards : 4%

(Source: http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=18)

So, 2♣ should be fine. What about a negative double? I think a negative double is also an appropriate bid, and possibly a better one. The main determinant is whether or not you consider this hand to be worthy of a negative double. The thought process should probably go: Am I strong enough for a negative double? That is something for you to determine. If the answer is no, then the next question is: Can I bid 2♣. I'd say yes. If you can't bid 2♣ either, then the 3rd answer of pass is probably fine. Some people will bid 1NT, but you don't have a stop, your hand sucks for notrump, and you are at the bottom of what would normally be acceptable pointwise for a 1NT bid. Also, the lead against NT is going to pass through the hand with the spade stop which is even worse.

To summarize: Negative Double, 2♣, and pass are all viable options. Which is best depends on partnership style and agreements.

Note: This is all assuming that you are defining short clubs as 3♣. If you are opening 1♣ with only 2, then you should have 4 to raise.

Edit given some comments: The asker seems to be asking essentially 2 things. 1) Is it okay to raise a minor suit opening (that could be 3) with only 3 card support? Answer imo is a definite yes. 2nd question: What is the appropriate bid for this hand. Answer for that is probably a negative double, unless you don't feel strong enough for a neg double with that hand in which case 2♣ is fine.


Looking for the "magic'al" formula Im a big fan of the Magic the Gathering trading card game.

And with all these new cards coming in, I was wondering how the cards were balanced, and manacost calculated.

Im thinking there must be a list of abilities, with matching mana modifiers, and some formula in which to calculate them. I hardly feel that they just guess or take it on the feels when coming up with the cards cost and ability limitations.

But is such a formula public ? I have been looking around but with not much luck.

The reason im asking is that I would like to know the correct mana cost, if I were to make some custom cards myself.

I hardly feel that they just guess or take it on the feels when coming up with the cards cost and ability limitations.

Actually, they kinda do.

Mana cost depends on several factors:

How common the card's ability is in the color. Flight for example, is generally least expensive in Blue, White is slightly more expensive, and red/black slightly more, and green even more and quite rare.
The rarity of the card. What makes Mythic Rare cards better isn't just how uncommon the abilities are, but how undercosted the abilities are. See Huntmaster of the Fell and Geist of Saint Traft. An uncommon flyer might be slightly undercosted compared to a common flyer.
The current metagame. Back in the day, Counterspell was a mere two blue mana. Lightning Bolt did 3 damage for 1 red mana. Control decks ran rampant, creatures like Hill Giant were expensive for what you got. Over time, Wizards wanted the Combat Phase to matter more often, so hard counters began to get more expensive, and creature costing got cheaper.
The set balance. If Wizards want to deemphasize removal in limited in a set, they might make it more expensive.

and most of all

Playtesting. Wizards does a lot of playtesting to determine which costs are appropriate in the environment.

I don't think there's any way to come up with a strict formula and the parameters change over time. Used to be you could only get a 2/2 vanilla creature with a converted mana cost of 2 (with one mana being generic) in green. (Hello Grizzly Bears) Then white got a Glory Seeker. Recently Black has joined the club with Walking Corpse and Gutter Skulk. Red and Blue still require two colored mana in the cost or drawbacks to get 2/2 for CMC 2.

So yeah they do just cost what "feels right" then adjust after playtesting. Sometimes they get it wrong, in my opinion, compare Snapcaster Mage with Archaeomancer — absurd extra value at half the cost, even at rare. How Merfolk of the Depths ended up with a CMC of 6 for 4/2 Flash is equally baffling. Twice as big as a Shambleshark at three times the price??

You can also stack colorless with colored mana making that particular color more desirable.


What aspects of a game are not protected under copyright? Certain aspects of a game are protected by copyright, while others are not. You certainly cannot copy the particular expression of the rules, but the mechanics themselves aren't copyrightable.

For example, why does the d20 Open Gaming License exist since Hasbro only releases game mechanics (at least usually) as open content, and this material is already not protectable by copyright law?

Fundamentally, the OGL exists to (1) allow D&D 3.0 supplements to be made by 3rd parties and (2) to ensure the 3.0 Dev Team could take their mechanics with them if they got fired.

(1) can be seen in the explosion of material in 2000-2002.(2) can be seen clearly in Pathfinder and Arcana Unearthed.

While mechanics can't be copyrighted, and the US Patent Office almost never¹ grants patents on game mechanics, the Open Gaming License provides a means of reusing the literal text, and is a two-way license. Any mechanics you don't declare as product identity are likewise open.

This sharing could have been bidirectional with Wizards, but they appear to have decided not to go that route in the 3.x era.

The ability to use the literal text, combined with the lack of a formal OGL mark², only the D20 STL one, at the time of inception, allowed D&D-compatible d20 System games to flourish; they all "required" the D&D core rules³, and thus helped drive sales.

In general, it made D&D 3E one of the most used game systems in print... at least until Wizards moved on to 4E. And the D20 SRD is still one of the most used reference documents in the open gaming movement; D&D 4E no longer is part of that. (It will be interesting to see how 5E fares, and if it uses the OGL or not.)

Sidebar: Fonts

ML-111 specifies that typefaces are not copyrightable in the US unless individual characters constitute recognizable works of art.

ML-443 reads, in part:

  Pursuant to Congress's judgement in the 1976 act and case law, the Copyright Office does not regiser claims to copyright in typeface designs as such, whether generated by a computer program, or represented in drawings, hard metal type, or any other form.

It does note that the program to generate a picture might be copyrighted, but the font itself can't be even if the font-as-program is.

The earlier  ML-393 notes that font-as-program is unregisterable as the font itself is in fact not copyrightable, with the exception of fonts that are comprised of recognizable artwork.

It should be noted that the particular "look and feel" is a viable and defensible trademark, and for games, Fonts are part of that look and feel.

This isn't legal advice; for legal advice, contact an attorney at law licensed for your jurisdiction.

Notes

¹: The exceptions are few and thus highly notable. Wizards' patent on "Tapping" in card games being the most notable of the lot.
²: The OGL mark is a later add-on; Wizards only released the d20 system logo and a license for it requiring one to not include certain mechanics...
³: not that most of them can't be played without them. The missing content issue was solved in several d20 games by simply publishing an OGL-only web-enhancement with the missing rules.

The mechanics may not be protected by copyright but a process can be patented.   It is possible that at some point if the creators rights are not protected then the creator could lose protection.  The license helps to protect from that.

In addition the license protects the invention from being claimed as a unique creation by someone else.  It limits (however broadly) the acceptable use of the product to those proscribed by the license.  And it allows content creators to leverage an accepted standard game mechanic with content they they create, own, and profit from with out surrendering any of the rights of the original copyright to the written description of the mechanics.

Also just because something may be protected already under copyright, the license serves to enumerate, and reinforce those protections.  Basically that means to say that these are the things that we care about the most.  And it provides wording that is favorable to the creator that can be used in court should someone attempt to violate the license.


How can I find all cards with flavor text from a certain set and colour? How can I find all the cards from the Khans of Tarkir block (Khans / Fate Reforged / Dragons of Tarkir) that have flavor text? Preferably, I'd like to search just red and black cards.

A gatherer search for the vowels in flavour text with the block and colors you want selected in the gatherer advanced search feature will find you what you're looking for, since all english words must contain a,e,i,o,u or y. Here are all 146 red and/or black cards with flavour text from Khans block.

Note that the colors are added as OR, meaning it has to be at least red or at least black, if they were added as AND it would only find colors that are both. The no other colors is added using the exclude unselected terms more color option. (so it won't find cards that are black and blue for instance)

UPDATE - gatherer does have an issue in it's matching on empty spaces and block vs set matching. updated image and link for better

If you go to the advanced section of Gatherer it lets you pick a multitude of different options, including all of what you are looking for.


How much time do I get to read a card before I counter it? My friend told me I only get 5 seconds to say if I'm going to counter a card in Magic the Gathering, even if I tell him to wait. Is that true?

Your friend made that up. There is nothing in the comprehensive rules about how long a player may retain priority. Once you've got it, you keep it as long as you like until you play a spell/ability or pass.

If you're in an official tournament setting, your opponent can call a judge if he thinks you're intentionally playing slowly. If you're playing at your friend's kitchen table, then anything goes. Of course, the host can always decide to kick you out of his house, so try to play at a reasonable speed.

There is no rule that state that you only have so much time to counter. Saying you only have limited time is kind of a mean move especially if the player being pushed for time is a new player who has no clue what the card does.


Cargo Noir: How to prevent Macao Black Market from going stale We played Cargo Noir last night for the first time and we found that by the end of the game, half the cargos in the black market had been there from the start.

When you are at Macao, you can swap or pick a random cargo from the bag.
Since you need to have a cargo to swap for a cargo, players often chose to random pick out of the bag as it increases your cargo and still carries a chance of getting what you need.
This meant that people tended to ignore swaps and go for random in every stage of the game, and the market became stagnant.

Are there any suggestions on ways that increase the turn over of cargo on the market and freshen things up?

I've found that experienced players make more and better use of the market. Make a few decent grabs from it your next game, and players will start making use of it.

It is a matter of pointing out that a market draw allows an almost assured increase of a set, with no cash outlay. The value of this is minimal in early rounds, but once one is holding 4+ of a type, if a 5th is in Macao, it's worth getting.

As an aside, I played Tuesday last. The other players ignored the 3 wilds that started in the market until I grabbed two of them. Too little, too late; they were masters at bidding, and have a rather unpleasant tendency to gang up on whomever happens to have brought a game. I was unable to win an auction until turn 4... and came in 2nd of 4.

One idea I had was to have D8 roll that would remove a cargo from the market to the discard pile at the end of each player turn.  Each cargo space in the market obviously related to each di side

This way, there is constant new cargo coming in to the market, keeping it fresh, but also adding a danger element as cargo that you were waiting for might get removed by the time it gets to your turn.

Do you think this would work?


Can I play a Beer to no effect in Bang? Is it legal to play a Beer card in Bang! even if I am at full life?  Some scenarios where I might want to do this:

I don't want someone else to "Panic" it from my hand
I'm Suzy Lafayette and I want to empty my hand so I can keep drawing more cards

To the best of my knowledge...

You can play a beer card on your turn, even if it has no effect.

You can only play a beer card off-turn if you've taken a lethal hit.

I actually don't believe you can play a beer if you cannot take the effect just as you could not play a panic if both players next to you had an appaloosa.  By my reading of the rules the only way to willingly discard a card is to have more cards than your hand limit at the end of your turn.

Also, Kevin is correct that you may only play a beer out of turn on a lethal hit.


Snow-Covered Lands and Blood Moon interaction How do Blood Moon and e.g. a Snow-Covered Plains interact?
When I think of Field of the Dead it already seems quite counterintuitive to me that snow-covered lands increase the "distinct land count". According to this logic I thought they should also be affected by blood-moons effect. I come to this conclusion since basic lands to me were solely the cards named "Forest", "Mountain", "Island", "Plains", "Swamp".

Blood Moon does nothing to Snow-Covered Plains, because Snow-Covered Plains is a basic land.
Blood Moon says:

Nonbasic lands are Mountains.

“Nonbasic” here means “not basic”, the same way “noncreature” (Negate) means “not a creature”.
Snow-Covered Plains is basic; we can see this on the type line:

Basic Snow Land — Plains

So Blood Moon will leave it alone.

When I think of Field of the Dead it already seems quite counterintuitive to me that snow-covered lands increase the "distinct land count". According to this logic I thought they should also be affected by blood-moons effect.

They have different names, which is what Field of the Dead cares about, so yes, they'll matter for Field of the Dead too. And whether they have distinct names has nothing to do with whether they're basic.

I come to this conclusion since basic lands to me were solely the cards named "Forest", "Mountain", "Island", "Plains", "Swamp".

That's effectively true for most formats, so that's a good enough summary most of the time. But the basic snow lands are basic—they say so right on the type line—and are recognised in the rules as such. In formats that include them, like Modern or Commander, they are just as much Basic Lands as the usual five.
Note that Wastes is also a basic land. (It doesn't have an associated basic land type though.)

The words "Forest", "Mountain", "Island", "Plains", and "Swamp" are both names of lands, and land types. Normally, a Forest is both a Land named "Forest" and a Land with Land-type Forest. But there are a variety of cards that have the Land-type Forest even though their name isn't "Forest". A Snow-Covered Forest is a Land named "Snow-Covered Forest" with the Land-type Forest. A Dryad Arbor is a Land Creature named "Dryad Arbor" with the Creature-type Dryad and the Land-type Forest. A Bayou is a Land with the name "Bayou" and Land-types Forest and Swamp.
Blood Moon doesn't say anything about changing names, so if you have a nonbasic land, it will have Land-type Mountain but not be named "Mountain". For instance, if Pendelhaven is on the battlefield, it will be a Land named "Pendelhaven" with Land-type Mountain. If a Forest is enchanted with Contaminated Ground, it will be a Land named "Forest" with Land-type Swamp. If all your other lands are Forests, your Swamp named "Forest" will not count as a differently-named Land.
There is the further confusion that "Forest", "Mountain", "Island", "Plains", and "Swamp" are Basic Land types, but "Basic Land" doesn't refer to a Land with a Basic Land type, it refers to a Land with the supertype "Basic". There are 11 Basic Lands: the five basic Lands, their snow-covered counterparts, and Wastes. Other Lands may have basic Land types, but they are not Basic Lands.


What are the chances of winning Accordion Solitaire? I would like to know what are the chances of winning in both versions:

laying out the cards one by one
laying out the entire deck at the game start

Accordion

According to one of the biggest player on the solitaire market (SolSuite), the game of Accordion (one card at a time version) has a chance of winning in about 1 of 200 games, i.e. 0,5%

But I would actually say that there is no difference in the winning percentage (if played right) between the two versions you are talking about, since (in the one card at a time version) you could always lay out the entire deck first one card at a time before starting to play...

At least one of each three games can be won in the version where you lay out the entire deck. Just follow these strategy tips:

You should select four cards of the same rank, clustered near each other and near the end of the layout. The strategy is to try to get all four selected cards to the end of the layout and never cover them with anything else until the very end of the game.


How much should the University cost? I once read that the main regret in the design of Puerto Rico was over-pricing the University. Anyone have any guesses (or statistical analysis) as to the "correct" price?

I've read many people saying the same thing - the university is overpriced.  I read one group who attempted to find the true value of the buildings by playing for two years and varying prices based on whether they were bought, and how well the people who bought them did.   The write up contains a downloadable copy of their results and final prices for all the buildings.

In their games, most of the prices have seemed to stay fairly close to the original prices.  A rough summary of the exceptions from the base game:

Small Market ~ 2 gold
Small Warehouse ~ 4 gold (with 3 players)
Office ~ 3/4 gold
Large Warehouse ~ 5 gold (with 4 players)
Factory ~ 8 gold
University ~ 7 gold
Harbor ~ 9/10 gold (with 3 players)

There's plenty more that could be drawn from their results too, I'd recommend giving it a read.

The results aren't perfect for a number of reasons.  Firstly they changed the rules to allow all buildings from the base game and first expansion to be available to them every game.  Secondly (as noted above) the power of some buildings vary with the number of players.  There are hardly any games played with two or five players, and not many more with four.  Thirdly, the same people play many of the games, and their preferences bias the results.

To go back to your question though.  If you're interested from a theoretical point of view then this data suggests the university should be about seven gold.  Personally I think that seems about right.

However if you're interested because you want to play with different prices then I suggest trying it!  I read somewhere of a variant where before the start of a game a few buildings are increased/decreased in price by players putting red/green counters on them.  If your group thinks the university is too expensive then it will get more green counters, and you should end up with more interesting in-game decisions.

I think the university might be a reasonable strategy, but you have to save for it and buy it early.  I've tried this a couple of times, and never won with it though :(


How often should I bluff in poker? Obviously bluffing is an important element of poker, and bluffing too often, or not often enough will negatively affect your winnings, but is there a rule of thumb for how often you should bluff? For example, if I bluff once or twice an hour, is that too infrequent? If I bluff about once in a button cycle, is that too often? What's the optimum bluff frequency?

EDIT: I found these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_(poker)#Optimal_bluffing_frequency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds#Bluffing_frequency

  According to David Sklansky, game theory shows that a player should
  bluff a percentage of the time equal to his opponent's pot odds to
  call the bluff. For example, in the final betting round, if the pot is
  $30 and a player is contemplating a $30 bet (which will give his
  opponent 2-to-1 pot odds for the call), the player should bluff half
  as often as he would bet for value (one out of three times).

and

  David Sklansky, in his book The Theory of Poker, states
  "Mathematically, the optimal bluffing strategy is to bluff in such a
  way that the chances against your bluffing are identical to the pot
  odds your opponent is getting."

So, if I generally bet half the pot, I should be bluffing 40% of the time; if I generally bet twice the pot, I should be bluffing 25% of the time. Sounds like a lot to me - how does this sit with everybody's experience?

A rough rule (from economics) is that you should bluff until the money you lose from getting caught approximates the money that you would forego from not bluffing. That is, you should equate the "marginal utilities" of the two activities.

If you "never" get caught, you aren't bluffing enough. That is, you are leaving money on the table with a number of bluffs that you could have "run" but didn't. You SHOULD get caught, partly for "advertising" purposes, and partly so that you "start" to lose money bluffing. Then bluff "a little more" and stop when you lose a little more. If you get caught "too often," you are losing more money than you're making with your last few or "marginal" bluffs.

It comes from game theory optimization (GTO)

The idea is the bluff rate is such that your opponent is stuck between call or fold.  Call or fold has the same EV.

You know you are beat.  Your opponent has a good hand but not the nuts. They will call every time with the nuts.

p is pot (before you bet)
b is your bet
f is your bluff rate
EV is expected value

EV = -b + f(p + 2b)

Set the EV to 0. Solve for f.

b = f(p + 2b)

f = b / (p + 2b)

So if p = b - you bet the pot you should bluff 1/3 of the time.
Note if you bet the pot you are giving your opponent 2:1.

Play three hands and you bluff once and have the nuts twice.
Your opponent is getting 2:1 to call and the pot has 100.
Your opponent folds all three:
0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Your opponent calls all three:
-100 - 100 + 200 = 0

To simplify set p = 1 and and fr just be the fraction of the pot you bet

bluff = fr / (1 + 2fr)

bluff   fraction
rate    pot
0.50    100.00
0.44      4.00
0.43      3.00
0.40      2.00
0.33      1.00
0.25       .50
0.20       .33
0.17       .25

Ironically you should bluff more with bigger bets.

You opponent also needs at least a bluff catcher to call.

Clearly you are going to get more bluffs through if a scare card hits on the river.  Don't try and bluff a naked 2 on the river if you have shown not strength.

Very important is that does not mean bluff the river 1/3 time period. 1 bluff for every 2 value bets.  If you get to the river against 1 then you are going to have the best hand about 1/2 the time and you are only going to be confident you have the best hand like 1/3.  So in 6 hands you would value bet 2 and bluff 1.

If you watch the pros some even bluff more.

If you never bluff then players know to lay down.  You have to bluff some to get paid off when you have it.

You can even do GTO on how often to call - assuming you have a bluff catcher.

Assume you put villain on GTO and bet the pot so you them on bluff 1/3
c = call rate

EV = c 2/3 (p + 2b) - c 1/3 0 - b
= c 2/3(3) - 1
= 2c - 1
c = 1/2

You should call back with a bluff catcher as often as you have hands that you would call back for value.


Do you still pay 10x the dice when getting the chance card that takes you to the nearest utility if the property is mortgaged? The card does not say anything about whether or not the property is mortgaged.  Also, it does not say anything like "twice what is entitled" like the similar railroad card does.  I would go with you still have to pay, but I'm looking for backup to my opinion.

Here's what the card says:

  Advance token to nearest Utility. If unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. If owned, throw dice and pay owner a total ten times the amount thrown

Yes, you have to pay.  Consider what the card says:

  Advance token to nearest Utility. If unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. If owned, throw dice and pay owner a total ten times the amount thrown.

This has nothing to do with paying rent.

As you mentioned, there is another Chance card that sends you to a railroad:

  Advance token to the nearest Railroad and pay owner twice the rental to which he/she is otherwise entitled. If Railroad is unowned, you may buy it from the Bank.

This card refers to the amount to which the owner is otherwise entitled, namely rent.  If the property is mortgaged, that amount is zero.  The card you're asking about makes no such reference.

No; you do not pay.

From the Official Rules of Monopoly on the Hasbro web site under heading Mortgages (my emphasis):

  No rent can be collected on mortgaged properties or utilities, but rent can be collected on unmortgaged properties in the same group.

To me this is unequivocal - no payment, whether or not denoted as rent, is ever collected on a property that is face down due to being mortgaged. Not carefully the wording "in the same group", and that it does not say
"in the same colour group"; thus clearly indicating an applicability to railroads as well as coloured properties.

While an omission from the rules may, depending on circumstance, be regarded as an oversight, I can think of no reason why an explicit inclusion in the rules should not always be taken at face value. Clearly there is an omission about whether or not rent includes payment for landing on a Utility. However the explicit exclusion of payment for landing on a mortgaged utility is clearly an intentional inclusion - so payment is not due under this circumstance.

As the rules never make any distinction on how one lands on a square, to suppose that there is intended to be one for advancing to a Utility in consequence to drawing a Chance or Community Chest card is completely unreasonable.

Update

The claim is being made in comments that

"Your answer seems to be based on an implicit assumption that the payment demanded by the card is rent, or that when that rule says "rent" it means "rent or other payments", but it doesn't say that and neither do the rules."

I submit as counter argument this quote, again from the Official Rules of Monopoly.

  Paying Rent:

  When you land on property owned by another player, the owner collects rent in accordance with the list provided on the Title Deed Card.

Note the clear implication (at least), that the payments collected in consequence to landing on a property owned by another player are properly termed "rent".

Update - from the Official Tournament Guide for Monopoly, Page 7

  Paying Rent on a Utility
  you throw the dice and land on Water Works or the Electric
  Company and another player owns them, don’t touch the dice. See what the total is.
  Multiply that number by 4 if your opponent only owns one utility, or by 10 if he/she owns
  both of them.

  Paying Rent on a Fully Owned Property Group
  Suppose your opponent owns a complete color-group — for example, all three reds — with no buildings on any of them. If you land on one of the reds, you have to pay double its rent. But suppose one of the reds — e.g. Indiana Avenue — is mortgaged and you land on Illinois, it is unmortgaged. How much rent do you pay? Double, even though Indiana is mortgaged, your opponent still owns it.

Note that this Official guide explicitly refers to the amount paid for landing on a utility as rent. And the Rules otherwise clearly state that rent is not paid for landing on mortgaged property.


What are the rules to the card game “Queenie” This is a very old game that was played by my previous generation however no one can remember the rules and there seems to be few people who actually rember how to play it.

Quoting from the rules on this page:
Queenie
Build stacks of cards in alternating colors as in Klondike, move arbitrary groups of cards as in Yukon, and deal waves of cards onto to the tableau, as in Spider.
Objective
Place all cards on the foundation in sequence.
Deck
One standard deck of 52 cards.
Layout
Stock

When selected, deals one card to each tableau pile.
Only a single pass through the stock is allowed.

Foundation

Four empty foundation piles.

Any Ace may be played to any empty foundation pile.

A card may be built on a card in a foundation pile if it is one rank higher and the same suit.

An Ace may be played on a King, continuing the sequence.

Tableau

Seven tableau piles with one card dealt to the first pile, two to the second, and so on.

All cards are face-up.

An empty pile may be filled with any King.

A card may be built on a card in a tableau pile if it is one rank lower and a different color.

Stacks of cards may be moved from a tableau pile if they are each one rank lower and a different color.

It’s a simple betting game.
You deal out all cards but you also deal a dummy hand.  Last card is not handed out or turned over until the hand is done.
Their are 2 pots...1-first person out 1-who ever plays the queen that is the same suit as the left out card.  You contribute money in each pot to play the hand.  I have played $1 and $1 per pot or .25cents and .25 cents per pot it’s what every you want.
The goal is to go out first, and or play a queen that matches the last card.  The dummy hand is there and dealer has first choice to swap hand with it.  If they say no it goes to next person and so on.  Most times you swap out of you don’t have a run on numbers or no queens.
You start the game with 2 of spades...the next card is 3of spades, 4 of spades...you keep going until up until nobody has that card.  The last person who played the highest spade then plays their lowest red.  Everyone follows suit in sequence until nobody’s can go.  Then you go lowest black.  You keep swapping back and forth until someone goes out.  That winner gets the 1 pot if $.  You turn over the last card not dealt... if someone played that suits queen they get the other pot.  If nobody played the queen that pot rides.
Then you repeat the above all over again.  Each contributing again to both pots.  You play as long as you want or until cash is gone.


If I can Special Summon Blue-Eyes Twin Burst Dragon without Polymerization, why would I ever use Polymerization for it? The text of Blue-Eyes Twin Burst Dragon reads:

  Must be either Fusion Summoned, or Special Summoned by sending the above monsters you control to the Graveyard (in which case you do not use "Polymerization") and cannot be Special Summoned by other ways.

In both of these cases would the Twin Burst Dragon be starting off in the Extra Deck? If so, if I can Special Summon it just by having the two Blue-Eyes White Dragons and without Polymerization, why would I used Polymerization for it? Why waste the spell?

I should warn you that, perhaps, you may be playing your Blue Eyes Twin Burst Dragon incorrectly (as per your "just by having...").

Let's break down the effect of that card:

  Must be either Fusion Summoned,

This means that one option to Fusion summon it by using Polymerization, as you correctly pointed out, or...

  or Special Summoned by sending the above monsters you control to the Graveyard (in which case you do not use "Polymerization")

instead Special Summon it by sending both Blue Eyes White Dragons to the GY. Do note that you control things that are on your part of the field. Things on hand are not under your control; they are under your possession, though, and you also surely are the owner of that card. These are other two important in-game terms to remember.

  and cannot be Special Summoned by other ways.

Meaning no Call of the Haunted, or back from Banish, nor anything similar. If it's dead, its dead (time for Dragon Mirror maybe?).

Under these considerations we can see that if you want to use the Special Summon you must have two Blue-Eyes White Dragon on the field (or at least two cards with that name ;) if you copycat one). This is more restricted as being able to do this from the hand (quite OP to do don't you think?).

Or you can well Fusion summon to be able to use them as materials from your hand or the field (more accessible, but requires Polymerization or similar)

As we can see, either Polymerization or having two Blue Eyes on the field is a "reasonable" requirement to summon such powerful card. Thus, both summon ways balance each other (so it does not become broken).

If you fusion summoned Blue-eyes twin burst dragon, you will be able to used fusion substitued, and also be able to avoid having its fusion summoned negated, while if you used its contact method they most be on the field to be considered control, and you can used face-down blue-eyes white dragon for its contact fusion, but you cannot used a face-down blue-eyes alternative dragon(if he his face-down because of book of moon)and if summoned that way your opponent can negated the summoned with solemn warning, or solemn strike, and solemn judgment. A lot of people that are new to yugioh because the contact fusion description as (you do not used polymerization) they think if you don't used specifically polymerization for the fusion, and you used other fusion card like dragon mirror, they think your doing the contact fusion, and my opponent argued in DB that he could negated the summoned when I fusion summoned blue-eyes twin burst with dragon mirror, But fang of critias, his a spell card that activated that does a contact fusion, but because your useing a spell card to make the contact happen, your opponent cannot negated the summoned.


Is it ever advantageous to pretend to be the "hidden" team if you are on the majority team? According to this BoardGameGeek post, it is never advantageous for a “good” character to pretend to be part of the “bad” team in a social deduction game.

  every. single. time. you explain these kinds of games, you need to hammer the point home that it makes absolutely no sense to pretend you're a spy/fasist/werewolf/whatever when you're in fact a villager/good guy/liberal.

Talking specifically about The Resistance and The Resistance: Avalon (since they are more or less the same game), the "hidden" Loyalists are expected to pretend to be Resistance members and the "hidden" Evil characters are expected to pretend to be Good characters, respectively.

Is it ever advantageous to pretend to be on the a Resistance member and pretending to be a Loyalist, or being a Good person and pretending to be Evil? Or is this person correct: it is never worthwhile?

Specific games can differ, but generally in games like these the "bad team" all know the members of the bad team. Therefore pretending to be a bad guy only decieves your allies, and convinces everyone that you are their enemy.

Neither of those will help you. You're harming your allies' ability to make accurate judgments while not affecting your enemies, and you're making our so that no one will listen to you.

This has happened in my matches. When someone is resilient but simulates being a spy, the game is completely messed up, especially if there are roles that do not absolutely know the loyalty of certain people.
So yes, the person who is good should NEVER pretend to be evil, because it will not bring any advantage to your team, only confusion!


"Blocked or was Blocked By" Time to Reflect says:

  Exile target creature that blocked or was blocked by a Zombie this turn.

It's completely and utterly clear what the intention of this card is. That you can exile a target if that target blocked a Zombie, or if that target was blocked by a Zombie

However, what it says is that blocked or was blocked by a Zombie.

Magic is a rules-lawyer, literal-text-interpretation game, and that sentence (on its own) does not link that blocked to a Zombie.

If that sentence had been "return any creature that died or was blocked by a Zombie to hand, whatever zone it is currently in" then you would clearly allow it to target any creature that died for any reason whether or not it pertained to a Zombie.

A) Is there a specific ruling clarifying this anywhere (there's no card-ruling on The Gatherer)?
B) If not, then what would happen at an FNM or at a formal tournament if I tried to argue my case?

The sentence on that card is to be read as "Exile target creature that (blocked or was blocked) by a Zombie this turn"; parentheses mine. Both "blocked" and "was blocked" are linked to "by a zombie". You can confirm that from the rulings at the bottom of the oracle page of Time to Reflect that you linked:

Time to Reflect only cares that the second creature was a Zombie at the moment it blocked or became blocked by the target creature. If that Zombie has become a non-Zombie creature or left the battlefield, Time to Reflect can still target the first creature.

The two other cards containing the phrase "blocked or was blocked" are Heat Stroke and Sea Troll. Heat Stroke in particular would not make sense if "blocked" and "was blocked" were not both connected to "this turn", because "blocked" would not have any limitation in time. Similar for Sea Troll and Time to Reflect; if "blocked" was meant to stand alone, it would still contain some sort of time limitation, even if was something like "this game".
As for your second question regarding Time to Reflect, it can only target creatures. A creature is any object on the battlefield whose card types includes "creature" and that has values for its power and toughness. A creature card in the graveyard or anywhere else but the battlefield is not a creature, therefore it's never a valid target for Time to Reflect. Whenever you read a combination of card types without additional qualifiers, such as "creature", "land", "artifact enchantment" and so on, that is always shorthand for a permanent of those types, i.e. "creature permanent", "land permanent", "artifact enchantment permanent", and so on. Objects are permanents if and only if they are on the battlefield.

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it’s moved to another zone by an effect or rule.
114.2. Only permanents are legal targets for spells and abilities, unless a spell or ability (a) specifies that it can target an object in another zone or a player, (b) targets an object that can’t exist on the battlefield, such as a spell or ability, or (c) targets a zone.

You don't get to interpret the English on cards. Magic isn't a rules-lawyer game, it's a rules-programmer game, where every word and formatting structure has a VERY specific meaning. There is no rules reference that adds (parentheses) to "Exile target creature that (blocked or was blocked by) a Zombie this turn" to remove ambiguity in the way you want, but I can guarantee you that there is no certified judge who will support the interpretation that you want to push. Thinking of the text on cards in terms of English, with all its imperfections and ambiguities, is a mistake.

But if you insist, here are some other ideas for you to push;

Lightning Bolt can target an opponent who has Leyline of Sanctity, because it says "(target creature) or (player)".
Chainer's Edict's flashback reminder text says to cast it from graveyard, "Then exile it". Doesn't it just get exiled from the stack immediately?
Hero's Downfall targets planeswalkers. Aren't the players planeswalkers in this game?


Multiple blockers with first strike Scenario:

Player A attacks with a 6/6 creature.
Player B assigns TWO blockers to block the 6/6 creature, each is 3/3 with first strike.

Which of these happens?

B's first strike blockers deal their damage first, destroying A's larger creature before it deals any damage
Each blocker must take its turn blocking. So the first 3/3 blocker does first strike damage, then dies. Then the second blocker does first strike damage, and lives.

1. The 6/6 will die, and the 3/3s won't take any damage.

In the first strike Combat Damage Step, both 3/3 deal three damage to the attacker. It is destroyed shortly after for having marked damage matching its toughness. The 6/6 won't be around in the normal damage Combat Damage Step to deal damage to the 3/3s, so they'll survive intact.

If the attacker was a 7/7, it would survive the first strike Combat Damage Step and a second Combat Damage Step would get created for the remaining creatures (the 7/7) to deal their damage (destroying the blockers).

Previous answer in-correct

When the 6/6 attacks you declare two 3/3 first strike blockers on the one 6/6.

The 6/6's controller chooses blocking order (which one will block first and which will block second).

It would play out like this (6/6 attacks blocked by 1st 3/3 first strike, 6/6 is a 6/3 untill the end of turn first 3/3 is destroyed, then 6/6 attacks the 2nd 3/3 first strike and is destroyed by the 3/3 before it attacks it)

In short the 6/6 will die and you will lose one of your two 3/3's.

hope this helped.


Proper Opening Moves What are the most common opening move for 6,2 and 6,3?

It seems the logical move is to take a runner and move 8 or 9 pips.  However, after playing a lot lately online I notice people also like to move into the #7 position with one runner and move 2 or 3 with the remaining runner.  While it seems risky, I also think that unless your opponent rolls a 6,1 or 6,6, they are opening themselves up more than you are opening yourself.

The exception of course would be if you were second to roll and your opponent has other crippling rolls available depending on their first roll.

In The Backgammon Book, World Champions Oswald Jacoby and John Crawford recommend with both 6-2 and 6-3 moving one runner to the bar point and one man from the 12-point into your own outer table; though they concede that there another move almost as good:

  The modern play [written in 1970] is to use the six to move one back man to the black bar point and use the other to move a man from the black twelve point into your outer table. ... Unless [the man on the bar point] is hit by a point-making roll (in this case 6-1; double 6; double 3; or double 1) you will have a lot of possible returns against your opponent's  vulnerable blot; and you have lost little anyways. If your man is not hit your position is highly advantageous.

Note that Jacoby and Crawford do not recommend the modern play above with an opening roll of 6-4.

For both 6-2 and 6-3 they regard one alternative move each being nearly as good as the modern play recommended above: with 6-3 running with a single runner to the ten point, but with a 6-2 moving a man from your 12-point to your inner board.

  With a 6-2 we don't like the running play [moving a single man from black one point to black nine point) at all, as it exposes your man to a straight 4 or 3-1 or double 2; a total of 14 possible shots.

A lot depends on your style. Some would prefer to move 6,2, off their midpoint to their five point to build up their board quickly. A few would play 6,3 the same way, that is to their four point, while a few others would do so only after having made their five point. I like to start 5,3 by making the three point to improve the value of a subsequent 6,2, 6,3, or 5,4 (move all three off the midpoint to my board).

Others will build a game around moving the back men 24/16 or 24/15 to quickly build up their outfield.


Looking to identify a particular form of solitaire played in-hand, not on a table Back in college I had a friend teach me a different way to play a solitaire-like game.  It was played in-hand which meant you could play it while standing in line or any time you were bored and had a deck of cards handy.  Here's the rough idea of what I remember of the rules:

Cards held face down in a stack.
4 cards drawn from the bottom of the deck, flipped and put on top
Goal was to match the outside 2 of the top 4 cards (cards 1 and 4 if you number them from the top)
Matching may have been based on suit or card number
Might have been matched as all 4 of the same suit or outside matching by number, I can't quite remember
There were rules I can't remember that let you rearrange the top cards
If top 4 cards can't be matched then you draw from the bottom until you can match
When a match was made it was moved to the bottom of the face-up cards to get it out of the way

One nice feature of the game was that it always stayed in a stack other than fanning out the top cards.  If you have to stop playing you just collapse the fanned cards, put the deck back in the box.  Later on you can pull out the deck and start right where you left off.  It was a fun way to burn time while waiting for something.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?  I've looked for the rules but I have no idea what the game is called and I haven't been able to find anything similar.

It sounds like you're describing One-Handed Solitaire, or a variant of it. Here's a second description of the rules. It's actually possible to play several solitaire games in this way, where you use the top of the deck as a kind of compressed tableau, and store the discards in the draw deck itself.

We played in threes rather than four, if the two outer cards were same value or suit then the middle card is discarded. If all three are same suit or value, all three are discarded. Continue to discard as long as is nessessary before drawing another card from the bottom.  Never knew the name, but its my favorite game to play alone. Have actually won several times but have been playing it since 8th grade- i'm 54 now!


Oberon character in Avalon At the end of the game, when the evil characters discuss who Merlin is, can Oberon reveal himself and join in the discussion?

Edit: I'm asking this because in the games I've played, even though Oberon is an evil character, he doesn't know who the other evil characters are.

Note - it's Oberon rather than Morgana who does not open his eyes during the reveal phase at the start of the game.

The rules say:

  Without revealing any Character cards, the Evil players discuss and the player with the Assassin character card will name one Good player as Merlin

So no character cards should be revealed, however the player who is Oberon can join in the discussion.

It's not really explicit whether or not a Good player could claim to be Oberon at the end of the game to try and confuse the Assassin.

Maybe I'm playing incorrectly, but I always played that both Oberon and Morgana are evil. Morgana appears as Merlin, and Oberon knows who all the other evil people are but they don't know who he/she is.

So in the reveal phase :

1) All the evil team would open their eyes put their thumbs out and see each other EXCEPT OBERON (So this could possibly be the Assassin, Morgana, Mordred and any other minions).

2) The evil people would all put their thumbs up and Oberon would open their eyes and have a chance to see who their team is.

3) All the evil people INCLUDING OBERON would put their thumbs up EXCEPT MORDRED and Merlin would have his chance to see.

4) Then Percival would see Morgana and Merlin with their thumbs up not knowing which was which.

I was under the impression Oberon was evil, but the rest of the evil team didn't know who they were. This may not be the correct way but it has worked for us.

And as for revealing characters at the end of the game I guess it is technically wrong, but we've always had all the evil people reveal their characters at the end (including Oberon) then the evil team discusses who they think is Merlin, but the Assassin gets the final say. Usually knowing who Mordred was gives a lot of clues, because Merlin may not have accused them right away. We've found the discussion doesn't give evil too much of an advantage and is fun. So we always have reveal evil their characters, then the entire evil team discusses, and at the end the Assassin just has to say "I assassinate ______" to make their choice.


Psychic Corrosion and Day's Undoing Can someone explain to me how the triggered ability of Psychic Corrosion would interact with Day's Undoing?

From what I understand of the stack, the triggered abilities go on the stack after each card draw due to Day's Undoing is triggered, so opponents discard two cards at each draw immediately before further effects of Day's Undoing happen, then the Day's Undoing "exile all effects on the stack" comes into play afterwards. However, I admit that it could be interpreted in a different way. Do I grossly misunderstand?

Day's Undoing will prevent Psychic Corrosion from doing anything.  (Your opponents will not have to mill 14 cards.)

Although Day's Undoing has multiple effects, the card represents a single Spell when played111.1, and all of its effects must be resolved before anything else on the Stack is evaluated608.2c.  Psychic Corrosion's ability will be triggered 7 times, but the abilities would not go onto the stack until after Day's Undoing has finished resolving603.3.  However, because Day's Undoing ends the turn immediately upon resolution, those triggers never make it onto the stack.

Gatherer has a ruling for Day's Undoing that clarifies this explicitly:

  If any abilities trigger while players are shuffling cards into their library or drawing seven cards, those abilities cease to exist when the turn ends. They won’t be put on the stack.

Assuming you cast the spell on your turn, the triggers would go on the stack, then get exiled as the spell resolves because of how the stack works. Here's a rundown:

You cast Day's Undoing and it resolves.
Each player shuffles and draws, creating 7 delayed Psychic Corrosion triggers. These triggers are delayed because Day's Undoing is still resolving.
The turn ends, exiling all the triggers on the stack.

Now, if you cast the spell on your opponent's turn somehow, the delayed triggers will go off after the spell resolves.


Is it possible to destroy Dragon Mantle without the owner successfully activating it? I was playing last night, and the following situation arose.

I had a creature out with Dragon Mantle on it, which allows me to spend a red mana to give it +1/+0. My opponent wants to swing in with his larger creature, but doesn't want to have his large creature die to me pumping up my small one with Dragon Mantle. He's holding a Destructive Revelry. Is there a time he can play it such that I fail to pump my creature?

My understanding is that

If he plays it before I start pumping, I can pump in response and I will succeed as my pumps will resolve before the enchantment is destroyed.
If he plays it after I start pumping, my pumps are already on the stack and will still resolve after the enchantment is destroyed. (I am not 100% sure about this)

Is this correct? Are there situations where he can succeed? (i.e. if the wording on the enchantment was slightly different)

He cannot prevent you from pumping it. As you say, you can either pump on your own or pump in response to the destruction, either way the pumps will resolve and his creature will die. The only way to prevent this is to kill the creature it's attached to.

If the enchantment was to read "R: Enchanted creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn as long as ~ is attached to it" then things would work as your opponent would want. Obviously this isn't the case, and I am not aware of a card that functions in this way.

Similarly, if he has priority and you have not pumped yet, he can prevent you from activating it with a card like  Krosan Grip.

Both are correct. If you pump it all the way (no mana left), he can respond to it and destroy the creature. Every time you pump, the ability goes on the stack. If you react with a pump to a pump (before the firest pump resolves), it stays on the stack.

The best way to play this is pump 1 time, and let it resolve. Then pump another time, let that one resolve. If someone tries to burn the creature you can respond with the rest of the "pumps". This is your way to retain your creature.

If you say, "pump x times", it goes on the stack x-times, and they resolve one by one. After every pump that "resolves", your opponent can respond, so in that situation, your opponent can successfully destroy your creature (if the toughness is less or equal to the damage of course).

Your second understanding is correct. If the ability is on the stack, and the Dragon Mantle is destroyed, the abilities (pumps) are still on the stack, so they still resolve as long as the targeted creature is in the battlefield. If your creature left the battlefield before resolving, the remaining "pumps" fizzle.


Is there an easy way I can tell if a MTG card is "rare" just by looking at it? I don't always have an internet connection to research the rarity of a MTG card.  Is there an obvious indication of rarity on MTG cards themselves (other than foil)?  Some sort of insignia? Or a class of creatures that is almost always rare?

Yes, cards have a rarity indicator (at least in recent years). Each Magic card has an icon below and to the right of the picture called the expansion symbol, which indicates the expansion set that the card is from. The icon's color indicates the rarity of the card, with the following key:

Black: Common
Silver: Uncommon
Gold: Rare
Red: Mythic Rare

To get an idea of the relative rarity of these cards, we can look at a booster pack. Recent booster packs each contain about 11 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare, with about a 1 in 8 chance of the rare being replaced with a mythic rare.

A couple of things to remember: very old cards, like from Alpha and Beta, don't have expansion symbols at all. Other old (but not as old) cards have expansion symbols, but they're all black. And some cards have been printed in different sets, and have different rarities in those sets, so the icon on the card may not match the rarity in the most current set.

these answers are correct but simply evaluating the card’s strength is a good indicator of its rarity. weak cards are common, useful cards are uncommon, strong cards are rare and overpowered cards are mythic rares. mana cost is also a good indicator for its rarity: a card that is strong and does something unique is usually a rare even if it has a high casting cost but for example a card that seems nice but is more of a useful card (strength of an uncommon) but it has casting cost of only 1 or 2 is likely to be a rare!
of course the rarity comes from how rare or common they are in a booster pack.. this means that some cards are marked as common in other sets while they are uncommon in other sets!
and because rarity isnt actually tied to its strength but its commonness, a really strong card could be marked as a common while some really weak card as a rare and for this reason i often argue with myself that some uncommon card is as strong as a rare or vice versa and fair enough i often do find out that it has been printed in that rarity
(lightning bolt for example: costs 1 red mana and does 3 damage to target creature or player.. its nothing special so its a common, but its actually pretty strong for its mana cost and thus really useful! and it is infact a common in some sets and an uncommon in some others!)
TLDR; the card’s strength is a good indicator

if you are looking for its actual rarity in the world, you should look for its price (though that requires internet) and the price is mostly a matter of its competitiveness as more powerful cards are more wanted and people are willing to pay more for them.. also the older the card is (or brand new) the rarer it is. so putting these together: strong old card (and if its legal in some format), the rarer thus more valuable it is

PS. newer cards that are standard legal usually become cheaper when they cycle out of standard format because they are not useful in modern or other formats


King of Tokyo: Acid Attack In King of Tokyo, what are the consequences of the acid attack card? Specifically, the following questions:

Who does the damage effect?
Does the damage count as an attack?
If damaged by acid attack while in Tokyo, can the monster leave Tokyo?

The damage will hit any valid target of a normal dice-based attack, so if you are in Tokyo (City or Bay) all players outside Tokyo are hit, but if you are outside Tokyo the player(s) in Tokyo are damaged. (Taken from the official-ish FAQ from BoardGameGeek)

The damage from Acid Attack does not count as an attack, and a monster in Tokyo cannot yield their place as a result of it. It is explicitly stated on page 4 of the rulebook:

  [Life] lost dealt from a Power card effect is different than [dice Claw symbols]. A Monster can only Yield Tokyo when losing from [Life] from [dice Claw symbols].

Mostly just wanted to add this info to stack exchange. These answers are the general consensus as found on boardgamegeek.com and other stack exchange questions.

Who does the damage effect?
Damage effects players in the way a normal attack would. Essentially, if you are in Tokyo, you deal damage to all monsters outside of Tokyo. If you are outside Tokyo, you deal damage to all players in Tokyo.

Does the damage count as an attack?
Similar to other damage dealing cards, acid attack does not count as an attack. The damage is dealt in addition to attack damage.

If damaged by acid attack while in Tokyo, can a monster leave Tokyo?
Since damage dealt by acid attack does not count as attack damage, a monster cannot leave Tokyo if dealt damage only by acid attack. If the monster is attacked (in addition to damage from acid attack) they may leave Tokyo as they normally could.


Does a Life Gain deck have any hope against a Stigma Lasher? Is there anything that can be done against a Stigma Lasher if you have a life gain deck?

This card seems quite broken.  2 mana for a 2/2 wither is a good card.  But to have it ruin any hope of lifegain for the rest of the game seems unfair.  (The rulings say that you still cannot gain life even if you kill Stigma Lasher.)

I was planning to build a life gain deck to counter my friends burn deck.  But that seems pointless now.

He can add a few of these and some cards like Soul's Fire or Power of Fire (letting a creature damage a player without a chance to block) and I will be done for the rest of the game.

Is there any way to remove the effect of Stigma Lasher once it has done combat damage?

Stigma Lasher's effect cannot be removed while the game is still going on — so, obviously, the only way around it is to abandon the current game and replace it with a new one by using Karn Liberated's third ability, which gets rid of the effect and also everything you've accomplished so far.

There is no way of removing Stigma Lasher's effect unless you use Karn Liberated's last planeswalker ability (restarts the game).

I'd suggest just eliminating the Lasher once its out. I'd suggest cards like Oblivion Ring or Detention Sphere to deny him the Lasher.


Choosing same color after Wild (+4) Playing Uno this weekend, one of the players played a Wild+4 but chose the same color that was in play (this led to a successful challenge). I had thought that, regardless of what's in the player's hand, the player could not choose the same color after playing a Wild+4 - it had to change to one of the other 3 colors. A player could choose the same color after playing a regular Wild, though.

Looking at the rules, though, I did not see this restriction; only that the player playing the Wild+4 must not have any cards of the same color in play. Given that my Uno deck is a fairly recent version, I'm wondering if older versions did have that rule? Or maybe it was just a house rule. If so, is that a common house rule? Or maybe it just stemmed from the need to not have the current color in your hand...

These rules appear to be from 2001, and these rules appear to be from 2003. Both sets of rules do not indicate any restrictions on the choice of colour after either wild.

The points from both rules about Wild Draw 4 are:

  You play it and choose the colour to continue.
  The next player draws 4 and misses their turn.
  You can only play this if you don't have a card of the matching colour.
  You can break the above rule.
  The person drawing 4 may challenge you. If they win, the you draw 4 instead. If they lose, they draw an additional 2. (Note that they still miss their next turn)

Neither set of rules have any limitation on the colour choice.

For further reference, there's this question regarding the history of UNO rules. The 1983 rules found there follow the same draw 4 rules as the more recent rules printings.

I think that you can place a wild card or wild+4 if u want to but have to change the colour. Otherwise the wild card is Just a pointless card.


What does the Yoke card mean when it says "Plow"? I played the Yoke minor improvement, and there was some disagreement as to whether it referred to the number of fields currently on the board, the number of times the "Plow 1 Field" action has been taken, or the number of "plow" minor improvements that had been played.  What is actually meant by this card?

Card Text:

  When you play this card, you can immediately plow 1 field for each Plow that
  has been played (by any player) or Harrow if it has been played.

The Yoke is talking about the other minor improvements with "Plow" in the name: the Swing Plow, Stump-Jump Plow, Riding Plow, etc. So, for each one that's been built (and is still in play) at the time you build the Yoke, you can immediately plow one field.

If nobody has played any of the Plows/Ploughs/Harrow, then it's not useful. It's cheap to build (as long as you have cattle), but it's also not very powerful.

In the absence of specifics on this card it is incorrect to interpret that 'playing the plow' means playing the plow card. This is incorrectly restricting the meaning which has no justification in the official rule book.  Playing a plow card is just one way in which you can 'play a plow'. The other way is playing the plow action space. 'Playing' a plow is a verb and this therefore means any action in which you plow a field either single or multiple.  This includes playing a plow action space (the most frequent way in which a player can play a plow) or player a plow card (much less frequent).  In regular play you cannot not therefore restrict the 'playing' the plow' meaning to any one way in which a plow is played since this is not supported by the official rules. Playing the plow there refers in unrestricted terms to any action (action space or card) by any player in which one or more fields have been plowed during the game.


Good Euchre bidding strategy guide? Is there a good Euchre bidding strategy guide?

I like the game, but find my bidding to be very hit or miss. And I've been unable to find a strategy guide for Euchre bidding patterns.

Either a good strategy or a link to a good preextant guide would answer my question.

The website http://OhioEuchre.Com/ has much information on bidding strategies. Euchre is a game of chance where aggression pays off. The more you play the better you will get. Take chances! Even when you are getting euchred you're learning more about the game.

The person that said there is little strategy to euchre is incorrect. Just play in any tournament. You'll see that the same people seem to win most of the time. I don't think they're just luckly. I think they took the time to learn the different strategies of the game

Obviously, you count any guaranteed as 1.

Left Bower = 1 (unless it is your only trump, then it is .5)

AK of trump = .5 if protected

A of offsuit = .5 (maybe 1 if you are strong in trump and it is your only card of that suit)

Add them up, round down(or up if you are feeling lucky/desperate), and that is your bid.

Disclaimer: it's been a while since I played.


Help Identify this Trucking Game from the Early 1980's A user at boardgamegeek.com recently asked for help identifying a game he played as a kid in the early '80s. Usually BGG is able to quickly provide an answer for these types of queries, but his question still remains unanswered after a week. I got permission from that user to post his question here, in the hopes that broader exposure might get him the answer he's looking for.

Here's his question:

  Title: Can anyone help me find the name of this trucking board game I played back in the 80's?

  I don't remember many details but I do remember the playing pieces had a rubber bottom, kind of like you'd put in the top of a bottle, and there was a truck piece of some sort on top of that. There were cards you'd draw which would determine what your mission was. It would give you the place you had to go to pick up your cargo and when and where it had to be delivered. I remember oranges...you'd have to get them to their destination in time before they spoiled. I played this a lot with my sister when we were kids but for the life of me I cannot find it. I remember the name as "Keep on Truckin'" but web searches for that don't match the game I remember.

  Can ANYONE help me out please?

Here's a list of possible answers that have been rejected:

Keep on Truckin' America
Game of the States
Auf Achse
That's Truckin'
Breaker 19
Big Rig 18 Wheeler

Here's a link to the thread on BGG.

The one that I am thinking of is called "The Trucking Game". Came in a white cardboard box. My dad (a trucker) bought it at a truck stop, and told me it was made by a trucker. I remember you had to get a "promissory" note for your truck which ranged from $6,000-$10,000 and had to pay that off and get to your "home" to win the game. I remember if you hit the black X on the board you had to pick a card that gave you fines or made you lose a turn for being overweight, behind on log books, etc. I would love to be able to find another copy of this game.

That’s Truckin’: The Original Trucking Game

https://www.dogbotz.com/products.asp?product_id=974

Product Description:
This rare vintage board game that focuses on how to make big bucks driving big rigs and delivering precious cargoes was manufactured in 1976 by Showker, Inc. That’s Truckin’: The Original Trucking Game offers fun, excitement and danger to its players. The objective of the game is for each player to make deliveries of freight until his/her truck is completely paid for. The first trucker to accomplish this goal wins.


Monopoly cheaters edition railways and "road blocks" My family arguments regarding block card and railway station.

The rules state when you roll the dice and you land on railway station you have to move straight to the next nearest railway station.
But when I landed on a station my opponent had a card that said "road blocked: players passing this property must stop and pay rent to the owner" before the next station.
Does this mean that I have to stop there or not?
Because the rules say when you land on Railway station you have to move to the next nearest station should I also skip the "Road blocked" card and go straight to the next station?

NO. You don't have to stop. When it says go straight to the next station, you can not be affected by anything else unless you pass go of cause, in which case you will get 200 bucks. You definitely do not have to stop in another's property. Think of it as you are teleporting to your target.


Is there efficient token generation in Black or White? Is there any black or white cards that whenever opponent loses a life (or when I gain life) create a creature token?

I'm planning a combo with Corpse Knight and Impassioned Orator.

If so can you show me what set it is in. And if not can you tell me if there are any other combos I could use.

I cannot think of anything that combos with them for as many iterations as you want. There are a number of effects that create tokens once per turn based on gaining/losing life.

In standard (as both cards you mentioned are standard legal):
Regal Bloodlord
Resplendent Angel

Outside of standard, the best I can find is:
Crested Sunmare
Regna, the Redeemer
Angelic Accord
First Response

In general I think they are quite careful with this effect, and restrict it to happening once per turn specifically to not enable the combo that you're seeking.

I am currently making a really cheap budget deck in black/withe zombie token summoning.
here's the link

It is based on Reassembling skeleton and Ravenous harpy combo associated with some open the graves to spawn zombie tokens. Teysa Karlov doubles that number.

Then Vizier of the scorpion gives them deathtoutch while Graph harvest gives them menace.

I do not see why you can't make that deck with the cards you mentioned before.