In multiplayer, can a player concede abusively? Arnold, Beth, and Chuck are playing a multiplayer game (e.g. Commander or Free-for-All).

Arnold has Maralen of the Mornsong:

  Players can't draw cards. At the beginning of each player's draw step, that player loses 3 life, searches his or her library for a card, puts it into his or her hand, then shuffles his or her library.

Beth has Dictate of Kruphix:

  At the beginning of each player's draw step, that player draws an additional card.

Currently, it's Chuck's turn. He begins his draw step, and chooses that Dictate of Kruphix's ability go on the stack, and Maralen's ability go on top of that. Because Maralen is on the board, Dictate's ability is essentially useless (Maralen prevents players from drawing cards).

Using Maralen's ability, Chuck tutors up a card. Suppose Arnold really hates Beth. After Maralen's ability resolves, Arnold concedes. Because Arnold has conceded, Maralen is no longer on the field.

  800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player
  control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled
  any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease
  to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
  player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It
  happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left
  the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to
  the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.

Chuck now proceeds to draw 2 cards (1 from the draw phase and 1 from Dictate of Kruphix).

Obviously, this isn't an ethical thing for Arnold to do. But is it within the rules of the game? Or am I mistaken? Would something else happen instead?

A separate question: would this result in Arnold being banned from future tournaments?

The rules say you can concede whenever you want to:

  104.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game immediately. He or she loses the game.

This is kind of unavoidable, because people have to be able to pick up their cards and leave. And it's certainly possible to use this spitefully, whether via your scenario or another. (It doesn't even have to be something fancy - just dropping out a turn before your inevitable death can swing things.)

Many people adopt house rules in order to curtail that sort of behavior. It's hard to define clearly what is and isn't acceptable, especially since you can be plenty spiteful even without ever conceding, but if you play with people you get along well enough with, you may be able to get away with "don't be a jerk". More broadly, if you do things that make you miserable to play with, you might quickly find yourself not having anyone to play with.

As for tournaments, well, there aren't really serious multiplayer tournaments, and so the Magic Tournament Rules don't have anything explicit about multiplayer. There is potentially commander at Friday Night Magic, and if they're abiding by the rules, they'll have to allow you to concede at any time. But while I don't think the store could actually kick someone out for making a spiteful concession, the same about being pleasant to play with probably applies there: it's a local store, with many of the same people coming repeatedly.

I will go against the grain here.

There is no problem whatsoever with conceding when you feel like for whatever reason you feel like.

Sabotaging someone else by conceding is no different from sabotaging them by throwing a lightning bolt at an unfortunate creature, and sabotaging other players is one of the core premises behind multiplayer.

Being able to concede for any reason at any time is a fundamental rule that stops abuse. Forcing players to remain in games when they need to leave or it is no longer relevant for them to play is abusive. You cannot concede abusively. It is not abuse to destroy another players gameplan in magic. It is to force them to remain in a social interaction when they would rather not.


May I attack myself? Could I attack myself with  sengir vampire, block with a creature, and get a +1/+1 counter on it

No, because the rules specifically say that you attack the other player in a two-player game, or opponents in a multiplayer game. There are no cards which change this.
Here are the full relevant rules:

506.2. During the combat phase, the active player is the attacking player; creatures that player controls may attack. During the combat phase of a two-player game, the nonactive player is the defending player; that player and planeswalkers he or she controls may be attacked.
506.2a During the combat phase of a multiplayer game, there may be one or more defending players, depending on the variant being played and the options chosen for it. Unless all the attacking player’s opponents automatically become defending players during the combat phase, the attacking player chooses one of his or her opponents as a turn-based action during the beginning of combat step. (Note that the choice may be dictated by the variant being played or the options chosen for it.) That player becomes the defending player. See rule 802, “Attack Multiple Players Option,” rule 803, “Attack Left and Attack Right Options,” and rule 809, “Emperor Variant.”
[...]
802.1. Some multiplayer games allow the active player to attack multiple other players. If this option is used, a player can also choose to attack only one player during a particular combat.
802.2. As the combat phase starts, the attacking player doesn’t choose an opponent to become the defending player. Instead, all the attacking player’s opponents are defending players during the combat phase.

(There are additional rules for multiplayer variants where there are restrictions on who you can attack, but rather than quoting absolutely everything, I'll just reiterate that nothing ever says you can attack yourself.)

If you were to Donate your Sengir Vampire, your opponent would gain control of it. If you then activate Mindslaver you'll control that player's next turn. You can then attack yourself from your opponent's side of the board and block with any number of flying or reach creatures like tokens from Call. Then the vampire will gain those +1/+1 counters. On your turn you can then use Control Magic style effects to bring it back under your control and swing with your 7/7 flying. Hurray!

Or, you could just cast Give and call it good.


Is pretending to want to trade before playing a monopoly card objectionable? In Settlers of Catan, I sometimes try to ask people if they want to trade a certain resource, tricking them into revealing the approximate amount of that resource in everyone's hand. After this I play the monopoly card. This has on some occasions not been received very well.

Is this fair play?

That's not as bad as actually trading all of one of your resources away for other things, and then using "Monopoly" to get it all back. I've seen people play that way before.

Underhanded, yes. Illegal, no. The problem with playing this way is that it can really poison the friendly feel of the game. I had a player who used this tactic, as well as other aggressive ones like extorting good trades from people by threatening them with the robber. When someone plays like that regularly, the best way to deal with it is for others to gang up on them, which then leads to arguments about people being out to get them, and grudges held between games. It wound up being so bad that I stopped playing Settlers if this other player was going to be there.

As far as just using trade offers to find out what people have, that's not nearly so bad. Heck, you don't even need to do that; you can keep track of what resources everyone has. The only way someone might get resources that you don't know about are with the robber, but that leaves the same set of resources on the table, just in a different person's hand. So, you shouldn't even have to do this; just keep better track of what resources people earn and what they spend. If you can't remember, just try and think back for what the last few numbers rolled were, and what the last few things they built; you should be able to work out pretty well what they have a lot of.

If you offer trades to people, and then just grab the resources with "Monopoly" instead, they'll think that's cheap and feel burned; you've gotten their hopes up for a trade, and then dashed them by stealing resources. If you just keep track of what resources they have, and then seem to "magically" guess the right ones, they'll be disappointed that they lost the resources, but impressed that you managed to get so lucky with your "guess." How would you rather people feel about you?

This is the most EVIL play in the game.

It is legal though.  Just very very EVIL.  So EVIL that many people get mad when you do it.

It is very frowned on at my table.  If you do it most players will not even acknowledge your trade attempts in the future.


How fast can you win against a passive opponent in the Innistrad block format? There have been legacy decks in the past that were able to win a game in the first round, without even giving your opponent a chance to act. I wonder how many rounds minimum it would take to win a game in the Innistrad block format. In this format there are only cards allowed from Innistrad, Dark Ascension and Avacyn Restored.

The assumptions are:

Your opponent is totally passive and does not play more than a single land each turn until he loses.
You start with the perfect hand and each card you draw is the perfect card.
The deck must be legal.

Please show the winning sequence with your answer.

A solution for turn 2 on the draw. I can't seem to hit turn 2 on the play, but I -think- it's possible.

Edit: This looks kinda ugly, so here's a link to a picture: http://i.imgur.com/kSheO.png

                                                                           Mana Pool           Cards in Hand
Turn one                                                                    0                   8
Plains                                                                      W                   7
Doomed Traveler                                                             0                   6

Turn two                                                                    W                   7
Mountain                                                                    WR                  6
Infernal Plunge, sacrificing Doomed Traveler                                WRRR                5
Infernal Plunge, sacrificing Spirit, hold priority                          WRR                 4
Increasing Vengeance, targeting Infernal Plunge                             WRRR                3
Increasing Vengeance, targeting Infernal Plunge                             WRRRR               2
Increasing Vengeance, targeting Infernal Plunge                             WRRRRR              1
Resolve Infernal Plunge                                                     WRRRRRRRR           1
Desperate Ravings, discarding Past in Flames                                WRRRRRR             1
Doomed Traveler                                                             RRRRRR              0
Flashback Past in Flames                                                    R                   0
Flashback Infernal Plunge, sacrificing Doomed Traveler                      RRR                 0
Flashback Infernal Plunge, sacrificing Spirit, hold priority                RR                  0
Flashback Increasing Vengeance, targeting Infernal Plunge                   RRRRRR              0
Flashback Increasing Vengeance, targeting Infernal Plunge                   RRRRRRRRRR          0
Resolve Infernal Plunge                                                     RRRRRRRRRRRRR       0
Flashback Desperate Ravings, discarding any card                            RRRRRRRRRRR         1
Devil's Play for X=8, hold priority                                         RR                  0
Flashback Increasing Vengeance, targeting Devil's Play, dealing 16 damage   0                   0
Resolve Devil's Play, dealing 8 damage                                      0                   0

1 Mountain

2 Mountain, Immolating Souleater

3 Pay 18 life to pump up Souleater to a 10/1. Attack for 10. Fling Souleater for another 10.

This uses 4 cards


Player count variants for Pitch Pitch is one of my favorite card games but it is sometimes hard to have the correct number of people to play. There are 2 main variants we play where 1 will play 4 people with fixed teams and the other will play 5 people with variable teams.

Common Rules

Played with a 52 card deck plus 2 jokers. Each hand will have 10 points total. The winning bidder will pick the trump suit. The point cards in that suit are the Ace, Jack, Off Jack (OJ), Big Joker (BJ), Little Joker (LJ), Ten, Three (worth 3 points), and Two (worth 1 point to whoever played it). The order of trump cards is (High) A, K, Q, J, OJ, BJ, LJ, and 10-2 (Low). All cards besides the trump suit (off) are basically no value. If an entire trick only has off cards in it, then the last winner still leads the next trick.

Bidding starts to the left of the dealer and each person can either increase the bid or pass. The minimum bid is five so everyone could pass and leave the bidder with a 5 bid. The bidding only goes around once so you have to bid high enough the first time.

The winning bidder leads the first trick. Only point cards are kept from each hand and the rest are discarded.

4 Player Variant

Your partner sits across the table from you. Everyone is dealt 9 cards (generally dealt 3 at a time) to start. After the winning bidder names the suit, everyone throws away all their cards that are not in that suit except for the winning bidder. Usually they are thrown away face up to make sure no trump cards are thrown away. Then the dealer deals everyone back up to 6 cards except for the winning bidder who gets the remainder of the deck. At this point the winning bidder must make a 6 card hand from all of their cards. This may also mean that they have to burn trump cards. They can only burn non-point cards.

Then the winning bidder leads and play continues with the winner of each trick leading until all 6 tricks are played. Each team gets the number of points they actually got that round unless the winning bidders team does not make their bid. In that case, they go negative the amount they bid.

Play continues until one team reaches 42 points.

5 Player Variant

In the 5 player variant, each player is trying to win individually. Ten cards are dealt to each player which leaves 4 cards. Each person bids just like in 4 player with the winner picking the trump suit. The difference is that the winning bidder will get the 4 remaining cards and then call for his partner. To call for his partner he will ask for a specific card in the trump suit. Whoever has that card will be their partner for this round. The other 3 people will be on a separate team this round and try to set the winning bidder and their partner. Everyone discards down to 6 cards and the play proceeds like in the 4 player variant.

For scoring the round, the winning bidder and his partner will both get points equal to the points their team got and the other 3 players will get an equal amount of points based on what their team got. For example, if the winning team got 8 points, then both the winning bidder and their partner would have 8 added to their score and the other three players would all get 2 added to their score.

Question

Are there good way to do 2, 3, 6, etc. player versions of either of these variants?

I'm an avid pitch player as well, 4pt 10pt and 13pt :)

For 2-3 players, you can play 4 point pitch with no teams! I find 4 point perfect for times when you need something to do but don't have a whole lot of time! You can also play 4 point pitch with 4 players, having 2 teams of 2 players.

In 4 point pitch, the points are: 'High','Low','Jack','Game'. High being the highest trump card played (Ace usually), Low being the lowest trump played (two usually). Jack is the Jack in the suit that is trump. For 'High' and 'Jack' whoever takes these tricks and wins those points. For 'Low' whoever plays that card, regardless of who takes it in the trick it is played, will get that point. 'Game' is a sum of cards that you take in your tricks that you win. In any suit, Aces = 4pts, Kings = 3pts, Queens = 2pts, Jacks = 1pt, tens = 10 points. 'Game' can be tricky in this but it makes it interesting! Once all 6 tricks are finished, you add up the cards you took in the tricks to get your score for 'Game'. Whoever has the highest amount of points for 'Game' gets the single Game point.

In this game you play with all suits, but the first trick you still have to lead what you say is the trump suit. Minimum bid is 2, maximum bid is 4. You are dealt 6 cards and that is all you play with, the rest of the deck is not used and jokers are not used. Trump will win the trick if the other players do not play trump. If the first player of a trick plays trump, you must play trump if you have it (in other words, you must follow the first suit played, otherwise you can trump in at anytime or sluff off in a different suit if you cannot follow the first suit played). You can play to 11pts, 14pts, or 21pts.

For 6 players, you can play 10 point pitch which you explained in your post! The only difference, every player gets 9 cards and there is no deck left over. You play your hand with what you are dealt.

For 13 point pitch it is the same as 10pt pitch, you just play with with off 3 :) meaning if trump is hearts, the 3 of hearts and 3 of diamonds are both worth 3 points! so be very careful. You can play this with 4, 5, or 6 players.

"For 'Low' whoever plays that card, regardless of who takes it in the trick it is played, will get that point."

This is patently bad game design, reminiscent of the Free Parking rules from home brewed Monopoly. Whoever takes the trick with low, earns low. That is how Pitch is properly played.


Bridge: Is it a rule that you must announce the meaning of partners opening bid Bridge Playing SAYC Is it a rule for partner to announce to the defenders what an opening bid (eg '1C minimum 3') means

I'm going to go just a bit stronger than Ruds here, assuming ACBL rules here.

Unless the ACBL alert chart mentions a specific announcement, you must not announce the meaning of partner's bid unless asked.  That is conveying information to your partner (conveying your interpretation of it), and is explicitly illegal, and may involve a penalty if a director is called.

Further, if it does call for an alert, you must only say "Alert" and no other information unless asked.  Again, providing that information also informs your partner.  (This may vary in high-level tournaments, where separate rooms or screens are used.)

The specific announcements - 1NT range and 1c shortness - are marked in blue on your convention card (indicating an announcement is appropriate).  Anything else - saying "Weak" after a weak 2, for example - is inappropriate.

As ruds says, it depends not on what system you play, but on where you are (strictly 'whose rules you play by'). But the important thing is any conventional bid must be alerted **, so that you are not misleading the opponents. If your 1C bid shows an opening hand with strength in clubs. it is not conventional, so need not be alerted.

** Unless it is announced, which is needlessly complex for this question, and doesn't apply here.


Are the utilities worth buying? In Monopoly, there are two utilities. They cost 150, and rent is 4x the dice roll if one utility is owned, or 10x the dice value if both are owned.

Are the utilities something I want to purchase if possible? Or are they junk? How valuable are they compared to the other properties on the board?

The utilities are decent "fire and forget" properties, which pay for themselves quickly.  Think of them as equivalent to owning two railroads, but paying a bit better because you can't improve them further.  They don't have the same explosive-growth potential of railroads or properties, but they're cheaper.  You're not going to bankrupt anyone with them, but they can be decent money-makers over the course of the game.  They're better in the early game for fast and easy income, but later on they're more valuable simply as squares you can land safely on; everyone has become too rich to care much about such small rents.

A few comparisions:

Number of Utilities:

Cost $150, pays $28 (average roll of 7), pays for itself after ~6 rents.
Cost $300, pays $70 (average roll of 7), pays for itself after ~5 rents.

Number of Railroads:

Cost $200, pays $25, pays for itself after 8 rents.
Cost $400, pays $50, pays for itself after 8 rents.
Cost $600, pays $100, pays for itself after 6 rents.
Cost $800, pays $200, pays for itself after 4 rents.

Owning the light blue properties as a monopoly (much harder to get than just a utility or two!):

0 houses: Cost $320, pays ~13, pays for itself after ~24 rents.
1 house: Cost $470, pays ~$33, pays for itself after ~15 rents.
2 houses: Cost $620, pays ~$93, pays for itself after ~7 rents.
3 houses: Cost $770, pays ~$280, pays for itself after ~4 rents.

Edit: Someone has done a lot more math than I have: http://www.tkcs-collins.com/truman/monopoly/monopoly.shtml.

It really depends on how much money and other properties you have in hand in relation to how many properties your opponents have in hand.  If you have a small amount of properties in hand and lots of money with no other immediate avenues to invest it, then by all means buy it.  If you have lots of properties and therefore low on cash that you used up to buy them, then by all means let the thing go to auction and watch your opponents overpay for it.  Remember you can always mortgage it at a lower cost than dismantling houses and hotels on other colored properties later on.


How to design a Ticket to Ride fan expansion? I want to design a unofficial map for ticket to ride. Is there a known formula how to create one, basic ground rules on what makes a playable board? How many cities is playable? What percentage of grey vs colored tracks? How many total possible train positions is too few, and too many?

Try analyzing your Ticket to Ride game that you already have and base your first expansion on that board. Measure the board, count how many of each color card there are in the deck, and count how many tracks there are of each color. I would model your first fan expansion after the base game without any add-ons, see if your expansion works, and then try making progressively more complicated fan expansions.


Is there any way to remove an emblem? Since an emblem is neither a card nor a permanent, and doesn't have a card type (as per rule 113.5, shown below), "has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color" (rule 113.3, also below), and (as pointed out by murgatroid99) isn't even on the battlefield in the first place (rule 113.1, ... also below), is there any way to either nullify or destroy/exile it?

  113.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn’t a card type.

  113.3. An emblem has no characteristics other than the abilities defined by the effect that created it. In
  particular, an emblem has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color.

  113.1. Some effects put emblems into the command zone. An emblem is a marker used to represent an
  object that has one or more abilities, but no other characteristics.

There are currently no cards that explicitly remove emblems. The only way to get rid of an emblem is by activating the last loyalty ability on Karn Liberated. This restarts the game, and resets everything in the game except a specific set of cards that he keeps track of.

Mechanically, an emblem is intended to be a reward, in some sense, for completing a somewhat complicated process: casting a Planeswalker, adding to its loyalty for multiple turns, and then activating its expensive ability, all while keeping your opponent from messing up the plan. Because they are so hard to obtain, they are correspondingly difficult to remove. Some are easier to obtain, like the one from Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, but they are also weaker.

there is away to get rid of them restart the game there is a few cards that restart the game so in all restarting the game is the only way to counter emblems  Karn Liberated


What is the optimal strategy to solve Hanoi Solitaire? I recently discovered for the first time a variation of Solitaire called Hanoi (sometimes spelled Hanoy or Hanoii). My Solitaire app says it's rated easy, but I have never solved it because I only get so far before I get stuck. Is there a simple strategy I can employ to finally start winning?

The biggest piece of strategy is knowing how to move a pile of cards from one stack to the next.

The basic algorithm is a recursive algorithm.

To move n cards from stack a to stack b, you need to:

  move the n-1 cards from stack a to stack c
  move the nth card to stack b
  move the n-1 cards from stack c to stack b.

To move a stack of three from a to b you need to move the two cards from a to c.   To move the two cards from a to c you need to move the one card from a to b.  Move the second card from a to c.  Move the first card from b to c.  Move the third card from a to b.  To move the two cards from c to b, we need to move the first card from c to a.  Move the second card from c to b.  Move the first card from a to b.

The key strategy is to keep one ordered stack.  When a new card is unearthed, put it in to the stack in the order that it belongs by moving your stack that belongs on top of the new card to it and then moving it to the top of your ordered stack.

This strategy will not likely lead you always to the shortest solution but will lead you to a correct solution.

There are more basic strategies for the Towers of Hanoi peg and disc game on the Wikipedia article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Hanoi but I'm not sure how explicitly applicable they are to this game.

make a table called input-output and rule and ask your kids to grab a deck of cards and only pick out the ace,the 2,3,4 the rule is to double each number, for example, double 12 = 24.start with the bottom


Is Risk: Legacy playable two-player? I have Risk: Legacy, I have an 8 year-old son who loves Risk, and I have three other household members who don't like games. I'm tempted to try Risk: Legacy two-player, either head-to-head or with the Classic-style "neutral" faction. But since I don't actually know all the rules to Legacy I don't know if this will be fine, "just okay," or "crash-and-burn."

Given the audience "just okay" is playable result. But if it's going to crash and burn I'd rather not waste the investment and wait until we find/create a third.

Is Risk: Legacy playable two-person, or will game developments fundamentally fail two-person?

It is a three to five player game according to the rules because the negotiation dynamics are integral to the rules. With two players there can be really no good negotiation and the game loses an essential element. Tweaking the game would definitely be needed, especially in regards to some items found in secret passages.

So in the end, since you would play just as long as the game doesn't crash and burn, I would play with one of the 2 player variants that can be found online (basically both Players get 2 factions).

Allied World Domination Risk
For 2 to 3 Players

Although Risk is best played with 4 to 6 players, the allied style allows a game to be played with 2 or 3 players by giving each player more than one coloured army acting as allies yet playing as individual players, thus, having the effect of playing a 6 player game.

Allied Set Up:

Two players:  Each player selects 3 different coloured armies.
Three players:  Each player selects 2 different coloured armies.

If you have more than one style of risk soldiers, each player can use a different style thus making it easier to visualize which armies are allies or opponents.

Allied Random Distribution of Territories:
Remove the 2 wild cards from the deck of Territory cards.
Shuffle the remaining territory cards.
Deal out the territory cards to each coloured army.
Territory cards are not exchangeable between allied armies at this stage.
These cards determine which territories armies will occupy at the beginning of the game.
Each player places 3 soldiers on each of the territories featured on the cards they have been dealt for each army.
Collect the 48 territory cards, add the 2 wild cards, shuffle the deck and place it face down on the board.

Allied Playing:
In allied risk, the playing order is not known until the first playing round is complete.
Players roll 1 die to determine who the first player will be and then play passes to the left.
Note:  The player, who placed his soldiers first, during the set up phase, does not necessarily take the first turn.
First player:  Chooses which colour they will play and sets aside an artillery piece of that colour to keep track of the playing order.  Then plays that colour as usual.
Next players:  In turn, do the same.
Once each coloured army has played their first turn the playing order is set.

Allied armies can exchange territory cards with each other at any time as long as the number of cards each coloured army has remains the same

Note: In Allied Risk, from time to time you may be required to fight your own allies that are in the way.  In this case it would be advantageous to roll only 1 die with your defending soldiers as you are trying to eliminate those soldiers with the least amount of attacking loses.

Allied Elimination of another army:

When a coloured army is eliminated, the player is not necessarily out of the game as they can continue playing with their other coloured armies.  The eliminated army must surrender its territory cards to the army that eliminated it, however, the eliminated army can exchange cards with allied armies prior to surrendering its cards.  A player may eliminate their own allied army and take its territory cards.  If the eliminating army ends up with 5 or more cards, you must immediately trade in enough sets to reduce your army's hand to 4 or fewer cards.  This is called a mid-turn card trade-in.  Remove the eliminated colour’s artillery piece from the, playing order layout.

Winning a game of Allied World Domination Risk:

In Allied Risk, when all opponents are eliminated, the game is considered to be won even if the player has not necessarily conquered the world with one specific colour as this objective would inevitably be attained.

Allied World Domination Risk Questions and Answers

Q:  Why would anyone eliminate one of his own allied armies?
A:  Recall that an eliminated army surrenders its cards to the eliminating army.  These cards can be valuable, particularly in the latter stages of a game.  It may be advantageous to retain those cards instead of having them fall into your opponents hands.  Also, you might need these cards to obtain a mid turn card trade in.


In Poker, What is the Significance of "Betting on the Come" An example appears to be betting when you have only four of  straight or flush (with more cards coming), meaning that you can't (yet) beat say, a pair.

Is this a "value" bet of some sort (perhaps depending on the number players)? Is this mainly a bluff? Or could there be some "strategic" reason for making such a move, perhaps for future hands?

It can be a bluff or it can be a calculation.  If you have QJ and the board shows 10 9 3 then you have 2 overcards to the board and an open ended straight draw.  If you have 4 cards to a flush you are probably favored nearly 2 to 1 to an over pair even.

If you sense weakness in your opponent you might be able to scare them off of a hand like two 5's, that while leading as it stands, could be behind if you even have a 10 or 9.

Your opponent could also have a single ace or of the suit that has 2 on the board you do not want that over card pair or another card towards his flush to come.  So you can bet to scare him off now.

Generally betting the come you really want to take the hand down right there.  But you do not want to commit yourself to playing a hand out if the next card doesnt come in your favor.

It is only a value bet if you have a made hand, you think you are ahead, and you want a call.   Some times you will over bet to make it look fishy to get a call.

If you have outs (especially outs to the nuts) you might bet for:

build pot equity
fold equity
disguise your hand
pot control

Bet out (first to enter the pot) a 1/2 pot bet is ironically also for pot control.  Say you don't hit the turn they are more likely to check the turn if you had bet the flop. If they don't hit you will likely get 2 cards. If they hit they will bet and you better know where you are.


Mtg creature spells, instants, priority? A Friend and I were playing a game last night.
I tapped 4 mana, and I had 4 Creatures in my graveyard to help reduce Ghoultree's mana cost. So I summoned him, my friend then cast an instant that exiles creatures from my graveyard. Does Ghoultree then fizzle, because I now don’t have enough mana to cast it?

Or because he wasn’t countered he still enters battlefield because I am the active player and have priority?

Your Ghoultree will still resolve fine; your opponent can’t prevent it by exiling cards from your graveyard after you have cast Ghoultree.

The casting cost of a spell only matters when you are casting it. You declare your spell, put it on the stack, pay it’s costs; and only then does your opponent have a chance to respond.

Your opponent could have cast his instant earlier; before your main phase, but he would have had to know that you were planning to cast Ghoultree. There is no time between you declaring you are casting Ghoultree and you paying the cost where your opponent can act.

During your turn, if the stack is empty and you're not moving to another phase, then you and only you have priority. This means that you are the only person that can do anything. When you go to cast a spell, naming it, revealing it, and paying for it all happen (I forget the specific order, though).

Once all of that happens, you can either hold priority to do something else, or you can pass priority. Only then can someone respond to what you've done, but not to prevent you from doing it, except by countering it. Because of that, no one can ever remove your ability to cast a spell or activate an ability before you have a chance to do so when you can legally do so.

Edit: fixed some stuff; I wrote the original response on my phone, hence the errors.

Edit 2: if you want to move to your next phase, then there is a passing of priority before that happens; this is usually done by way of a shortcut, e.g. by saying, "Move to combat/second phase/end step," at which point your opponents can either do nothing or respond by doing something before moving to the proposed phase because they have been given priority.


Betrayal at House on the Hill - "Voodoo" (Haunt 25) - Do you continue if the traitor dies? We played the Voodoo scenario the other night and I as the traitor got killed in an attack. At the end of each traitor turn, the chance of survivors dying gets more and more likely. So I hoped that even though I was dead, the survivors might still succumb to the dolls.

The rules say that the traitor doesn't lose just because their explorer dies, and that the game can continue if the monsters could fulfil the traitor's task to win. I had no monsters (they don't really factor into this scenario), but I feel like the damage track and the voodoo doll effects were in a sense the equivalent of monsters in this case, and so would continue to be resolved at the end of each traitor/monster turn - giving me a chance to still win - the survivors are still in a race against time to find their dolls before the dolls kill them. Otherwise they've effectively won, it's just the laborious task of finding and destroying the dolls with little/no resistance.

Should the voodoo doll effects continue to be resolved at the end of the traitor/monster turn, even if the traitor explorer is dead?

You should continue.

The rules for winning and losing are defined by the specific scenarios, not the general game rules. The (heroes) rules for haunt #25 state what is required for the heroes to win:

  You Win When ...
  ... you destroy all of the dolls and at least half
  (rounding up) of the original heroes are still
  alive.

The main rulebook does NOT say that you must have a monster in order to continue with the traitor dead. What it says is:

  The first side (traitor or heroes) that completes its goals
  for the haunt wins the game.
  At least one hero must survive in order for the heroes to win.
  However, some haunts include goals that are written so that
  the traitor can still win the game after he or she dies. For
  instance, the monsters that player controls may be able to
  win the game without the traitor’s help.

(Emphasis mine). The idea of having monsters to help you win is just one example of how the traitor can win after he dies. It is clear that in order for the heroes to win, they need to meet the requirements in their rules. Killing the traitor has no effect on this (unless their rules state that specifically).

the game can continue if the monsters could fulfil the traitor's task
  to win

  I had no monsters

Sounds like you've answered your question there


Backgammon bearing off rules Suppose I am bearing off and have two checkers left, one on the 6 point and one on the 4 point. If I roll 5 and 3, is it legal to move the checker on the 6 point to the 3 point and then bear off the checker on the 4 point? Or am I required to make full use of my dice by moving both checkers to the 1 point?

Where can I find a reference to indicate which of these is correct?

Either choice is legal. Here's a reference:

Q: Can I play low number first when bearing off?
Yes, you may play your numbers in either order, as long as each number is played legally.

Actually the rules seem to be unclear. My house rule is to always play EXACT dice moves if possible. Any moves leftover instead of being wasted as in normal play can then be used to bear off. When using moves this way the checker on the highest numbered point (furthest away from the board's edge) is taken off. So using my rule you would NOT be able to bear any checkers off.


Why does a run of 4 in Cribbage score only 4? Cribbage scoring is fairly logical.  There are card combinations worth a given number of points and you can score every unique subset of cards independently and total up the score.  Except for runs of 4 or 5.

For example, a pair is worth 2.  Three of a kind is three different pairs (3 choose 2 is 3) and scores 6 (called a "pair royal").  A run is 3 or more cards in a row (e.g. 4, 5, 6) and scores one point per card.  It seems to me that in keeping with the other scoring rules, a 4-card run should score 6 (2 3-card runs each made by dropping the end cards) and a 5-card run should score 9.  Instead, a run scores one point per card.

Is there a logical reason I'm missing or is this just an inconsistency in Cribbage?

(afterthought:  a 5-card flush would score 20, which is a little too much)

First off, taken one way this might be an unanswerable question

I'm struggling with the question. It seems to be asking folks to guess on what they think the rationale might have been for scoring 4-card runs as 4-points instead of 6 (or some other number); however, since the game was invented in the 17th century its inventor is long-since dead, and absent some comprehensive history on the game and its inception that I'm not aware of the real answer to the question is not knowable. In other words, we can come up with some reasons that seem logical to us, but we will probably never understand the thought process of the game's inventor.

That said, here's why I like the rule as-is (and incidentally I like your question because I've had the same thought):

The best possible hand in cribbage is 29, which involves the Jack that counts for nobs and all of the 5s. Now although hands with lots of fives are always good, often retaining just one or two will only result in a mediocre score where you count a few 15s, a pair, and are done.

In contrast, a strategy that relies on runs, pairs, and 15s will have a lower maximum score, but will get more points if the up card is not exactly as desired.

For example if you're drawing for the best possible hand failing to get that last 5 as the up card will cost you 14 points, as you'll only score 15-8, a pair royal for 6 and 1 for his nobs for 15.

Consider now the runs, pairs, and 15s strategy, say for example, 6-7-7-8-9. Based on the rules this hand scores: 15-2 (7-8), 15-4 (7-8), 15-6 (6-9), run for 10 (6-7-8-9), run for 14 (6-7-8-9), and pair for 16 (7-7). A super solid hand. In the previous example there is only one card in the deck that gets you the extra 14 points. In this hand the best draw is one of the 4 nines, but the drop-off in points isn't that much if you draw another 8, or a 7, or a 6, or a 5. Less upside potential, but a much more robust hand statistically speaking.

Now here's why scoring runs differently breaks things.

If runs of 4 were scored as 6--or more precisely, if you got to count for 3 points every unique run of 3 that you could make, this hand scores much higher. The count to 15-6 is unchanged, but then: run for 9 (6-7-8), run for 12 (6-7-8), run for 15 (7-8-9), run for 18 (7-8-9), pair for 20 (7-7). Or perhaps a much simpler but more dramatic example is a hand of 5-6-7-8-9, where the score for just the runs would go from 5 points to 9.

If the value of runs is increased, this incentivises players to only go for the much more likely (and now also relatively more lucrative) run hands instead of the larger payoff but higher risk 15 hands. This would make the strategy of the game more myopic and because everyone would be playing the same way because the relative payoff of going for the knock-out blow would be much reduced.

I don't want to make too much of all this (too late probably) because ultimately a players freedom is highly restricted by their cards (you only get to discard 2 after all), but the incentives of changing the rule appear to be to be tilted in the wrong direction.

While writing a Cribbage app (BTO Cribbage), I had the same thought.  When I wrote the scoring module, it came to me with the following rule:

For straights, you get a point per card considering every unique combination of straights of 3 cards or more.

Example:
2,3,4 -> only 1 combination of straight = 3
2,3,4,4 -> 2 combinations of straights + 1 pair = 8
2,3,4,5 -> only 1 combination straight = 4
2,3,4,5,5 -> 2 combinations of straights + 1 pair = 10

Easy right?  Now use the same logic for pairs / sets:

For sets (2,3,4) you get a point per card considering every unique combination of pairs.

Example (more detailed):
2C,2H -> 1 pair = 2 points
2C,2H,2D -> 3 pairs of 2C+2H, 2C+2D, 2H+2D = 6 points
2C,2H,2D,2S -> 6 pairs of 2C+2H, 2C+2D, 2H+2D, 2S+2C, 2S+2H, 2S+2D = 12 points

So in both cases, you score 1 point per card considering every combination.  If you think about it this way, straights are scored just as logically as sets.  Further, 15 scoring also works this way.


How many creatures should be in a draft deck? How many creatures should the average, typical draft deck contain?

Obviously this depends on a multitude of factors, including the kinds of creatures in your deck, the kinds of non-creatures you have available, and the overall composition of the block you're drafting. Nonetheless, what's a good baseline for the number of creatures in a draft deck? And how should I decide if I need to run more or fewer creatures than the baseline?

Usually, my draft decks tend to aim for 16-17, 6-7 other spells, and 17 lands.  Generally, if you end up with 19-20+ creatures your deck is going to be aggressive but insufficiently versatile.  If you end up with 11 or fewer creatures your deck may have lots of "answers" but a shortage of ways to actually win the game.  As ever, striking a balance is key.

There's nothing wrong with having 12 creatures or something if your deck is packed with sweet removal: take a red/black deck for instance; the creature quality in these colours tends to be low, but you make up for it in the strength of the removal cards.  Obviously it'd be daft to be adding bad creatures to a deck to "make up the numbers" when you have excellent removal at your disposal: being able to take out one of the opponent's best creatures is almost as good as playing a creature of your own.

Also, make a note of cards in your pool which aren't creatures but basically count as creature cards.  Mind Control is one of the very best cards in the latest Core Set because not only does it remove an opponent's creature, it gives you one as well!  And most sets have an instant or sorcery that generates token creatures these days.  If you draft a lot on Magic Online where it keeps a running total of creatures for you, you'll be familiar with having to take that figure with a pinch of salt - because often it lies!

Anyway, 16-17 creatures or equivalent is definitely "average and typical".  If you're often drastically over- or undershooting that baseline, then (unless you've created some kind of insanely broken rogue decks that crush all comers 3-0) I'd definitely try to steer closer to the 40% creatures mark and see if that works out better for you.

10creatures, 24 land,10 spells, 10 artifacts 6, of anything


Does Wrath of God really destroy creatures with shroud? I heard - (from an official MtG judge) - that Wrath of God ("Destroy all creatures") destroys creatures with the Shroud ability, because it doesn't target a single creature, it targets all creatures.

Is this really true? In my opinion it is very illogical.

Yes, Wrath of God will kill all creatures with shroud.  It will also kill all creatures that have protection from white.  It won't kill creatures that are indestructible.

To understand why this is, you have to look at the definitions of the terms.

Shroud means: "this creature can't be the target of spells or abilities".

Protection means (among other things): "this creature can't be the target of spells or abilities of the colour in question".

Wrath of God just says "Destroy all creatures".  No mention of targets at all.  And I think this is where your confusion is arising.  Wrath of God doesn't "target all creatures and destroy them".  It doesn't target anything.  It just destroys them, whether they're slippery customers or not.  Boom!

Indestructible creatures survive a Wrath because their ability ("cannot be destroyed") specifically interacts with the word "destroy" on the card Wrath of God.  Creatures with Shroud only interact with, and care about, the word "target" on a card.  If you can't find "target" written anywhere on the card, then Shroud won't have any effect on what that card can do.

As an interesting side point, take a look at a card like Copy Enchantment.  This puts into play a copy of an enchantment already on the battlefield.  But note that nowhere on the card does it say "target".  This means that if you copy an Aura on the battlefield, you can put that copy onto a creature with Shroud... even if the original Aura would have been unable to enchant that creature when it was cast!  Sometimes Magic does some pretty counter-intuitive things, but it's very internally consistent.

Hope that's clarified things more than it's confused them, for you!

First of all, there is a little rule everyone is forgetting and it is the legal target rule which simply states before a permanent can be destroyed or removed from play it has to be a legal target of a spell:

  608.2b [During resolution, if] the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal.

All spells target, including those with "all" in their text. If a spell states that it does not target, then it cannot destroy anything according to the legal target rule. For a spell to affect a permanent, the permanent must be a legal target for said spell.

For example, Noxious Ghoul reads:

  Whenever Noxious Ghoul or another Zombie enters the battlefield, all non-Zombie creatures get -1/-1 until end of turn.

Zombies do not get the -1/-1 counter because they are not legal targets of Noxious Ghoul's ability. Basically, because there are legal targets for every spell, spells with "all" target "all" as well.

Another basic common sense example is Crux of Fate. Crux of Fate offers a choice of either destroying all dragons or destroying all non-dragons, which means means it will either target and destroy all legal target dragons or target and destroy all legal target non-dragons.

This is basic common sense - if a spell does not target anything then it does not do anything.


Interesting boardgames to play with children I have two children aged 8 and 6 and they like to play board games.  Some of the ones they have are for very young children and boring for an adult to play.  Are there any suggestions for games that they will understand and I can enjoy?

Legendary Uno. Its card game. Description from BGG:

  Players race to empty their hands and
  catch opposing players with cards left
  in theirs, which score points. In
  turns, players attempt to play a card
  by matching its color, number, or word
  to the topmost card on the discard
  pile. If unable to play, players draw
  a card from the draw pile, and if
  still unable to play, they pass their
  turn. Wild and special cards spice
  things up a bit.

Snakes and Ladders is a very interesting game if you want to play with children .


What is the order of resolution of abilities during the damage step? I was curious how abilities resolve during damage calculation. I was playing a game last night where Lightning attacked and wasn't blocked. She has an ability that lets her dull a forward. The damage step caused an ex burst that gave a forward more attack power.

The question really is when do abilities like lightnings resolve, before damage? After damage? Or after or before the EX burst?

The official English rule states: Official reference guide

  When defending player receives damage and reveals their damage card, if the card is marked with an EX icon in the top right corner, the player triggers the card's EX Burst and may immediately apply the effects of the card. ...

Therefore here it goes:

Lightning is not blocked and produce damage.
The Ex Burst is triggered.
Then Lightning ability is triggered dulling a forward.

Note that you can't counter Ex Burst. However, auto ability or field ability can be countered.

When Lightning damages your opponent, choose 1 dull it,
When you damage an opponent remove the top card and put it into the damage zone.

Just using this as reference, in MTG if you deal lethal damage to a player with a monster that has life link, they die before you gain life (only matters in multi player) So with this in mind, id say the top card EX goes off first since 1(MTG reference) and 2 (EX burst cannot be interrupted)


Do Increasing Vengence and Swerve form an infinite combo? Okay, so say you play an instant or sorcery spell and then play Increasing Vengeance targeting it could you then play Swerve changing the target of Increasing Vengeance from the random instant or sorcery to itself?

If by "itself" you mean having Increasing Vengeance target itself, then no, you can't do that because rule 114.4 says

  A spell or ability on the stack is an illegal target for itself.

Even if you could do that, it wouldn't do much because no matter how many times an Increasing Vengeance were to resolve copying itself, you would still end up with a single Increasing Vengeance.

If, on the other hand, you mean having Increasing Vengeance target Swerve, then you can do that but it wouldn't do much because once Increasing Vengeance starts to resolve Swerve would no longer be on the stack so the Increasing Vengeance would be countered for having no legal target.

murgatroid's answer is correct that you can't have Increasing Vengeance target itself. But even if you had two copies of Increasing Vengeance that could target one another, you still wouldn't have an infinite combo. Infinite loops can only consist of mandatory actions - unless someone does something different, the loop will repeat by itself over and over without anyone having to make any decision other than passing priority. That is not the case here, because each copy of Increasing Vengeance requires a selection for the target. You can shortcut the loop as many times as you like, but you can't say that you'll repeat an optional loop indefinitely - you pick how many times you want to do it, and then you are required to take a different action. You cannot force a draw by entering a loop that has optional actions which are required to keep it going.


What kingdom set would lead to the highest scoring games of Dominion? Obviously anything that puts curses into circulation would be anathema. I'm not necessarily looking for one player to have the highest score possible, so much as to have games where everyone's scores where really high.

I figure Monument is obvious, and Great Hall, Island, etc. seem like they might also contribute to a high scoring game.
On the other hand if there are tons of non-terminal action cards and Vinyards that could lead to some pretty ridiculous scores as well.

I am starting to do some analysis of games on the online dominion server at http://dominion.isotropic.org.  The top 5 scoring games there all involve a combination of Goons and King's Court.  These are all solo games where people are trying to run up the score, so they aren't representative.  But from my experience, Colony, Goons, Vineyard, Bishop, Duke, and Gardens all contribute to really high scores in real games.

2941  Alchemist, City, Colony, Gardens, Goons, Grand Market, King's Court, Platinum, Potion, Steward, Throne Room, Vineyard, and Watchtower

 2760
Ambassador, Bridge, Chapel, City, Council Room, Goons, King's Court, Throne Room, Watchtower, and Worker's Village

 2722
Bishop, Bridge, City, Colony, Council Room, Fishing Village, Goons, King's Court, Monument, Platinum, Wharf, and Worker's Village

 2681
Bazaar, Bishop, Chapel, Colony, Council Room, Goons, Grand Market, King's Court, Market, Platinum, Throne Room, and Wharf

 2625
Bishop, Black Market, Bridge, Caravan, City, Colony, Goons, King's Court, Monument, Platinum, Throne Room, and Wharf

I exploited an AI bug in Androminion to rack up 563 VP with only card points (so no Bishop, Goons or Monument). The kingdom was as follows:

Crossroads
Bridge
Gardens
Rats
Silk Road
Duke
Tactician
Wharf
Nobles
King's Court

The AI bug in question is that one of the AI opponents will buy and play exclusively Rats, thinning their deck down to the 20 Rats in the supply and cycling through them indefinitely. This left me free to purchase every other card on the board (Final deck size of 248). The final VP breakdown:

Estate - 11 VP (1x11)
Duchy - 24 VP (8x3)
Province - 48 VP (8x6)
Colony - 80 VP (8x10)
Duke - 64 VP (8x8)
Gardens - 192 VP (8x24)
Nobles - 16 VP (8x2)
Silk Road - 128 VP (8x16)


Can "Fling" target a Player? If I cast Fling, can I deal damage to my opponent equal to the sacrificed creature's Power or does it only target Creatures/Planeswalkers?

The rules say (emphasis mine):

115.4. Some spells and abilities that refer to damage require “any target,” “another target,” “two
targets,” or similar rather than “target [something].” These targets may be creatures, players, or
planeswalkers. Other game objects, such as noncreature artifacts or spells, can’t be chosen.

So yes, if a spell says "any target", a player will always be a legal choice (assuming no other cards currently in effect restrict whether players can be targets).

You can.  This comes up often in the Pauper format, when you play Affinity.  You play lots of artifacts, including all your lands, and some Atogs.

You sacrifice some of your artifacts to pump up an Atog, hit your opponent with it, then fling it at your opponent.  If you sacrificed five artifacts, that's 22 damage.


What happens if someone reneges on a loner hand in euchre? Yesterday, I was observing a game of Euchre when something interesting occurred and I wasn't sure what to make of it. I'll call the two teams A and B. Team A went alone, and around the 4th trick someone on Team B ended up reneging on accident. We noticed it after the final trick had been played, and none of us were really sure how to rule it. We ended up calling it a renege, even though Team A took all 5 tricks. But is that correct? Should Team A have gotten the 4 points since they took all 5? Or does a renege trump (no pun intended) that?

To be clear, if someone on Team B reneges during Team A's loner hand, and Team A took all 5 tricks. Would it result in two points, because of the renege, or four points because they took all the tricks?

Side note: We determined that even if Team B had not reneged that all 5 tricks would have been won anyways. Making this dilemma even more confusing.

I have always interpreted the renege penalty as being generally 2 points because that's the maximum the opponents could have gained from the hand. In a loner hand, the maximum the makers can get is 4 points, so I would penalize a renege on with 4 points. Some sources:

On the Ohio Euchre page the renege rule says:

  RENEGE: - There are no exceptions to the ruling for a Renege: The hand is over, the offending team loses their bid and the non-offending team scores two points. In the case of a renege during a Loner attempt, the non-offending team scores 4 points.

On the wikipedia page for euchre, it says almost the same, though leaves open the possibility that other variants might not do this:

  In some variants reneging when a player or his opponent is going alone may result in a penalty of four points in order to equalize the potential values of a hand. The four point penalty for reneging should apply equally for the maker of trump and the opposing team.

A third source, Euchre Links says the same, though only specifically about the team that is attempting the loner:

  If the guilty team is defending against a lone-attempt during the infraction, 4 points are awarded to the team that was attempting the loner.

So, the sources seem to be in agreement that the maker would get 4 points when one defender reneges, and two of the three using language that indicates ANY renege in a loner hand (maker or defender) awards 4 points to the non-offending team.

A good clean game is fun, reneges doesn't happen, sitting on the fence does but playing against friends why would you. Having a partner, who knows you play euchre often by sitting on the fence, is great but to renege no thats not a good game and ruins it for all.


Dominion randomizer deck confusion A friend of mine got Dominion for Christmas, and while the game plays wonderfully (I'm hooked), we were both confused by the randomizer deck.

Why are there Curse, Copper, Silver, Gold, and victory point cards in the randomizer deck, when they're needed for every game?  We figured out we would remove those cards from the randomizer deck before dealing out 10 of the Kingdom cards to set up the game, but why bother having the above-named cards in the deck in the first place?  Are we missing something?

Don't use them to randomize.  Use one of the online card pickers:

What is the Best Random Card Setup Tool?

Use them as the last card in their respective stacks.  They are used to indicate that the stack has run out so that it is easier to know how close the game is to ending.  @krisa suggests that if you use sleeves to use a different colored sleeve for the randomizer cards.  This will make it much easier to keep them separate.

Pg. 5 of the rules says:

  Players may also use the Randomizer cards
  as Placeholders to mark the card piles so
  empty piles are easily seen.

To completely solve the problem of randomizer cards, Don't use them at all. INSTEAD use one card from each kingdom pile, and shuffle them. Draw your 10 cards for the supply piles. Lay these drawn cards out as the bottom card for each supply pile. Then place the rest of the stack for each of these cards, on top of them. When the pile is out, it's out. RIO GRANDE... ARE YOU LISTENING. This would save you millions of cards not printed. No more confusion over what to do with them. Even happier nubbies


How do you handle fast players in a casual setting that skip priority? This really isn't a problem in a tournament setting, because players are expected to know the rules, and will usually ask their opponent if they wish to take any actions before allowing a spell to resolve. In a casual setting though, and especially in Multiplayer, where players may not be paying that much attention to what might be happening on the other side of the board, how do you handle a player who casts a string of non-instant spells without giving anyone the time/chance to counter each spell in the string?

Time is usually at a premium in MP, so I doubt that most players ask each player in turn if they have a response. (with the possible exception of the resolution of cards like Browbeat, where it is optimal to see if any player will bite the bullet and take the damage). In your multiplayer magic games, do you only ask if an opponent is playing Blue with 2-3 Mana available? Do you pause for a short time time after each spell? Do you allow opponents to backup and counter the first spell?

What is the best way to handle counterspells in multiplayer to minimize time, and not make counters too powerful?

By the rules, you allow opponents to backup and counter the first spell.

MTG is not a real-time game, it's a turn-based game. In other words, it's not a game of chicken.

MTG would be extremely tedious if you had to explicitly pass priority every time. That why people use shortcuts. If you say "I cast Foo and Bar", you are actually proposing the following a shortcut:

I cast Foo
I pass
You pass
I cast Bar
I pass
You pass

The other player(s) may accept the shortcut entirely, or they may accept the shortcut only until a point of their choosing. Accepting part of the shortcut could be done, for example, by saying "In response to Foo, I cast Baz."

If the shortcut is accepted, the person who proposed it must abide by it. (He must cast Foo and Bar.)

If the shortcut is accepted to a point, the person who proposed it must abide by it up to that point. (He must cast Foo.) He can deviate as he wishes past that point. (He need not cast Bar, though he obviously can if he wants to do so.)

So the answer, by the rules, is the last option you presented: You allow opponents to backup and counter the first spell.

If you want to be sure Foo isn't going to be countered before announcing you're casting Bar, you have to make sure noone wants to do anything in response to Foo.

It's a gentleman's game.  You do your best to move along, your best to play correctly, and your best not to violate the rules or the spirit.  Sometimes you have to back up.  Some players have not fully learned the rules and you may have to figure out whether it is willful or innocent.  Like life itself.


Can you revive the creature you sacrificed with Hell's Caretaker? Can you revive the creature you sacrificed with Hell's Caretaker?

Doing so to re-trigger "enters the battlefield" effects.

No

The steps to casting a spell or activating an ability are:

601.2a) Place card or ability on stack.
601.2b-d) Make choices, including targets.
601.2e) Determine total cost.
601.2f) Activate mana abilities.
601.2g) Pay the previously determined cost.

The sacrificed creature is only moved to the graveyard in step 5, but you need to pick a card in the graveyard in step 2.

Yes. THis is possible. You can also use cards in your hand


Cluedo optimal suggestion asking I am writing an algorithm to ask for the most optimal suggestion (murderer, weapon, place). I would like to hear your opinions about this method, possible improvements, or limitations.

In order of importance:

Never use a card that you already know another player has: You won't gain any information.
Never use a card that another player knows I have: That player could potentially gain as much information from my suggestion as myself.

For example I own the dagger, and player B knows that. Additionally he has the kitchen, and I don't know that. I then suggest it was Plum, with the dagger, in the kitchen; when somebody disproves my accusation player B would know that the other player had to show me Plum.

Use my own cards a maximum of one time throughout the entire game: The entire point of using one of your own cards is to suggest that somebody else has it, or that it is one of the cards in the envelope. If I repeat one of my cards then this would happen:

I use my card no.1: The person that disproves me now possibly has no.1 (according to all the other players). But then I use no.1 again and this same player is now not able to disprove my suggestion. (All the other players now know he didn't have it; this gives them extra information that either I have it or it is in the envelope)

Never use a card that you know is in the envelope: This only gives the other players information about other people not having that card.
If you have used all your cards once, make suggestions about 3 unknown cards.

You are trying to write a set of human understandable rules for a problem that a machine can do much better at.  What you have designed is a set of heuristics for what is fundamentally a statistics problem.  If you want to achieve true optimality, I recommend you start over entirely.

There are 9 rooms, 6 players, and 6 weapons.  This means that there are only 324 different valid guesses (9 * 6 * 6) in general, and if you restrict this algorithm to a guess given the room you are in, you only have 36 options.  While these are is too big for a human to evaluate in real-time, they are negligible to a computer.  What you want to write is a set of scoring criteria for each of these card combinations, and then to pick the card combination that has the highest score as your guess (breaking ties at random).

In order to talk further about optimal, we need to get rigorous about this scoring mechanism.  It sounds from your starting attempt like there are two things you care about:

Gaining as much information that you don't already know
Revealing as little information that you do already know to other players.

It's going to be quite complicated to handle both of these, so let's focus on just point 1 at first (as it's the more important of the two).

In order to gain information, you algorithm needs to have as input everything that you already know about where cards are.  This is:

How many cards each player has
Which cards you know the locations of (including your own cards)
Which cards you know certain players do not hold

You then build a probability model of the location of each card (including the middle).  Cards that you know the location of will have probability 100% associated with that location.  Then, for an arbitrary guess, you model what the players will do with that guess, namely show you a card or pass to the next player.  For this purpose, you probably want to assume the worst case, namely that if a player holds a card matching your guess that you already know the location of, that's the card you will be shown.  With all of this, you can determine the probability that you will be shown a new card versus it will get back to you with no one showing you anything.  You need to add in a bit of logic for figuring out what you learn if it gets back to you without anyone showing you anything.

But at the end of this, you have a probability of learning new information with a given guess.  At this point you could throw in some weighting for different types of cards (I believe rooms to be more valuable pieces of information because you have to get to the room to guess it), but you don't have to.  Compare this probability across each guess and take the one with the highest chance of telling you something new.

With such an algorithm, you could even run it on all 324 card combinations, look at the top 10 most valuable guesses, and from that determine the most valuable room to go to next (or maybe even add in some weighting for room distance).

At this point, you could now try to tackle part 2: giving away as little information as possible.  What you probably want to do is subtract some amount from the score of each guess for how much information it gives away, but this gets complicated quite fast as to do it optimally requires modeling everything the other players know.  You could just add a negative weight to any guess that would reveal a card you know to be in the envelope, but this would be a delicate thing to calibrate, and at this point we're back in the realm of heuristics rather than being able to talk about an "optimal" guess.  My recommendation is to not include this in your first attempt at this algorithm.

Your current algorithm is flawed because it ignores:

A. the difficultly in moving rooms, how many goes it takes to move rooms

B. the fact that there are more rooms to eliminate than weapons/murderers

C. it doesn't suggest when you should use your own cards in your suggestion, just when you shouldn't

D. Your rule no2 fails to take account of an opponent with sufficient memory (or sufficient record keeping) - just because another player doesn't know you have the card now, doesn't mean he can't go back through previous goes when you show him the card later. You could use this to fix my problem C, and say you shouldn't ever use your own cards. But of course if you never show the card it doesn't matter. So you need to take account of the likelihood of showing a card later.

As an example for my problem A, let's say you start with equal distance to two rooms - one of which you have the card to, and one of which you don't. By your current algorithm there is no priority between the two. But obviously you get more information by going to the room you don't have. Let's now say the room you don't have is 2 spaces further away, but the final roll of the dice allows you to go to either - is it acceptable to still go to the room you don't have, or will it arouse suspicion? Is that suspicion worth it anyway? What about if the extra distance takes you an extra turn? Is it now too suspicious?

For my problem B it may prove better to eliminate rooms and not worry about eliminating weapons/people. It might be possible to eliminate weapons/people by analysing other people's guesses and the responses they get. So this may lead to you wanting to suggest your own cards for weapon and person in order to eliminate rooms. But if you get shown a card, and then on your next turn leave the room, that's a pretty strong signal to all the other players that the card you were shown was the room.

But let's say you use your own cards for weapon and person, and no-one can help you with the room; you now know the room. Before your next go, you get dragged into another room; one you have the card for, and you're forced to show that room card to the person whose go it is. According to your algorithm rule no2 you MUST move rooms before making a suggestion. This is going to a) lose you time in moving rooms, b) possibly result in you moving to a room where people will show you the room card or c) make it really obvious that the room you were dragged from was important when you try to get back there. Actually you've done the hardest bit (finding the room in the envelope); your best course of action is to stay in the room you have the card for, and force other players to show you their weapon/people cards.

Another example where your algorithm falls down is when you have the card that proves your own innocence. If you constantly accuse the same person, it means no-one is showing you that person card, which means either you have it or its in the envelope. Players who don't know that you have it will therefore accuse that person to check whether you have it or its in the envelope. If that person is you, then you get free movement to lots of different rooms! This can be a blessing or a curse though - if they move you to a room which you've already eliminated it can use up your valuable time.

In summary your algorithm is too simplistic. If you ignore the rooms and only apply it to weapons/people it's fairly good though.


How to encourage rolling two dice in Machi Koro? I've played Machi Koro a number of times, most often with in a group of 3 players, sometimes 4.  So far the prevailing strategy usually ends up being to roll only one die and to:

Buy as many Convenience Stores as you can.
Occasionally buy some Cafes and Bakeries, but primarily:
Save up for a Shopping Mall.
Construct the Radio Tower, then the Amusement Park, and then the Train Station.

So basically the Shopping Mall makes Convenience Stores powerful.  Even though Convenience Stores activate only on your turn, you have a 1/6 chance of hitting them, and there's a sizable payoff if you do.  Meanwhile buy other 1-6 cards so that even if the Convenience Stores don't hit, you can have a 100% chance of hitting something on your own turn. (You might not get income if other players have sufficient Cafes, but that's significantly mitigated once you get the Radio Tower.)

My group has tried this where 1 of 3 players sticks with only one die and where 2 of 3 players stick with only one die.  So far the players who stick with one die usually end up with more money.  Going for two-dice cards requires a greater investment, and since it's harder to get coverage for all possible dice rolls, provides more opportunities to not hit anything on your turn.  It seems hard to justify rolling two dice and giving up nearly guaranteed income.  And if most of the players aren't rolling 2 dice, then buying Mines and Family Restaurants is a lot less attractive.  If nobody has any interest in buying cards >6, then the game seems broken.

Are these experiences atypical?  If not, are there any good house rules to combat this?

Update #1: From the comment discussion in one of the answers, it also occurred to me that if I started rolling two dice, other players could just buy Family Restaurants.  Assuming that they also have Cafes, if I roll 2 dice instead of 1, I now have a 1/4 chance of paying other people instead of 1/6.  The threat of Family Restaurants thus seems like another disincentive to ever bother with 2 dice.  Is my analysis incorrect? (If I take expected values into account, Family Restaurants get even more weight, although I'm notably not calculating the expected values for a Cheese or Furniture Factory strategy.)

I suppose I should try to write some Machi Koro bots and run a few thousand simulations...

Update #2: I've had a few ideas about how to address this (which I've posted as separate answers to this question), but I don't actually play Machi Koro enough with the same set of people to have been able to play-test them.

1) If all but you gets cards that provide $ from 1 or 2 valued rolls, then it kind of does devolve into that.  Early on, get a few of those cards, but then shoot for 2 dice, and some cards that trigger on the 4 - 10 range.  You'll be able to leech off of the single-die players, but can still do your own thing.

2) play with the variant where not all cards are available at all times.

3) The expansions add even more cards to the mix that allow #2 to be even more feasible

If your suggestion is that your game group may have stumbled upon an optimal play, my general feeling is that Amusement Park is far overpriced for its value, granting another turn every 1 in 6 times (which, remember, only works if you already have train station and is quite a gamble given the small sample of rolls you get any given game). I would usually target the purple cards with the coins you might otherwise use for Amusement Park and double up the dice, making it harder for 1-4 rolls to trigger and more likely (relatively anyway) to see some of these fantastic offensive purple cards start to herd opponents coins or their cards in (while getting the occasional nice 7-9). I haven't played enough to see this broken situation you described possibly because I, and others, end up actively pursuing the 2 dice realm especially when others don't.


Rubber bridge: when must honours be declared in order to be scored? If you have four or five honors (or four aces in no-trump), when does it have to be declared?

The last time I played, I declared my four honors for 100 points after the hand was over. The bridge referee said that was too late, reasoning that the honors had to be declared before the hand was finished.

From Law 76 in the American Contract Bridge League laws,

  Honours may be claimed until the next hand has been dealt or the rubber has been completed and scored – whichever comes sooner.

Law 78 also states, with my emphasis on the specific relevant example,

  When it is acknowledged by a majority of the players that a scoring error was made in recording an agreed-up-on result (e.g., failure to enter honors or incorrect computation of score), the error must be corrected if discovered before the net score of the rubber has been agreed to.

Until the next hand is dealt or the rubber complete and scored, honours may be claimed.

The end of a hand is not the same event as the dealing of the hand after it. The rubber cannot be complete until it is know that a side has 100 points below the line, and it is not scored until the sides have both worked out and accepted the net scores from hands played in that rubber.

The referee appears to have made an error if they disallowed scoring honours before the next hand or before the rubber's net score was agreed to. The referee was correct if you or your partner had assented to either dealing the next hand or the complete rubber's net score.

I have always declared honors when the first honor from my hand is played; if you declare before you are tipping off your hand position to the competitors when might cause you to lose the contract.


Why is it called "Chinese Checkers"? It is not a Checkers variant, nor did it originate in China, how could this name possibly make sense?

There seems to be surprisingly little information about the origin of the name "Chinese Checkers". The game itself was first released in 1892 in Germany as "Stern-Halma" (literally "Star-Halma"), indicating that it was a variation of Halma that was played on a star-shaped board. But there doesn't seem to be any solid information about why the name "Chinese Checkers" became associated with the game.

The only thing that I could find was a history of the game on PlayChineseCheckers.com, which despite sounding authoritative is written by an anonymous author who doesn't back its claims (not to mention has a website that looks like a GeoCities page from the 90s) and so the following passage should be taken worth a grain of salt:

  The first Chinese Checkers game to be published in the United States was 'Hop Ching Checkers' in 1928 by J. Pressman & Co. This was exact the same game as the 1892 Star-Halma. The brothers Bill and Jack Pressman made up the name 'Chinese Checkers' during or shortly after 1928. The game was given a Chinese name and theme in keeping with the current interest in all things oriental (among them the discovery of King Tut's tomb in 1922 and the 'mah jongg' game that was introduced in 1923)

I'd like to stress again that despite this being a really solid-sounding explanation, the author is anonymous and there are no sources to back up this claim, so it's not clear whether or not this is true.

After a great deal of searching, I did not manage to find a more authoritative source on the subject, so the true origins of why the game is called "Chinese Checkers" may remain a mystery.

In the old days, when something was unusual or "backwards" or just plain weird, it was referred to as "Chinese". Hence the game not resembling checkers in the slightest, it was coined "Chinese checkers".


Does Juragedo always cause a replay? If I SS Juragedo during the battle step, does it always cause a replay?

  During either player's Battle Step: You can Special Summon this card
  from your hand, and if you do, gain 1000 LP. You can only use this
  effect of "Juragedo" once per turn. During either player's turn: You
  can Tribute this card, then target 1 face-up monster you control; it
  gains 1000 ATK until the end of the next turn.

No Juragedo does not always cause a replay. A replay only occurs if the number of monsters on the field changes while an attack is being declared, but before the damage step. Therefore Juragedo can cause a replay, but does not always cause one. If Juragedo is summoned as soon as the Battle Phase starts, then a replay will not occur, but if it is summoned immediately after an attack, then a replay will occur.

yes it does. When the total number on monster changes on field then replay will always come.


Monopoly millionaire mortgaging of a property to pay for another property Since an agreement could not be made.
And we take monopoly a bit to seriously in this house.
I need a perspective to end this debate.

I landed on boardwalk.  I had 167k in cash to pay for it, but I was 3k shy of having enough cash to complete the (170k) purchase.

Is it legal to mortgage another one of my properties, when the rules state "you must be bankrupt to mortgage properties", to have enough money to pay for the new property?
This is very serious and I need an outside opinion.

I would say no, you are just out of luck.

Defining Bankruptcy

Since the rules I found here don't explicitly define bankruptcy, but merely list the changes from standard Monopoly rules, I will refer to the standard rules. It states

  BANKRUPTCY ... You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can
  pay either to another player or to the Bank.

Since the rules for Millionaire state about mortgage (and other things)

  IMPORTANT: You can ONLY do these things if you’re bankrupt, not under
  any other circumstances!

Since buying property is optional (the standard rules say that you may buy property when you land on it, it is not required), you don't qualify as being bankrupt.  Since you are not bankrupt, mortgaging is not an option.

You must be bankrupt before mortgaging. Since you had 167k and purchasing is optional you can’t mortgage to buy. You could have sold one or your other properties however


What should happen if a player requests the floorman after an opponent deliberately exposes their hand? There are 5 players in a poker game, 3 players fold before the flop, and the remaining two are heads up after the flop. The first player bets 25, the second player calls.

The first player checks the turn, the second player bets 55, and the first player calls again.

The first player checks the river. The second player bets 100, the first player goes all in and shows their cards inside the line. Now the second player wants to speak with the floorman. What should happen?

I think there is a misunderstanding that 'the line' is a fold line.  I've played in many casinos where there is no line. Just because cards have crossed that line face up doesn't automatically make them dead.

The most important bit here is was there a verbal statement 'all in'.   If we look at Robert's Rules, which has been on display in most poker rooms I've played in, then

  A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you
  verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to
  take that action

If the player announced all in then the bet stands and other player can call or fold.

Two other rules worth mentioning here regarding 'dead hands'  Note the section on Dead Hands make no reference to 'the line'

You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).

You say the player tabled his cards inside the line.  This to me is very different to throwing them away in a forward motion.  The rules on dead hands also say....

  Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is
  clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if
  doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra
  effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of
  false information given to the player.

In the situation you describe the cards never went into the muck.  They are also clearly identifiable. So it stands that the hand is live and they have not folded.  Of course by making this mistake they have disadvantaged themselves as the other player knows if they are winning of not thus denying the all in player extra value or loses a bluff.  This is punishment enough for the mistake and the rules don't punish them further by declaring the hand dead.

I did once witness this situation live once where a player went all in and tabled cards, admittedly pre flop.  It was ruled the players was all in and other other player was able to decide if they wanted to call or not based with the information of other players cards.

On some tables if you are last to act facing an all in you can expose your cards.

This was different as the first player was all in but not last to act.  Cards crossing the line face up or face down is not a fold if the player is all in (or just bet). First player broke the rule on exposing cards but gained nothing by doing so. Second player gained by knowing the cards. As a floor man the hand is live and I would not even penalize the guy.

In the same situation heads up on the river Jamie Gold first to act put his opponent all in.  Jamie exposed one card briefly but the dealer did not see.  It was one card that Jamie needed but the other card was a blank. Opponent had him beat but folded. That should have been a dead hand as he exposed a card which influenced action.


I died, what can I do until the world ends? The other day whilst playing betrayal at house on the hill, I died early on and didn't get back on the board as a monster in any way.

What can I do to contribute without 'over doing it'?

Following the haunt, the game tends to become semi-cooperative, with one antagonist. In those cases, while you're not controlling a character, you could certainly offer advice and contribute to group-thinking.

I certainly think that answer, in line with previous ones, is most appropriate, but if you're desperate to house-rule an alternative, how about this "ghost" variant:

Your character remains on the board and has all their stats returned to their starting values, but cannot interact with anyone or anything (they're a ghost) and loses all their items/omens. On your turn, you can move according to your speed as normal, and then nominate a character/creature in your room and an attribute. Reduce that attribute by one on your character coaster and declare that the target character has a +1 bonus or -1 penalty in that stat until your next turn. This represents you messing with monsters by floating candlesticks at them, or the heroes fighting on in your memory, or whatever. If it's that kind of group, you could elaborate by describing in an appropriately thematic way exactly how you're causing the change. You could target a team-mate who really needs to succeed at that Sanity check, or pick the Strength of a monster you're all wailing on. Once a stat of yours hits bottom, you can no longer use it.

I doubt this variant would be over-powering. It doesn't even counter-balance the loss of a full-fledged character if you ask me. Disclaimer: I haven't tried it, but you could give it a go and report back.

In scenarios where it's every man for himself (i.e. it becomes fully competitive with no one traitor), any further interaction you have with the game would just be king-making, so you should probably concede that you've been eliminated and resort to heckling etc.

One extremely satisfying and amusing thing to do that breaks tension and provides comic relief is to provide sound effects for everything that happens, including sneaking up behind people and whispering "I am a ghost, come to haunt you..."


moving backwards into a safety zone in the game Sorry can a player move backwards into their safety zone in the game of Sorry?

No, you cannot. From the rules, under the "Safety Zone" section:

  No pawn may enter its SAFETY ZONE by a backward move; however, a pawn may move backward out of its SAFETY ZONE and on subsequent turns move back into the ZONE as cards permit.

A pawn actually can move into the safety zone on a backwards move. From the Moving Backward section:
"If you have moved a pawn backward at least 2 spaces from your start space, you may, on a subsequent turn, move into your safety zone (on a backwards move)."


Can a single player have all nine potential queens in one game? I would like to know whether it is possible to, in a single game, convert all eight pawns of one colour into queens while retaining the original queen.

Presume that we are both playing chess competitively from the start of the game. Is there any circumstance where this could happen? Has it happened in the past?

Yes. This thread contains a set of sample games.

Like Beofett said it is theoretically possible, but this is something you would only want to attempt while playing a weak computer for the lolz. Strong players who have a habit of playing computers from time to time, like Nakamura, may take pleasure from promoting his excess pawns to knights/bishops and proceed to checkmate the computer with them. Here is one example: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480850

There are two reasons why it should not happen in a game between to two human players:
If your opponent allows it to happen (i.e. he is weak) you should not prolong his misery any more than necessary (which is bad etiquette). If he is aware that the situation is hopeless he should resign and not allow it to happen as well.


What is the name of this solitaire variant? I recently learned a new solitaire from a friend, but we have no idea what the name of it is. Can anyone help?
You use two decks of cards, and start by placing 14 rows of cards. The middle 4 rows are laid horizontal and are locked. The rest of the cards are placed vertical and are open. All of the cards are placed face-up. The rest of the cards are left in a pile with the face down and drawn one-after-one as you need them. (The bottom card is also open, but not sure if that's a rule my friend started with or not.)
The game is very similar to Klondike as you're supposed to build from kings down to ace with different color for each card (red on black or black on red). Then you gather all the aces and build up on them. The difficult part of this solitaire is that the locked cards in the middle have to be placed in one of the ace piles before you can use it up in the main game again.
I hope my explanation isn't too difficult to understand. If anyone knows the name, please tell me.
Thanks in advance.
Apologize for the bad picture, but hope you get it.

It looks like stalactites. ( Wikipedia, Double Deck Version )


Do you have to go around the board once to purchase properties? When it comes to Monopoly I know there are ways the gameplay can be altered and I was wondering if this is one of them. Basically everytime I play I'm told you have to go around the board once before you can purchase properties but then I read somewhere else that you can purchase them immediately. Is this true or is this rule just made up?

Sounds like a house rule to me.

http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/monorules.htm claims to be a copy of the rules from the official rulebook.  The section on Buying Property reads only:

  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 the title deed card face up in front of you.
  If you do not wish to buy the property, the Bank sells it at through
  an auction to the highest bidder. The high bidder pays the Bank the
  amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that
  property.

Nothing about having to go round once, and certainly I've never played a game of Monopoly in that way.  What would it even achieve, apart from slow what is already a potentially long-winded game down to an even more glacial pace?

Here is the 2 dice probability chart. Everyone has the same amount of chance rolling the dice and starting to buy property before going around the board seems more fair and equal for all players. Going around the board first, doesn't account for those who get stuck going to jail before passing go. I feel this "house rule" makes it unfair to the players who don't pass go first and allows the player that does able to win easier and quicker. Our house is divided by this rule. :'(


What is the reason why the commentator said that? I was watching this video. When I was confused by what one of the commentators said. The commentator said basically that Daniel's pair of deuce would get beaten if Phill Laak would hit a 9?

Why is that?

He's talking about what Daniel is thinking. He's saying that Daniel is pretty sure that his pair of 2's is the best hand, unless Laak is holding a 9, which he could be (from Daniel's perspective).

So he's not saying that Laak needs another 9 on the river to win; he's saying that IF Laak were holding a 9, then he would be winning after that 9 on the turn.

Daniel checked the flop and Laak checked back.  If Laak had hit the flop he probably would have bet the flop.  From that Danial can assume his pair of 2's is good.

On the turn his 2's will still be good unless Laak is holding a 9.

Laak floats (calls with nothing) the turn to represent 99 (or better).  A float means he plans to bluff the river and it worked.

If Daniel was going to bet the turn I think he should bet the river.  He basically gave up on bottom pair.


Rules do not explain the answers to these 2 questions What do you do when you don't have a discard during the game?  Also, what happens when you lay down a skip card?  Does the color change to what the next player lays down or do you have to use the color played before the skip card was played?

If you don't have a discard during the game, it means you have played all of your cards, so the round ends. You can end the round either by discarding your final card, or by playing all cards in your hand.

The color doesn't change in Phase 10. Perhaps you are thinking of Uno rules? You can discard any card you like; the color doesn't matter.

In my experience if you don't have a discard, you're out of the game. Some variations allow you to still compete for snaps though.


Catan starting strategies -- actual data? I'm new to Settlers of Catan, and I quickly learned the importance of having a source of Brick and Lumber at the start of the game. And some googling showed that others agree ... and others disagree.

Whatever you value most at the start ... brick, wood, grain, ore, (ok, not wool so much), diversity of resources, diversity of numbers, access to ports, etc., you can find a blog post confirming your belief.

What is much harder to find is actual data. Has there been any significant study of competitive games and/or computer simulations that give substantial support to a particular initial placement strategy?

Although I wouldn't call it a "significant study" as far as initial placement strategies, there is a blog that I found a while ago which gets into an analysis of playing (and winning) SoC from a mathematical perspective.

The blog is called "Developing Catan", and includes the application of several types of mathematical analysis to the game based on the writer's personal experience playing SoC on a frequent basis, both in person and online. In particular, some of the analysis in this pdf discusses probabilities of winning without starting on any particular resource, which answers at least part of your question.

In my experience as a board game enthusiast/collector I find that many players of varying experience levels will first access the board from a statistical standpoint. The tiles that hold numbers 5 to 9 are the most likely to generate the greatest amount of resources over the course of the game and therefore are the most desirable. Ergo a good starting position would be on the intersection of as many of these numbers as possible such as 8-5-9. If you prefer the "port" strategy look for these numbers (especially 6 and 8) that are adjacent to a port and attempt to work around that. Remember you also gain resources from your second placement. Even if the most desirable spaces have been taken, you may be able to get a quintessential resource from a starting village. Looking at resources, wood and brick are typically essential to winning, however wheat is the most diverse because it is used for 3 of 4 developments. With that said, through observation, I have found that a port strategy works the best, when there is a title adjacent to a resource of its type along with another one of those tiles holding a "desirable" number. Other than that I would say a solid placement regardless of strategy would be to place adjacent to as many desirable numbers (worst case scenario, you have allot of goods you don't need) and if needed using your second placement to gain resources you deem "hard to get".


Can you build a settlement anywhere if you have the resources for a settlement and a road? In Settlers of Catan, it says you need a road to build a new settlement (placement rules apply). If you have the resources available to build both at the same time, can this settlement be played wherever the player wants it to go?

No

Your first two settlements (placed during set-up) are special and can be placed in any valid position on the board, after that new settlements must be connected by road to existing settlements.

The relevant parts of the rules are:

Under building roads (bottom of page 4) it says "A new road must always connect to 1 of your existing roads, settlements, or cities."
Under building settlements (top of page 5) it says "Each of your settlements must
connect to at least 1 of your own roads."

Note that you can build as much as you like per turn, so you could build several road segments and a settlement in the same turn (as long as you have the resources).

We just reread the rules on this and it says in the rules under ROADS "You cannot build new settlements without building roads" this implies you can plonk a road and a settlement down together (at the same time) which would mean you can place them away from your existing road/settlement!