Board games for two players My wife and I enjoy playing board games (having gotten hooked on Settlers of Catan and expanded from there) but we don't often have the opportunity to play with other people. The question What cooperative board games are there that I could safely play with my wife? is similar but we're less concerned about avoiding conflict and more interested in gameplay. (The question Good board games for single player is also similar.) What board games are good for two players?

Edit: Having done a poor job in limiting the scope of my question, since there are clearly too many board games to list them all, let me try to clarify. I'm looking for games with similar scope, time requirements, cost, and complexity to Settlers of Catan that play well with two adult players. I'm not especially concerned by the level of cooperation or competition required, but I'd like to avoid anything especially blood-thirsty.

I'm a big fan of Carcassonne -- the game is better with more people, but you can certainly play it with two people, and since it's a tile-laying game, the board will always be different.

In my opinion, the game bogs down with expansions, but the core set (with or without the River Expansion), is a lot of fun.

I recently had fun playing The Merchant of Venus 2 player, after not having played it for a few years.


Overcalls at duplicate Bridge As west, my partner opened 1 club; north, the TD, called one spade and in the east seat I replied 2 hearts.

Thereupon my partner alerted and advised the table that I was showing 5 hearts (a first reply in a major in our system shows 5 not 4 cards). The TD went into something of a flat spin and advised that there was no necessity for the alert because I had to have 5 hearts to overcall 2 hearts. After we'd finished playing she went to her rule book and demonstrated the rules of overcalls.

Was my bid actually what is defined as an overcall or merely a reply to my partner?

There are two questions here:

(Terminology) Is making a bid over an opponent still called an overcall if your partner has already bid?

There are two competing uses (from Merriam-Webster):

  Definition of overcall

  transitive verb
  :  to make a higher bid than (the previous bid or bidder) in a card game

  intransitive verb
  :  to bid over an opponent's bid in bridge when one's partner has not bid or doubled

The first sounds a bit old fashioned, and the second is what I'd expect in modern bridge books, which tend to (cf. this lesson by Larry Cohen) use the names:

West, Partner (Opener): 1 Club

North, TD (Overcaller): 1 Spade

East, You (Responder): 2 Hearts

South (Advancer): [to call]

Did your partner need to alert your bid, regardless of terminology?

No, at least not in the American Contract Bridge League. See the Alert Procedures:

  Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure

  Suit bids:
  
  Three or more in a minor suit
  (Also: An opening bid of 1♣ is natural if, by agreement, it may be exactly
  4=4=3=2 with two clubs, three diamonds, and four cards in each major.)

   Four or more in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses

   Four or more for an overcall at the one level, five or more for higher levels

   Five or more for a weak two-bid

   Six or more for a weak three-bid

Side Note: It doesn't matter to the result, but I couldn't find the definition of overcall that the ACBL Alert Procedures are using. I would expect from experience that it is the second one.

In Standard American bidding, after 1C-(1S), a bid of 2H does indeed promise 5 hearts and 10 high card points.

With only 4 hearts, the usual agreement is to double; this is a common convention called the "negative double".


What rules explain Xantcha's behavior when its controller leaves the game? Xantcha, Sleeper Agent has the ability:

  As Xantcha, Sleeper Agent enters the battlefield, an opponent of your
  choice gains control of it.

The release notes for Commander 2018 describe what happens when a player who controls a permanent owned by another player leaves the game as:

  If that player controlled any permanents owned by another player, the
  effects that gave control of them to the player who left end. If this
  doesn't give control of them to a different player (perhaps because
  they entered the battlefield under the control of the player who
  left), they're exiled.

In the same document, the release notes for Xantcha state:

  If the player under whose control Xantcha entered the battlefield
  leaves the game, the effect changing control of Xantcha ends.

Answers to a previous question lead me to believe that Xantcha's replacement effect causes it to enter the battlefield under an opponent's control and not under my control at all.

Because Xantcha appears to be entering the battlefield under an opponent's control, I thought Xantcha would be exiled when its controller leaves the game.

However, I know this is not what happens because the official Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager has answered a question about it:

  What happens to Xantcha when the opponent controlling her dies? Does
  she get exiled? Returned to my battlefield? Do I get to give her to
  another opponent? Is all of this in the release notes?

  It's all in the release notes, but I'll tell you! You end up with
  Xantcha. Will you keep her as your poisonous friend, or kill her so
  you can pop a new Xantcha out of the vat? #WotCStaff

So I know what is supposed to happen - Xantcha's owner is supposed to gain control of it when its current controller leaves the game. What I want to know is the full explanation within the rules of what causes this result to happen.

When Throne of Eldraine was released in October 2019, Xantcha, Sleeper Agent received functional errata that makes it now work the same way a card obtained with Bribery works; and Xantcha will now be exiled by 800.4a when her controller leaves the game.

Leaving the original answer below; as the question only existed due to the old wording on Xantcha and the old rules associated with that wording.

Xantcha, Sleeper Agent has an ability that generates a continuous effect. This continuous effect then ends due to the first part of rule 800.4a:

  When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end.

We can see that it is a continuous effect:

  Continuous Effects

    611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

    611.2. A continuous effect may be generated by the resolution of a spell or ability.

      611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.

This is confirmed by a Gatherer ruling on Xantcha:

  If the player under whose control Xantcha entered the battlefield leaves the game, the effect changing control of Xantcha ends. Because Xantcha’s replacement effect creates a continuous effect causing another player to control it, Xantcha isn’t exiled.

This is different from the wording on cards such as Bribery, which says "put that card onto the battlefield under your control". In that case, there is no continuous effect, the card simply entered the battlefield under your control. Because of this, the first part of 800.4a would not see a control-changing effect to end, and instead the third part of 800.4a would exile the creature.

Note that the wording that causes the controller to be an opponent is the same on Xantcha as it is on cards like Donate, "[...]player gains control". The only difference is that it is a replacement effect that happens as the creature enters the battlefield, instead of something that happens to a creature already on the battlefield. Bribery on the other hand has no such replacement effect or continuous effect, it simply lets you put something on the battlefield under your control.

It is still correct that you never controlled Xantcha in the first place, but that is not relevant. The rules don't cause Xantcha to "revert" to its original controller, they simply cause a control-changing effect to end. Theoretically, Xantcha could end up going to a different opponent instead, if there were multiple controller-changing effects in play.

Xantcha will be exiled when the opponent that has control of her leaves the game but the game continues.
The owner of Xantcha never had control of Xantcha, so there is no controller to revert to if the opponent controlling her leaves the game. Thus, Xantcha will be exiled. I have to suspect that the Rules manager tweet was mistaken, if he indeed meant that the owner will gain control of Xantcha. The bolded example of rule 800.4a is the closest equivalent to the Xantcha situation:

800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.
Example: Alex casts Mind Control, an Aura that reads, “You control enchanted creature,” on Bianca’s Assault Griffin. If Alex leaves the game, so does Mind Control, and Assault Griffin reverts to Bianca’s control. If, instead, Bianca leaves the game, so does Assault Griffin, and Mind Control is put into Alex’s graveyard.
Example: Alex casts Act of Treason, which reads, in part, “Gain control of target creature until end of turn,” targeting Bianca’s Runeclaw Bears. If Alex leaves the game, Act of Treason’s change-of-control effect ends and Runeclaw Bears reverts to Bianca’s control.
Example: Alex casts Bribery, which reads, “Search target opponent’s library for a creature card and put that card onto the battlefield under your control. Then that player shuffles their library,” targeting Bianca. Alex puts Serra Angel onto the battlefield from Bianca’s library. If Bianca leaves the game, Serra Angel also leaves the game. If, instead, Alex leaves the game, Serra Angel is exiled.
Example: Alex controls Genesis Chamber, which reads, “Whenever a nontoken creature enters the battlefield, if Genesis Chamber is untapped, that creature’s controller creates a 1/1 colorless Myr artifact creature token.” If Alex leaves the game, all such Myr tokens that entered the battlefield under Alex’s control leave the game, and all such Myr tokens that entered the battlefield under any other player’s control remain in the game.


How do I deal with Enchantments while playing mono-red? I have played different mono-red decks in the past and my main problem with all of them is playing against decks with strong enchantments (e.g. Circle of Protection: Red). As soon as this enchantment is out on the battlefield, I have lost. This can be played on turn 2, and my opponent can even mulligan to increase his chance of having this card in his starting hand.

While playing mono-red, I don't have Counterspells and enchantment destroyers. How do I handle these threats? I am looking for ideas legal in Standard, and legal in Legacy. "Red must be fast and win before enchantments are out" is not a good solution, because in the example above the enchantment can hit in round 2.

There are a few artifact answers to Enchantments in standard. Red will have access to those dealing with permanents, which are going to be slower. However, there are "ramp" cards in Standard for red that help you get them out more quickly.

Ratchet Bomb, can come out quickly, but takes time to "charge up" to the point where it can deal with more expensive enchantments. Although slow, it also deals with other permanents (eg. planeswalkers). If you get it out before the enchantment or planeswalker and charge it up, it can be a threat on the board causing your opponent to think twice before casting.

If you can ramp into a Spine of Ish Sah, say with a Geosurge on turn 4, you will be well on your way to victory, and getting rid of that pesky enchantment.

However, I think the most efficient way to deal with enchantments in standard, if you insist on mono-red, is to use the Sylvok Replica, and access green mana through dual lands  and/or a colourless ramp like Alloy Myr, Manalith or even Sphere of the Suns that also helps you power your X burn spells and getting bigger threats out more quickly.

But at that point you may as well just splash green dual lands or ramps and put Naturalize on the sideboard.

In Legacy, if it's Blue enchantments you're concerned about, Jaya Ballard, Task Mage is a great choice. Aura Barbs punishes those who dare use enchantments against you. Of course, Larry Niven's Disk has been the go-to solution for red burn decks since forever.

PS. I don't agree with this:

  Red must be fast and win before enchantments are out" is not a good solution, because in the example above the enchantment can hit in round 2.

Meh, CoP:Red isn't in Standard anymore, and even in Legacy the opponent is unlikely to have enough mana to deal with all your threats if you have a red weenie swarm, or save some of that red magic for when he's tapped out. You also have colourless options.

Red decks still win because they're fast. They generally aren't afraid of many enchantments.

I had the same issue a while back so I sideboarded

4 Ratchet Bomb
4 Lux Cannon

and then so I would get out of the red damage play Volt Charge so I can, if not deal damage to the player, at least kill a creature and put counters on the Ratchet Bomb and/or Lux Cannon. The cannon is best because you can use it over and over again and if you have it in play and have no real threats keep pumping it it says remove 3 counters so you can simply end of his turn remove 3 counters, destroy one permanent, beginning of your turn destroy another one (even lands!). A Lux Cannon is a response to most threats. Its one setback is that it costs 4, and if you don't have Proliferate, it takes 3 turns to pump it.

In my deck I added more Proliferate, Tezzeret's Gambit is simply awesome. More than once I played Lux Cannon turn add counter passed next turn two Volt Charge, Proliferate 2 times, turn cannon destroy target permanent
to finish I have 8 UR dual lands that come into play untapped about 80% of the time,
so I can play Tezzeret's Gambit.

I have 3 Flashfreeze sideboarded because if my opponent has red or green he can Naturalize or Shatter the Ratchet Bomb or Lux Cannon before I can use it.


Can I mill an opponent who has Emrakul, the Aeons Torn by comboing until opponent's deck is stacked in an exact way? Let's say I'm running a mill deck. I have some kind of infinite mill combo ready and available (e.g. Semblance Anvil imprinting a creature, Myr Retriever and Grinding Station - this lets me sacrifice Myr Retriever to Grinding Station, retrieve another Myr Retriever, mill opponent for 3 cards, and cast a new Myr Retriever for free). However my opponent has two copies of Emrakul, the Aeons Torn in his deck. Since Emrakul shuffles back in to the deck each time it's put into the graveyard, this means I can't actually mill him out.

However, through repeated use of the mill combo I can in principle 1) figure out every card in his deck, and then 2) mill him until the last three cards in his deck are Emrakul, Emrakul, and [irrelevant card] (I assume here the number of cards in opponent's deck before I start the mill combo is divisible by three). This means opponent must hard cast Emrakul to win, and I already know (e.g. via Thoughtseize) that he doesn't have the resources to do this. So I win anyway by milling in three turns.

This kill will take a long time to execute, for obvious reasons, because each time I mill an Emrakul it gets shuffled back into opponent's deck. I'll need the deck to be stacked in exactly such a way that the two Emrakuls + an irrelevant card are at the bottom of the deck. This will happen eventually, just probably not for a very long time.

Question: can I actually execute this kill in paper, or will standoff rules kick in first?

You are not allowed to execute this entire combo, either using a shortcut or playing it out explicitly.

You cannot execute this combo with a shortcut because of the way shortcuts are defined in rule 720.2a of the Taking Shortcuts rules section:

  At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players, that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross multiple turns. It can't include conditional actions, where the outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.

In the combo you describe, you determine whether to continue or stop based on which cards, and how many, are still in the deck. That in turn depends on when exactly the Emrakuls got milled and their abilities triggered, which means that your actions would fundamentally depend on those game events, making this an invalid shortcut. You can see a ruling here about a different combo that also involves an indeterminate amount of shuffling.

You also cannot execute this combo without using a shortcut. A fundamentally identical combo exists in the deck Four Horsemen, which involves milling its own library including Emrakul in order to eventually end up with a particular sequence of cards in the graveyard and the library. Previous rulings have established that this combo is slow play and it should not be played in tournaments. The basic reason for this is that the combo can take unbounded time to complete, and every time you shuffle Emrakul in you are starting all over without making any meaningful progress.

There is a way to do this but it requires more piece to the combo.

As you are basically explaining a mix between KCI post-ban and a heartless summoning deck that already existed in the past you can do this with the following if you want.

You may want to use Heartless Summoning instead of [Grinding Station] but using your example just add:

1 - Shimmer Myr
1 - Relic of Progenitus/Tormod's Crypt/Ravenous Trap

Shimmer Myr will give your artifacts flash, so you can flash in your Myr Retrievers and leave the Emrakul shuffle triggers on the stack, when you've resolved everything to mill your to the last card you will then need to exile their graveyard with one of the 3 cards mentioned and let the triggers resolve, the library would be empty so they would "shuffle" the empty library and you could then pass turn for the win.

Using Altar of the Brood might be an idea as well to speed up the mill clock.


How to handle late game tile drawing in Tsuro The rules in Tsuro are very vague about what happens once the players start to run out of tiles.  What's the best way to handle how titles are drawn in Tsuro when a player goes out, and other players are lacking tiles.  I know the dragon title is placed at the end of the deck, and signifies that a player who draws the dragon tile should received a card once one becomes available, but what happens if more then one player has less then three tiles?

It's conceivable for a player to go out to take out more then one player, possibly freeing multiple tiles.  Should all player lacking tiles go back up to three if they can?

The rules in my copy and on the official site are quite clear:

  If the active player has the dragon tile, he or she places it at the bottom of the draw pile and draws a tile from the top. If the active player does not have the dragon tile, he or she draws a tile from the top of the draw pile.

  Starting with the active player and moving
  clockwise, each player with fewer than three path
  tiles draws a tile, continuing around the board
  until all players have three path tiles or the draw
  pile is empty.

  When new tiles become available later in
  the game, the first player to draw a tile will
  be the player with the Dragon tile instead
  of the active player. That player sets aside
  the Dragon tile when drawing a path tile.

That said, they are quite wordy. So let me rephrase them:

Let's say the draw pile is empty and tiles are added to it because one or more players were eliminated. If someone has the Dragon Tile, take the Dragon Tile from whoever has it and place it at the bottom of the deck. Deal one tile to them, one to tile to the player next to them, one tile to the player next to that player, and so on until everyone has three tiles or someone draws the Dragon Tile.

What about buying extra tiles, and stacking them atop placed tiles, when all the first tiles have been placed? This would give a more 3 dimensional aspect to the game, like UpWords gives a 3 dimensional aspect to Scrabble.


In UNO with card stacking rules, can you stack the opponents final card? While playing UNO in the end only two players were left.
Player 1 had five cards and player 2 had two cards (both of them a 'Draw 2').

Player 2 puts down the first 'Draw 2' card, and calls UNO.
Player 1 stacks on it a 'Draw 2' card.
Player 2 puts down his last card that is a 'Draw 2'.
Player 1 again stacks on it a 'Draw 2' card.

Does that last 'Draw 2' apply to player 2 or has he won?

We have played with this house rule in our gaming group before and we resolved it in the same way we resolve MTG (Magic the Gathering) chains and that is the action must resolve upon the final valid play. So, if you are playing with the chain draw 2 house rule, in your scenario where there are two players remaining, the player who is unable to add another draw 2 into the chain is the one who gets stuck drawing as many cards as are in the stack.

If this results in one of the two players going out, that player wins. Otherwise, they draw more cards and the game continues.

The "As soon as one player goes out" rule as it was originally written for Uno did not take into effect this "chain stacking" house rule. In order to be the most correct, it must be interpreted to mean "As soon as one player goes out at the end of a play". In this case, the draw 2 chain is considered a single play as the draw 2 chain only stops (resolves) on the player that cannot place a draw 2 on the stack.

As a final note, we ultimately did away with Chain draw 2 combinations because of this exact argument we would have every time a new player arrived. If two players remain, player one has 5 cards, player two has 2 cards, player two gives player one a Draw 2, then player one draws 2 cards, then plays a Draw 2 back on Player two. No stacking or chaining is in effect, so Player two now has 3 cards and Player one has 6, and the game continues.

As per the rules, the game would end when the cards count turns to be zero. But when the opponent places a draw-2 card, player 2 needs to stack up again.


Is the medallion being used in Haunt N21? Zombie Haunt (21) was revealed and then 2 of the players started exchanging the medallion because only the holder could make damage to the Zombie Lord.
What I was wondering was is that possible? The trade is done for items that are not in any way used in the last turn. So if a player attacks me and he has the medallion does that count as using the medallion in any way?

The thing is that with all them gathering on the same square as the Zombie lord and each trading the item and then attempting attack they would kill the Zombie lord pretty easily if he fails 1 or 2 rolls.

As a roleplayer I always had the understanding that all happens simultaneously and that doesn't really connects with me, if everyone trade the item and everyone do the damage normally on the Zombie lord. Can anyone clarify this for me?

The errata added restrictions on this use of items:

If there are five heroes and a monster in a room, could each of them use, say, the Spear to attack that monster, then pass it on to the next person?
No. Add this rule: "For each item, during a turn an explorer or monster that can carry items may only perform one of the following actions: use the item, give the item to another explorer, drop the item, steal the item, or pick up the item. Using the item means making any attack or roll or other action in which the item is involved in any way."

So the heroes cannot do this, due specifically to the last sentence: "Using the item means making any attack or roll or other action in which the item is involved in any way." Even though you are not attacking with the medallion, as you would with the spear, the medallion is involved in the attack as it is a requirement for the attack to have any effect.

I fear you may be answering your own question here... if only the bearer of the medallion can damage the Zombie Lord, then technically you're using it. Anyone without the medallion can attack the monster, but nothing will come of it. - generalcrispy


How do we determine which monster joins the game? I just played my first game and I love it! I have one question though. How is the monster that joins determined? I tried to look in the pamphlets and online and couldn't find anything. We just had the traitor choose a monster he liked. I don't know how that part works.

The monster and everything that happens once the haunt happens is determined in the traitors and survivors handbooks. The traitors handbook instructs you on which haunt to use based on how it is triggered and there will be instructions for both sides based on each individual haunt.

Here are some simplified rules to help you get started better.

For future players looking for the simple answer to the question:
If your end up with a HAUNT scenario that doesn’t mention monsters, you don’t need to use them this time. You haven’t done anything wrong or missed a page of instruction.
The scenario likely has some other way to torment heroes, or a different goal for the player(s).
The instruction book fails to mention this.


Is it true that all computer chess programs can be forced into a three-fold repetition draw? Disclaimer: I know very little about chess: basically, how to put pieces on the board, how to move them, and how to lose (I'm a pro at this). I have no idea about my Elo rating, but I guess it's in the two digits range. Thus, please be forgiving of possible blunders in my question.

One of the few things I thought to know was that today computers are stronger than humans at chess. Programs such as Stockfish, Komodo and Leela Chess Zero should be able to regularly beat GrandMasters, and even give the World Champion a hard time. However, an acquaintance who is a way better player than me,, told me that you can draw against any computer chess program just by using threefold repetition. In other words, you make your move, the chess program makes its own, you go back, the chess program does the same (??), repeat three times and voilà, you get your draw. He said he used this strategy against chess engines you can play with on the Internet, and it works.

This seems unbelievable:

Even I could write a program which doesn't fall in such a trap. Just compare the current move with the preceding one: if they're the same, increase a counter, otherwise set it to 0. When the counter gets to 2, remove this move from the list of candidate moves. In other words, never perform the same move three times. Of course, there may be cases where actually performing the same move three times could be the best strategy: in that case, just offer a draw to the human opponent. But on the average, just avoid making the same move three times consecutively.
Different chess engines also use very different algorithms (e.g., Leela Chess Zero is based on neural networks, RL, and MCTS, while Stockfish and Komodo use other approaches, including opening databases, list of hard-coded heuristics, etc.), so it seems highly unlikely that a single approach could exist which can force a draw against all existing chess engines.
A chess engine's next move doesn't obviously depend only on my (the human opponent's) current move. I guess it depends on the full move history of the current game, as well as on the estimation, done by the chess engine, of which moves are more likely to lead to victory further down the game. Why should my current move be so important for the chess engine, that it would keep repeating the same move just because I do so?

I conclude that this is "fake news", or at most a silly bug in the chess engines this acquaintance played against (maybe not a major bug, because people who play chess on the Internet probably are not interested in a cheap trick to draw against the computer, but still a bug). But definitely not something that happens when playing against the major chess engines, such as the three I mentioned initially. Am I right?

What your friend is saying isn't "fake news", it's outright bull****. Of course computers can recognize 3-fold draws, in fact just about the first step of writing a new engine is to tell the engine what the rules of the game are.

Here're the relevant lines in Stockfish's code:

bool Position::is_draw(int ply) const {

 if (st->rule50 > 99 && (!checkers() || MoveList<LEGAL>(*this).size()))
     return true;

 // Return a draw score if a position repeats once earlier but strictly
 // after the root, or repeats twice before or at the root.

 if (st->repetition && st->repetition < ply)
     return true;

 return false;
}

Only from my personal experience but in case it helps: Many chess computers and even really old portable ones can avoid the trap of 3 fold repetition. As suggested above they should only do it ( but I haven't seen one personally do it because I wouldn't let it maybe?) if it is best for them to draw. It is a basic rule of chess so no surprise they are equipped to handle it. I have tried to force a draw through repetition quite a few times over the years and not succeeded. We also need to factor in here how hard it can be to get a computer into a position... that trying to force a draw is even an option. ( with any reasonable degree of set difficulty anyway)
Extra:
I learnt to play chess using computers and still have my first one. A Hanimex 1550. ( good luck finding one haha  -  although the 1500 is still available on ebay) Pretty basic little unit but quite strong game and still works 37 years later. The way to beat this one in particular is to assume it will castle and prepare in advance. Works a treat. even works on all 8 difficulty settings.
My point here is there is a way to beat all programs. There is now amazingly good software though that I wouldn't be able to find flaws in. I do believe they are still there though.
I got cocky some years ago and went to the local chess club and asked to get beaten. after winning a couple of games they put me up against the club champion who beat me 3 times in 5 minutes....then replayed all the moves we both made from memory. He went on to point out where I had gone wrong and then told me I played like a computer. respect


Is it valid to place Draw 4 on a Draw 4, while having the colour set by the first Draw 4? I was playing Uno and one player placed down a Draw 4 card, and set it to a colour (let's say red). The next player played a Draw 4 card, even though they had the colour specified by the first player (let's say red).

Is that a valid play? So, if I were to challenge the second player, would I win the challenge?

You would win the challenge
The rule is, you may not play a Wild Draw 4 unless you do not have any card that matches the color of the top card on the stack.

I have seen several versions of the official rules. Some of them (mainly early versions) specifically allowed playing a draw 4 on a draw 4.


When is Loan worth buying? When would you ever want to buy this instead of just buying a Silver for the same price?

I see two benefits to this:

First, it's helping you cycle through your deck quickly, which is almost always a good thing.  Theoretically, your discard pile should contain new cards that make your deck stronger, so you want to get to shuffling them in as soon as possible.

Second, though you don't mention it, Loan gives you the option of trashing the revealed treasure instead of just discarding it.  If the treasure is a Copper (especially likely early in the game), you will probably want to trash it instead of discarding it, since this can hone down your deck.  But since Loan itself is worth a coin, it always has some value, so it won't be clogging your deck with a useless card late in the game.

Whether this is worth more than a Silver probably depends on your strategy and the other cards available.  If this were the only trashing card available, I would be tempted to buy it.

Read this blog post (and the comments) for a discussion of the statistics concerning Loan. The short version is this: If the Loan does not pull a Treasure you want to trash, it statistically does no harm to your deck, unless your deck is very small.

The only time the loan is really worthwhile is if there no other means of trashing cards or upgrading them. If there is a Steward, Upgrade, Mine, Forge, Bishop, etc. in play, don't bother buying a loan...

I really feel the Loan should have been Discard or Trash it. If you trash it +1 {money}.


Bazaar Trader combo and Void Snare - Ownership vs. Control I use Bazaar Trader and Act of Treason to gain control of a creature my opponent controls.

If my opponent uses a card such as Void Snare on that creature, does the card go to my hand or my opponents hand?

As you note in your title, there is a difference between ownership and control.

  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.
  110.5a A token is both owned and controlled by the player under whose control it entered the battlefield.

So clearly, we know the owner of the card, and where it goes as a result of void snare.

But let's say, for some reason, it said controller's hand instead of owner's hand. That's already covered: cards only ever go to their owner's hand.

  400.3. If an object would go to any library, graveyard, or hand other than its owner’s, it goes to its owner’s corresponding zone.

As for who the owner is, well that's also defined for us:

  108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player's deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game. Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante.

More to the point, Act of Treason by itself only lasts for one turn. Void Snare is a sorcery speed card, which means it can only be played on the turn of the active player. By the time your opponent could play void snare, it'd be of no effect.

If you want to circumvent all of these effects, look into a Conjurers Closet or Momentary Blink.


Where can I find Help Your Neighbor? I played a card and dice game called “Help Your Neighbor” several years ago. When the player rolled the dice, he/she could discard the number that matched the sum of the dice.
Is a complete set of rules available? I saw rules posted here but can no longer find them.

I dont know that game, but a quick look into a search engine gave this link:

https://creatingmaryshome.com/help-your-neighbor-a-game/

the article includes the rules, not sure if they what you are searching for, feel free to update this answer to include the details yourself

The game is available for purchase at this link: https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/help-your-neighbor1


How do Platinum Angel and Darksteel Reactor interact? I have a Darksteel Reactor on the battlefield, and my opponent plays Platinum Angel. How does the Reactor's effect resolve when it hits 20 counters with the PA in the battlefield? Do I win the game or not?

The game will be a draw. Darksteel Reactor will trigger, attempt to win you the game, and then resolve and do nothing (since you can't win the game). Once resolved, Darksteel Reactor will see that it is still in play and still has 20 counters, and it will trigger again.

  603.8. A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack.

This will continue without moving the game forward until a player removes either Darksteel Reactor or Platinum Angel or both. Since the game can't move forward, it is a draw.

Note: in a multiplayer game, "You win the game" is translated as "Each opponent loses the game." So if Player A had Darksteel Reactor, player B has Platinum Angel, and player C had nothing, player C would lose and players A and B would tie.

dark steel reactor has "20 or more charge counters " so it will just continue gaining counters until either platinum angel or dark steel is removed


If a blocking creature leaves the battlefield, is the attacker still blocked, or will it damage the opponent? Suppose Player 1 has a Dragon on the table and Unsummon in hand, while Player 2 has two Spiders on the table.

Player 1 chooses to attack with the Dragon and Player 2 chooses to block with one of the Spiders.  Before combat damage is to be dealt, Player 1 uses Unsummon on the blocking Spider.

Does Player 2 take any life damage from the attacking Dragon?

No

The player takes no damage as the Dragon remains blocked. From the Comprehensive Rules for the Declare Blockers step:

  509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.

An Exception is, when the attacking creature has trample. See the Comprehensive Rules for Keyword Abilities:

  702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage
  is assigned to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.

You wouldn't do damage to the player unless the creature has trample. Abilities like lifelink and double strike still apply. Lifelink requires damage to be done. Doublestrike mearly doubles the damage done. If no damage occurs, neither ability activates. However, if the blocking creature is removed after the damage phase, damage is still done to the blocking creature, although this will remove the damage done and the creature can survive lethal damage. If it's removed before damage can take place, due to a fast effect or instant, no damage is done to the blocker and the attacker is still blocked.


Name of card game similar to crazy-8s or Uno I would like to know if anyone on here has played or knows the name of a card game similar to hearts.

The object of the game is to get rid of all your cards. If a player doesn't have a card that is played, he can play any card just like hearts. In this game there's no points system.

When 2 players remain in the game, the player who has more cards than the player who has one remaining must play a lower card to extend the game. The cards are then laid out and the player with no cards must pick a card from pack of cards which have been played and pick a card lower than the other players cards to win. The other player obviously has to clear his cards.

You can also request to take another players cards.
I believe it is an Asian card game but wondered if it had an English name and if many people play it.

Thanks.

This sounds like it might be a form of Minnesota Whist.

Even if it is not, I'd suggst starting with a cassification resource like: Pagat and seeing if anything else jogs your memory.

I know this post is old but were by chance thinking of Tricked out hero?


Does Monopoly Follow Standard Auction Procedures? I am playing a game of Monopoly. One player lands on a property, but chooses not to buy it. I bid first. Another player bids for a higher amount. The rules state that the banker immediately gives the property to the highest bidder. Can I say a higher bid right now even though I've already bidded?
 There was nothing in the rulebook about it. Thanks!

If you can't bid more than once in an auction, then you would want to go last. But everyone can't do this.

The standard auction procedure is to sell to the highest bidder. So if someone tops your bid, you have the right to top their bid. Until one person runs out of money, or otherwise gives up bidding. Then the bank is supposed to give the property to the highest final bidder. This is in the interest of the seller, because they get the highest possible price.

If, however, you are using a "one bid" rule, then it should be a secret bid. Everyone writes down their bid on a piece of paper and exposes it simultaneously, so that no one has an advantage by knowing what others bid and reacting to it.

Have always played all auctions as multiple bids allowed, the highest bidder winning the auction,{Generally agreed by all players}

but cash only. {ref.Hasbro.Inc.(c)2012;Heading. Buying Property "...the buyer pays to the bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property"}

If a player bids more than they can pay in cash, no fund raising allowed,
the auction starts again with this player excluded.{ House Rule circa 1974}

This is our family/house rules from Waddingtons UK rule book,{ John Waddingtons distributed MONOPOLY under licence from Parker Brothers, in the UK, from 1930's}
 laid down by our mother, Christmas 1974.

I hope this edit is useful in explaining my 1st attempt in answering a question


What's the most intuitive way to use a die for a pass/fail test? I'm working on a board game for general, non-gamer audiences.  (Think people who have played Monopoly and Uno, but not Risk or Settlers of Catan.)  Sometimes the player faces a test with only two outcomes: pass or fail (with some consequence).  Success and failure are both equally likely.

What's the most intuitive, non-gamer—friendly way to use 6-sided dice for a pass/fail test?

There are a number of possibilities that result in a 50% chance of success, such as:

Roll a die.  Even: pass.  Odd: fail.
Roll a die.  1/2/3: pass.  4/5/6: fail.
Roll a die.  1/2/3: fail.  4/5/6: pass.
Roll a black die and a white one.  Black>white: pass.  White>black: fail.  Black=white: roll again.

So far, I've been quite surprised to see how easily non-gamers can be confused by simple board game mechanics, so I'm trying to come up with something as non-surprising as possible.

(Replacing the die/dice with another object, such as a deck of cards or a spinner, would be too expensive for this particular game.)

Whatever non-expert game you play (Monopoly, snakes and ladders, etc.), rolling a 6 is good, rolling a 1 is bad. So I'd say "You win if you roll a 4 or more" is the most intuitive way to speak to a non-gamer.

Succeed on a roll of 4+. Because higher numbers are usually the better results to get, in evaluations / grades, and this is "Pass / Fail".
If it were just using it as a way of picking between two equally wanted results, then I'd say Even / Odd, because there's no value judgement there.


Can an Aura be attached to itself? Let's say I have an Indestructibility attached to a land I control.

  Enchanted permanent has indestructible.

I try to use the second ability of Simic Guildmage to attatch the Indestructibility to itself.

  Attach target Aura enchanting a permanent to another permanent with the same controller.

What happens?

You cannot do as you described, there is a ruling on Simic Guildmage (emphasis mine):

  For the second ability, only the Aura is targeted. When the ability resolves, you choose a permanent to move the Aura onto. It can’t be the permanent the Aura is already attached to, it must be controlled by the player who controls the permanent the Aura is attached to, and it must be able to be enchanted by the Aura. (It doesn’t matter who controls the Aura or who controls Simic Guildmage.) If no such permanent exists, the Aura doesn’t move.

Since you cannot attach an Aura to itself due to rule 303.4d you cannot choose to attach Indestructibility to itself:

  303.4d An Aura can’t enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. An Aura that’s also a creature can’t enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner’s graveyard.

Even if you could make that choice, the Aura would not move due to rule 303.4j:

  303.4j If an effect attempts to attach an Aura on the battlefield to an object or player it can’t legally enchant, the Aura doesn’t move.

The Indestructibility will go to it's owner's graveyard.

  303.4d An Aura can’t enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. An Aura that’s also a creature can’t enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner’s graveyard.


What mana fixing should I use in Khans of Tarkir Sealed Format? Some Khans of Tarkir terminology:

Banners are a cycle of mana rocks that can be sacrificed to draw a card (e.g., Abzan Banner).
Wedge lands enter tapped and produce one of three colors (e.g., Mystic Monastery).
Life lands enter tapped, gain 1 life when played, and produce one of two colors (e.g., Dismal Backwater).

How do you know how many banners to play in your deck?

I've been practicing with this sealed pool generator, and on average, I get 1 Wedge Land and 2-3 Life Lands. Is that enough mana fixing? Would you guys advise throwing in 1-2 (maybe not 3) banners? Going to the basics of deck building for sealed pool, it's supposed to be 17 lands, 17 creatures, and 6 other spells. If you throw in 2 banners to fix your mana, it would only leave you with 4 other spells.

Am I doing it wrong? Are banners supposed to be counted towards the total land count?

Mana fixers can virtually never be counted as full lands because you need mana to cast them.

Let's take the case of the banners specifically. If you swap out a land for a banner, the main difference is the banner:

Costs 3 mana to cast
Can be sacrificed for a card draw

(1) makes them a higher mana screw risk than a land (how happy are you if you mulligan into 2 land+banner instead of 3 land?), while (2) makes them a reduced mana flood risk than a land (sac them if you have nothing better to do with your mana).

They should almost certainly be counted as full spells for purposes of mana ratios, especially if you're also playing lands that come into play tapped.

Would you keep a hand with 3 banners and no lands? Would you keep a hand with  2 banners? what about 1 land, 2 banners? well, you should not, so the answer is NO, you can't fill lands slots with banners.

Furthermore, the banners can be sac if you are mana flooded, eliminating the problem of get them in addition to lands. You can play 2 or even 3 of them if you play bombs in 5-6 manas, because the important thing here is, as a comment says, they are accelerators too, so it is very likely you will play your 5 mana bomb in 4 turn, even if it is a 3 color or it is in your splash color. Eventually you will have more mana than your more expensive card, so you will start to burn your banners, getting more relevant cards.

To my taste (I do very well in sealed), 17 lands and 2/3 banners maximizing your bombs. (In KTK you could even play 2 main colors and 2 splashes if you get enough good lands and banners, so you can put in almost every bomb you get).


Which Axis and Allies Game Takes the Least Amount of Time to Play? I have A&A Europe.  I generally just play with one other person.  The problem is that the game takes so long to play that we rarely play - because it takes so long.  Do different editions take more or less time to play?

A&A Pacific takes significantly less time to play than standard.  While I havent played Europe, BGG says that estimated time is 210 minutes as opposed to 120 for Pacific, so pacific should be shorter. Its about 2-3 hours, depends how willing to concede defeat the players are and. Additionally, it works excellently with 2 players. I would give that a try.. Have fun

Axis and allies 1941 takes the least to play at 1.5 -2 hours and is also the cheapest edition.


When should I activate Man Lands and Keyrunes in order to attack with them? Some lands and artifacts have abilities which allow them to be animated, and turned into creatures until end of turn. Examples include Inkmoth Nexus, Blinkmoth Nexus, Azorious Keyrune, Treetop Village and several others. These abilities can be activated at any time, and  then those permanents can be used to attack that turn.

At what point during the turn should abilities that animate non-creatures be activated so that they can attack?

You should activate them at some point before the declare attackers step on a turn after they enter the battlefield (unless they have haste).
Here's a breakdown of the declare attackers step:

508.1. First, the active player declares attackers.
508.2. Second, any abilities that triggered on attackers being declared go on the stack.
508.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

Clearly, during the declare attackers step, it is too late to activate the abilities (508.3) in order to make them attackers (508.1). However, you are free to do so during your upkeep, first main phase, and beginning of Combat step and it will be eligible to attack.
Note that if you cast a keyrune and turn it into a creature, it cannot attack. This is because permanents that are creatures are unable to attack or use activated abilities with the tap symbol in them unless they have been under their owners control continuously since their most recent turn began (302.6).
It could still be tapped for mana if it is not a creature but as soon as you turn it into a creature it can no longer be tapped to activate abilities the turn it comes into play.
With regards to shortcuts, according to the

A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority
until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise.

In other words, the following exchanges between Aaron the Attacker and Dave the Defender, officiated by Jerry the Judge, have different outcomes
Scenario 1

Aaron: Attacks? long pause
Dave: nods head
Aaron: I activate my keyrune and swing with him for 2.
Dave: Judge!
Jerry: Sorry Aaron, because you passed priority with your "Attacks?" comment, your keyrune was activated too late to be an attacker.

Scenario 2

Aaron: Attacks - I activate my keyrune. long pause
Dave: nods head
Aaron: I swing with him for 2.
Dave: I take 2, I'm at 18 life.
Jerry: I'm going to sip this margarita because I'm not needed here. sips margarita

Update

Having discussed the below with several local judges, it has been made clear that the below would actually be a very totalitarian view for a judge to take, and as long as you state clearly your intentions you probably will still get to activate your man land.

The correct time to activate man lands is any point during your turn before the declare attackers step, as has been mentioned in other answers. As an addendum, being extremely clear about where you are in the turn when you are activating them is key in tournament play. Better safe than sorry!

The main parts of the turn relevant to this question are:

some of the sub steps are omitted, as they are not relevant.

Beginning Phase
Main Phase
Combat Phase

Beginning of Combat step
Declare Attackers step
Declare Blockers step
Damage step
End of Combat step

When you are playing a game of magic, you are playing with/against another person. This is the key to the answer to this question, as while you are entitled to animate these permanents at any point before the Declare Attackers step, in a real game of magic,

unless the active player explicitly passes priority in their main phase, to have priority in their beginning of combat step. the active player only has priority in their beginning of combat step if their opponent chooses to do something in that step.

this is due to a shortcut listed in the rules, wherein the active player declares "attacks?" or "move to attack" or "combat" or some similar statement. This shortcut, in the literal sense, translates to "Pass priority up until you have priority in the Beginning of Combat step". The result of this shortcut is, if you move into the combat phase, you are automatically giving your opponent priority just before you declare attackers. If your opponent passes priority, the game moves to the Declare Attackers step and you have missed your opportunity to animate.

The latest safe opportunity to animate your man lands, or other permanents that become creatures through activating an ability, is in the First Main Phase. if you leave it until after this point, you are in the hands of your opponent and the judge staff for whether you get to activate the man land. If you cant demonstrate a good reason (for example, to empty some mana from your opponent's mana pool), they will probably not let you activate.

Source for this shortcut:
Tournament Procedure Guide - section 4.2, Bullet point 2

  A Statement such as "I'm Ready for combat", or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise

also covered in these articles

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/article/20071109a

https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=judge/article/20050204a


How do you play Winter Tales (in a non-gamist manner)? I recently bought Winter Tales and had my first two games with five friends last night. It was kinda fun, but we really felt like we were missing something or misinterpreting the rules somehow.

The problem was, that we found it exceedingly difficult not to play the game in a gamist manner. Most of us have played pen and paper RPGs and are not averse to storytelling, and we were all well aware that the main focus of Winter Tales is to tell a coherent story. However, the way the game is designed, pitting two factions against each other, obviously means that players will do what they can to ensure their side is victorious.

The main issue in this regard, to us, arose during quest battles. Player 1 would start a quest and the five other players would then try to affect it with story cards. The thing was, story cards all went into one big pile, and everyone could see how many cards each side had gathered. This meant that the last few players could always tell their story and weave in just enough story cards to win the quest.

The rule about the active player being allowed to throw in one (and only one) last story card to wrap up the story likewise seemed useless, since one story card would never be able to impact the results anyway.

Additionally, since a player can pass on activating a character during other players' turns, we always ended up with one ready character and one open quest. This meant that the player with the last ready character could wrap up the game by activating that character, starting the specific quest and ending it immediately, since no one else around the table would have a ready character (or a character in that quest location). This guaranteed an automatic memory favoring whoever ended up with the last ready character.

On a final note, the game is supposed to consist of several chapters; whenever a player activates his last ready character and finished his turn, the chapter ends and a new one begins. We played the game twice, with 3 and 4 memories, and during both games we finished the final memory during the first chapter.

All this leads me to conclude that one of the three following is the case here:

A) Winter Tales wants its players to focus on the story and not actively try to win the game. However, elements such as the opposing factions and the battle/trap mechanics lead me to believe that the game does in fact expect its players to attempt to win.

B) Winter Tales is a poorly designed game. Since the game is still relatively new I guess this could be possible, but the reviews lead me to believe that this can't possible be the case.

C) Our group misinterpreted the rules or otherwise missed something important. This is supported by the, quite honestly, poorly worded/translated rule book, and is what I hope and expect to be the case.

Thus, my questions are these:
is C the case here, and if so, what did we misunderstand?

This meant that the last few players could always tell their story and
  weave in just enough story cards to win the quest.

  The rule about the active player being allowed to throw in one (and
  only one) last story card to wrap up the story likewise seemed
  useless, since one story card would never be able to impact the
  results anyway.

You seem to contradict yourself here. If one side has used "just enough" story cards to win, then a single final card should be able to tip the balance in favor of the active player's faction.

Of course, then the other faction has to account for this, and use "just enough plus a little more", to the point that the active player's likely plays would be balanced out, on average. Then, assuming everyone plays optimally, the deciding factor is the random selection of cards, and you are back to it being purely a randomly decided storytelling game, as intended.


Rock Paper Scissor Lizard Spock applied to units features I need to put together a system for a game, with the following premises:

There are 5 types of units: A, B, C, D, E.
A beats B and D
B beats C and E
C beats D and A
D beats B and E
E beats A and C

In addition, each unit type has different properties’ values:

Attack force
Number of attacks it can perform in one turn
Defense

I need to know how I can make it possible with different values to achieve the premises mentioned above.

I was able to think of something similar for 3 types of units (A, B, C):

A has a high attack force (5) and a medium defense (2).
B has a high defense (5) and can make 2 weak attacks (2x1).
C units work as a duo. They have medium attack (2) and little defense (1), but 2 units of C can attack at the same time (summing their attack force).

So:

A beats B (A attack force >= B defense)
B beats C (B x2 attacks >=  each C defense)
C beats A  (2xC attacks >= A defense)

I need to do something similar, but for 5 types of units. How could I do this without having to include more complex issues? I want to handle it with properties’ values, and not with "unit E cannot attack unit D", etc. I could include another parameter, but the least things I add, the better.

Simple Answer: Enforce Type Interactions

Pokemon video games (and the card games) tackles this idea with type. Water beats Fire, Fire beats Grass, Grass beats Water. The simplest answer is to modify the damage based on the characteristic of the receiving type, rather than adjusting the attack itself. Applying types to your units is fairly trivial, and leaves room for creative development.

However, based on your examples, it appears your looking for types to have overall strategies that are good against each other. That is to say, rather than A being being good against B 'because I said so' (Water being good against Fire makes logical sense, but ultimately is because the developers said so), it sounds like you're looking for a strategy that arises from the qualities that game objects have.

Complicated Answer: You need more than 3 mechanics

The difficulty with answering this question is that having a compelling metagame where different types of gameplay match up well against each other is kind of what game designers continuously do. Any answer is going to require you try lots of combinations and record win rates for certain strategies, tweaking the power of each strategy until you get something desirable.

Actually, having a 'perfect' situation where A beats B beats C beats A is undesirable. Imagine I sit down with by deck of B units, and my opponent starts playing A. If A always beats B, I might as well forfeit. That's obviously not a design that's fun for the losing side, and probably not even fun for the winner. So the question is, what can we do so that A usually beats B, but B can earn an underdog win with good gameplay (and perhaps some luck)?

B player needs some mechanics that are good against A that it can include (perhaps by including these mechanics, it is worse against C players and other B players.) As it stands, there are only about 3 mechanics spread out among 3 types, and that's not enough for just those three types. I would imagine you may need 2-3 gameplay mechanics per type for just 3 types. For 5, that may expand out to 5-6.

Suggestion

The good news is that you can do this without increasing the complexity of each card. Trying to squeeze a dozen gameplay mechanics on one unit is probably impossible, but not all units have to have each mechanic. I would strongly recommend looking at Magic: The Gathering for an example of a game that does this well.

For instance: some Colors (Colors in Magic are roughly akin to your unit types.) have flying: they tend to be weaker, but can only be blocked by other flying creatures or creatures with a specific flying-blocking ability. This gives 'B' a strategy against 'A':  B may have enough to hold off A's creatures for a time because of its high defense. A mechanic like flying would allow B to put out a flying creature, and then hide behind its big walls until the flying creature eventually deals with A. It's not ideal (and shouldn't be: A is supposed to be strong against B) but it gives B a fighting chance.

Also consider First Strike: In Magic, creatures deal damage to each other at the same time. An ability call First Strike changes that and causes the creature to deal damage first. This can tweak even creatures with small defense to be really strong, as they may be able to kill a powerful thing with low defense before it has the chance to strike back.

These keywords (First Strike and Flying) can be tacked on to a creature: a creature without them doesn't have to be overwhelming.

Consider Knight of the Keep. (Ignore the text on the card in italics.) That creature has no abilities and is fairly simple, clean, and easy to read. A beginner who knows the basic rules knows how that works.

Consider Enforcer Griffin. It has flying, but it still is fairly simple in how it looks. Once players learn how flying works, the card doesn't seem too complicated.

Consider an extreme example, Zetalpa, Primal Dawn. It has a whopping 5 keywords, and would be pretty confusing for new players. However, it didn't make Knight of the Keep any more complicated, because Knight of the Keep didn't have to worry about things like 'trample' or 'double strike'.

In this way or through some similar mechanics, you can add complexity to certain units to give them a more flexible role, without increasing the complexity of all of your units.

Ultimately though, for 5 types I believe you will need more than 3 gameplay mechanics. Proper balance between them will require a lot of testing and tweaking. That's what separates good from bad games. Mechanics that are fun, not overwhelming to players, and create ways for players to express their skill are what make or break the game. We can give you examples we like/dislike, but original ones will have to come from the developer.

You might want to use a mechanic of Range-attak.  Unit A is strong but need to get close to the enemy to attak, Unit B is weak but can attak from a distance.
For example:
infantry < archers < cavalery < infantry


Software to search for MTG decks based on a list of cards I haven't played MTG for a while, but I still own about 500 cards. Some of them were from pre-built decks, but now the cards are all randomized.

I have the full inventory (quantity and name) on a text file. Although I've seen a lot of programs that allow you to build and share decks, I'm looking for something that searches for a deck based on the cards you have (or on a list you provide).

Update: I may have misguided you with my explanation, so here it goes in different words. I want to know what decks are out there that I can build with the cards I have. Something like: here's the list of cards I possess; show me what decks exist that I can build with them, without needing to buy more cards.

Inspired by this post I've managed to implement the requested feature in my program Mtgdb.Gui, it's free and opensource.

The screenshot below shows the list of decks filtered by a condition that you own 90% or more from the Main deck.

So to search the decks based on cards you have collected, you need to

Step 0. Import the decks to Mtgdb.Gui. It can be be done as easy as drag-n-dropping a bunch of files or folders into it. See Wiki for details.  I used Forge to quickly download ~5000 decks.

Step 1. Import your collection to Mtgdb.Gui. E.g. you can import from a plain-text file where each row is more or less like this:

2 Accomplished Automaton

You can also import your Magic The Gathering Online collection.

Step 2a. Sort the list of decks by percent of cards from Main deck you own in descending order, by clicking the corresponding field.

Step 2b. Alterternatively as in the screenshot above, you can filter the list of decks by using search input.

P.S. Let me stress it, I am the author of Mtgdb.Gui. It has to be perfectly clear, because the rules of this forum, as well as common human honesty, I believe, require people to be explicit when promoting their own product.

Deckcheck has a nice search function if you want to do it yourself.  If you just want to play and don't enjoy the deck building all that much (which probably is mine and my friends favorite part) I think the best result will come from help of others.

Ask your friend who likes deck building.
Make it a challenge at a MtG forum.
Ask for help at a forum.
Use it as a cube.

But I strongly suggest that you have a go at it yourself. Maybe you'll enjoy it :)


Can you get actions in another players turn with Hidden Ninja and Chronomage? The card text of "Hidden Ninja" says:

  Special: Before a base scores, play a minion there.

Chronomage says:

  You may play an extra action this turn.

Do I have the possiblity to play an arbitrary action after that?

In the "Void Where Prohibited" section of the rules it says "If you get to play extra minions or actions while a base is being scored, you must play those extra cards immediately or not at all" which means that you DO get to play the extra card from the Chronomage, but only if you play it immediately.  You can't wait to see if other cards get played first.

While it may seem weird to be able to play actions during other people's turns, this ruling has been confirmed by an AEG rep here.

No, you cannot, at least not with the Chronomage. The card says "an extra action", but you didn't get any actions this turn (especially considering it wasn't yours).

Had it been your turn, however, and playing one of your minions would have caused that base to score, then the answer is yes.

I'm unaware if any expansions have added exceptions to this.


What is an efficient way to organize my magic collection? Currently, I have a rare binder with all of my rares, and the rest of my cards are broken into several boxes by color, gold/multi color, and land.  The problem with this methodology is that if I have a specific card in mind that's a common, I have to search through the entire box until I find it.  Is there a better way to manage by cards?

There are a lot of ways to organize your cards that are efficient. What it is going to come down to, is what sort of efficiency are you looking for.

Deck building efficiency - This is pretty much a non-issue if you use digital deck builders, but if you don't know exactly what cards you own, it is helpful in finding possible alternatives for cards you want to run but don't own. Because all cards are near other cards of the same color/type, it is easier to find cards to fill out your deck.

Color, Card Type, Mana Cost, Alphabetical

Card finding efficiency - This reduces the size of all your box divisions, making it easier to find a particular card.

Set, Alphabetical (or collector number)

Trade/Deck Idea efficiency - Separating the Rarest cards from the most common cards allows you to easily find more valuable cards, or cards that an entire deck can be built around.

Rarest/Non-rare, any other sorting criteria.

Size efficiency- With many of the other sorting types, you may try to separate the individual Colors/Sets by placing them in their own box and filling up empty space with deckboxes or basic lands. When you organize for space, you need to only separate sections with index cards cut to fit card sleeves.

bro buys thousands of cards and shoves the pricey cards in his binders and dumps the rest on the floor.

I have tried by set and block and such, but it was to hard to keep adding sets with each new release. The easiest way i found was to sort by rarity. Multi-row boxes for each rarity. Then i seperate each by color. white, blue, black, red, green, gold, dual, artifact and land. Then each is sub sorted by the first letter of its name. So when bro needs a white common card that starts with s. I have a 4 inch stack of cards to finger through to find it in a few seconds and never have to keep making and adding dividers and reordering for new sets. If you don't want extra bulk. The cheap penny sleeves can hold 8 or so singles. So i put cards with 6 copies in the sleeve so when i get another copy i can set it aside in a bulk box to trade into shops. A lot of shops offer deals for extra bulk. Bring in a few hundred and they give you around a penny piece and will swap you a free pack or something. This way the bulk is kept way down and super easy to find cards bro needs. If i had some of the better cards. I would consider doing decks cause it would be easy enough to look up the types of cards i need for a type of deck and then pull out the ones i have and see what i could toss together.


How can I beat Germany in Axis & Allies: Europe? I've played Axis & Allies: Europe BGG quite a few times now. It seems that Germany always wins by rushing for Moskva in all the games I've played. Usually USA never plays an important role, coming late to Europe.  By the time England is strong enough to invade Germany, the race is more or less over.

What good counter strategies against Germany am I missing?

The dynamics of the game are based on the following:

In "real life," Germany would have beaten Britain and Russia if the latter two did not receive American help.
Overwhelming American power (almost that of Britain, Germany and Russia put together) meant that the Allies would be heavy favorites once America joined the war.
In the game, America has a fraction of its "real life" power, enough to make the Allies favorites, but not enough to make them prohibitively so.

In the game, if Germany conquers Russia, Germany-Russia is stronger than U.S.-Britain, which was not true in real life. Therefore the game imperatives are

for the Russian player to successfully defend Moskva against capture
For the Americans to find a way to make their weight felt.

Russia needs to play strict defense, with the ultimate aim of defending Moskva. That doesn't mean that they should neglect the surrounding territories (that would make it too easy for the Germans to capture the extra "income"), but rather to beat a "fighting retreat" as in real life. That is, they should mostly build infantry, and use them to defend territories in a die-hard fashion, and leaving air and armor units in Moskva for "strafing" counter attacks, extracting the highest possible price in time and firepower for territories lost.

The Americans need to find a way to help the Russians, making effective use of their margin of superiority. One way is "Lend Lease," sending e.g. fighter units to Moskva for its defense, so that the Russians can build "all infantry."  That is a genuine, but inefficient use of American resources. The second way is to launch "bleeding" attacks in Europe

Scandinavia, which threatens to open a direct route to Russia or
France or Italy, which directly threatens Germany, or even
North Africa, which reduces German income from the south.

If these initiatives are successful, the Germans will have too few troops/income left to defeat Russia.

The Allies CAN lose if the die rolls are bad. Barring this, they have a sufficient margin of superiority to win if they play as well as the Germans.

I have played Axis and Allies a lot and I find it very very difficult to win the game as the Allies. If Germany goes after the royal navy first turn. I think it is almost impossible if the Germans smash the fleet, build their own fleet and Italy does the same. With their combined strength, Britain cannot manage to fight off both Italy and Germany. So Britain will just sit around many rounds not doing anything important for the war. That gives Germany many rounds where they can just send troops into Russia, and eventually crush them.

With Russia I like to buy tanks and infantry, it never works but takes out a lot of the German force. After Russia is smashed, then I probably manage to take out their fleets. Then after some rounds can load units on the German land. With Germany attacking the royal fleet first round. This always happen. Germany smashes Russia, then the allies manage to take out the fleet and start loading units, this is probably round 6-7 but it is always too late.


How can I do better than chance in Uno? Just started playing Uno. What are the most important strategies that might improve my game? Of course luck is important, but I'm trying to do better than crossing my fingers.

For example, before and after a player announces "Uno", should my play be different? While there's a "wild" card, how should I decide which color to switch to?

@paul-marshall thanks for the reply. I understand that normally i shall change color to the one that i have most cards -- but is there any occasion that i shouldn't do so?

For the wild card, let's say now i have one blue, one yellow, and one wild card, and the table is playing red. shall i use wild card to change color (to blue or yellow), or, just hold the card and hope i could discard yellow and blue later? is there some thumb rule when shall use wild card and when not?

You're trying to run out of cards, and the opportunities to change colors are somewhat limited. Your goal, therefore, should be to play the last card of one of your colors, then be able to switch to another color you have on the next play. This doesn't always work, of course.

When changing colors (via wild or matching the card), you should switch to the color that you have the most of. Switching to the color that you have the most cards in gives you the best chance to "even out" your hand; if you're stuck with 7 cards in your hand, it will be easier to play when you have 2 yellows, 2 reds, and 3 greens than to play when you have 5 yellows and 2 reds. Note that it will be easy to play one card when you have a four-card hand consisting of one of each color, but it will be hard to go out with such a hand: changing colors is somewhat difficult, and you can't count on it happening when you want it to.

When somebody calls "Uno," it's best to assume that their last card is the same color as the previous card they played; otherwise, the player going out is hoping against hope for a lucky play. Therefore, you change the color in play after somebody calls "Uno," by whatever means is handy. (Or inflict a Draw Two or Draw Four Wild against them.)

Use your uno wild card when you have 3 cards left. Lets assume you have only  blue 4 and 1 cards. Place the wild card down and if the color is red say blue.

If the other player doesn't have blue, place one blue card down and say UNO. After the person picks up a card and you place your blue down and you win.


What hand scores are impossible in Cribbage? It's very well known that 19 is an impossible score to achieve when counting your hand.

What are the other impossible to achieve scores?  I've read 25, 26, 27.  Does anyone know the answer authoritatively?

All scores from 0 to 29 are possible with the exception of 19, 25, 26 and 27, as already mentioned.

Several sites state this truth.

For example:

http://www.rubl.com/rules/cribbage-statistics.html


What is the process for determining if an infinite loop will be a draw? Related to this question, and inspired by this question, I realized that I don't know what the game play will actually look like when an infinite loop arises.
Imagine that Lethal Vapors and Solemnity are on the battlefield. Alice casts a creature with undying or persist, and it resolves. This should cause an infinite loop of triggers, because the creature will be destroyed when it enters the battlefield, and it will return to the battlefield when it dies.
Now, either player can easily stop the infinite loop, because Lethal Vapors has an ability that will end the loop, which can be activated by either player. But let's say both players think that the loss of turn that comes from activating that ability will be enough to cause them to lose the game. So what specifically happens now?
I would imagine that in a casual setting, both players would simply discuss "ok, this is an infinite loop. I'm not doing anything to stop it; are you doing anything to stop it? No? Ok, draw then".
But in a more formal setting (either a tournament, or a casual game where both players really want to follow every CR to the letter), whose responsibility is it to take what action and when? Alice has priority, so she passes it. Bob then passes priority, and Lethal Vapors' trigger resolves. Then Alice has priority, so she passes it. Bob then passes priority, so the undying trigger resolves. Is one of them responsible for using their priority to suggest a draw?
Are the rules for shortcuts relevant here? Although it seems like a shortcut isn't really involved, the rules for dealing with infinite loops are under the rules for taking shortcuts (section 720).
The only relevant rules I can see are these 3:

720.1b Occasionally the game gets into a state in which a set of actions could be repeated indefinitely (thus creating a “loop”). In that case, the shortcut rules can be used to determine how many times those actions are repeated without having to actually perform them, and how the loop is broken.
720.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)
720.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.

So it says "the game is a draw", but when specifically does the game become a draw? Does one player have an obligation to propose a shortcut here? I don't actually see a legal shortcut that would work to cause a draw, however, as shortcuts for loops generally involve naming a finite number of times that you want the action to happen.

What you are describing is a loop of mandatory actions. Unless someone breaks it, the game ends in a draw.

  720.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)

That said, noone is forced to break it even if they could.

  720.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.

You seem to be asking how to get the game declared a draw. 104.4i allows the players to mutually agree to a draw.

  104.4i In a tournament, all players in the game may agree to an intentional draw. See rule 100.6.

If the other player refuses to accept, you can't just keep passing, because that would be Slow Play.

That leaves the option of creating a shortcut. The active player should propose passing until the loop is broken (or until they get priority in the next phase/step for a loop that doesn't span phases/steps). If the opponent accepts the shortcut, the game is officially a draw because neither player ever gets priority again.

The example you named does not lead to a draw because it contains non-mandatory actions. It is a fragmented loop that has to be broken by the players, if possible.
Every time Lethal Vapors triggers, its ability goes on the stack and waits to resolve. After it has resolved, every player gets priority and thus has a chance to either pass or take an action.

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

That means there are non-mandatory actions in the loop, and therefore the game is not a draw.

720.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)

The case you describe is a fragmented loop:

720.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.
Example: In a two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the ability “{0}: [This creature] gains flying,” the nonactive player controls a permanent with the ability “{0}: Target creature loses flying,” and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has been activated. Say the active player activates his creature’s ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her permanent’s ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than activating that creature’s ability again). The creature doesn’t have flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent’s ability, in which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether the creature has flying.

In this case, breaking the loop would require one player to take an action other than passing priority.
"Passing priority" is a game choice:

720.1. When playing a game, players typically make use of mutually understood shortcuts rather than explicitly identifying each game choice (either taking an action or passing priority) a player makes.

Therefore, in your example, passing priority would become an illegal choice, and ending the loop, if possible, becomes mandatory. Activating Lethal Vapor's ability is one possibility.


Are you required to buy items when you choose the Legendary Object options at the village? The wording of the rules states that you must either peruse/buy the souvenirs or buy a legendary object, but what if you cannot afford the remaining legendary objects? To the letter of the rules, it would imply that you must only choose this option if you can buy a legendary object, so players should determine what's in the pile of unbought items (easily done) before making that an option. More hand-wavey, we could argue if someone mistakenly doesn't realize he can't afford any of the remaining items, then chooses to buy a legendary object and picks up the remaining cards, he simply is barred from buying anything or resorting to the souvenir option.

I tend to lean toward the more forgiving option which is if a player can't afford anything, he just goes to the souvenir shop especially since the list of cards is public info obtained simply by looking at the players' holdings which are exposed.

According to the rules for Tokaido: Crossroads on the Fun Forge site (emphasis mine)

Now, when a Traveler stops at a Shop space, he must choose between:

Buying Souvenirs (basic game rules).

Acquiring a Legendary Object.

While the base game rules (Souvenirs Only) say

The player draws the first 3 Souvenir cards from the pile and places them face up in front of him. He can then purchase one or more of these cards by paying the price indicated on each card.
Note: A traveler must have at least 1 coin to stop in a Village, but
he is not required to purchase any souvenirs

In the base game it is clearly possible for the player to end up with only Souvenirs they cannot afford, in which case they can purchase nothing, as well as simply choosing to purchase nothing.
It seems fairly clear that the player must first decide which of the two purchase options they will pursue, and having made that decision the other option is no longer available. Having made that choice the same rules would seem to apply in both cases: if there is nothing they can purchase, they are out of luck; even if they can purchase something, they don't have to.
Further, unless you're playing with the 2-3 player variant for Crossroads, all players have perfect knowledge of what Legendary Objects are available to purchase. There are 6, 2 each costing 1, 2, or 3 coins, and any purchased objects are visible in front of the player(s) that purchased them. In the variant where 2 cards are discarded, they will have perfect knowledge after looking at the Legendary Objects once, and the goal of that variation seems to be to slightly increase the risk/reward given the large number of stop opportunities with so few players.

Peruse means to browse or to look at. So you can just go to the shop look at the souvenirs for sale there.

As mentioned by John this can be done to block another player but would be a bit of a wasted move.


Exotic Orchard and Command Tower What colors of mana can Exotic Orchard produce in Commander if my opponent has a Command Tower?

A Command Tower can produce any color of mana in its controller's commander's color identity. So, if your opponent controls one, your Exotic Orchard can produce any color of mana in that player's commander's color identity (assuming there are no other lands).

The relevant rule here is 106.7:

  Some abilities produce mana based on the type of mana another permanent or permanents “could produce.” The type of mana a permanent could produce at any time includes any type of mana that an ability of that permanent would produce if the ability were to resolve at that time, taking into account any applicable replacement effects in any possible order. Ignore whether any costs of the ability could or could not be paid. If that permanent wouldn’t produce any mana under these conditions, or no type of mana can be defined this way, there’s no type of mana it could produce.

If mana outside the color identity of your Commander is ever added to your mana pool, that mana is considered colorless. So, in effect, it could only produce colors that overlapped between your and your opponents' commanders.

http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/commander


Does Jourdonnais's ability negate all or half of Slab the Killer's attack on a successful draw? The other night we had Slab the Killer in play as well as Jourdonnais. Here are their abilities as listed on the cards...

Jourdonnais

  Whenever he is the target of a BANG!, he may "draw!" : on a Heart, he is missed.

Slab the Killer

  Player needs 2 Missed! cards to cancel his BANG! card.

When Slab the Killer plays a BANG! against Jourdonnais, how is Jourdonnais's ability applied? Obviously if his ability is unsuccessful, 2 Missed! cards would have to be played, but what happens if Jourdonnais successfully draws a Heart? Is the entire attack cancelled out? Or will an additional Missed! card still need to be played?

Jourdonnais' ability is essentially a built in barrel.
Another Missed! card is needed in addition to drawing the Heart to avoid Slab the Killer's BANG!
This was answered by the designer, Emiliano Sciarra on Boardgamegeek:

Yes. Even if the effect of the Barrel triggers by drawing a Heart card from the deck, you will need another Missed! card from the hand to avoid the hit from Slab.
Since Jourdonnais has a Barrel built in, he may "draw!" once to see if he plays an automatic Missed!. After that, if he drew a Heart he will need a real Missed! from his hand to dodge Slab's shot. Otherwise, he will need two Missed! cards, as anyone else.

Because Jourdonnais' ability says that you can only block a "BANG!" With two "MISSED" cards Jourdonnais' ability wouldn't even help if you drew a heart. You need "MISSED" cards, a barrel wont block Jourdonnais' ability either.


Proper Sleeve size for Android Netrunner I am trying to find the right sleeve size to get for Android Netrunner.
Fantasy Flight was nice enough to put a color coded sleeve and number of packs needed for that box on the back of both the core set and the expansions.
However it shows Blue sleeves for the Core set and Sliver for the expansions. I am trying to figure out which sleeves are the proper fit.
If you can provide a link to where I can buy them that would be great as well.

Android Netrunner cards are the same size as Magic: the Gathering cards, so you can use any sleeves that are Magic sized for them. This includes Fantasy Flight, Ultra-Pro, KMC, and Dragon Shield. The color or design on the sleeves doesn't matter as long as the deck has all of the same color/design (the Corporation and Runner decks can have different colors/designs if you choose, but that isn't required).

There are lot of card sleeves in market, but the best one is KMC card sleeves and according it provides great longevity and ultimate protection.


Response to Selvala, Heart of the Wilds triggered ability Can you increase the power of a creature that entered the battlefield in response to the triggered ability of Selvala, Heart of the Wilds in order to draw the card? For example, suppose you have out Selvala and a 4/4, and you summon another 4/4 and cast Giant Growth in response to the trigger. Would that work and let you actually draw a card?

Yes, you can change the creature's size in response to the ability in order to draw a card.

Rule 603.4 says

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

The "if" condition in Selvala's ability appears at the end of the ability, so it is not an "intervening 'if' clause". This means that the creature's power is only checked when the ability resolves.

This is confirmed by a ruling about Selvala in the Conspiracy: Take the Crown release notes:

  The new creature's power is compared to the power of each other creature on the battlefield as the first ability resolves. If another creature has the same or higher power than the new creature's power, no one may draw a card.

Unfortunately no. The trigger checks as it activates, so the giant growth would turn it into a 7/7, but it would not enter as a 7/7. If you had something such as Zameck Guildmage and used it's ability to make the creature enter with a +1/+1 counter, then your 4/4 would enter as a 5/5 and Selvala's trigger would let you draw.


Why would you want to play with a deck bigger than 60 cards in MTG? In Magic the Gathering, the decks are required to be no less than 60 cards, but can be larger.  Since you can only have 4 of each card (except for basic lands), it seems you would want the limit size to improve your chances of getting the cards you want.  Why would you want to play with a larger deck?

There's a fringe case for including 61 cards in your deck. That is, if in play testing you find that x number of lands is too few, but x+1 lands is too many, you can effectively play some number between x and x+1 (not exactly x+0.5) lands by playing x+1 lands in a 61 card deck.

That is, 20 lands is 0.333 of a 60 card deck, and 21 lands is 0.350. But 21 lands in a 61 card deck is 0.344, a ratio of lands that is impossible with a 60 card deck.


In Pathfinder ACG, what happens if I must encounter the Villain because of another effect? In a recent game, I encountered and defeated a henchman at the Swallowtail Festival location. The location card reads:

  When Closing
  Defeat or acquire the next card in the deck. If there isn't one, you may close this location automatically.

When I revealed the next card, it was the villain. What should I do in this scenario?

Treat it as a villain. All other players may temporarily close locations, then I encounter the villain. If successful, the villain flees to another open location or I win, as appropriate. The location is (double!) closed.
Treat it as just another monster. I encounter the villain. If I succeed, the location is closed because I completed its requirement, but the villain does not flee. Because the location contains the villain, the location actually remains open and all non-villain cards are banished.

I ruled it as the second option in play, but in hindsight, the first one seems increasingly plausible, though I'm still not convinced which is right.

I wasn't able to find an official answer, but here's an answer on behalf of the BGG community answers here:

It seems that my latter intuition was probably correct. When you reveal the next card, all the effects trigger, including if it was a villain.

Therefore, in this case, option 1 is correct. I should attempt to temporarily close locations and then attempt to defeat the villain, just as if the villain were encountered in normal play.

If I remember correctly the Henchmen and the Villain are never in the same location deck. The rules book says during setup to take the Villain card and as many henchmen cards as you need to match the number of locations, and then deal one to each location deck. Either a Henchman or the Villain will be in a location, but not both.


What extra roles have you used with Werewolves? The standard game Werewolf, has just a few roles: Citizen, Werewolf, Witch, Cupid, Hunter, Seer, Thief.  I know there are lots of other roles created.

Which roles do you use and what is the impact.

Default Roles

Citizen, cast a vote during the day.
Wolf, citizen, knows other wolves, chose each night a victim to eliminate from the game.
Witch, has two potions, each night the witch knows the victim of the wolves. She has one potion to save a victim and one to poison another player (hopefully a werewolf).
Cupid, choses two players the first night. These are the lovers. The lovers know each other and they have to survive together. If one dies the other dies too. If a werewolf and a citizen are lovers, they have to kill the others to win.
Hunter, if the hunter dies, he choses another player to die with him.
Seer, the seer can query a players role each night.

Other roles

Executer, during the voting, the executer can present himself and execute another player. Voting continues afterwards. The executer can execute only once.
Priest, if the votes are counted, the priest can present himself and use holy water on the victim. If it is a werewolf or the witch the victim dies, else the victim lives. Priests can have one or more bottles of holy water.
Guardian Angel, each night a guardian angel can protect a player. This player cannot be eaten by the werewolves. The guardian angel cannot protect himself.
*Alpha Werewolf *, this werewolf, can select another player to become a werewolf. This can happen only once.
Soul mates, soul mates are citizens that know each other. They can't become werewolves, if the Alpha werewolf tries to convert a soul mate, the attempt is failed.

I've played with several of the roles invented by The Graduate Mafia Brotherhood of Princeton University, but the most memorable was the Kingmaker:

A despotic regime has siezed power, usurping democracy. Each turn, there will be a King or Queen who has the sole power to decide who will be lynched. Open debate is allowed, but the day ends as soon as the King/Queen makes his/her choice.
The Kingmaker is a civilian, who, each night, names a King/Queen for the following round. The Kingmaker cannot choose himself, and he cannot choose the same person for two consecutive rounds. The Kingmaker must choose someone.

One game in particular, the Kingmaker's pleas of "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" went entirely unheeded.  We played the rest of that game democratically.
I also noticed that with too many roles in use, moderation can get ridiculously hard.

Our moderator has started with the first night time kill being the previous sheriff. Then daytime. The moderator states the sheriff was killed and asks for any volunteers to take the badge (who gets two votes in ties). Then the game officially begins with a daytime lynching.


How is the board game version of Words With Friends different from Scrabble? I like to play a game called Words With Friends, which is a freenium version of Scrabble. I thought it was however functionally the same. However, I've just seen that Zynga, the creators of the game, have released a boardgame version.

Here is a picture:

How does this compare to Scrabble? What are the differences?

The board layout - the positioning of the bonus squares is different.

Words With Friends:

Scrabble:

Also, the distribution and points scored for the letters in Words With Friends is slightly different to Scrabble. For example, B and C score 3 points in Scrabble, but 4 points in Words With Friends.

Words with Friends is often referred to as the advance version of the Scrabble.  The main differences of the two game is that Words with Friends can be played online with friends wherever they are.  It also has a feature wherein players can even chat with each other while playing the game. In this article - http://ezinearticles.com/?Tips-on-How-to-Play-Words-With-Friends&id=7125844, you would learn more about Words with Friends and how it differs from Scrabble.