How to clone a Legendary permanent? I want to clone Geist of Saint Traft without falling prey to the legend rule and without using Mirror Gallery. Are there any cards that allow you to copy a card's text without copying its name? I was unable to find any but might have failed to search the right wording.

Sakashima the Impostor copies a creature except its name; Spark Double copies a creature or planeswalker except it loses legendary.
The rule that is responsible for preventing the existence of multiple identical legendaries is the so called "legend rule". It is a state-based action:

704.5j If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”

There is also Lazav, Dimir Mastermind, but it only copies creatures that go to your opponent's graveyard, so the creature you want to copy has to go to your opponent's graveyard somehow, which requires either elaborate setup, or that your opponent also happens to play Geist.
Both creatures restrict you to one additional Geist each, because the legend rule still applies to Lazav and Sakashima, respectively.
Helm of the Host creates non-legendary token copies of the equipped creature. It costs 4 mana to cast and 5 mana to equip, but it lets you get any number of copies with only 1 reusable card invested.
If your group allows Un-sets, there is also Rules Lawyer, which makes state-based actions not apply to you and your creatures, which disables the legend rule check.
Any creature with Mutate and a second copy of the legendary creature will allow you to avoid the Legend rule.  Mutate your first legendary creature, and be sure to put the mutation on the top.  Then, case your second legendary creature.  This is a "thing" with Gemrazer and Toski, Bearer of Secrets in standard as of March 2021.

what about Sakashima of a Thousand Faces? it does two things, which is both what you want, for four mana, which at least is less than five. ignore that it has "Partner".


Winged Dragon of Ra's Attack and Defense Points On the card of the Winged Dragon of Ra, the attack and defense points are ????. I am wondering that does the Winged Dragon of Ra has infinite power, and if not, what are his defense and attack points?

Winged Dragon of Ra has a special ability. Well, it has a lot of them. But the important one is this:

  When this card is Normal Summoned: You can pay Life Points so that you only have 100 left; this card gains ATK and DEF equal to the amount of Life Points paid.

So if you're at 3,500 life, you can choose to activate this ability leaving you with 100 life. Winged Dragon of Ra would then have 3,400 ATK and DEF, representing the 3,400 life you paid.

If you choose not to pay, then he enters as a 0 0. You can still activate his kill ability, although consider that you have to tribute 3 monsters to do it, so to even that out you'd have to pay 3,000 life. He's definitely a card you build around if you're going to play him.

It's attack and defense are equal to the monsters you sacrificed added up


Does anyone else use The Little Girl in Werewolf? The group I play with uses a character called The Little Girl.  She can peek each night at everyone else and see who the werewolves are, but if the werewolves spot her she's dead.  It seems that in the right hands, this could be a hugely overpowered position.  Anyone else use it?

I have mostly played the game with this character, almost never without, so I can't really compare. That being said, from our experience as a group, and from my personal experience of having been The Little Girl myself quite often, this character actually isn't all that powerful, and certainly not "hugely overpowered". Whether I have seen the wolves or not, I still have just one vote, and I still have to defend it against others' views (with 10-15 people, our group is rather large).

Of course, I can always say "listen up, people, I am the Little Girl, so follow my advice", but a) people don't have to believe me, since b) I might actually be lying, and most importantly, c) the wolves will pay special attention to me from then on, and I'll probably get killed the very next night.

Of course, The Little Girl does become quite powerful when she's also the Village Chief, but then again, so does pretty much any character. Besides, from our experience, a Village Chief is even more likely to get killed quickly. I would say the game is pretty well-balanced, actually.

We do use the card Little Girl, but with different role.

She is "Half-wolf". She is a villager from the beginning (villager team). When she is bitten, she becomes a werewolf (werewolf team).


Is it legal to continue building a route after it has been cut off by an opponent's settlement? Say I have a 6 road segment path with only a settlement at one of the ends.
If an opponent were to intercept at halfway and place a settlement, splitting my road in half of 3 segments, can I continue developing (placing more roads, building new settlements) the half which has been cut off from the origin settlement?
Thanks in advance!

Yes.
The rules state that that you must build connected to your own buildings/roads, which you still are in the situation in question.
From the rules:

A new road must always connect to 1 of your existing roads, settlesments, or cities. Only 1 road can be build on any given path.

And

You must meet 2 conditions when building a settlement:

(1) Your settlement must always connect to 1 or more of your
own roads

(2) You must observe the Distance Rule

However, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) you can NOT build a road "beyond" an intersection settled by an opponent.


Why would one want more than 40 cards in their deck? Assemble your favorite cards into a Deck that follows these rules:

  The Deck must be 40 to 60 cards.
  You can only have up to 3 copies of the same card in your Deck,
  Extra Deck and Side Deck combined.

  Also, some cards are...

Yugioh Rulebook, Pg2 , emphasis mine.

In YGO, I (and most people) normally have 40 cards in their decks. This is because I'd have more chances of drawing the card they want on their next turn. Therefore, why would I want any more?

Decks relying on "That Grass Looks Greener" want much more than 40 cards

One deck archetype that wants to have more than 40 cards are "lawnmower" decks, named after the key card That Grass Looks Greener.

  If you have more cards in your Deck than your opponent does: Send cards from the top of your Deck to the Graveyard so you have the same number of cards in the Deck as your opponent.

So if you have a 60 card deck and you play against an opponent that has a 40 card deck, you can expect to send around 20 cards to the graveyard. If your deck relies on archetypes that benefit from having cards in your graveyard (e.g. Zombie, Lightsworn, Infernoid), then that can put you at a huge advantage.

According to this Reddit post, decks based around "That Grass Looks Greener" (and decks designed to counter it by having 60 cards) were popular from February to May 2017 to the point where a number of top-level decks were 60 cards. Konami made the card Limited in the TCG to discourage this (although it's still Unlimited in the OCG). However, a lot of people seem to view it as a fad deck that would have lost its appeal over time even without a ban.

Some decks may want more than 40 because it relies on special summoning from the deck or searching the deck for specific cards.  I play a Noble Knight deck and I put in 60 cards because it doesn't matter what the chance of getting specific cards is when I can just search for the card I want.  I also play a level deck for fun and it is hard to fit all the things needed for such a thing in 40 cards, so instead I play 60.


Are there simplified rules for Race for the Galaxy? I'd like to teach my 10-year-old son to play Race for the Galaxy. I'd also like it to be easier to teach new players. Are there any simplified/beginner rules for Race for the Galaxy?

I'm not aware of any simplified rules. I suspect it'd be pretty difficult to remove significant things without throwing the game out of whack.
But the base game does have suggested starting hands for your first game, which is easy to forget. From the setup section:

[normal rules for dealing start worlds]
Your first game: instead, for two players, use start worlds 1 and 2; for three, use start worlds 1-3; and, for four, use start worlds 1-4.
[normal rules for dealing starting hands]
Your first game: instead, each player uses the four numbered game cards
matching his start world’s number as his initial (preset) hand. After finding these preset hand cards, shuffle all the remaining game cards, including any left over start worlds and preset hand cards, together.

This is sort of like simplified rules in that your first choices are pretty obvious, and that initial setup will guide the rest of your game.
The quick summaries in the margins of the rules also provide a nice way of explaining the important things to new players without getting bogged down too much in details. Most importantly, you really don't want to explain a lot of individual cards' powers before you start playing - that can wait until you're looking at them in a game.
If you're playing with experienced gamers, that's probably enough; they can figure it out as they go along, especially with you watching out for anything they might misunderstand on cards. If you want to make it a bit friendlier, playing the first game open hands takes off a lot of the pressure and makes sure everyone gets to see how it all works. It can also be extremely helpful to run through an example turn before you start; some people don't really grok the whole selecting phases deal until they see it.

For what it's worth, by far the hardest and most time-consuming thing for new players is having to read so many cards during their first game. You have to do it all the time - not just when picking a phase, but when picking what to keep from explore, when picking what to spend to develop/settle, and so on. If you still really want to simplify the rules, that's probably the thing you want to attack. I'm not sure exactly what to suggest, but perhaps something like keeping half the cards you draw face down, so that they're purely resources to spend, not options to consider? It'd make your options more limited and slow everyone down, of course, but if it's only for the first game it might be tolerable?

I found this summary helpful:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/661014/quick-and-basic-rules-get-you-playing


What is a fair Scrabble handicap If it's with someone who is ESL with limited vocabulary and never played Scrabble before with you being a native speaker who played Scrabble lots.

I play Scrabble with kids all the time, I think the same concepts would work nicely with an ESL opponent. To me handicapping by points (opponent starts with 150 or 200 points or whatever) does nothing to make the game more fun for either player. What does work is allowing my young opponent all the time they need for each turn - I get timed. They get all of the good cheat sheets - I don't (that one is fair even even if I'm playing an adult native English speaker with less Scrabble experience). And if the gap is really big - especially if Scrabble is being used as an educational tool - allowing my opponent timed use of the dictionary or OSPD while figuring their play. For the last one, consider limiting the time the opponent gets to use the dictionary more and more as the gap narrows.

BTW, using timing the stronger player as a handicap only works if that player draws tiles at the beginning of their turn instead of the end of their last one.

Scoring will be frustrating for one player or another. If the handicap is too harsh, the native speaker will have a hard time; if the rules are too lenient, the ESL player will be frustrated... The best solution would be to play Scrabble just for fun. If you want to play competitively, Scrabble isn't the right game.


Are the Goons un-fun? At my weekly boardgames night earlier this evening I was roped into an all-expansions, 6-player game of Dominion.  A girl on the sidelines piped up: "You should take out the Goons card.  It takes all the fun out of the game."

Needless to say... one of the ten cards randomly selected was the Goons.  Those of us who hadn't played with the most recent expansions inspected the card.  Forcing everyone else to discard down to 3 did seem liable to slow the game to the crawl... but the card did cost a pricey 6.  How bad could it be?

I started with a 2-5 copper split and bought a Haven and a Trading Post.  From there I was able to whittle my deck free of Coppers and Estates until it was a pretty efficient collection of Silvers and Golds.  Even though the player who was buying up Goons was hitting me more turns than not, the three cards left in my hand tended to be worth 5-8 before too long, leaving me in a good position to keep buying Gold, Province and Duchy cards.

I ended the game with 36 points; second place.  The "Goon player" had a fairly crazy 48 points.  What annoyed me about this is that he hadn't really needed to bother scrabbling to buy Provinces with the rest of us: just playing a lot of Goons and buying stuff had allowed him to amass a stack of victory point chips that left the rest of us in the dust.

It's true that there was a pile of Secret Chambers on the table that most of us failed to buy; I could certainly have done with a few, to sculpt my hand against the Goons and dodge the Spy attacks that almost all the other players at the table seemed to be throwing around with abandon.  But it still seems to me that there may be a fair accusation to be levelled against the Goons.  For the price of a Gold, they're a much improved Silver - they can easily net you a couple of Estate's worth of free victory points every time you play them, with none of the downsides to the efficiency of your deck! And if that wasn't bad enough, they are also a really annoying attack, with, as previously mentioned, the potential to slow the whole game to half speed if they are constantly being played.

Obviously no card in Dominion is unconditionally broken: for any card, there will always be a configuration of available cards that will combat it efficiently.  But are Goons too far along the un-fun end of the spectrum?  Was the girl at my group right to propose that they should be removed from the game for its own good?

Personally, I like that goons opens up the possibility of winning without buying green cards as well as the possibility to have monstrous turns when you've stacked a few goons.

But fun is subjective, if it's not fun for a subset of the players in your group, it is simply not fun for them.

While attacks usually get meaner in Dominion games with more players, Goons isn't really one of the attacks that gets nastier in larger Dominion games.  Since being hit by 10 goons is no worse than being hit by 1, the number of players doesn't matter so much.  Contrast this with a card like witch, where the damage done scales in proportion to how many are played.

Messing with all 5 opponents isn't necessarily better than messing with a single opponent.  You still have to beat all of your opponents.  Imagine you could either get 5 points, or cost every opponent in the game 3 points.  In a 6 player game, you could theoretically cost each opponent 3 points, for a total of 3 * 5 = 15 points, but you'd still only have a relative advantage on each opponent of 3 points.  If instead you took the five point gain, you would have gained 5 points on each of your opponents.  Even though the "net damage" increases with the number of players, the "relative advantage per player" is really the important metric, which is often number of players invariant in Dominion.

Goons make for a very un-fun game, and here's why:

Goons are more than an "upgraded militia." Other attack cards are mainly attack cards, and the person buying the card understand that they mostly deter other players, but do not benefit the person as much as they could.
Goons would be a great card to have in your deck even if they didn't attack the other players. It gives you +1 buy and one free victory coin for each buy, so just buy coppers. Pairing it with a Worker's Village gives three buys, which is 3 easy points that don't clog up your deck. Other cards in Prosperity make trashing those coppers easy.

I played with three other people including my grandmother, who doesn't even fully know how to play the game. She played a worker's village and then a Kings' Court with a Goons on it, then one more Goons. This gave her 6 buys total, +8 treasures (and whatever else she had in hand), and FOUR VICTORY COINS for every card she bought. Bam. Bought one Province, 5 coppers, gained THIRTY POINTS, 24 of which were coins that did not clog up her deck. IN ONE TURN. Plus, no one could get enough more than 6 treasures in hand thanks to the discard rule of the Goons, so the game slowed to a crawl as well.
Yes, this hand was very lucky, BUT it's a broken strategy. Getting just Worker's Villages and Goons would work well enough to net you all the coins that come with the game and stop the other players from getting any footing.

I would not say Goons is broken, but I will say that it is an attack card that has too much incentive for players to get the card, so it comes into play a lot, and inevitably slows down the game just the same as if everyone bought nothing but Militias.


Will Endless One still enter with X +1/+1 counters while Humility's in play? Humility says "all creatures lose all abilities and have base power and toughness 1/1" and Endless One comes into play with X +1/+1 counters.

According to a comment in How to understand Humility once and for all, triggered abilities don't get triggered with Humility, but I'm thinking Endless One's ETB "ability" doesn't count because it's not a triggered ability? Because it doesn't say "when it enters the battlefield X +1/+1 counters are placed on it"?

As of the Ixalan rules update, Endless One will not enter the battlefield with counters if Humility is on the battlefield. As other answers have mentioned, Endless One's ability is a replacement effect that modifies how it enters the battlefield. The new version of rule 614.12 says:

  Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities that would apply to it once it’s on the battlefield, and continuous effects that already exist and would apply to the permanent.

Applying this kind of replacement effect involves checking continuous effects that already exist. Humility's ability is one such continuous effect, and applying it removes the ability that would add the counters.

The Ixalan Comprehensive Rules Update goes into some detail about how this rule changed, and it specifically mentions a similar situation:

  Humility causes creatures with modular to enter without their +1/+1 counters.

For reference, the definition of Modular is

  Modular represents both a static ability and a triggered ability. “Modular N” means “This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it” and “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you may put a +1/+1 counter on target artifact creature for each +1/+1 counter on this permanent.”

The part of the Modular ability that affects how the permanent enters the battlefield has basically the same wording as Endless One's ability, so Endless One's ability is affected the same way by the rules change.

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.

  611.3c Continuous effects that modify characteristics of permanents do so simultaneously with the permanent entering the battlefield. They don’t wait until the permanent is on the battlefield and then change it. Because such effects apply as the permanent enters the battlefield, they are applied before determining whether the permanent will cause an ability to trigger when it enters the battlefield.

  Example: A permanent with the static ability “All white creatures get +1/+1” is on the battlefield. A creature spell that would normally create a 1/1 white creature instead creates a 2/2 white creature. The creature doesn’t enter the battlefield as 1/1 and then change to 2/2.

Humility changes "the rules of the game". It affects all creatures no matter where they are (In play, in your hand, graveyard). If Humility is in play, a creature in your hand has no abilities and is a 1/1.

So, if Humility is in play, Endless One (and Hangarback Walker for that matter) has no abilities. You can pay {0} and have a 1/1 creature. If Endless One is already in play when Humility hits the battlefield, Endless One keeps its +1/+1 counters and its base P/T becomes 1/1 instead of 0/0.


Are there any simulators for Monopoly that meet my specifications below? There are simulators for "deterministic" games like chess and Go that will estimate each player's win probabilities (probably using Monte Carlo simulation), and also combat resolution simulators for wargames such as Axis and Allies. I was wondering if there are simulators that will estimate your "win chances" in Monopoly, based on the positions that occur after a given trade.
Example: I won a game after giving an opponent the green monopoly in exchange for the maroons. I won the game because I had $1200 cash (and quickly built three houses on each) while my opponent had only $200 cash. (Consider the remaining properties to be "evenly" distributed, including two railroads and one utility for each person.) I would guess that the outcome might very well have been different if my opponent had the $1200, and I the $200.
This isn't a simulator, but it is a calculator that calculates the theoretical value of properties given various "states" of building development. The main thing that is missing is the role of players' cash positions in win chances, because more cash means that you can develop faster than your opponents.
Is there a simulator that can estimate my win chances given starting monopolies and starting cash, (and assuming that the other properties were evenly divided)?

Using the calculator linked in the question, you can do your own rough simulators. The calculator already calculates the theoretical value of each roll in your making money from each configuration. The condition that "other properties are evenly divided" equates to "outside of the properties in question, the net gain or loss between the players equals zero.
The thing that is missing from the calculator is the cash levels. To make matters simple, you could invest $900 of cash in three houses each on the maroons (which is what I did), as still have $300 left for emergencies. Your opponent probably needed to retain all of his $200 cash for "emergencies." He could not buy as much as one house each for his greens (unless he mortgaged some properties, and he didn't do that in the actual game).
Let's examine the states, $300 for you, three houses on each of the maroons; $200 for him, no houses. According to the calculator, each of his rolls is worth $35 to you. It takes about 5.85 rolls (averaging seven on a 40 square board) each time around, which is about $205 dollars. That is (slightly) greater than his $200 salary, which means he is on the verge of defeat. Add more houses or build hotels, and he should be sunk.
With the money reversed, the story is different. You opponent could build two houses on each of the greens, deplete his cash, and rely on mortgaging property for his turn to turn needs. You could build one house each on the maroons only by mortgaging for $100 above your cash. Each of your rolls is worth $32 each to him (average expectation for the two houses on each of the greens) and each of his rolls is worth $4 to you (one house on each of the maroons). With a net difference of $28, each time around the board, you are on the verge of defeat, and will be sunk when he adds third houses to each green.


What if I forget to pay rent? Is the rule of not paying rent if you aren't asked for it, in the rules of Monopoly? Or is this something that people have made up? When is this ok?

According to the official rules, property owners must ask for the rent before the player after the next player rolls the dice or they forfeit the rent.

  The owner may not collect the rent if they fail to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice.

So if the players are labelled A to D, and A should pay rent:

A ... B .x. C ... D

The lessor should request rent before C throws the dice, at the position marked X.

By the official rules you must pay rent due


In Eldritch Horror, when a mythos card refers to a monster's toughness, does it mean its current or max toughness? The Blood Flows mythos card says under its event:

  The Lead Investigator discards 1 Monster of his choice and loses Health equal to its toughness

Do I use the monster's current or max health?

Toughness is the max health. That's the damage you should take.
To clarify,  a monster taking damage does not effect its toughness. Once a monster takes damage equal to Toughness,  it dies

The 'current toughness' and 'max toughness' are the same thing.

The damage done doesn't reduce the monster toughness.


Do reserved cards get returned when gold token is spent? I am playing with my son and he reserves a card I wanted and gets a gold token. On his next turn he buys another card and uses the Gold token in his purchase.

What happens to the reserved card?  He now has no gold token, a card I want in reserve.

Does the reserved card get brought back in to the game?

From the rules here

  The reserved cards are kept in hand and cannot be discarded.
  Players may not have more than three reserved cards in hand,
  and the only way to get rid of a card is to buy it (see below).

and

  To purchase a card, a player must spend the number of
  tokens indicated on the card. A joker token can replace any
  color. The spent tokens (including any jokers) are returned to
  the middle of the table.
  A player may purchase one of the face-up development
  cards in the middle of the table or a card in his hand that was
  reserved on a previous turn.

It's entirely legitimate to reserve a card another player might want as long as they don't exceed the 3 card hand limit.

The rules do NOT say they gold token has to be used to purchase the reserved card.  The rules make it clear a reserved card can not be discarded.  The rules state nothing rules about it returning to the stacks at any point.

The golden token is used to do two things. You use it to reserve a card (it might be one you or another player is saving up to get) and once you reserved a card in a future go you can use the token as any coloured token to buy a card.

The reserved card stays reserved until it is bought by the player.


I have a 2 complete set red and yellow and 1 red/yellow wild property I have a red and yellow complete set my 3rd move is rent them my opponent give a red/yellow wild property card. Now in this scenario what to do..? I have to leave it as it is or I have to create it as second set of red...?

You are free to reconfigure your card sets any way you like on your turn.
Rules:

You can only reorganize your property collection on your turn.

You start a new set (since both of your red and yellow sets are already full), but you can start that with either the new red/yellow wild or one of the red or yellow cards from your existing sets (and put the wild card into that set to replace it).


Is bribing off the robber a good addition to Settlers of Catan? When I play Settlers of Catan with my family we sometimes allow bribing of the person placing the robber to not place it in a particular spot.  Does anyone else play this way and if so do you find this a net benefit to the game?

Clarification: This is a house rule and we realize it is not part of the normal rules.  The question is more to determine whether anyone else plays this way or not.

I have played this and it absolutely degrades the fun factor of the game.

You end up getting everyone paying off to not get robbed.  The person who will pay the least gets the robber.  We had the person rolling the seven getting huge amounts of resources.

It really disrupted the flow of the game.

NOTE: we did not change the rules to allow this.  It was done as an agreement that was payed at a legal trading time.  One fun aspect is that, because it was not part of the rules, you could renege on your "payoff" commitment.  (Though this meant you were a sure target the next time around.)

While there was some fun elements (and gave us a few really fun games), I would absolutely not recommend it for more that variation in a game or two.

A "trade" according to the official rules of Catan, is strictly a resource for a resource. A trade of X resource for X influence is against the rules plain and simple. Not sure why this concept is difficult understand for some people. If house rules dictate otherwise, then its whatever.


Does the starting world dictate your strategy in Race for the Galaxy? Our board games club recently purchased Race for the Galaxy and we've played around a dozen games so far, plus some research using Keldon's AI (which is excellent).

In the base set with one world, when you draw a starting planet that confers a specific bonus, eg +2 Military does that force you down the Military path? As for a Produce/Consume strategy you are behind a player who drew a Mining world for example.

The short answer is that the start world is able to give you a jumpstart toward one or more specific strategies (the military world is probably the best example), but you can still play a very successful strategy that does not revolve around (get it?) that world.

I often make the decision about whether to commit to the start world pretty early on. A very common strategy, I'm sure you've noticed, is to play Explore on the first round. Between my starting four cards and my first explore draw, I will try to find a strategy that will get me ~50% of the way through my tableau (not necessarily from the cards in hand, but from the powers and phase plays I expect to focus on). If there's one that the start world helps, that's usually weighted pretty heavily.

If a strategy coalesces in my hand that the start world does little to help, I'll usually still go for it.

There are many degrees of "shift" in Race as well...

Using your New Sparta example, starting off with a military world of 2 or less defense can jump start your card flow.  That could be it, but now you can build non-military worlds for more cards and devs for other powers

Or, you get more military worlds of 2 or less defense.  Build some of those too!

You get further military strength, which lets you build even higher defense worlds.

At various points in the game, you may decide to get off the "military bandwagon", or may even find yourself jumping back on!


Mahjong Betting Rules Have been playing Mahjong for over 45 years and played today with a lady who filled in and we had a discussion regarding payout for betting.
For purposes of this question:
Playing with 4 players at the table and the 5th as the better.
Player A calls Mahjong with a self drawn tile.

The hand was a 25 cent hand which would then be doubled to 50 cents since it was a self drawn tile for Mahjong.
Since it was also bet on the bettor would also get 50 cents for the winning hand.
SO each player would pay both the winning player and the bettor each 50 cents. Total for each of the two players would be $1.50 each. Am I correct???

The lady who filled in was insistent about the following.
She said since the player who called Mahjong was also bet on by her then the total that each player needed to pay both the winning player and she, the bettor, was to be double the 50 cents to equal $1.00 total to each of the two players.
This would then make the player with the winning hand paid a total of $3.00 and the bettor also be paid $3.00.
So instead of each of the other 3 players paying out $1.50 to each for a total of $3.00, she insisted it was to be doubled since it was also bet on to a $1.00 payout for each the winning player and also the bettor for a total payout for the 2 players to $6.00.
She insisted that this was National Mahjong Rules.
As I stated have been playing a very long time and have never had any player state this.
Thanks much for your responses.

The official mahjong rules do not allow for "cross" bets by players on each other, or by outside parties on or against players.

Now this lady may have been playing by "house" rules in "her" games. But those rules do not apply to your table unless you all agree to them.

I used to play this type of man Jongg.  In TX, the only time the bet was doubled was if the winner was East wind.  Could have been a table rule.


How does the wording "for each" work? Some cards in magic has something happen for each {something}. For instance: Alive // Well makes you gain 2 life for each creature you control. Tapping Selvala adds one green mana to your mana pool, and you gain 1 life for each non-land card revealed.

How is this life gained: all at once or "one bit" at a time? Say I tap Selvala and 1 land, and 2 non-lands are revealed: do I gain 2 life, or do I gain 1 life two times? Would Ajani's Pridemate have one or two +1/+1 counters placed on it if I had it in play at that point?

How is this life gained: all at once or "one bit" at a time?

Count the verbs. There is only one instruction to gain life, so all the life is gained simultaneously.

  608.2e Some spells and abilities have multiple steps or actions, denoted by separate sentences or clauses, that involve multiple players. In these cases, the choices for the first action are made in APNAP order, and then the first action is processed simultaneously. Then the choices for the second action are made in APNAP order, and then that action is processed simultaneously, and so on. See rule 101.4.

Life Burst has two instructions to gain life (two verbs), so there would be two life gain events.

  Would Ajani's Pridemate have one or two +1/+1 counters placed on it if I had it in play at that point?

Since all life is gained simultaneously and it all came from the same source, there is only one life gain event, so it would only trigger once.

Note that if you simultaneously gained life from multiple sources, that would count as multiple life gains events, and the ability would trigger multiple times.

  118.9. Some triggered abilities are written, "Whenever [a player] gains life, . . . ." Such abilities are treated as though they are written, "Whenever a source causes [a player] to gain life, . . . ." If a player gains 0 life, no life gain event has occurred, and these abilities won’t trigger.

That applies very narrowly to life gain. It doesn't apply to taking damage. For example, if Boros Reckoner is simultaneously dealt damage from two sources, its ability will only trigger once. It would need the wording of Nested Ghoul's ability to be triggered twice.

Just to clarify a little, even though I am not going to quote any rules, in this case simple logic will help.

If you have for example Ajani's Pridemate in play and you cast Well part of the Alive // Well card this is what happens.

Well on the stack resolves, the spell counts your creatures during its resolving process and gain you lives during one single event, there are not keyworded two or more instances to be resolved seerately. Ajani's Pridemate's abbility triggers and it gets 1 +1/+1 counter.


What version of rummy is this? I was taught this as a young child by my grandmother. It's how my family plays what we call rummy, but I cannot find anything like it online:

Two plus players (we've played up to 4), all dealt 7 cards. Deck is placed face down and one card turned up, player to the right goes first. They can either pick up the face up card or the top card from the deck, then discard a single card. Next player can either pick up the top card from the discard pile, or the entire discard pile, or a single card from the deck, then discard a single card. Play continues like this.

Players can put down runs of 3 or more and melds of 3 or more at any time during their turn. Following this, a player that has put down a run or a meld of their own can on their turn add to other players runs and melds (keeping them with their own cards, so say player one had 7, 8, 9 and 10 of hearts down... player two as long as they've also go their own run/meld placed down can put down just a jack of hearts, player one could then place down just a queen of hearts, etc.)... you can choose to put down your runs and melds immediately upon getting them or you can hold them and half the deck in your hand (if you keep picking up the discard pile) until you can go out, by having no cards left in your hand. It's up to you. You don't need to give any warnings before going out, and going out does not require discarding a card.

It seems to exactly fit the rules of the French game Rami, which must be one of the variations of the Rummy, i guess. I did not even know there were different kind of Rummy.

I think it's Rummy 500 or 500 Rummy.  Did you look for this variation in the Official Hoyal Card Game Rule book?


If a spell is countered, do on cast effects still get triggered? If I cast a spell that has an "on cast" effect, does the effect still trigger even if the spell is countered? For example, if I play Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger and it gets countered by a counter spell, do I still get to exile 2 target permanents?

Yes. A player doesn't have a chance to cast a counterspell until after you have finished "casting" your spell, and any "when cast" triggers are triggered and put on the stack. At that point, a player could counter your spell, but the triggered ability is still there as a completely separate thing.

  601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

  112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.

A small point of clarification: If your opponent counters your Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger with Summary Dismissal it will counter both the spell and the "when you cast" triggered ability. Similarly, your opponent could use a couple spells to counter your spell (e.g., with a Ceremonious Rejection) and the triggered ability (e.g., with a Stifle or Disallow).


Beefy assault marines I'm going for a very expensive but hopefully good assault marine setup, but I require advice. The setup is 5 marines total in the squad with one wielding an evicerator, two wielding flamers and the sergeant wielding a power fist, a lightning claw, melta bombs and being a veteran. The cost of this squad comes out to 175 points. My questions are as follows:

Is this a gross over use of points for an ultimately useless squad and what would be improved in it?
As far as I am aware, the box doesn't contain a lightning claw. What would be the best method for getting a single lightning claw to match with the power fist in the box?

I have found that the more upgrades on assault marines makes people want to kill them quickly, but the beauty of assault marines is when they are vanilla with meltas (bolt pistol, chainsword) with more bodies, people ignore them because of bigger more terrifying units on the board, like terminators or HQ squads. But they make enemies fold really quickly with weight of dice regardless of the unit (i.e. terminator 2+ save is nice but try making it against 31 times at once).
GW sells a sternguard weapons upgrade kit that comes with combi weapons, powerclaws, flamers etc. that way you get a few spare weapons as well for upgrades on other units if you want.

Death Company Squad:
+5 models
+4 power fists
+4 power swords
+2 Thunder Hammers
+10 Hand Flamers
+10 Jump packs

For 550 points, you will have a nice, beautiful unit able to crush anyone in CQC. That being said, they are a bullet magnet. A Death Company Marines has +1 Attack base, along with: Fearless, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge, Rage and Relentless. So yeah. Brutal.

Or you could take a Death Company Dreadnought.
Or a Terminator Assault Squad (Blood Angels) and deck them out with Storm Shields and Thunder Hammers. Take BA ones because they get Furious Charge by virtue of being a Blood Angel.


Does Classic Egyptian Rat Screw have Marriages? I've played Egyptian Rat Screw for years, and I've encountered one major discrepancy in the way others play compared to how I do. The combinations that were grounds to slap that I learned were -

Double: Two of the same card in a row.
Sandwich: Two of the same cards with a different card in between. Ex.2,3,2.
Joker: Any joker on the field.
Straight: Four cards in order ascending or descending, excluding face cards or aces.
Marriage: King and a queen next to each other.

Everyone I've played with who knew this game prior to me showing them played without the marriage. I've wondered for some time whether it was a valid part of the game. Does anyone know definitively? Thanks!

In the revised 2001 edition of Hoyle's Rules of Games by  Albert Morehead, Geoffrey Mott-Smith, Philip D. Morehead there is no mention of marriages and also some discrepancies with the "standard rules" you and every player I've encountered myself know today. However the latest (at time of writing) version of the Wikipedia page for the game does mention it. When one examines the edit history however, the initially created page has no mention of marriages. After viewing the edit history I found what I believe to be the first mention of marriages on the page on the version published at 22:45, 19 October 2010 under the heading of "Rule Variations". The page has been massively reformatted and altered many times since and the mention of marriages has come and gone throughout these many edits. Since I cannot access the other referenced source on the current page, Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society, Volume 1. by Rodney P. Carlisle, I cannot conclude whether or not it makes any mention of the marriage rules especially since the Wikipedia page's rules section does not specify from which references they are drawn.

While this is purely speculation given that I cannot find a conclusive source, my best guess would be that these rules are either a regional or group-specific variant. This isn't uncommon for playing card games since there are even games based off of this phenomenon such as Mao. Since it does seem to be an ongoing debate whether to include it on the Wikipedia page or not, I think it's safe to assume that it is at least a pretty well known variant of the game.

Note: Both Wikipedia links are to specific timestamped versions of the pages, this is done in case future versions (yet again) drop the mention of marriages.

I learned this game in the late 1990's (Virginia). We had rules for the following combinations:

Doubles (obviously)
Sandwiches
Marriages (K+Q)
Gay Marriages (K+J) (This is what we called it back then)

We typically did not play with all of these at the same time, but we had rules for allowing them. For most games, I remember, we tended to agree on doubles only, and occasionally sandwiches. The other combinations were much more rare to see in an actual game (but everyone still agreed on how they worked).

The rules for sandwiches did allow sandwiches involving face cards, and those tended to inject the most excitement into the game. For example, you could slap a 3-K-3 while everyone else was instinctually waiting for the next two cards to be placed.


Magic: the Gathering, EDH/Commander - Official Rules List? Where are the official rules for playing EDH/Commander, including the banlist? An EDH-specific rules question recently arose in my play group, and I couldn't find a definitive answer (the question has since been answered).

There's this question that specifically refers to the banlist, but how do I find the official rules list? Specifically, this is for regular Commander, not 1v1/duel Commander.

The rules for Commander can be found in the Comprehensive Rulebook section 903. The comprehensive rules are officially published by Wizards here. The banlist for Commander can be found in a section of the official Banned and Restricted list. Rule 903.1 indicates that MTGCommander.net is also an official source for information about Commander, and both the banlist and a summary of the rules can be found there.

Elder Dragon Highlander is a Magic: The Gathering variant which provides a way of encouraging casual, interactive games with a low barrier to entry while still requiring good deck building skills. It can be played 1-on-1 but is usually multiplayer.

This page details the official rules common to most groups. Local groups often play with house rules, but this consensus version exists so that players know what to expect if they join an edh game outside their local play area. In particular, after-hours EDH games at Pro Tours and Grand Prix use these rules.

Deck Construction Rules

Players must choose a legendary creature as the "General" for their deck.
Players may choose any legendary creature as their general. Two players in the same game may choose the same General, and other players may include that card in their Deck even if it's not their General. Generals are subject to the Legend rule just like any other legendary creature; multiple copies of the same creature (whether General and non-General) will all be put into the graveyard (or command zone) as a state based effect.
The General is the principle around which an EDH deck is built. It is more easily available than other cards in the deck, and EDH decks will ususally want to leverage their General's strengths in their plans. It is not, however, guarenteed to be available at every point in the game so EDH decks should be able to function without it for a time.
The General's mana cost defines what colour of mana symbols may appear on cards in the deck.
Coloured mana symbols which may appear in an EDH deck are restricted to the colours appearing in the General's mana cost. Lands whose type includes swamp, island, plains, forest and/or mountain (e.g.: basic lands, shocklands, dual lands, Shadowmoor special-basics, etc) DO contain the corresponding mana symbol(s) as per CR 305.6. As such, they may not appear in a deck unless the General is of the corresponding colour(s).
While Hybrid mana symbols may be played with either colour mana, they count as both colours. As such, they may only be played with a general which is ALL of the hybrid mana symbols' colours.
Basic land words (swamp, forest, etc) in the text box of a card do NOT represent a coloured mana symbol. They are not restricted to generals of the same colour.
A deck may not generate mana outside its colours. If an effect would generate mana of an illegal colour, it generates colourless mana instead.
An EDH deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including the General.
With the exception of basic lands, no two cards in the deck may have the same english name.
EDH is played with vintage legal cards, with two exceptions:
cards are legal as of their set's prerelease
Shahrazad is legal for play in EDH

Play Rules
The start of game procedure for EDH is as follows:
Players announce their choice of General and move that card to the command zone.
Players may then sideboard if the optional rule for sideboards are being used.
Each player draws a hand of seven cards.
Players may mulligan, using the modified "partial paris" method (detailed below)
Being a General is not a characteristic[MTG CR109.3], it is a property of the card. As such, "Generalness" cannot be copied or overwritten by continuous effects, and does not change with control of the card.
If a player has been dealt 21 points of combat damage by a particular General during the game, that player loses a game
While a General is in the command zone, it may be cast. As an additional cost to cast a General from the command zone, its owner must pay  2 mana for each time it was previously cast from the command zone.
If a General would be put into a graveyard or exile from anywhere, its owner may choose to move it to the command zone instead.
Players begin the game with 40 life.
Generals are subject to the Legend rule; they will be put into the graveyard or command zone at the same time as any other Legendary creatures with the same name.
The official rules are complied here http://www.dragonhighlander.net/rules.php
Partial Paris Mulligan rule

Because EDH games are long and usually not played in multigame matches, EDH uses a modified mulligan rule designed to aleviate mana-light hands without significantly increasing the odds of finding individual cards. This is also known as the "Brittany" mulligan rule.
In turn order, players may
exile (face down) some or all of the cards in their hand.
Each player then draws one less card from their deck than the number they exiled.
Players who exiled at least one card may return to step 1 and repeat the process, drawing one less card each time.
Players shuffle all exiled cards into their deck.

Banned List
The banned list can be found here http://edh.truespace.ca/EDH_Forum/viewtopic.php?t=261

Got this from from https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/196120-edh-rules-and-faq


What got Yata Garasu banned? The rules for Yata Garasu are as follows:

  Cannot be special summoned. This card returns to the owner's hand at the end of the turn in which it was normal or flip summoned. When this card does damage to your opponent's life points, they skip their next draw phase.

I would agree that Yata Garasu's ability to stop you from drawing is OP. But however there are a couple things that make me question it.
1. It cannot be special summoned.
2. It only has 200 ATK. It's so weak even a puny Kuriboh is strong enough to destroy it.

So with these being the case, what got this card banned?

(Caveat: I am not at all an experienced YGO player.)

Don't think of it as a single card. Think of what the card does as part of an entire deck with a clear gameplan.

A bit of research shows that the original 2004 banning was because of a combo that would strip both players' hand and field, then break symmetry by allowing you to search up Yata-Garasu. At which point you've got a hard lock they can't break out of, since you're denying them the draw every turn.

Okay, whatever, that's just one deck, right?

But, more generally, what happens when you play Yata-Garasu? It means your opponent needs an answer for it right now or they will never be able to answer it (since it'll just keep eating their draw phase). The card's tiny stats just put some conditions on the lock, but "kill your opponent's stuff" isn't exactly a big deviation from what a good deck wants to do anyway.

It's not a card that will steal the game single-handedly, but it's very, very good at closing the door on an opponent's chance for a comeback. That makes it a ban-list contender, especially as part of a dominant deck. A secondary concern that may have also influenced the decision is the "feel-bad factor:" the rational response to a hard lock is to scoop rather than play out being pecked to death, but it feels much more like surrender than losing the game normally does.

I played this way back when this card was first released. This tech card was pretty much a staple in standard decks. Think of it this way you have 2-3 cards in your hand. Your opponent as well but has Yata. If at some point your opponent is able to clear your board of monsters which was easy using traps like hole or even just attacking into your monster he can then summon yata hit you and you can't draw. Since the card goes back to your opponent's hands you can't kill yata either. Now you have 1-2 cards left in your hand you play it and if they are able to kill that hit with yata again you can't draw eventually you will run out of cards in your hand. Then a chain effect happens where he just pecks you for 200 dmg every turn and you can't do anything about it since you can't draw. Typically this was a game winner and if drawn with some simple board clears they will forefit as soon as they see the card on the board. For another interesting combo decks that were banned as soon as people played it in tournaments check out catapult turtle + magical scientist.


Close to winning means no go for you? A long while back I was playing crib with a friend, and his crib board (I might be imagining things here, but I'm fairly certain) was shaded in the 118, 119, and 120 point area.  This three-point zone before the "I won!" hole was a special area within which you were no longer allowed to peg a "go" point.  You could peg a go into the zone, but once you were there you needed to get your winning points from some (any!) other source.

I didn't see mention of this 'no-go zone' in the rules, so is this just a common variant? Or did I managed to get my leg pulled by someone who had penciled a shaded area onto their board?

Short answer: There is no such rule in cribbage and your friend owes you a drink (and 120 pts in your next game)

Even among variants of the game, I've never heard of this rule.  The closest I could come is a variation where in order to win you must peg out exactly.  But even then, Go's are allowed (and encouraged as it's amazingly difficult to get a 1 otherwise).

Sorry you got hoodwinked, but kudos to your friend for his attempt.

Not the official rules bit can be a house rule if agreed upon before the game starts. The house rule may include while in the sinkhole you cannot win by a "go " or by cutting the Jack  anything else like 15 for 2 or 31 for 2 or runs can win the game while in the sinkhole.


Are a group of abilities added to the stack all on the stack, or each resolves before the next one goes on the stack? MTR 4.2 states:

  Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, he or she is assumed to be passing priority unless he or she explicitly announces that he or she intends to retain it. If he or she adds a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.

So, for a more recent example, if a player has Electrostatic Pummeler and 15 energy, and the opponent has Grasp of Darkness, can the opponent let the 5 activations of Pummeler go on the stack, then kill the Pummeler under it? Or do the activations trigger and resolve independently and the opponent has to say "wait, only 2 activations have succeeded, one's on the stack and I want to play Grasp"?

The accepted application of MTR 4.2 is that "I pump Pummeler 5 times" is a proposed shortcut to activate the ability and let it resolve 5 individual times.  So you would not be able to eliminate the creature with grasp of darkness (assuming the other player wants to pay more energy to keep it alive.)  Yes this is different from playing the game by a strict reading of the comprehensive rules without applying the MTR.

The reality is that 5 individual activations is the 'correct' line of play in almost every scenario that would come up in real games.  It's pedantic to make people sit there and say.

"I activate my pummeler once, do you respond?"

"I activate my pummeler once, do you respond?"

"I activate my pummeler once, do you respond?"

"I activate my pummeler once, do you respond?"

"I activate my pummeler once, do you respond?"

In order to perform the obvious line of play people intend in >99% of scenarios.  Around 2005 or so DCI started shifting judging policy away from meticulous enforcement of every comma and toward facilitating people playing the game naturally.  In the early days of tournament magic you were in fact expected to say it 5 times.

I didn't find a canonical reference for this from a wizards netrep, but here is confirmation from two high quality sources known to be written by people who are actually judges:

http://www.cranialinsertion.com/article/818

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rulestips/2013/04/shortcuts-adding-multiple-objects-to-the-stack/

It depends entirely on how the player with Electrostatic Pummeler declares that they are activating the ability. If they say "I activate Electrostatic Pummeler" and then stop, they are passing priority with one copy of the ability on the stack. If they do this repeatedly, then at any point, the opponent only ever has the chance to respond to one ability. On the other hand, if they say "I put 5 copies of Electrostatic Pummeler's ability on the stack" or "I activate Electrostatic Pummeler and hold priority (and repeat 5 times)", then all 5 abilities are on the stack, and the opponent can respond to any number of them.


If I buy more than one property when playing monopoly must my cards be where all players must see them? Must all property cards be where any player can see which one's I have?

Yes, the title deed cards must be visible. From the rules:

  BUYING PROPERTY… Whenever you land on an unowned property
  you may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. You
  receive the Title Deed card showing ownership; place it face up in
  front of you.

The official rules to Monopoly do not give any instructions on honesty, or on what information is open and which is hidden. Ownership of property is trackable (i.e. if you have a good memory you should know who owns which properties), so in that sense there is not much point to keeping it hidden other than being sneaky.

In fact, the closest the rules get to telling you about honesty is the fact that if you land on a property owned by another player, that player must remember to ask you for rent or they don't get it.


Can an Adaptive Automaton trigger Champion of the Parish's ability? If I have a Champion of the Parish in play and play an Adaptive Automaton, choosing human, does the Champion's ability activate?

I believe it does since

the declaration of human occurs "as the AA enters the battlefield", not "once the ..."
the declaration takes place immediately and is not stack based (per gatherer ruling)
Champion's affect reads "whenever a Human enters the battlefield"

Thus the AA is a human when it enters the battlefield.

Can anyone clarify this more conclusively?

Adaptive Automaton will enter the battlefield already possessing the chosen creature type, which will trigger Champion of the Parish.

Automaton's first ability is a "replacement effect". Relevant rules are under the heading "Replacement Effects". Relevant excerpts:

  614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615),
     replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such
     effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event
     with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.

  [...]

  614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent]
     enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” are replacement
     effects.

  [...]

  614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn
     trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in
     which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

For more information about how this interacts with Champion of the Parish, let's look at "Handling Triggered Abilities" -- specifically:

  603.6. Trigger events that involve objects changing zones are called “zone-change triggers.” Many
     abilities with zone-change triggers attempt to do something to that object after it changes zones. During resolution, these abilities look for the object in the zone that it moved to. [...]

  [...]

  603.6b Continuous effects that modify characteristics of a permanent do so the moment the
     permanent is on the battlefield (and not before then). The permanent is never on the battlefield
     with its unmodified characteristics. Continuous effects don’t apply before the permanent is on
     the battlefield, however (see rule 603.6e).

  Example: If an effect reads “All lands are creatures” and a land card is played, the
  effect makes the land card into a creature the moment it enters the battlefield, so it
  would trigger abilities that trigger when a creature enters the battlefield. Conversely, if
  an effect reads “All creatures lose all abilities” and a creature card with an enters-the-
  battlefield triggered ability enters the battlefield, that effect will cause it to lose its
  abilities the moment it enters the battlefield, so the enters-the-battlefield ability won’t
  trigger.

So, in essence, "As Adaptive Automaton enters the battlefield, choose a creature type"  replaces the normal "~ enters the battlefield" action that you perform when summoning a creature with a subtly different action: "~ enters the battlefield and its controller chooses a creature type".

"Adaptive Automaton is the chosen type in addition to its other types" is a static ability just like shroud or flying, so your Automaton is an "Artifact Creature - Human Construct" (or "Construct Human", I suppose, the rules aren't picky) when it enters the battlefield, and this is the type that all triggered abilities (like Champion's) will see.

If you'd like to see an official example of Adaptive Automaton interacting with a Human-enters-the-battlefield ability, look at the Rulings section for Dearly Departed.

The Champion's ability does not activate.

The Automaton's first ability creates a replacement effect that defines what creature type is being referred to by his other two abilities, which are both static effects.  According to the comprehensive rules:

  604.2. Static abilities create continuous effects, some of which are prevention effects or replacement effects. These effects are active as
  long as the permanent with the ability remains on the battlefield and
  has the ability, or as long as the object with the ability remains in
  the appropriate zone, as described in rule 112.6.

This means that in order for the Automaton's static abilities to be in effect, it must be a permanent on the battlefield.  As it's entering the battlefield, it's not yet a permanent, so it's not yet a human, so the Champion won't trigger.

EDIT:

Further discussion has revealed that I am incorrect.  Please refer to AlexP's answer and the comments on this answer for more info.


Card game similar to jokers and pegs I recently read about a popular game that, similar to Jokers and Pegs, used cards to determine play. As I recall, it required multiple decks of cards - two more decks than the number of players, but I don't think it required a board of any kind. Supposedly easy to learn, suitable for adults or children, and about equal parts chance and skill. But for the life of me, I cannot recall the name. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Head and foot is a game that uses multiple deck and has no required accessories or board.


In Warhammer 40k is it possible to have your army use vehicles from other factions? Is there anything in the rules that say you can have your army use vehicles from another faction?

I use Harlequins and I always thought about trying something new and using some Eldar vehicles like a War Walker or a Wraithknight. I figured it would work since Harlequins and Eldars are the same race. Or with human races like a Militarum Tempestus army using a Space Marine Land Raider or two.

Is this possible?

Yes and no

In the current edition, all armies (except unbound armies) are made up of formations.  For example, you might take the Combined Arms Detachment from the basic rules, or any other formation from your codex.  Which army you are using is basically determined by which faction your warlord is from.  You can take formations from other armies and books, however, as long as you follow the rules for allies, located in the rule book.  (I don't have my book with me to get a page reference).

So, you could take a Harlequin Combined Arms Detachment and also take an Eldar Warhost, which would give you the ability to take a lot of Eldar stuff, as long as you fulfill the requirements of the formation.  I'm sure there are other Eldar formations that would have less stringent requirements, as well.

Additionally, you could take an unbound army, which has no force org requirements, but also grants none of the special rules associated with formations (no objective secured or warlord trait reroll, for example).  In that case, you can take exactly whatever models you want.  You would still have to follow the rules for allies, though, which can make movement or deployment difficult if you pick armies that do not like each other.

If the armies are Battle Brothers you can share transports, for example have Howling Banshees in a Dark Eldar Raider. Or put Harlequins in a Wave Serpent.

If you want Formation benefits (like Objective Secured) you'll need to field 0-1 CADS, plus any number of Allied Detachments or Formations. Many tournaments will require you to field at least one CAD. If it's a friendly game you can field whatever you want, though of course you won't get any benefits, and only Battle Brothers can share transports. If you go that route, do check the allies rules, as you may need to setup different faction units (and will probably want to keep) a certain distance away from each other.


Catan - Rules Lawyering the behavior of the "Commercial Harbor" Progress Card Before explaining what happened, here's the literal text of the "Commercial Harbor" card, as a reference:
Card Text:

You may offer each Opponent a resource card from your hand. In exchange, each player must give you a commodity card of his choice. If he has none, your resource card is returned.

Additional Text in the rulebook:

You may force each of the other players to make a special trade. You may offer each opponent any 1 resource card from your hand. He must exchange it for any 1 commodity card of his choice from his hand, if he has any.
You may use this ability at any point during the turn you play the card. However, you may only force each player to make this trade with you once that turn. Your opponent chooses which commodity card to give you if he has more than one. If you offer a resource to a player who has no commodity cards, then you take your card back and the trade is void. You do not have to give this player the resource card.

So this was the scenario that took place:

Four player game, players A, B, C, and D.
Player A played the "Commercial Harbor" card.
Player A approached Player B, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player B truthfully answered that they did not.
Player A approached Player C, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player C truthfully answered that they did not.
Player A approached Player D, asked if they had a Commodity Card, Player D falsely claimed they did not have a Commodity Card
The turn resolved with the card being disposed and Player A receiving no Commodity Cards
Player D revealed after the conclusion of the turn that they had lied about their claim of not having a Commodity Card
Players B & C immediately concluded that Player D violated the rules, arguing that Player A's approach constituted the necessary contract fulfillment to "make an offer", per the text of the card.
Player D concluded that they obeyed the letter of the rules, pointing out that Player A did not physically show the card they intended to trade to them, and thus wasn't required to answer truthfully.
Played D offered that in an earlier turn in the game, they had played the card exactly as they felt it should be played, but this behavior was not consciously observed by players A, B, or C.

Now, in the context of our specific play session, we concluded that this was a violation of the rules, but this determination was made via majority vote (Players B & C agreed that this was a violation, Player D disagreed, Player A abstained due to being a novice and being unsure of the rules). So I'm curious what the determination would be in a tournament setting, or at least what the usual resolution of this kind of act would be in your sessions.
I personally determined the following:

That this was a violation of the rules, because I don't consider the text of the card to establish a distinction where only the literal act of showing a card is sufficient to establish an attempt to make an offer.
That the rules as written in the rulebook are intended to offer a form of "Mercy Play", i.e. "Let's not screw over a player who's already behind", and is not intended to produce ambiguity on what kind of actions are intended to constitute a valid offer.

What do you make of these rules? Do you feel that Player D obeyed both the letter and spirit of the rules as written, or that it was correct to determine that their actions were in violation of the rules?

In a tournament, player D may get away with it; but he definitely wouldn’t at my house, or during any games I’ve played with friends.

In a game that involves open negotiation and trade, intent is an important factor. When a player asks “anyone have a sheep” and anther responds “Sure. For a wheat?” Both players have to infer from the language that the other is offering a specific resource for trade. So it would be illegal to have the players pass a card to each other after that dialog, and for one to pass something other than what is expected.

Similar case here. When player A asked “do you have a commodity card” the player was obviously asking in reference to the commercial harbor card he just played; in order to take/trade the commodity. That should have been obvious to all people based on the language used.

The rules never clarify what specific language is allowed to be used to convey what specific actions. The play group must decide that, based on if the language was clear enough to convey the intent. In this case, that language combined with he playing of commercial harbor should be sufficient to convey the intent. Thus it’s as good as “I’ll give you this resource for a commodity that you have”.

Commodity Harbor was misplayed

No prior exchange of information is needed or required. In each trade, both participants can give ANY appropriate card they want. Player A could ask me if I have any paper before the exchange, but I'm under no obligation to give her a paper, nor be truthful about whether I even have a paper. This is NOT a normal trade where you agree on the terms beforehand.

Discussion of resources/commodities desired, potentially mutually beneficial trades, or any other kind of agreement are totally allowed, but are not binding or particularly relevant (Well... if you agree to trade a stone for paper and don't, you might have a hard time convincing folks to trade with you later).

TL;DR: When you play Commodity Harbor the person giving the resource chooses which one to give, not the receiver.

Takeway However at best Player D is being a poor sport, in practice I'd say he violated the intent of the rules of the game, especially if Player A is a newbie. Player A is obviously trying to save time by asking if any players have commodities rather than handing a resource and getting it back when the other player doesn't.

Edit: It's been a while since I've played C&K and I forgot the distinction between Commodities and Resources


Does it make sense for a defender to lead a short major when opponents fail to find a fit using Stayman? Both vulnerable, at rubber, South dealt and bid 1NT, North 2 clubs, South 2 hearts, North 3NT.

You, West, have (s) 64 (h) AJ7 (d)J8752 (c) Q84.

North clearly has four spades, but not hearts. Any spade strength on your side is with East, behind North. You like the strength you have behind South's hearts. Apparently, the bulk of North-South strength is in the minors.

The actual West led the 5 of diamonds. It was a "friendly" lead from a weak suit that gave North and South all the time in the world. Reasoning from the previous paragraph, I would have lead a small spade (and hoped for a heart return).

This is a bit unconventional but does this make sense? If declarer thought that I had length and strength in spades, could that cause a misplay? (In the example, East actually had five to the king, but of course, I wouldn't know this until later.)

Put another way, how much weaker could the diamond suit be, before it is not worth leading?

If opponents have only 24-25 points the auction would likely have involved acceptance of a game invitation. Instead there was a jump to game by responder without a slam try, each opponent having 4 cards in a different major; opponents rate to have 29 points +- 3. You have 8 points in hand, giving partner 3 points +- 3. The likelihood of being able to set up and run a suit in partner's hand is extremely remote.

However if partner has QTx in diamonds and an entry you might be able to win a race against Declarer in that suit. Lead your fourth best diamond as was actually done at the table. This also gives partner a clear signal as to what to lead back to you when he gets in the (probably) one only time that happens.

On this particular hand I see no reason for method of scoring to matter, but as a matter of good form it should be specified.

It is important to note also that partner is going to be squeezed in both Majors. Clubs are splitting 3-3 for Declarer. Combined with the fact that opponents jumped to game rather than accepting an invitation, at Matchpoints I am going to be happy to get four defensive tricks for Average plus against all those who make an overly aggressive, and desperate, attempt to find unavailable tricks in partners hand. Even sitting patiently for my third defensive trick will often be a good Matchpoint result on this hand.

In short, to answer your specific question: No, it is pointless to search for major suit tricks on this auction. Partner has neither the suit strength nor the entry to make searching for his suit profitable. The only chance to set this hand is a miracle of clashing honours for opponents, and even then you will have to have set up cashing tricks in your hand to collect on the good fortune.

Revisiting this, the biggest problem with a Spade lead are that these three scenarios are most likely:

Partner wins the Spade lead and returns it, setting up his Spade winners. You now have no more entries to partner's tricks, and have lost two tempos for setting up Diamonds.
Partner wins the Spade lead but sees no future in the suit, and makes a random guess as to which minor to return guessing wrong 50% of the time. Either one or two tempos for setting up diamonds have been lost.
Partner has Qxxx or Jxxx unsupported in Spades and you have just guaranteed Declarer four Spade tricks and the contract.

Potentially settable Notrump contracts are a race between Declarer and Defense, and the loss of even a single tempo nearly always guarantees losing that race. It is imperative for the Defense to chase long-suit tricks in the hand with entries. Here, it is very unlikely that Partner can have enough points both to make Spades worth setting up and have an entry making them cashable.

Form of Scoring:

In Rubber (as here) of IMPS one always makes an extreme effort to set the contract, as overtricks are very rarely of import. Lead a diamond.
In Matchpoints, one is looking to not get a bottom on the opening lead. Experience has taught me that leading from jack empty fourth is a nearly guaranteed bottom - but leading from jack empty fifth or longer is often a winning play. The decision is now more complex. It is possible that Partner's Spade trick is dead unless you lead the suit now, so that lead might be right. I am personally an aggressive defender, so would usually lead a Diamond, but would accept a Spade lead from partner as reasonable.

Jim Belk gave perfect answer!

I mean, may be his analysis was not perfect, may be he should enter another conditions (like 14 balanced with 5332), or 9-13 Hcp opposite instead of 10-15, or make it 100000 hands instead of 1000...

But the way he solves the problem is the only correct way.

Let me clear this: everyone who plays bridge more than 1 year met this position at least 2 times :), so we discuss what could we do, if your  choice was unsuccessful. The problem is really common!

But

careful! here is some esoterics

As in life we sometimes think, that we know something (basing on our experience). But Life in wide meaning (you can say G-d or Buddha or Nature or whatever) knows much more than we.

And one(or ten or even 1000) board means nothing. It's like grain of sand opposite Jupiter (or may be 1000 Jupiters).

esoteric ends here

To be honest, computer modeling gives correct % very soon , after 10000 boards matching your conditions, next 100000 boards will not change %.

Don't forget one thing - computer gives you correct %, but it can not give you the correct answer!
Feel the difference?


Is there a strategy for consistent winning in the base dominion game with the base setup? I've just started playing dominion a little while ago, so I'm pretty new. I get the basic tactics (big money, deck thinning, don't buy copper, etc.) and I do ok when the kingdom cards vary. However, when playing the "basic" game [moat, cellar, village, workshop, woodsmith, militia, etc.] I can't ever seem to win and I don't understand why. No one is playing militias (I've tried them to disrupt others strategies...to no avail)

We play "tournament style" where you can pick your first 2 cards to purchase.

Maybe my initial buys are not so good?

I usually start out with smithy+silver, and then pick up a mine when I get my first $5. From then on I usually do: $2=cellar, $3=silver, $4=silver, maybe one more smithy, $5=market, maybe silver, $6-7=gold, $8=province.

Basically I'm trying to do some variant of "smithy big money" but it isn't working out so well.

Does any one have a consistent strategy for the base game that works?

My favorite Dominion article, Building the "First Game" Engine, looks at this problem. The article works out some very good strategies, comparing them to a baseline of Big Money + Smithy. They run simulations to "prove" which one is best. A Village/Smithy/Province (V/S/P) strategy beats Big Money + Smithy a little more than half the time, and eventually the find a strategy that beats V/S/P a whoppping 89% of the time. Best of all, the article showcases the depth that a single set of 10 kingdom cards can have.

Their best answer is complicated (surprising to some, given the common overestimation of Big Money + 1 or 2 other card strategies). It uses a Workshop to pick up early Villages and a Remodel, a Mine, several Smithies and eventually a Militia, with Markets and Cellars "sprinkled in".

Of course it's not a definitive "best solution", but it's several clear steps ahead of an already very competitive baseline.

What I tend to do is use the silver and smithy start, and then use villages, throne rooms and smithys to draw my entire deck. I also try to get golds during this time too. Finally, it may be a good idea to grab one or two cellars and buy enhancing cards


Do you collect $200 in Monopoly if you don't ask for it? If a player passes Go but doesn't ask for their money and the next player plays, does the first player still get their money if they ask only after the next round is played? I could not find this in the Monopoly rules.

Yes, you still collect $200.

From the rulebook:

  Each time a player’s token lands on or passes over GO,
  whether by throwing the dice or drawing a card, the Banker pays
  him/her a $200 salary.

No mention of the player "asking" for the money or anything. It says the Banker pays him, so the Banker pays him.

thus is what Wikibooks says under “general play” rules for Monopoly...
If the player lands on or passes Go in the course of his or her turn, he or she receives $200 from the Bank. A player has until the beginning of his or her next turn to collect this money. ...There you go!


In Star Fluxx, have you needed to change how The Computer and The Unseen Force play? Star Fluxx has a number of cards that end up being quite powerful and can throw chaos into a game that seemed to be almost over. Most of these cards are either Actions or Surprises and can thus only be used once for each time they are drawn. However, the two Keepers, The Computer, and The Unseen Force seem to provide decisive long-term advantages.

The Computer - If you have this card on the table, Draw and Play one extra card per turn. Also, you may exceed Hand and Keeper Limits by one.

Unseen Force - *If you have this on the table, once per turn you can steal a card chosen randomly from another player's hand, and add that card to your own hand.

I come from a long history of playing control decks in Magic: The Gathering and so I try and dig deep into the strategy of how to accrue small advantages and deal with random elements in card games. Star Fluxx has significant random components to the point that sometimes a player can win in a single turn when no one suspected that they were even close to victory. To me, this suggests that the best strategies will be those that rely on drawing more cards than your opponents and playing more cards than your opponents, rather than striving for any specific combination of cards or rules.

I have a small sample size, but I have only lost 1 game where I controlled The Computer or The Unseen Force for more than 2 turns (I have won the other 5). Star Fluxx, though, is more about having fun through narrative and social interaction than min-maxing. The problem I am running into is that these cards seem to reduce the fun that the other players are having because they recognize that they're being slowly ground into a defeat.

Have you had the same experience with these 2 Keepers? Have you instituted any house rules to modify these cards?

I tend to think of Unseen Force as annoyance, whereas The Computer is probably the strongest card in the game.  There are various things you can do to try to dilute the power of an opponent's The Computer, raising the draw and play count rules and creating hand and keeper limits.  Plus you can always steal keepers or play Brain Transference.  That said, if someone pulls out The Computer at the start of the game then it is really hard to keep up with them.  There are other strong cards in the game like Holographic Projection and The Captain so it doesn't feel like the game is broken to me.

Is it possible that you are a much better player than your opponents are and it is this that grinds them down?

We decided that if you use the "draw 1" the you MUST play 1 - if you do not draw an extra card the you DO NOT get to play an extra card - seems to be working but not to the opponent's aid :P

Unseen Force works fine oO


Settlers of Catan play takes hours I was under the impression that the play time in Settlers of Catan was more modest than say, Risk. However it seems almost as long. This is often due to a lot of trading and talk which drags on for a lot of time as people propose variations on a declined trade. Have any of you found similar problems? How would you solve this?

First, make sure you're following the rule that the person who's turn it is must be involved in all trades during that turn. If you let everyone trade during the trading phase, discussions could take a while.

Assuming you're following that rule, it really shouldn't take that person very long to figure out all of the available trades. If you start out by saying "I'm looking for sheep and ore. Is anyone willing to trade those to me?", you can very quickly get a sense of whether any trades will be possible. If anyone says "yes", you say "I have wood or brick that I'm willing to trade, are you interested in either of those?" Now you allow them to propose the precise details of the trade, or you let them say "I'm interested in brick" and you propose a precise trade. There really shouldn't be much of a back and forth; either there's a trade that both of you are interested in, or there isn't, and it shouldn't take more than a few seconds to figure that out. Yes, occasionally you will have a back-and-forth negotiation, but it shouldn't happen in the majority of trades.

It can take some practice to get into the habit of trading quickly and efficiently. I'd recommend trying out Bohnanza(bgg|wikipedia) with the group; it's a fairly quick and easy game that consists almost entirely of trading, so if you play it, you will get in the habit of trading quickly and efficiently or else the game will drag on forever.

Beyond that, it's really a matter of being disciplined while you play. In almost any game, if you allow people to take too long making up their minds or getting distracted by something trivial, it will take a while. Try and set a reasonable pace for the trading by example and by encouraging other players to trade efficiently, and it should speed up after a little while.

We play with open hands - everyone sees everybody else's cards.  That saves a lot of time asking if anyone has a wood for sheep, and we end up with more complicated trades.  We also allow everyone to trade and build on anyone's turn (if there's a conflict, priority is clockwise from the current player).

I believe these changes shorten the game, but the real advantage is that they keep everyone involved all the time, so they don't get bored waiting for their turns.


How can we beat Prince of Gluttons in Aeon's End Been playing a bit more of Aeon's End base game, so far, the only nemesis that we simply can't beat with a team of two is the Prince of Gluttons.
We never manage to beat him, whatever the spells/relics/gems, we just get overwhelmed by his minions and his base power. We tried buying only things he devoured, but usually, that's not enough. We do not manage to get geared early enough, Gravehold gets beaten hard, we somehow stale (or die) then he eats everything and we loose.
We had some trouble with the Crooked Mask, but we managed with it, it was a very close game, but it felt "fair". The Prince beats us with no trouble, we have trouble to survive, and he has a time limit...
What can we do to beat him? Are there specific compositions to have? Do we need to buy expansion packs to get better/other mages/cards?

Any tips to beat him?
-Great work gaining cards that were devoured. That helps.
-Consider that when you gain any cards from the supply you help the Prince. How much damage can you do based on minimal card buys? For instance, buy ONLY ONE gem like Searing Ruby for the whole game. Now, how can you set up a hand to be that Ruby + 4 Crystals? Because 7 aether can buy any spell in the game. Now you're cooking.
-Consider player health and Gravehold's health as a just another resource you're spending. If players and Gravehold are at full health but you lose because Prince devoured the store then maybe you were being overprotective. Take some trade offs, absorb more damage and focus on preventing devours and dealing damage on the Prince.
-If you're losing because of Devours than defensive mages like Brama (heal player health) and Phaedraxa (prevent damage) don't have abilities that help. Better to choose attackers like Jian and Kadir and win during Tier 2.
-You know the cards. You know what's coming. What are you keeping prepped to crush Cerephage?
Specific compositions to have? Do we need to buy expansion packs to get better/other mages/cards?
-No. My partner and I have played an embarrassing amount. We have no trouble against the Prince with randomly chosen mages and supply.
Soft advice for new players.
-You'll get it with more playing/experimenting.
-Look at high cost cards that don't seem worth it. The design team is smart. Challenge yourself to think about why those strange cards are so valuable. You'll unlock another insight to help.
-This is a game about efficiency. You want to play 'tight' where nothing is wasted. I often see new players love opening breaches (because it's rad) without any spells to prep. Having 1 aether left over that you do nothing with is like a tiny bit of damage to the team.
-How's your development? Your decks start wimpy, start to grow, then at least one player should be ready to drop bombs. The minions are a decent measuring stick. If a minion, like Tier 2 Venomite (9) appears then at least one player should be reasonably positioned to deal out at least 9 damage in the round.
-The endgame is often a 'boss rush'. All players need to agree it's time to go all in on damaging the boss, absorbing damage from nemesis cards.
-For practice, if you're playing 2 or 3 player, put more Tier 1 and Tier 2 cards in the nemesis deck. This is how we got our first victories many battles ago. It will make the game a bit easier but still give you a lot of practice.
-Experiment by playing a battle where you ALWAYS prevent a nemesis Power card.
Sorry for the long answer :) I hope this finds a player who finds it useful. Needless to say, we've really enjoyed this game.


What is this game with a 12x8 pegboard and 59 double sided pegs? I was wondering if anyone knows what this game is.
It has 59(maybe missing 1) pegs that are red on one side and wood color on the other.
It is a 12 x 8 Pegboard Game.
There are no markings on the inside or outside and it folds like a briefcase.
Everything is made of wood except the handle, rubber feet, and latches.

your pegboard looks like an earlier or a later edition of the plastic pegboard we have at the psychology museum. All pegs have two colors like yours. Among other things these and other pegboards were developed for testing dexterity in recruitment contexts and for testing and training eye-hand-coordination in neuropsychology. In neuropsychology it helps to assess neurological damages. Our version has the imprint "U.S.E.S. PEGBOARD". The abbreviation stands for "United States Employment Services". We got our exemplar donated though from the psychological laboratory of the Otto Wagner Hospital in Vienna, a psychiatry.

I recently purchased five of these from excess inventory (surplus) sales from a correctional institute.  These were used in inmate mental status.  I paid $1.00 each for them.


Is kingmaking in multiplayer games a problem that can be fixed? The original Kingmaker was Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick. He was instrumental during the Wars of the Roses in the deposition of two kings. The term kingmaker has come to mean, "a person or group that has great influence in a royal or political succession, without being a viable candidate." The term in game theory has come to mean:

  Kingmaking: in a game of three or more players (on three or more opposing sides), during and endgame situation when a player who is unable to win is able to determine which player among others is the winner.

Kingmaking to me basically comes down to purposefully taking actions in a game so that someone other than yourself wins. It is slightly unusual that only the actions of the last player are considered kingmaking, when it is the total contribution of all players over the entire course of the game that determines a winner (i.e. If some else prevent you from getting 4 VP from shipping on boats in Puerto Rico on turn 5, but I prevent you from getting 4 VP on turn 19 and you lose by four points...why am I the kingmaker?)

Any game with more than two opposing sides is susceptible to kingmaking. In the world of competitive gaming, kingmaking can even occur in games with only two sides (due to rankings of multiple players). In Sumo Wrestling, for example yaochō or "match fixing" is where one wrestler who has already achieved a high paying rank throws a match on purpose to allow the opposing wrestler to secure a higher paycheck. In Magic: the Gathering tournaments, where a player may have no chance of making the top 8, they might concede a match to help a friend have a better win-loss ratio, while trying their hardest against any other opponents.

In a multiplayer MtG game, players may openly collude to help destroy the player with the best board position. In other groups, tabletalk and open collusion banned, but it is still expected that most players will gang up on the player with the best board position. The rules for MtG can also be exploited in multiplayer. A kingmaker player on the verge of elimination might cast an instant to hurt an unfavored player in hopes that they don't win or to make the game end earlier so they can play another game. A kingmaker might concede before damage is dealt so an unfavored player doesn't gain life from lifelinked creatures.

There are other examples from games like Ticket to Ride - purely blocking moves, and Settlers of Catan monopoly card ethics and future trades (these aren't the exact links I was looking for. I thought that one of these talked about the ethics of performing multiple trades circumvent the no zero card trade rule) , Monopoly trade before losing. Looking over the highest scored answers, it appears that there is still some question about whether kingmaking is a problem or the normal part of any game. In Risk Legacy, the line is blurred even further since the game is played over multiple rounds. A player without the chance of winning might purposefully lose to a particular player to improve their odds in future games.

Is kingmaking a problem that needs to be fixed? (Are only certain kinds of kingmaking an issue? Collusion, playing to lose/disrupt the game, etc.)

What steps/rules are helpful in mitigating kingmaking in games? (general concepts, but real world examples preferred)

Kingmaking can be a desired feature in its own right

Particularly in games with a political or simulational bent, kingmaking can be a desired feature.  The kingmaker gets to feel like he accomplished something even if he didn't win, and the tension and turnabout can contribute to a more exciting play experience.

Thesunneversets' answer addresses this much better than I can.

Threats of kingmaking are a strategic tool

"If you take me out, I'm going to make it so that you can't win afterward."

In most games, this isn't really a problem. It's just allowing players to use a "rattlesnake" defense when their more conventional defenses have faltered. Mutually assured destruction is basically a higher-stakes version of the normal tit-for-tat trading that goes on in strategy games.

When every game session turns into a complex web of MAD checks-and-balances leading to a spectacular flameout, though -- well, at that point you've gotta either call it a feature or redesign the game.

To reduce rattlesnake behavior, players need a way to trump the rattlesnake's threat, e.g. by more slowly setting up a victory that can't be disrupted. Is one player keeping the whole table at bay with an overgrown Shrine of Burning Rage, for instance? It's important for the game to have cards like Krosan Grip, Trickbind, and Shining Shoal to stop him.

Undesirable kingmaking is a motivation issue

In the previous case, the kingmaker is still looking to win; he's just holding the threat of you losing over your head to keep you from taking an action against him. Full-on kingmaking behavior is a motivation problem, resulting from players abandoning the goal of actually winning the game. Two possibilities exist here:

Winning is no longer a reasonable goal.

If a game puts a player in a situation where she can no longer win, then that player is functionally aimless. Such players may turn to kingmaking because it's the only way they can still interact with the main goal of the game, indirectly.

If you want some overly reductive advice, either eliminate losing players quickly or provide some "come from behind" / "alternate victory" mechanisms so they can still engage with the game's goals.

Alternatively, a less winner-take-all model can keep players "playing to win" even when they're not in a position to actually seize first place. This is probably easiest in games with results that roll forward, such as tournaments where even finishing 3rd vs. 4th has an impact on overall scoring, or wargaming campaigns where the disposition of your surviving units has as much of an effect on future battles as the win/loss outcome of the skirmish itself.
Winning is a reasonable goal, but a player has decided to dismiss it.

I think this is really a social issue. The player has broken with the goals of the game and created his own. Part of good game design is avoiding this by keeping players engaged with what they're supposed to do, but as a layman I honestly can't speak to how good games do this.

One thing you can definitely do as a game designer is to clearly signpost your "come from behind" features so that players don't feel a game is hopeless when it's not.

Beyond that, though, the players themselves need to address disruptive kingmaking as a sportsmanship problem: fundamentally what's happening is that a player is following the rules but not the spirit of the game. Sometimes it's because the kingmaker has lost interest, sometimes it's because social goals have trumped gameplay.

Split the players into exactly two teams

By splitting the players into two teams, king making is gone, since there are exactly two outcomes, winning and losing. If a player is going to lose, they can't influence the outcome of the game, since them losing determines the outcome.

Now in this system, you have what appears to be King-making. Using MtG as an example, a player that is about to die might attack the opponents or boost their allies. But this isn't really King-making, sense if their actions cause those opponents to lose or those teammates to win, they also win; their actions where just trying to win, not King-making.

If this is part of a tournament, you can choose to give points to players if their team wins. King-making will appear again, but to a lesser extent, since their teammates won't let them throw the game (hopefully). (And hopefully there won't be whole team king-making.)

Another way is to have exactly one loser. King-making won't exist, but its opposite might.