Which property group colour gives the best ROI , undeveloped or fully developed, in Monopoly? Everybody always goes for the dark blues in Monopoly (Mayfair and Park Lane in the UK edition), but I'm convinced that the cheaper colour groups offer a better return on investment, partly because you can fully develop them quicker, and partly because you can own more squares, thereby giving you more "hits" and a steadier income. But is there any analysis to support (or refute) this view?

My understanding is that the best three property groups are light blue (Angel Islington, Euston Road, Pentonville Road), orange (Bow Street, Marlborough Street, Vine Street), and dark blue (Park Lane, Mayfair). Light blue is good because the buildings are very cheap but give excellent returns. Orange is good because the likelihood of landing there is substantially higher, due to forced starting from Jail (gets you on a 6, 8 or 9). Finally, the dark blues are a good choice because eventually someone will draw the Advance to Mayfair card.

There is a much more detailed analysis here. The names are from the American set, but the calculations are the same.

The best Return on Investment for a color group tends to come from the red properties with at least 3 houses on each.

The thinking on this is fairly simple. The most likely roll of the dice is a seven. Which means that a player's rolls should average out to be a multiple of seven over time. Taking into account the monopoly board there are only 3 properties a person will land on if they rolled nothing but sevens all around the board. The first property is a purple which even built up doesn't make you much, the second property is the first red property which costs a bit to build up but is well worth the investment and the third is a green property which cost way to much to build all the way up.

The relative investment required to build up the red properties is fairly cheap and as you are building on them people tend to land on these a lot especially if they are just getting out of jail since a multiple of 2 sevens takes them straight from jail to the most expensive of these properties.

As Reds are the only color group that are in the way of the average roll of the dice, both from go and jail, they represent the highest grossing properties in the entire game.


Spades - Strategy for Nil Vs. Nil round In the game of Spades, if two players from opposites partnerships bid Nil[1], then the round plays very differently from a regular round.  This is because that each of the non-Nil players is trying to set their opponent Nil without setting their partner.
For the sake of the rest of the discussion, let's call the players A, B, C, and D, where B and C are the ones who made the nil bids, so A and D are leading rounds after the first (unless one of B or C takes a trick). Here are some specific considerations:
Advantages:

Player A (the cover-partner that plays before both Nilers), has a disadvantage, she don't know if she should play high card to cover her partner or she can play a low card to try setting her opponent's nil.
Player D (The cover-partner that plays after both Nilers), has an advantage since she can see if she needs to cover or not.

I build an AI player of Spades, and I want to add this special case of Nil Vs. Nil round.  My question is, what are the main strategy considerations, or what adjustments in game play should I add?   For refining reasons, assume its the first round of the game[2].

[1] Nil Vs Nil rounds are not too rare in normal games.  In the Suicide variant, every round is Nil Vs Nil.
[2] Occasionally, Nil Vs. Nil rounds happens at a "game winner round", that is to say, one partnership will win the game if she makes the Nil.  In this kind of situations, other considerations come in to play.  In order to refine the question, assume non of the partnerships is close to the game winning score.

Some of the strategy will depend on the bids of the non-nil players.  In Suicide Spades, the non-nil players must have each bid at least 4, but that could still be anything between 4 and 13.  A bid of nil is equivalent to a bid of 10 in terms of points (100 if you win, -100 if you lose), so a non-nil player who has bid in the realm of 10 is as concerned with making their bid they are with protecting their partner's nil bid.  Meanwhile, a player who has bid in the realm of 5 is much more concerned with protecting their nil bid partner.  Bags are also a concern, as bags are worth up to -10 points each.

For the sake of the rest of the discussion, let's call the players A, B, C, and D, where B and C are the ones who made the nil bids, so A and D are leading rounds after the first (unless one of B or C takes a trick).  Here are some specific considerations:

D has the benefit of going last in some rounds, which A never has.  Thus, D should keep some low cards to be able to capitalize on the situation where C has played the highest card.
C has the benefit of playing after B each round, and thus can play the highest card still covered by B each round.  This positional benefit may rival D's.
A and D, by leading far more often than usual, have a much easier time getting a void in a suit, and probably want to do so, as this allows them to use a spade on that suit or lead spades to allow their partner to get rid of any spades.  The risk of this is if they lead a low card, one of the two nil players is more likely to take the trick, but it's not necessarily clear which.
It is especially important for A to get a void if A wants to lead spades, as D can reduce A's options by not breaking spades.
If either of A or D knows that their partner has a void in a suit, they should definitely lead low in that suit, as this has a decent chance of forcing the other nil bid player to take the trick.
If you are playing suicide spades, or are playing regular spades and two players have already made nil bids, you may want to bid several higher than you were originally planning, as multiple players will be actively avoiding taking tricks.

I play quite a bit of blind bid nil games online that give 200 points for nil and go to 1000. I have become something of a nil specialist, winning well over half of my games and often without taking a trick. As for being B or C, it is nice to see what the trick-taker of the other side has played on every trick, but it really doesn't make any difference as I routinely make it regardless. We trade 2 which makes it too easy, really. Certainly shouldn't be worth 200. 100 would be more realistic. Trading only one would lead to a fair amount of sets, which might not be all bad, but I don't know as I have never tried it.


Bang! 6 Player Problem - It's unbalanced one way or another. My group has played a good amount of bang of the year. 6 player bang however always seems to be unbalanced no matter what we try.

We've taken the advice of a message board to shuffle randomly a outlaw or a renegade instead of the third outlaw. But that conflicts with robbers roost who can do actions given an unbalance in players.

We've tried two renegades, or two deputies, but either way it becomes really unbalanced in favor of the law.

We've tried better informed players where the renegade is strongly encouraged to play as the law until the outlaws are eliminated. This has proven to be the most effective. But our data tracking sheet is still showing a clear biast for outlaws to win.

Also we've tried giving the sheriff a built in mustang. This helps, but is much like the random renegade/outlaw where it's still unbalanced it's just random which way its going to lean. Because it's just a matter of luck if the outlaws are able to get a gun or not.

The only thing that seems to come close is a general rule that no one can shoot bangs against the sheriff on turn 1. This prevents the sheriff from getting jumped early and rallying the outlaws before the other two players have time (or cards) to respond.

Any one else have any suggestions for 6 player bang~?

From reading your question and responses in the comments I would say that 100% you are playing the game in the spirit that it was designed.

Rules

  4 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 2 Outlaws
  5 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 2 Outlaws, 1 Deputy
  6 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 3 Outlaws, 1 Deputy
  7 players: 1 Sheriff, 1 Renegade, 3 Outlaws, 2 Deputy

Killing a player

  Eliminating a character
  When you lose your last life point, you are eliminated and your game
  is over, unless you immediately play a Beer (see below). When you are
  eliminated from the game, show your role card and discard all the cards you
  have in hand and in play.
  Penalties and Rewards
  •    If the Sheriff eliminates a Deputy, the Sheriff must discard all the cards
  he has in hand and in play.
  •    Any player eliminating an Outlaw (even if the eliminating player is
  himself an Outlaw!) must draw a reward of 3 cards from the deck.

End Game

  The game ends when one of the following conditions is met:
  a) the Sheriff is killed. If the Renegade is the only one alive, then he wins.
  Otherwise, the Outlaws win;
  b) all the Outlaws and the Renegade are killed. The Sheriff and his
  Deputies win.

I will break down the conditions that need to happen in order for the renegade to win.

4 Player Game:

The renegade needs to kill (or assist) both outlaws
Once both outlaws are dead the renegade needs to kill the sheriff

5 Player Game:

The renegade needs to kill (or assist) both outlaws
The renegade needs to kill (or assist) the deputy
Once both of those are done the renegade needs to kill the sheriff

6 Player Game:

The renegade needs to kill (or assist) all three outlaws
The renegade needs to kill (or assist) the deputy
Once both of those are done the renegade needs to kill the sheriff

7 Player Game:

The renegade needs to kill (or assist) all three outlaws
The renegade needs to kill (or assist) both deputies
Once both of those are done the renegade needs to kill the sheriff

Note with expansions there is also an 8 player game that adds in a 2nd renegade

8 Player Game:

The renegade needs to kill (or assist) all three outlaws
The renegade needs to kill (or assist) the deputy
The renegade needs to kill (or assist) the other rendage
Once all of those are done the renegade needs to kill the sheriff

  I think it's a good rule of thumb to act as a deputy early, but working with the other deputies to buff the sherif is not always a good idea. It can oftern put you in a position where its you and the sherif and but the sherif's sitting pretty with barrel/mustang/hideout or something.

What you are forgetting or ignoring is that with no matter how many players (4-8) a game is setup with a renegade will have to ensure that every player but the sheriff is killed in order for them to have a shot at winning. So it will always come down to a situation where the sheriff and renegade are in a dual so there is no reason not to help the sheriff kill the outlaws. In fact if you do a convincing enough job you might get the sheriff to kill the deputy which would make them lose all their items and become easier to kill.

Another thing you should remember is that not all games are designed to be perfectly balanced for one side or the other and in truth the real role that has reason to complain is the renegade since they can only win when everyone else is dead.

I would also like to point out that in a 6 player (or larger) it is very possible for the players later in play order to be killed before they even get a turn so I would not say this game considers balance at all.

After playing BANG! for a few years, my group realized similar issues to yours.  The game is always going to be biased against the Renegade, and the game continues to be more "bursty" the more players you add (because all of the Outlaws all know who their target is, and more players means more Outlaws).

A few solutions we've implemented:

Fog of War:  For the first few rounds, players get a bonus to their defense that decreases by 1 each turn.  Fog of War is equal to [# of Outlaws - 2].

Improves Sheriff survivability in early rounds.

Grave Robbing: Once all Outlaws have been eliminated, all players that are not the Sheriff draw a card.

Improves Renegade chances, especially when playing with more than 1 Renegade (which I recommend past 6 players)

Man of the Law: When the Sheriff dies, the Deputies reveal themselves.  The Deputy next in turn loses 1 HP and becomes the new Sheriff.  This life loss cannot kill the new Sheriff.

Improves chances of The Law dramatically.

For 6 players, the Fog of War variant should work fine to mitigate the burst-damage of 3 outlaws.  If you feel otherwise, replace it with the Man of the Law and the Grave Robbing variants.

When playing 7 players, I'd recommend using a second Renegade instead of a Deputy, along with the Grave Robbing variant, as this allows Renegades to invest heavily into dealing with Outlaws while still having enough resources to deal with the 2nd phase of the game.


Does the result of the last game of Euchre determine who gets to deal first in the next game? I have always played where a new game gets a new "Jack for deal" scenario.  Playing with my nephew this week he was ADAMANT that since he and his partner won the last GAME, this gave him the privilege of dealing first.  I say a new game has absolutely NOTHING to do with previous games.  Who is right?

I would have to agree with you. A previous game definitely has nothing to do with the proceeding game. It is equivalent to playing a game then a few years later the winner is still able to be the dealer without the blackjack deal (well maybe not quite that far, but you get the point). But just clarifying we are talking about entirely new games, not rounds? If we are talking about games then yes redo the blackjack deal.

I play differently, or did long ago. When playing multiple games the winner gets the first deal.


Clarification on the Royal Garden from Puerto Rico expansion 2 The Royal Garden states:

  At game end, the owner of the occupied royal garden takes 1 VP for each noble on his island.  As each noble is normally worth 1 VP (whether on a building, plantation or in San Juan), with the occupied royal garden each is worth 2 VPs to that player".

Puerto Rico defines "island" as the twelve spaces at the bottom of the board to place plantation tiles; the Royal Garden states that you get 1 VP for each noble on his island (which I would assume means "nobles on plantations") but then goes on to state that nobles in San Juan and buildings are worth 1 extra VP as well.

So... which is it?  Do nobles on island tiles get the extra VP, or nobles on your entire board get the extra VP?

In my opinion, a player's island is their game board, unless explicitly referring to plantations.  Its semantically tricky, as the island on the board contains San Juan which is implicitly the player's city.

I admit, that's kind of shaky reasoning.

With regards to the Royal Garden explicitly, an unofficial translation of the original rules was:

  At game’s end the owner of the Garden
  gains 2 VP for each Noble he owns
  instead of the usual 1VP/Noble. This
  is true wherever his Nobles are:
  building, plantation, San Juan, etc...

(source)

And it makes more sense in terms of design as the rest of the expansion clearly wants you to place Nobles on buildings.

You win 2VP per noble in the island and 1VP per noble in the city or san juan IMO. This is more balanced.


Are you able to take control of another player's Commander? Recently, I was told by someone in my playgroup that you cannot take control of a player's commander at any point. If an effect would cause you to control another player's commander, either the effect fizzles or the commander goes to the command zone, I forget which he said.

The thing is, I searched mtgcommander.net, and another website that pointed to mtgcommander.net as the source of the official rules of EDH, and I can't find that particular rule anywhere.

Can someone please clarify? At any time are you allowed to control another player's commander?

It would seem that this question is answered indirectly here and here, but I wanted a more definitive answer to the question.

Yes, you can take control of someone else's commander. The rule about returning the commander to the Command Zone reads (emphasis mine):

  903.9. If a commander would be exiled from anywhere or put into its owner’s hand, graveyard, or library from anywhere, its owner may put it into the command zone instead. This replacement effect may apply more than once to the same event. This is an exception to rule 614.5.

Since stealing a creature with, say, Threads of Disloyalty or Act of Aggression doesn't put it into any of the zones described in the rule quoted above (in fact, as ikegami pointed out, it doesn't change the object's zone at all), then the rule doesn't apply.

Also, the rule about commander damage reads (emphasis mine):

  704.5u In a Commander game, a player that’s been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same commander over the course of the game loses the game. See rule 903, “Commander.”

The clearly says that the damage must be dealt by the same commander, not necessarily yours, so yes, you win the game if you deal 21 damage with a stolen commander.

And to clarify something, mtgcommander.net is the source of what is commonly known as "the French list" for EDH, which is mainly a different banlist, specifically for 1 vs 1 play. As far as I'm aware, the actual rules are the same for Wizards and mtgcommander.net, though I'm not 100% sure about that.

Yes, and that also means that you can kill someone with their own commander.


How to teach strategic thinking to non-gamer players? I have some players in my gaming group that seem to have a bit of a problem with devising their strategy. How can I help them improve?

First of all, I want to clarify - I don't need gateway games recommendations. We play various types of games, from Dobble or Times Up through Settlers of Catan and Discworld to Cyclades and Power Grid. Answers found here didn't help me one bit.

I'll elaborate on my problem:

We have a quite diverse gaming group. We have some hard-core thinkers and gamers, myself included, who like to plan, devise a strategy, have an idea for their play. On the other hand, we have some more casual players. They like to think about their moves, sometimes to the point of reaching Analysis Paralysis, choose what they think is best for them, but they have a problem with long term planning.

They tend to think in terms of the turn at hand, weighing immediate outcomes of their actions against each other. For example in a game of Catan, they will think what's best for them in long term, they will cut someones longest road when possible, they will take the best spot available when building a new city.

If there is no single move that brings immediate gain better than any of the other options, they get stuck. If they can build a road in one of two or three places, they wont think "hey, Mike has a long road and is cut off on the north. He will probably build it down south in a few turns, so I could cut him off too if I go there now". They have a few similar options in their hands and have a hard time figuring out what to do. Sometimes they even mumble "I dont know what to do" during play.

That is fine in some less strategy focused and/or complex games. But when we play games that reward some long term planning or too many options, they have problems or dislike the game. When we play Thunderstone, I tend to win, because I plan out what can I possibly draw from my deck and when will I reshuffle my library. I also tend to buy things with a plan for a deck, I seek out a combo or think what sort of hand would I like to have during the game and build a deck that delivers them. Some of our players tend to just buy the best card around. If the best cards are all bought out, they just randomly buy some of the other options, not having a plan for them. Yesterday I won two or three games in a row, and it was kind of a bummer.

We wanted to try some new board games, and we got Eclipse. I really loved the game and have LOTS of fun, but some of our players felt overwhelmed by the options. It's not like they didn't grasp the rules - we made some mistakes, but that was not the issues. They knew what they could do and how to do it. They just couldn't devise a plan. They had a problem getting an idea of what they would like to do/accomplish in a given round, so deciding what to do in every turn was annoying for them - they chose kind of randomly, because they felt they couldn't make an informed decision. All in all, they decided they didn't like the game very much.

So, my question is: How could I help our casual players better at developing a strategy? They are fine on the tactical level. They experiment and play with tactics. How can I help them transfer that attitude and abilities to a more strategical level?

Talk about it.

That's it; make the game a topic of conversation. Talk about it at random moments. Talk about your strategy when you're breaking out the game to play again. Talk about other players' moves while they're moving, and what plans they might be laying. Talk about how to break up an opponent's strategy, or even how to break up your own strategy. When the game ends, talk about how the winner pulled it off.

You should try to avoid boring the other people to death, of course, but the mere act of hearing about how you can plan for (some particular game) will put more tools in their toolbox the next time they play. These "non-strategic" players haven't put much thought into how to win these games, and probably don't know how you can do long-term planning for those games. Most games have a particular strategy that works well; some work best with purely-tactical moves, some work best when you've planned your strategy 15 turns ahead, some work with a mix of strategic planning and proper tactics as opportunities crop up. If you really want these players to improve, and they haven't figured it out themselves, share your hard-earned insights into the game. Don't keep your secret game-winning strategy to yourself just because you're a knowledge miser.

To illustrate, here are a few examples of things I didn't even realize were important until long after I started playing that particular game. (I make no claims to being a genius.) Withholding key insights from games can really cripple someone's ability to play well. Share some insights like these, and they'll start seeing how the game is more subtle than it initially looks.

Puerto Rico: you can screw other players by choosing Captain to force players to ship their valuable trade goods, and Craftsman is frequently a bad move.

Glory to Rome: it's a bad idea to play Craftsman cards to lead the Craftsman role, because the player to your left will Patron, and pick up a Craftsman client. Playing Craftsman cards to follow the role is only a good move if the player to your right led the Craftsman action.

Dominion: Coppers are bad, and should be actively removed if reasonably possible. If you want to afford Provinces, you really have to get your average-coins-per-card up.

Race for the Galaxy: I still don't understand how to do a proper mix of military and trading strategies. Sure, there are plenty of developments that support both, and no military tableau should purely be military developments and military worlds, but the major source of victory points for a military strategy is the high-value military worlds, right?

Power Grid: Don't buy a power plant every round; only do it when it's a significant improvement over what you already have.

I"m not too sure as to how helpful this will be because I plan games all the time but 7 wonders has 3 rounds in which most of your points get scored in the last meaning you will need to plan how you will play cards in the 3rd round if it be by having the precursor building, having a lot of resource generation, or gold to trade with. In our group people that started off getting low scores seem to have found ways to plan their play to improve their scores quite a bit


How replayable is Pandemic Legacy? (Is the game still playable after you have completed it) So my understanding is that Pandemic Legacy has a story arc of 12-24 games, at which point the game is complete.

My question is - according to the design of the game - is the game still playable as a 'non-story' game, scars and all, once this is complete?

ie. I'm not asking about whether I can play the twelve month story through again

If not - what are people meant to do with their sets?

It is not intended to be replayable.

Depending on what options you choose during the campaign, certain components are intended to be physically destroyed. You could choose to just set things aside instead of destroying them; though that does take away some of the thematic fun. And then you would just have to ignore any stickers that were put on the board during play if you wanted to play regular Pandemic after.

You can either throw it out or keep it as a souvenir.  As a matter of pure opinion; it is well worth it even though you can’t keep playing it after; those 12-24 games are worth the cost!

Yes, you can use the board, cards, and components to play it as the original Pandemic game. After playing.


Does it really matter if dice are randomized? I was playing MTG with some friends the other day, when a guy walks up and challenges me to a game. He insisted that he would not roll my spin-down die to determine who goes first. When I pointed out that it doesn't matter, because probabilistically, each side should have a 1/20 chance of showing regardless of the order of the sides, he assured me that there exists a "technique" by which someone could throw an ordered dice such that he has a higher chance to win a dice roll.

Paranoia aside, does anyone know if such a technique exists? Is there any documentation on such a technique?

As I noted in a comment, there are techniques I've seen people use with spindown dice - most notably a sort of 'skitter along the table' throw where the die is primarily slid rather than tumbled - that can be used to great effect in rolling high numbers.  There's enough imprecision that shots can't really be called precisely, but for spindown dice where all of the faces around a high-numbered face are also high-numbered, they lead to significantly biased rolls.

You might ask why it matters, since both players are rolling the same die and both have access to the same technique - but the point is that there's an ethical asymmetry; one player is (presumably) trying to roll the die in a 'fair' fashion with an unbiased roll, either out of a sense of internal fairness or because they have no reason to suspect the other player is cheating them.  Meanwhile the shark is (also presumably) well aware of the skew in the game and willing to use that skew to his advantage.

For what it's worth, I don't believe most people rolling spindown dice do it with any intention to cheat; the life counter is just what they have handy, and so it's a natural choice.  But there are people who will use it for that purpose, and so anyone who isn't willing to is at a slight overall disadvantage.  Most of the time, at an FNM or in a casual game like the one you describe, it just doesn't matter; who cares if you're an underdog in a die roll that has a maybe 5% affect on the outcome of a game that's just for fun?  But there are certainly circumstances where it does matter, and some people just get in the habit of caring about every little thing so that they build the mental rigor for when it does matter.

As for myself, I usually don't care, though at something like a PTQ I'll insist on a more effective means of randomization.  My preferred choice is either to flip a coin with a call in the air (which is about as close to 'I cut, you choose' as a randomization method gets) or to toss about 5d6; they're quick enough to count, and hard enough to really skew that I can trust in the results.

This controlled die rolling stuff is just nonsense... its simply a meaningless factoid that ego-inflated magic players use on each other to try and build themselves up before a game.

Yes, spindown dice do not have evenly distributed numbers, but if you are telling me someone can casually pick one up and control their roll to be better than mine then you are delirious. To achieve this you'd have to pick up the die, find the high/low side, and then carefully roll/drop it to get the desired result. By this time you are looking at the guy like "are you kidding me man... you are trying to cheat the roll!"

People will relish the rare attempts they get to demand the 2d6 roll, and they will spout this reason every time with a proud smile on their face, now sure that they know all the ins and out of magic better than you do.

I suggest you smirk to yourself at what a tool they are and roll whatever they want... then crush them in the game!


Bridge bidding - how do I decide whether or not to bid 1NT with weakness in a particular suit? If I'm inclined to bid NT with 15-17 points, but am weak in one suit, how weak can I be, and still bid 1NT, as opposed to bidding 1 club, to find out if my partner can show strength e.g. a stopper in my suit, by bidding it?

Your partner's response(s) ought to give you a good idea of whether a no trumps contract is the correct one to pursue, or if you might be better off looking elsewhere.

Perhaps your partner will bid Stayman over your NT bid.  If you find a satisfactory fit in hearts or spades, then the question of whether you have a shortage somewhere else becomes irrelevant (in fact, it turns into a bonus).

Otherwise, your partner may well - indeed, is statistically quite likely to - try to bid the suit that you are weak in.  If he does, then this reinforces your initial assumption that a no trumps contract may be a good place to be.

If your partner avoids the suit you are weak in - especially if he avoids it twice, then perhaps NT is not such a good idea.  However, if this is the case then he has almost certainly bid in a suit that you hold 4 cards in, by now.  If so, you have a pretty good option to shift to, outside of no trumps!

This is very much a matter of partnership agreement. Some people hold to the definition of "No voids or singletons, no more than one doubleton" for a hand balanced enough to open 1NT. Some prefer "no suit weaker than Qx" instead or in addition. Some will open with a singleton A or K, or even a singleton Q.
The ACBL's Standard American Yellow Card" says that: "Notrump openings show a balanced hand and may be made with a five-card major suit or a five-card minor suit." This is likely what a pick-up pair who have not discussed the matter will play. An established pair should discuss.
The vital thing is that a partnership have a clear agreement on what hands will be opened with 1NT.
As Mycroft points out, if you don't open 1NT with some such hands, there can be a problem finding a good rebid, particularly after a 1NT response to 1 of a minor. On the other hand if you include more distributional hands in the range of a 1NT bid, there may be other bidding problems or missed fits. Personally I would not open a hand with a 6-card suit, or a singleton, with 1NT, but many good players do so.
If you are going to limit what hands can be opened with 1NT, discuss with your partner responses and rebids when opening a 15-17 HCP hand in a suit, esp a minor suit. If you don't both know the sequences you will use with such hands, you are setting yourselves up for a problem.
There are also rules limiting what the agreements here can be. These depend on the sponsoring organization. The ACBL now defines as "natural" any "NT opening bid or overcall that contains no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an ace, king, or queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined." and permits most such bids in most sponsored games. As some other answers point out, such rules have grown more permissive over time. But just because something is legal does not make it good bridge, or right for a particular pair.


Does Aligned Hedron Network exile creatures that enter after it does? In conjunction to my previous question here, I created some confusion for myself. I want to know how this scenario would pan out:

My opponent casts 2-3 huge creatures (say Eldrazi Devastator, Ruin Processor, and Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger)
On my next turn, I play Aligned Hedron Network, exiling these three creatures.
On my opponent's next turn, he is unable to destroy AHN.
I play Ulamog's Despoiler, and choose to send Ulamog and Eldrazi Devastator to the Graveyard from Exile.

After this process, if my AHN is still in play, will my Ulamog's Dispoiler be exiled? I think not, because of the text, "When Aligned Hedron Network enters the battlefield exile ...". However, the last bit threw me off "until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield."

Which of these interpretations is correct?

Until AHN leaves the battlefield, all creatures with power 5 or more are exiled whenever they enter the battlefield.
All creatures on the field with power 5 or more at the time that AHN enters are exiled until AHN is destroyed.

The second option is correct: the Aligned Hedron Network has a triggered ability, that exiles a set of creatures when it enters the battlefield. This exile effect lasts until the Network leaves the battlefield, at which time the creatures return to the battlefield. It does not continuously exile creatures that enter after it does.

First, the rules describing Triggered Abilities, specifically 603.1, say

Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and begin with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” They can also be expressed as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect].”

In the case of Aligned Hedron Network, the trigger condition is

When Aligned Hedron Network enters the battlefield

and the effect is

exile all creatures with power 5 or greater until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield

When the Aligned Hedron Network spell resolves, it enters the battlefield as a permanent and the ability triggers. That is the only time it happens, because it is the only time that the trigger condition is true.
Then, the effect has the "until Aligned Hedron Network leaves the battlefield" clause. The rules regarding One Shot Effects say

610.1 A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, putting a token onto the battlefield, and moving an object from one zone to another.

610.3 Some one-shot effects cause an object to change zones “until” a specified event occurs. A second one-shot effect is created immediately after the specified event. This second one-shot effect returns the object to its previous zone.

So, as soon as the Network leaves the battlefield, the objects it exiled return to the battlefield under their owners' control.

Aligned Hedron Network will exile the creatures. Set those aside as they will come back when it leaves play. The wording on the card is key here as its effect only happens as Alligned Hedron Network comes into play. Therefore any cards that are played after are not effected.

For example: I play Aligned Hedron Network on one turn, exiling a fair amount of cards. The next turn I Play a Desolation Twin, because the Aligned Hedron Network is already in play Desolation Twin will come into play and summon the 10/10 token and remain there, leaving your opponent very vulnerable.


What is the winning position in Monopoly Empire? In Monopoly Empire what is the official winning position for a player?

The rules seem ambiguous by stating that the winner is the first person to build the tower to the top, but that raises two questions:

1) Can the tower 'spill over' the top?  For instance, if you need to fill one space can a 4-space billboard be bought to win the game?

and

2) Do the billboards have to fit in the tower spaces perfectly?

First off I don't see much of a difference between your 2 questions.

The rules state:

  If you’re the first to hit the top, you win!

This means you have to fill the entire tower with billboards, including "spilling over". No, you do not have to fit the billboards in the tower exactly. Anything beyond the top point doesn't matter anymore since you've already won.

If the person has filled their tower, the other people play their turn before the opponent can win the game.


In MTG, was there ever a five-color deck that worked well? The first pre-con I ever bought was the five-color one from I believe planeshift. I liked that deck when I was learning the game, but it didn't hold up when I actually started going to tournaments, and learned more about the game (such as the fact that you had a maximum hand size). The first deck I made myself was a massive five-color deck made up of probably around 100 cards (everyone else had their decks in card sleeves, which made me think that they too were running far more than the minimum 60).

I didn't get to play during invasion block, when there were cards in type II that encouraged five-color decks. I always thought that there may have been one during tempest block due to sliver queen, but I don't know that for a fact. I did have a friend who played a five-color deck, but all I know of that he had in it was Cromat and worship. I have no idea if he had ever run the thing in tournaments though.

Has there ever been a five-color deck that could be played outside of casuals? Obviously, I don't expect such a thing to be the top deck, I'm just asking if there ever was one that didn't suck because of it running too many colors?

Yes. Emphatically yes.

Some notable examples include:

"The Deck" by Brian Weissman – a classic five-color control deck focused on reactive play and denial with only Serra Angel and Braingeyser as finishers; arguably the prototype for all control decks, and the strongest Magic deck of its day.

Jakub Slemr's 5-Color Black Weenie deck — a black-based creature aggro deck using cards of all five colors for efficient answers and disruption (and sheer card value from running most of Visions' good "ETB" creatures); 1997 World Champshiop winner.

Many Llorwyn-era Cruel Control decks, like this one — these were not as absolutely dominant as the previous examples, but Vivid lands made it reasonable to play even absurdly "greedy" combinations like putting Cloudthresher in the same deck as Cryptic Command and Cruel Ultimatum.

There are also numerous four-color decks that could possibly be adapted to a fifth color but don't really benefit from it much, especially in the modern day, when the Legacy/Vintage card pool is a lot deeper and "color pie" design conventions have changed a bit to make it easier to access certain effects without having to go into one specific color.

The reason you're stumbling is that pre-assembled multi-color decks tend to have garbage mana bases, because part of the game's business model is to force good multi-color supporting lands (which are highly desirable for a range of competitive decks) into rare/mythic slots, and preconstructed decks are limited to only including a handful of rares. On top of that, some styles of cards (like Moxes and no-drawbacks ABU dual lands) are considered too powerful to print today.

This answer discusses some of the benefits of four- and five- color decks, as well as tricks to their mana base construction, in more detail.

I can also remember that 5C won tournaments back in the Invasion block format. Cannot back this up with any decklists or links though.


Do I draw cards from playing Lich at negative life? I have negative 10 life, such as due to Platinum Angel and I play Lich.  Lich says:

As Lich enters the battlefield, you lose life equal to your life total.
If you would gain life, draw that many cards instead.

Does playing Lich in this situation cause me to draw 10 cards (by means of causing me to gain 10 life and then replacing that with card draw)?

Nothing happens. You lose 0 life, which is the same as not losing any life. You don't draw cards.

I think what you're imagining is "losing negative ten life" = "gain 10 life".  However, you cannot lose negative life.

  107.1b Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero. You can’t choose a negative number, deal negative damage, gain negative life, and so on. However, it’s possible for a game value, such as a creature’s power, to be less than zero. If a calculation or comparison needs to use a negative value, it does so. If a calculation that would determine the result of an effect yields a negative number, zero is used instead, unless that effect doubles or sets to a specific value a player’s life total or a creature’s power and/or toughness.

The first bolded section is pretty clear cut ("You can't [...] gain negative life") but the second part also explains the principle behind it. The principle is that when you're gaining life, you gain +number life, but the calculation sees you would gain -number life instead, so we replace the negative with 0: you gain 0 life.

The text on the image says "You lose all life. If you would gain life later in the game ..." Even if losing negative life were gaining life, it's not happening "later in the game". The oracle text that you quote consists of two different statements. The EtB effect happens as the spell is being resolved. The gaining life is a static ability of the enchantment, and only applies when the enchantment is already on the battlefield.


Where can I play Phase 10 online? Is there an online site to play the card game Phase 10 on?
A clone is fine, but I'd really like to avoid a download.

There is a clone of Phase 10 called Wizard Cards you could download and install.  Magmic games has released versions of Phase 10 for Blackberry and iPhone also.  There doesn't seem to be a version you can play in your browser online at this time.

There is a Phase 10 game on facebook but you have to wait for your energy to fill up.


Two person wooden peg board game? What is the name of this game?  Board is a one-piece solid oak plank (approximately 7-3/4 inch by 13-3/4 inch) with 247 holes in three areas.  Appears that each player begins with 39 black or white pegs parked in separate and opposite "home" areas (each home area is 13 by 3 rows).  Playing area consists of a central 13 by 13 grid of holes.  I presume that pegs are moved from home area to playing area in turns.  I have the game but no idea of the name or rules.  I understand that this game was a favorite in "Games Magazine" in the mid-1980s.  Well made board and wooden dowel pegs.  No box (not sure there ever was one) or instructions.  Does this ring a bell with anyone?

It could be a travel variant on a Go board. If you're not familiar with Go, it's an ancient game played by two players, usually played with white and black stones. While the standard size of a Go board is 19x19 lines, 13x13 is a common "beginner" variant.

The main objection to this theory is the number of stones: you usually have enough to cover the whole board between the two players, so I would have expected 84 black pegs and 85 white ones.

I think you might be talking about a game called cribbage.


When should I buy copper in Dominion? Almost every strategy I have ever read on Dominion, although disparate in many ways, unanimously agree that not only is buying copper a bad thing, but that you should do whatever is in your power to utterly destroy any that you already have in your deck.

One would think that, being both the cheapest and the most plentiful stack in the game, it would be more useful.  Or useful at all, really.

With the exception of a Gardens deck, wherein stuffing your deck with as many cards as it can physically hold is considered advantageous, are there any situations where buying copper is more help than hindrance?

Never. (Note: Many expansions have been released since I first wrote this answer, there are more exceptions than I list here, but the general principles apply.)

Well, almost never. If you have to ask, the answer is "never". Don't buy copper unless you've got a specific strategy that will make it worthwhile. Some new players have a strong urge to use all their buys, or at least to buy something every turn, but buying nothing is better than buying Copper almost always.

OP mentions the Gardens exception in the question; other cards that can be used effectively with Copper include Goons and Forager. If your target buys aren't too expensive (say $5 or less), then Coppers can help you hit $5 consistently; this applies to Duke/Duchy, Gardens, Ill-Gotten Gains, etc. If, however, you are hoping to buy cards costing $6 or more, Coppers hurt.

New players sometimes make the mistake of thinking more money is better, so they'll buy a Copper with a leftover buy. This is bad. The money in your typical hand is what matters, not the money in your deck. With 5 cards in your hand, adding more Coppers
reduces your buying power unless your deck is really bloated (maybe with Curses/Ruins). New players quickly learn to hate a hand full of Coppers when they want to buy a Province or a Gold and stop making this mistake.

When you draw a card, are you thinking please, please, let this be a Copper? If so, then maybe you should buy Copper. If you'd prefer a Copper to what you typically do draw, go ahead and buy Copper. More often, you are disappointed when you draw a Copper - this is your cue to not buy Copper.

Selected Examples

There are cards that make Coppers better, but players with some experience often overestimate their power. Examples include Moneylender, Coppersmith, Bishop, Mine.

Moneylender can be a great card. New players may think it's a great card because of the $3, but the real value of Moneylender is the trashing of Copper. It shines in the absence of more efficient trashers because it cleans your deck of Copper. Since Moneylender is a terminal action, buying several Moneylenders and then buying Coppers to feed them is not a viable strategy by itself. It requires 2 cards and an action to generate $3; a hand with two Silvers instead of Money Lender + Copper has an extra $1 and an extra action. Even Silver + Money Lender without a Copper can be better than Copper + Money Lender if you've got a different action card worth playing. Spice Merchant and Miser are similar.
Coppersmith - there are decks in which Coppersmith can work very well (@BlairHippo brings up Apothecary/Coppersmith), but it takes more than just Coppersmith. You need a lot of card draw to make an engine out of Coppersmith, but card draw helps almost everything so there are usually better strategies on the board.
Bishop can convert Copper to VP, which is great. But anything costing $2 or more gets you more VP. With extra buys, you'd be better off buying Estates than buying Coppers to feed to a Bishop.
Mine is like Money Lender in that what makes it a good card is that it gets rid of bad treasure, replacing it with better treasure. If you buy more bad treasure to feed to a Mine, you're missing the point.

The themes above are that some cards let you trash Copper for some bonus. The main value in using them is trashing Copper. If you buy more Copper, you are undoing this work.

Counting House/Travelling Fair is an effective strategy that is Copper-centric.

Of course, if you have a bunch of activated Cities (lots of actions and cards) and a few Goons (lots of buys, rewards for buying), go ahead and buy some Coppers, and throw in some Moneylenders/Coppersmiths/Spice Merchants too! But if you've got a good Goon engine going, you don't need me to tell you that you shouldn't normally buy Copper.

I sometimes buy coppers to replace ones I've trashed when using the moneylender card.  I generally only do this in early to mid game play in order to build up my gold supply.  Once your deck starts building, however, the chances that your moneylender will be in the same hand as your coppers are slim, so I'd stop getting them and try to rid yourself of the money lender for a more useful card (mining if you can is not bad)


Is there a competitive version of werewolf/mafia? I'm trying to devise a point-based scoring system for a variant of Mafia/Werewolf. The idea is that there are teams coming in, and so individual players should be able to earn points regardless of role which add to the overall team score. Is there anything like this out there that might help me balance the point values?

I am going to answer this assuming this is a convention, you are GMing the game, and there must be winners written in on a card at the end
If you are going to play 1 or 2 games you should pick the winners yourself.  Just decide who did the best job.  Did someone manage to lie to the group really well, or did anyone lead the group, get them past the chaos, and lynch for victory?  If you do not feel comfortable picking, let the players vote, but let them only pick from the winning team.

If you are going to have 5+ games you could consider a point system.  Maybe just giving a point to everyone on the winning team.  Whatever you do, do not let the players know the scoring  If  people know how the game is scored they will game the system.  If this happens it will most likely ruin the game for everyone, (and probably let the wolves cakewalk their way to victory in later games).

Players will quickly think “he is winning, lets lynch him just in case”.

Again, if there are ties, I recommend just picking winners yourself; let the players vote on who they thought was most helpful.

Town of Salem
is a Kickstarter project which is a more diversified and polished version of the popular "party games" such as Mafia and Werewolf. (in fact, the villain faction is still named Mafia). There are about 30 roles, and whilst the game does not run on a point-based system, it has extensive roles that can enable "dead" players to participate, which can help make this competitive.
For example: Medium can chat with dead players. The catch is that the names of such dead players ("out-of-play") are anonymous to Medium. In this sense, it provides a greater flexibility in player contribution overall.
To convert this idea into a point-system, you could have a "log" system in which players can jot down/check off players' names as werewolves v.s. "town members" and so forth. In result, players are motivated to keep deducing and cooperating until the game is declared over (as opposed to sitting back once they are out of play.)  Whoever gets it correct can earn points in their team's favour; you may choose to assign penalty to "wrong guesses" to discourage 50/50 shots. The point-tally process can be simplified as a simple Boolean (assuming your game has two opposing teams/factions).
I hope that helps. Just wanted to breathe a fresh point of view into traditional mechanics. I apologize if the suggestion came off as abrupt.


If my walker is in base with a vehicle can it shoot AND attack? My opponent rams my walker with his tank. No significant damage is incurred on either side, but my walker is immobilized and my walker fails to scratch the tank. What are my options on my turn:

Can't shoot since technically I'm in combat, but can attack during my combat phase.
Can shoot at the tank, and can attack in my combat phase.
Can shoot at anything (in LOS) and can attack the tank in my combat phase.
Can shoot at anything, but if I don't shoot the tank, I can't attack it in my combat phase.
Something else?

If my walker isn't immobilized, what changes?

6th edition

An immobilized walker cannot pivot (p.74)--so while overwatch is still allowed (p.84)--you are limited precisely moving targets within the 45 degree horizontal and vertical arc present at the time of immobilization.

Despite the base contact, the tank is not locked-in combat (p.76). This means the tank is a valid target during the shooting phase on your turn (from both the walker and other shooters), also provided that your immobilized walker can target the tank by being in it's current, unchangable 45 degree shooting arc.

The walker can engage in the assault phase with the tank right after being rammed (p.84). However, because it is immobilized, it would have one less attack to a minimum of one attack (p.84). This reduction will apply to the subsequent assault if you remain btb.

7th edition

7th edition seems to keep almost identical text regarding walkers, ramming, and overwatch.

  If my walker isn't immobilized, what changes?

Lots would change if your enemy wasn't a tank, but since it is a tank, the differences are fewer: if you were not immobilized, you could 1) walk away, 2) overwatch in all directions, 3) have all available assault attacks and 4) pivot and shoot at anybody within range.

After much rules reading when encountering a similar situation w/ a drop pod I'm pretty sure that the most permissive answer is the correct one, specifically:

My unit being in base with an immobilized vehicle does not prevent that vehicle from shooting on it's turn (or firing Overwatch if it can).
My unit that is still in base with a vehicle can attack it in the combat phase.
On my turn, if my unit does not move (likely because it's immobilized), it can fire at another target and still attack the vehicle in the combat phase.


Are there times when a hand with a seven card suit is too strong for a three level pre-empt? Partner opened with 3 spades (pre-empt). I passed with (s) xx (h) KQx (d) KQxx (c) AJxx.

That's because I was expecting something like the following (with or without the side jacks):

(s) KQxxxxx (h) Jxx (d) Jx (c) x.

Partner's spade suit was actually AKQxxxx, with the other suits as listed above. So we missed a cold game in spades or possibly no trump.

I said, "You had eleven high card points. That, together with your distributional strength was an opening hand. Opposite my (better than) opening hand, that meant game."

She said, "I bid three to show you may seven card suit."

I said, "That's not nearly as important as your high card strength. Your length will become clear when you rebid."

Was I right to pass, in expectation of the weaker version of her hand, given that three spades is quite high? Should partner have bid one spade if she didn't want me to pass her out with my 15 points?

An opening bid of 3 spades shows a somewhat weak hand with 7 spades. A hand like AKJxxxx Ax xx Qx would certainly never open 3S. Partner's hand in first or second seat is worth a 1S opening in my book; it's certainly better than any balanced 12-count. In third seat I might open 3S, since game is unlikely (partner is a passed hand) and LHO might have a good hand and guess wrong about how to proceed.

Personally I would have risked a game bid with your hand, at least at some forms of scoring (eg vulnerable at IMPs). Game is a good bet if partner shows up with the hand you expected. You'll expect a loser in hearts and diamonds, with some chances of shaking a club loser or two on the red suits. You'll run into a bad time if partner had a spade suit headed by the KJ and nothing outside, so when your side has favorable vulnerability, the raise to game may be ill-advised.

Your partner's hand looks borderline to me: it certainly could be opened 1S, but to what end? You certainly will not be able to support spades, and equally certainly her hand is valueless in any other suit. All a one opening does is allow the opposition to bid.

What is much clearer is that your hand is worth 3NT. All the other suits are stopped (with the opening lead where it is, quite possibly double-stopped), and you have two spades to get back to dummy. On a 2-2 split, the game is a no-brainer; in any event there will be some play for it. On the hand you were expecting, one Jack or other will surely be the extra entry you need, but in any event, your partner must have something outside spades. Even if she has AKQxxxx and literally nothing else, the game is solid.


If I lose control of an equipped creature, does the equipment stay attached to it? If I have an equipped creature and my opponent Mind Controls it, does my equipment remain attached to it? Can I re-equip that equipment to one of my creatures on my turn? I assume since I control the equipment I'm the only one that can play its activated abilities because it was only the equipped creature that was mind-controlled.

Another example where this could happen would be Act Of Treason.

You are correct. The equipment stays attached to the stolen creature, but you still control it and may re-equip it to a different creature that you control.
Here are the rules for equipment (emphasis added):

301.5. Some artifacts have the subtype “Equipment.” An Equipment can be attached to a creature. It can’t legally be attached to an object
that isn’t a creature.
301.5a The creature an Equipment is attached to is called the “equipped creature.” The Equipment is attached to, or “equips,” that
creature.
301.5b An Equipment is cast and enters the battlefield just like any other artifact. An Equipment doesn’t enter the battlefield attached to
a creature. The equip keyword ability attaches the Equipment to a
creature you control (see rule 702.6, “Equip”). Control of the
creature matters only when the equip ability is activated and when it
resolves. Spells and other abilities may also attach an Equipment to a
creature. If an effect attempts to attach an Equipment to an object
that can’t be equipped by it, the Equipment doesn’t move.
301.5c An Equipment that’s also a creature can’t equip a creature. An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature.
An Equipment can’t equip itself. An Equipment that equips an illegal
or nonexistent permanent becomes unattached from that permanent but
remains on the battlefield. (This is a state-based action. See rule
704.) An Equipment can’t equip more than one creature. If a spell or ability would cause an Equipment to equip more than one creature, the
Equipment’s controller chooses which creature it equips.
301.5d An Equipment’s controller is separate from the equipped creature’s controller; the two need not be the same. Changing control
of the creature doesn’t change control of the Equipment, and vice
versa. Only the Equipment’s controller can activate its abilities.
However, if the Equipment grants an ability to the equipped creature
(with “gains” or “has”), the equipped creature’s controller is the
only one who can activate that ability.

And here's the exact wording of the equip ability (emphasis added):

702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you
control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a
sorcery.”

So, essentially, only the equip ability itself specifies "creature you control." If the equipment is already attached, the only restrictions are:

The equipped permanent must still be a creature (301.5).
The equipment cannot itself be a creature (301.5c).
The equipment can't be attached to a creature with protection from it, due to the definition of protection (702.16).

Creatures changing control doesn't violate that.

NO THE equipment does NOT stay attached to the creature when it gets mind controlled.

Look up the rulings for mind control.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=238572


Why do dwarves only have a racial base of 3 tokens? You only get three dwarves for a base, whose special ability is an extra victory token for mine tiles, and that this ability is retained when in decline.

This seems like a rip off! There are other races (like humans) who get an extra VP for farms, and they get almost twice as many from memory. The fact that you get to keep them when in decline doesn't especially help, as they're much easier to kill in decline.

So is there a reason why dwarves are apparently treated as powerful? What strategy should one use to utilise them?

Because their power continues to work in decline, Dwarves are not intended to be played for very long. In most cases probably 2 turns with them is all you should be doing. Get 2 or 3 mine spots, and move on to your next race. This is why there are fewer Dwarves, because you aren't intended to use them for more than a couple turns or to conquer more than just a few spots.

Fortified Dwarves = takes 3 mines, one on the mountain, get  9 coins from three regions, in decline


Is there any limitation with Chimeratech Overdragon and Future fusion? It seems that I can ban as much monsters as I want from my deck with Future Fusion and so I will have an overpowered Chimeratech Overdragon monster that can attack ten times with 8000 ATK.

Is there some restrictions with this two cards or something I'm doing wrong?

In fact, that combination doesn't have any restrictions, but notice that, at the moment you summon Chimeratech Overdragon (aka CO), all cards you control (including Future Fusion) are send to the GY, destroying CO.

To prevent this, you can protect Future Fusion, like having a Cyber Phoenix in the field.

And note that, CO can attack X (X = number of banned monsters) times only to monsters or 1 time directly, not both.

Card Ruling: Chimeratech Overdragon

Edit:

I play a Cyber Dragon deck too, and, it has some combos well taken like summon Cyber Dragon Infinity in one turn, but also some useless in the consistence of summoning any Fusion monster with ?Atk/?Def with Fusion Bond (gives you a monster with 0 ATK /0 DEF)

Also, it's a good idea to have Jizukiru, The Star Destruction Kaiju to ride off some annoying monsters in the field and summon Chimeratech Fortress Dragon.

For the tricky mecanics, you can read the rulings off each card and their interactions with the same archetype and nearest/closest cards, or try with and emulator like YGO Pro.

Since he destroys all other cards on your field it would destroy future fusion thus destroying him, but, with my deck I don't use future fusion as my main fusion card for getting overtech. i use future fusion as just a means to get every machine type in my graveyard, then I use overload fusion (which can fuse with creatures from the graveyard) to get him out using every material in my deck, it's just a simple one two punch, you use future then overload simple as that with just those two cards in your hand you can get a turn 1 14,000 chimera overtech dragon


Providing the spymaster with cues for clues in Codenames Toward the end of a game of Codenames, a team might find itself with two agents left to find and five cards still uncovered — say, APPLE, BASS, CAR, DARKNESS, and ELEPHANT.  (The numbers are by way of example. My question is about the general case that there are any number of correct guesses left and any number of cards left uncovered.)

Would it be legal, while that team's spymaster is trying to think of a clue, for his teammate to give cues like the following? "If our words are APPLE and BASS, clue 'edible': they're both edible." "APPLE and CAR are 'self-driving'."

It does not address this directly in the rules but based on my reading it is illegal and against the spirit of the game. The game is wanting you to convey information from the spymaster to the operatives with a single word. While it may be acceptable to take the deliberations that the operatives have after a clue is given into account having them give directions on what to say is different.

If you look at the Keeping A Straight Face section of the rules it goes into the intent behind how clues are given.

  The spymaster is expected to keep a straight
  face. Do not reach for any card while your
  teammates are considering the words. When
  a teammate touches a word, consult the key
  card and cover the word with the card of
  the corresponding color. When a teammate
  chooses a word of the correct color, you
  should act as though it was exactly the word
  you meant, even if it wasn't.

  If you are a field operative, you should focus
  on the table when you are making your
  guesses. Do not make eye contact with the
  spymaster while you are guessing. This will
  help you avoid nonverbal cues.

  When your information is strictly limited to
  what can be conveyed with one word and one
  number, you are playing in the spirit of the game.

Joe's answer refers directly to the rules, but here's an interpretation of them:

Strictly speaking, the only information that passes from the spymaster to the field operative is a valid clue. This excludes cues like the one you suggest, as suggested in the last paragraph of the given rules section.

Likewise, the only information that passes from the field operative to the spymaster is the sequence of cards touched. The spymaster also knows the other team's clues and cards touched. This excludes information passed from teammates discussing among themselves. This interpretation is not explicitly stated in the rules.

You can imagine it as playing the game on the internet with no chat between players. In both cases, it is up to you how strict you want to be. Personally, I've found that both stricter and more casual play is fun.


How can I learn to play chess blindfold? I'm an intermediate-level amateur chess player. How would I go about learning how to accurately play a complete game of chess, blindfolded? What skills are needed, and how are they practiced?

In particular, how can I maintain an accurate representation in my head of the board state over time? Whenever I've tried this, I get a dozen or so moves in, and it all starts to fall apart. Are there specific techniques or representations to help with this?

I think you have to take a closer look at mnemotechnics. Probably Memory Palace technique in particular. You can read about it here, for example.

Here is a discussion about techniques used with Chess games. Mainly about memorizing them. A book called How to develop a perfect memory is suggested reading.

If you know Derren Brown (he's British mentalist, a "mind-reader", if you like), he has done a bit about playing 9 simultaneous chess games with top English players. You can watch it on youtube with explanation on how he did it.

Of course, he only had to remember 8 moves at a time, but it's still pretty tricky not to get confused. If you are interested, you can read Derren's book Tricks of the Mind, it has whole section about Memory.

Best of luck!

My experience is that the ability to play blindfold is a function of your chess skill.  When I improved at chess, at a certain point I found myself able to play blindfold without ever having previously done any blindfold training.  I would imagine that all players rated FIDE 1900 or above can likely play at least one game blindfold.

The best way to get the ability to play blindfold is to just get better at chess.


Can I build a settlement if I don't have the building piece for it? Each player has 5 settlement tokens in hand at the beginning of the game. After placing the 5th settlement, considering I have not built a single city, can I build a 6th settlement?

This is super clear in the rules.

Under Build in the Game Rules section:

  You cannot build more pieces than what is available in your
  pool—a maximum of 5 settlements, 4 cities, and 15 roads.

Then, later, under Build (Building) in the Almanac:

  You can build as many items and buy as many cards as
  you desire—as long as you have enough resources to “pay”
  for them and they are still available in the supply.
  [...]
  Each player has a supply of 15 roads, 5 settlements, and 4
  cities.

(Emphasis added.)

and again later, under Settlements:

  Note: If you have built all 5 of your settlements, you must
  upgrade 1 of your settlements to a city before you can build
  another settlement. You will then have the settlement in your
  supply, so you can build another settlement.

No, unless you have lost a settlement. Check the contents list of the game to see if you have every settlement pawn for that color.


Does Monopoly involve skill to a considerable degree? Many classic children's board games, like Snakes and Ladder and Candyland, are essentially pure games of chance. Is it reasonable to regard Monopoly as a game of this type? How important is player skill (as opposed to luck) in Monopoly?

You didn't lay out criteria in your question so I'm going to assume that what you're asking is: Let's say Bob diligently acquires as much skill as possible in Monopoly and practices with 50 or more games. If Bob plays several beginners (10 or fewer games - little study of the game), and no players know other players' skill level - is Bob highly likely to win?

The answer is yes. Monopoly definitely involves skill, and therefore Bob is highly likely to win that first game.

The most sophisticated and difficult skill involves working favorable trades. Though trading occurs only a few times a game, it is the primary means by which skill can cause the odds of winning to shift dramatically.

To make favorable trades, you must:

understand relative worth of different properties (you must know landing frequencies, development costs, etc.)
understand risk/reward
be able to quickly understand what your opponents care about, which in many cases will NOT be optimizing for greatest relative worth trades
be persuasive

There are also some simpler skills such as learning when it makes sense to buy a property and when to let it go up for auction, when it makes sense to start building houses (and how much money to keep in reserve), that the third house is the most valuable, etc.

Like Settlers of Catan, however, once it is clear who is the most skilled player, it is very easy for everyone to stop the most skilled player via trade embargos. I have had the experience several times of trouncing new opponents at Monopoly for a game or two and then losing more than average thereafter when my opponents refuse to trade with me. Actually - it's usually a little more gradual than that as first they just refuse to trade on my terms and start demanding more. And then they won't ever let me have a monopoly result from a trade. So then I resort to ever higher risk trades until I reach a point where nobody is willing to give me any trade I would want.

It is only when playing with fresh opponents that I have an opportunity to exert maximum skill, without fear that trading reputation will mean embargoes. That is why I carefully rephrased your question to assume lack of knowledge of the opponents. Because once it is clear who the most skilled player is in the game, it is very easy for opponents to gang up and actually cause the most skilled player to lose more often than average.

Side Note: several other answers imply that the luck of what you get has to be pretty good to even have a chance at making favorable trades. To that I say, you can make your own luck. For example, if you've studied Monopoly, you know that the two best monopolies to get in terms of risk/reward and Return on Investment are the oranges and light blues. So you may try trading for them earlier in the game. Many players are under the mistaken belief that Boardwalk is the best property. So if I obtain Boardwalk and I own one light blue, while the 2nd is owned by a different player and third by bank - I may offer Boardwalk for the light blue that is owned - and they think they are getting a steal. I now have two light blues and have created the possibility that I may get a monopoly if I get the third. So even though I had bad luck in not having 2 out of 3 of either light blue or orange, I have created a 2 out of 3 situation with one of the best two colors to increase my chances of getting lucky, or at least being able to trade for the 3rd.

In my experience, Monopoly has more to do with luck than with skill.  I define skill as the ability to make correct decisions.  A decision is correct if it maximizes the odds of you winning.

It is possible to play Monopoly poorly (unlike, say, the card game War which is a game of pure luck and no decisions).  For example, never buying anything and just collecting your $200 for each circuit will (against normal play) result in you eventually losing more money on each circuit than you earn.  Therefore, some degree of skill is required by the game.


How can I become a better Connect Four player? I am good player at Connect Four and I want to become better.

One suggestion I found is:

  The ideal position is to have two potential connect-fours that need a final checker on two spaces that are on top of each other. This will usually lead to a victory, because you can threaten in the first space. If the opponent fails to block, you win. If the opponent blocks, you play on top to win in the next space. A simple way to set this up is to make a "7" with your checkers, such that finishing the horizontal or diagonal connect-four on the right will be two spaces on top of each other.

Are there any other tips for improving my Connect Four play?

Connect 4 is a solved game.  Memorize the solution, and you should be able to win every single time.

Go to the following resource

http://www.connectfour.net/Files/connect4.pdf

I came to that link from The Wikipedia article, so in case the link ever breaks, you should be able to find another by searching for the "connect 4 solution"

That article has a lot of strategic analysis about connect 4, and Even if you can't memorize the solved strategy perfectly, you should be able to glean a lot of good strategic practices from section 3 which is titled Some Strategic Rules for Connect-Four

Control center column immediately when you can. Generally if you can control the 2 very center slot then you are in a very very good position to win.


What's the most effective storage solution for x-wing to keep bases, dials and templates next to ships? I have a small x-wing collection, which consists of 2 base sets, 1 of everything in waves 1, 2 and 3, 1 of each "aces" set and a couple of other small ships.

I am looking for a storage solution which will:

Store all these ships in one or more boxes.
Store them safely in transit, so that the paint doesn't chip/scratch
Store the base, 4 base templates and manoeuvre dial in the same compartment as or directly next to the model
Can be purchased at a reasonable price in the UK.

Most of the popular solutions I see violate one or more of these principles, particularly number 3 - which is vitally important to me because I'm sick of digging through boxes looking for the relevant cardboard when setting up.

Is there anything that would suit my needs?

What I use is a large organizer box.  Something like this

The trick being having one where the size of the spaces can be adjusted, and one deep enough to fit the ships.

Then I cut up the original packaging of the ships.  They are already perfectly molded to the shape of the ship.  Cutting them out in exact size of the square that I am going to use I insert the packaging into he box, and then the ship into the packaging

I keep the cardboard for the ships in logical squares below the model

Check these ones http://us.battlefoam.com/star-wars-x-wing/
They look pretty good.


Help identify this game with four divided concentric circles I inherited the a wooden game from my parents. Probably date from 1960-1975. No box, no instruction. Can you help me identify it and locate rules for it?

It's a 9.5" square with 4 indented concentric circles. The outer ring is divided into 12 sections, the next into 8 sections, the 3rd into 4 and the center - approx 1" diam. is not divided.White and black dots are in seemingly random sections. Inside the black leather pouch are 6 brown wooden marbles and two chrome cylinders. One cylinder has 3 raised concentric circles on one end, the other has 2 concentric circles, the innermost indented. "Skjode Skjern Danmark" is etched on the bottom.

It is a Morra board game.
You will find details here on Board Game Geek :
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41679/morra-board

Here is their explanation of it:

  From the instructions: Morra-board builds on an ancient game - renewing and varying it by linking it to a board.
  The old game on which Morra-board is based is in Danish called 'Klunse', in English 'Odds and Evens'. Each of the two players presents a clenched fist containing a few small stones, coins or matches - both players taking turns at guessing if the sum of the objects in the two hands is even or uneven.

  Players pieces move around the track based on how many total marbles the two players reveal. If the inner track has a marking on it, the piece advances. The goal is to be the first to advance all the way to the center.

it could be Byzantine Chess , search using the pinterest search by image. you may want to include other pieces included with that board


How can I beat "Big Money" in Dominion? Our group has determined that buying (almost exclusively) money and points is the way to go.

Most kingdom cards are ignored, or are bought very sparingly. This has lead to games feeling 'samey' and has taken a lot of the fun out for us.

What strategies should we use to counter "Big Money"?  Or are house rules needed here?

There comes a time in every Dominion group's life where they figure out that Big Money (the strategy you describe) is beating everyone else who is going heavy on action cards. Do not fret - it's most often not actually the best strategy.  For example, if everyone else is going Big Money, buying a single Smithy will win a 4-player match about 60% of the time and a 2-player match about 80% of the time (via a trial run of 5000 matches on my simulator program).

There is pretty much always a superior strategy to Big Money on the table; you just have to find it.  A common mistake is to spend turns buying too many Kingdom cards to have giant crazy combos that don't pan out. Another thing to watch out for is going for a longer game with a fantastically combo-heavy deck, but then by the time your deck is all situated someone else has bought all the Provinces.  Even still, combo decks do sometimes work - I have been in some thrilling Village+Bridge decks that beat the pants off Big Money.

I haven't been playing around enough with it to know for sure, but it seems that the new expansion Prosperity also lends itself toward Kingdom card strategies winning more often. The reason I feel this way is because Prosperity seems to stretch out the game a big longer such that bigger decks with lots of cool combos can succeed quite well.

Generally I like to measure my strategies against Big Money - if it can't reliably beat Big Money, it's not a good strategy.

But even still: when in serious doubt, buy a Silver.

'Big Money' as a sure fire way to win is the major flaw that has resulted in my gaming group giving up on Dominion.  The problem being that luck in the early game combined with the knowledge that money -> victory points is the way to win is almost a unbeatable strategy.

So the answer to your question is to either experiment with expansions and/or house rules to change the way you play or find a different game.  I have found the the best way to engage my board gaming group is more social orientated games where luck and optimized strategy take a back seat to deception and diplomacy.


How likely am I to have a key card in my starting hand in Brawl? I'm playing the Brawl format (a 60-card singleton format), and I really want one specific card in my starting hand.

I'm willing to take two mulligans (leaving me with a starting hand of 5 cards after putting 2 on the bottom of my library).

What are the odds of drawing the card in my opening hand within 2 mulligans?

The first mulligan is free in Brawl[CR 903.11g], so it's 3 mulligans leaves you with 5 cards. I shall reply accordingly.

After removing the Commander, 59 cards remain in the deck. 58 of those aren't the card.

The probability that the 1st card drawn isn't the card is 58/59.
The probability that the 2nd card drawn also isn't the card is 57/58.
The probability that the 3rd card drawn also isn't the card is 56/57.
etc.

So the probability that you don't have the card in your opening hand
= (58/59)*(57/58)*(56/57)*(55/56)*(54/55)*(53/54)*(52/53)
= (58*57*56*55*54*53*52)/(59*58*57*56*55*54*53)
= 52/59

Since you draw seven card from a freshly shuffled deck when taking a mulligan, the probably of not getting the card in a mulligan is the same as for the initial hand.

So the probability that you don't have the card after up to three mulligans
= (52/59)^4
= 60%

The probability that you do have the the card after up to three mulligans
= 1 - 60%
= 40%

Probabilities are easy to get wrong, so I like to verify through experimentation.

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;

use List::Util qw( shuffle );

use constant NUM_TRIALS => 10_000;

my @deck = ( 1, (0)x58 );
my $successes = 0;
for (1..NUM_TRIALS) {
   for (7,7,6,5) {
      if ( grep { $_ } ( shuffle(@deck) )[0..6] ) {
         ++$successes;
         last;
      }
   }
}

printf("%.0f%%\n", $successes/NUM_TRIALS * 100);

Output:

$ ./a
40%

$ ./a
40%

$ ./a
39%

The current rules for mulligans:

  103.4. Each player draws a number of cards equal to their starting hand size, which is normally seven. (Some effects can modify a player’s starting hand size.) A player who is dissatisfied with their initial hand may take a mulligan. First, the starting player declares whether they will take a mulligan. Then each other player in turn order does the same. Once each player has made a declaration, all players who decided to take mulligans do so at the same time. To take a mulligan, a player shuffles the cards in their hand back into their library, draws a new hand of cards equal to their starting hand size, then puts a number of those cards equal to the number of times that player has taken a mulligan on the bottom of their library in any order. Once a player chooses not to take a mulligan, the remaining cards become that player’s opening hand, and that player may not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no player takes a mulligan. A player can take mulligans until their opening hand would be zero cards, after which they may not take further mulligans.

  903.11g In any Brawl game, the first mulligan a player takes doesn’t count toward the number of cards that player will put on the bottom of their library or the number of mulligans that player may take. Subsequent mulligans are counted toward these numbers as normal.

(Emphasis mine.)

Odds for non-Brawl using the pre-Core 2020 mulligan rules (according to Ikegami's editing)

The probability of having a desired card in the hand,at the first draw of seven cards, is, by removing the commander, (7/59) * 100 = 11.8644%

If, at the first draw, the desired card has not arrived, then, according to what is stated in the question, you will draw again using the mulligan; and then the probability of reaching this point, which is obviously greater than 7/59, is as follows -

first of all, this probability is due to the probability of not drawing the desired card to the first set of seven cards, which is: (52/59) * 100 = 88.1356%
this value is then multiplied by the probability of drawing the desired card now, which, having returned the 7 first cards in the deck, but now having to draw 6, is (6/59) * 100 = 10.1695%
Consequently, the probability of one mulligan, and then of finding the card sought in the six cards of the second draw is (52/59) * (6/59) * 100 = 8.9629%

If the card you are looking for hasn't arrived at this point, then, as specified in the question, you will mulligan for the second time.

So, this probability is obtained by multiplying the value of the probability of not drawing the card among the first seven (52/59), multiplied by the probability of not drawing the card even the second time (53/59), multiplied by the probability of draw the desired card now, but drawing only 5, or 5/59.

Consequently, the probability of mulligan twice, and then of finding the card sought among the five cards of the third draw is: (52/59) * (53/59) * (5/59) = 6.7%

At this point, the total probability of finding a desired "key-card", being able to make two mulligans, is given by the sum of the three possibilities of finding the card:

(possibility of finding the card after the first draw) + (possibility of finding the card after the first mulligan) + (possibility of finding the card after the second mulligan) =
11.8644+ 8.9629+ 6.7 = 27.5273%

Well ... that's all ... at least I think.
I hope there are no typing and/or math errors !!!

Odds for Brawl using the Core 2020 mulligan rules

The result shown above works only if, in making Mulligan the first time, the player draws 6 cards (not 7), and, in making Mulligan the second time, if the player draws only 5.
In addition, the result is valid only without looking at the cards that are placed at the bottom of the deck.
But, as I suspected, this does not accord with the current Mulligan rule...

I think I will leave this answer here just the same, also because, even if it refers to a mulligan rule that is not now applied, its procedure is correct.
To prove it, I will verify that his calculations are correct, rewriting them taking into account my own procedure, but considering the correct Mulligan rule.
The probability of having a desired card in the hand, at the first draw of seven cards, is, by removing the Commander, (7/59) * 100 = 11.8644%.

The probability of having the card at the first mulligan is:
(52/59)*(7/59)*100 = 10.4567652973%.

The probability of having the card at the second mulligan is:
(52/59)(52/59)(7/59)*100 =9.21613212646%.

(This means that the player is able to, according to the current Mulligan rules, look at 7 cards, and choose for himself the one that will be placed at the bottom of the deck, according to his needs. And it is always for this reason that the calculations agree based on the fact that, making Mulligan, for the purpose of searching for a "key card", it is as if the player was still drawing seven cards).

The probability of having the card at the third Mulligan -
(or when, granting the answer to the fact that the asker claims to want to stay,at most,with 5 cards in hand, after the Mulligans, which, however, are 3, and therefore not 2) -
is:
(52/59)(52/59)(52/59)*(7/59)*100=8.12269272162%

(And this also means that the player is able to, according to the current Mulligan rules, look at 7 cards, and choose for himself the two that will be placed at the bottom of the deck, according to his needs).

At this point, the total probability of finding a desired "key-card", being able to make three mulligans, is given by the sum of the four possibilities of finding the card. And is:

11.8644% + 10.4567652973% + 9.21613212646% + 8.12269272162%= 39.6590927216%.

This result is absolutely close to the correct one, already calculated in the right answer, higher.


What makes a cooperative game require multiple players? Many cooperative games (like Pandemic or Arkham Horror) could be played by a single player, even though they're intended to be played by a team of players striving against the board.

What makes a cooperative game require multiple players?

What aspects can a cooperative game have that make it actually impossible to play as a solo game?

I'm talking about a fully cooperative game here, where everyone wins or loses together.

Many cooperative games suffer when one player knows the game best, so they just tell everyone else what to do.  If the other players are new enough (or meek enough), the game turns into a one-player game with a bunch of confused spectators.

If the game can't be played by a single player, the knowledgable player's advice is still advice, but it's less compelling.

Note that I'm not asking what to do about overbearing players.  I'm asking what makes it impossible for a cooperative game to be played solo.

The biggest thing I can think of is limited knowledge. Hanabi is a cooperative game where each player has access to different information (no one can see the cards in his or her own hand, but can see everyone else's cards).

As soon as different players have access to different information, playing by yourself becomes impossible. The other examples I can think of are partnership card games: Bridge, Pinochle, Canasta, Tichu, etc. They all have strict rules against communication between partners, so you cannot let your partner know what cards are in your hand. Due to this rule, a person could not end up playing both sides of the partnership by himself.

This type of thing could easily be implemented in non-card games as well, as long as there is some information that some players have but other players don't.

The other way that one could make a co-op game actually require multiple people is to have rules against table talk. Even if all knowledge is open, you can make it illegal to discuss moves. For example, you could play a Pandemic variant where any discussion between players about what should be done is illegal. You are still allowed to ask what cards other players have (or just play open-handed; same thing really), but no other discussion allowed. Thus, each player needs to decide what he wants to do on his turn all by himself, and the challenge comes on picking up the slack where other players are lacking.

Damage Report took another approach. All players play simultaneously and asynchronously (not everyone is on the same turn), and there are enforced time limits to turns. This prevents the game from being played solo (though a dominant player can still influence others)

"Hidden roles" type games can also work this way. Battlestar Galactica, for example. You could consider this a co-op game, because most of the players are all working together. Though instead of fighting against the game itself, as with Pandemic, you are fighting against the 1 or 2 other players who are not on your team. But due to the fact that roles are hidden, each player only knows his own role. This makes it impossible to play by yourself. Of course most probably wouldn't consider this a co-op game, but the basic principle is still there.. most of the people playing the game are playing co-op with each other.

I had this exact question myself :) Some great answers in here!

Another factor is if there is randomness introduced before and/or during each player's turn to play. If there is no uncertainty introduced between each players' turns, that means both turns can be combined into one optimal move which has multiple sub-moves.

A major problem with Pandemic is that once disease cubes are added to the board, nothing adds to the uncertainity factor for the players until all 4 players are done with their turns. Which means it makes sense for one optimal move between all 4 players to be decided first before making any moves.

Contrast that with Battle of Hogwarts. Each player's turn begins with a Dark Event and a Villain effect as well. When you play a turn, you don't know what's going to happen next. You don't know who's going to be affected next. You have a good sense of where it could go because the hands of all players are open. However, the uncertainty factor is quite high too - and in between players' turns.

So I  don't play Pandemic with others. I see it as a one-player game.


Why is Monstrosity not a keyword ability? As pointed out recently in a comment on another question, Monstrosity is actually a keyword action, not a keyword ability. This seems strange, especially as it is the only keyword action that is not a verb.

Every card that uses monstrosity has it in the same format: An activated ability with a mana cost; where the only effect of the ability is the monstrosity.

Given this, it seems like it would make a lot more sense to have made monstrosity a keyword ability that has both a cost and modifier built into the definition; similar to the way Awaken, Suspend, and Reinforce work... instead of: 5RR: Monstrosity 3,
use Monstrosity 3 - 5RR..

The language just seems more natural, due to the fact that "monstrosity" isn't a verb. Is it known if there had been plans to have monstrosity be used in ways other than an activated ability? Having it as an action makes sense if there were other ways of it occurring, such as through a triggered ability (Whenever [this creature] attacks with at least 3 other creatures, Monstrosity 2), etc.

Looking for either a word from Wizards on why this choice was made; or something about the mechanic that I missed as to why it needs to be an action instead of an ability.

It is a lot easier to print a card like Nemesis of Mortals if Monstrosity is a keyword action rather than a keyword ability. For reference, its Monstrosity ability says this:

  {7}{G}{G}: Monstrosity 5. This ability costs {1} less to activate for each creature card in your graveyard.

Keyword abilities almost never have those kinds of riders that aren't built in to the definition of the ability.

In addition, Monstrosity as an ability would have two different parameters: the number of counters to add and the cost. That is very rare in keyword abilities and the complexity that would introduce probably factors strongly into this design choice.

Among other keyword abilities with two parameters, Awaken and Suspend are not effects that can be expressed as keyword actions, and Reinforce is specifically an action that involves discarding the card, which would be lost if it was a keyword action.

I don't remember hearing anything about this mechanic specifically, but Mark Rosewater defines keyword and ability word in DtW #81 (Theros pt 2).

If you take the ability word off the card, it just works. The ability word doesn’t do anything to make the card work, it’s just a way to group it thematically.
But a keyword is something in which it needs to be on the card. Now, you can’t reference ability words, but you can reference keywords. So for example, if I wanted things to reference this ability, I needed it to be a keyword and not an ability word because ability words can’t be referenced.

There are quite a few cards which check to see if a creature is monstrous.  Therefore, in order to check if a card is monstrous, monstrosity must be a keyword, not an ability word!


Is this Texas Holdem hand a misdeal? The dealer dealt all the cards to 10 players, 6 players are now in the hand, so he flopped 3 cards on the table and all 6 players checked. So as he was going to do the turn card he messed up the top 5 or 6 cards and he was not sure they went into the original order so he ruled the hand dead, Is this the right decision?

No, the hand is not dead.

Looking at Robert's Rules of poker here the following is included in rules for misdeals.

  In button games, action is considered to occur when two players after the blinds have acted on their hands. Once action occurs, a misdeal can no longer be declared

As action has occurred (players calling pre flop) then this rules that the hand can not be declared dead.

I'm confused as to how the top few cards would get mixed up but as long as they haven't got mixed with the muck (previously folded cards, or discard pile to boardgamers!) then the cards coming off the deck will still be random and continuing is possible.

It is correct to rule the hand dead, but if all the players at the table agree, it can continue.  It must be unanimous, and the already folded players are taken into account. Individual tournaments or pre-agreed house rules may override this.