How is a roleplaying game not a board game? Let's say you have a roleplaying game with these elements:

a board on the table, depicting the rooms of a castle
miniature pieces on the board, representing the different characters in the game
cards and dice used as randomizers

How is this not a board game?

(The question may sound antagonistic, but I'm quite serious.  What is it that makes such a game not a board game?)

To give a short, simple attempt at answer to kick things off: I would say that a roleplaying game must be partly comprised of hidden information that has been invented by one or more of the players.

That's the key difference I can see between The Arkham Horror/Mansions of Madness (boardgames) and The Call of Cthulhu (roleplaying game), where both are moderated by a Keeper.  In both setups the Keeper controls the opposition to the players, but in only one is (s)he asked to invent details, descriptions or outcomes, as opposed to just managing them.

In a boardgame, it would be seriously frowned upon for any player (even in a moderatorial role) to come up with new challenges or house rules for the others that are not in the script.  In a roleplaying game, that's practically compulsory.

When playing a role-playing game, you spend about 80% of your time NOT using (or referencing to) the game rules.

Try not using the rules in a board game for even a little time...


When do you collect income in Patchwork? I find a slight ambiguity in the manual for Patchwork regarding when the special event spaces are triggered. From the rules:

  The Time Board

  Regardless of the action you take you always move your time token on the time board. Some spaces of the time board are marked. Whenever you move onto or past one of those spaces, resolve the corresponding event.

The problem is that the markers for the marked spaces are actually placed between two spaces. When exactly does the button pay out? The same applies to the special patches. In the example Green has definitely moved onto or past the button, but has Yellow? It is also possible that the button itself is a space.

Maybe this is a situation for a house rule, or I could just be missing something.

The English rules aren't very specific here so I looked at the German rules by the same publisher. They use the word 'überqweren', which means 'to cross' (as one would with borders).

I don't know why it says 'onto' in the English rules, it's not possible to land on buttons or special squares.
According to the link that Znorg provided, this is because in an early prototype version of the game the markings were on specific spaces. This was later changed, but overlooked when the rules got their review.

The correct reading is this:

  There are markings between some spaces of the time board. Whenever you move past one of these markings, resolve the corresponding event.

If you are stacked up on the same space, the player on top does not receive income because his turn is not over. If you land on either of the 2 spaces the income button is touching then you receive income. Both squares the button touches allow for income.


What happens if your opponents never let you win the bid? In other words, they out bid you even if they have a very bad hand just to prevent you from getting any points above the line?

I will expand on Benjamin Cosman's answer by noting that:

The behaviour you are observing is bad bridge; and
The (scoring) line in Rubber Bridge is simply that, and a means (other than a time limit) for ending the match. The winner is determined by the total of points obtained both below and above the line.

However, to expand on point 1 above, learn to double the opponents to truly penalize them for their unsocial behaviour, and enhance your defensive skills to get those extra tricks that turn a collected penalty of 100 or 200 into 800 or even 1100. A couple of those should slow down your opponents penchant for stink bidding.

If collecting penalties is still insufficient, offer to play for a little pocket change. A one cent a point stake over 3 or 4 hours can comfortably net $40 to $80 profit over weak players. There are two common forms of scoring in money bridge: rubber and four-deal or Chicago. Tough money players will deliberately play rubber against weak players as it creates additional strategic considerations that those players fail to grasp. Only against players that they respect do they opt for Chicago scoring, as it reduces the luck element.

Finally, I will note that the scoring of doubled not vulnerable under-tricks was changed about 20 years ago. Formerly all doubled undertricks after the first were scored at 200 points each, but long experience revealed that this was inadequate. A change was made that the 4th and subsequent doubled undertricks not vulnerable undertricks  now became 300 points each, the same as when vulnerable. Make sure that you are using the current scoring table - and practice your doubling and card-reading skills.

Good luck!

While it is not against the rules to do this, if an opponent keeps doing this, you should call the tournament director. They are able to exclude this person or pair from the tournament because bridge players are expected to be courteous.

Edit: to be clearer, when I read the word "never" in the title, I'm inagining an opponent with a grudge against you who stops at nothing to keep you from playing. Having the worst possible score does not matter to them.


Is a robber laid a robber played? My wife and I were playing Settlers of Catan and she moved the robber onto one of the numbers where only my settlement was. She took her hand off of the robber and told me to spread my cards. I was out of cards and told her I had none for her  to steal. She then grabbed the robber, said "just kidding" and proceeded to place it on another player's settlement.

I believe that the robber should stay on the original settlement as "a robber laid or placed  is a robber played". My wife believes that because she did not take a card from me she has the right to move the robber again even though she had already placed it somewhere.

Who is right and why?

There is no real "correct" answer here, in terms of official game rules. It is going to depend completely on the friendliness/casualness of your playgroup. In a tournament setting, such a thing would need to be clarified in the tournament rules; otherwise a judge would need to be informed of the situation and make a ruling.

My game group pretty much always tends to follow this basic rule: If no other player has taken an action that revealed new information to you after you made your move, you are still free to undo your move. Note that this action could be as simple as a "whew, glad you went there!" or an actual game-action such as playing a card.

In your case, I think the rule would apply. Because the number of cards in hand is open knowledge in the game anyway, you did not take any action that revealed new information (showing that you had no cards shouldn't be considered new information).

Basically, you are free to enforce whatever rules you decide on... often if there's an uncertainty in such situations, we also just take a vote amongst the players, and see who is ok with allowing the take-back. There's nothing "wrong" with a rule that says "you took your hand off, therefore the play is finalized", but in my opinion it decreases the general friendliness and thus the overall enjoyment of the game.

As a two time champion, once the hand is removed the robber play is finalized. This is a simple concept and universally recognized as the correct way to play


Do I get to use non-bonus abilities from items I don't have equipped? For the abilities underneath the "+N to combat check", for instance, am I allowed to use them when I don't have them equipped? I believe the answer is yes but I was hoping to find documentation. I think most of these likely involve exhausting the card, which further makes me think it likely is allowed.

Page 6 of the Arkham Horror FAQ here says

Q: Do I have to be using the Bullwhip or Cross in combat to gain their special abilities?
A: No, in the case of these two cards, you do not have to use them in combat to make use of their secondary abilities.

This implies to me that any other such weapon that has a secondary ability (i.e. one that isn't +N to combat checks or something similar) can also be used similarly without being equipped.

The limit on items you can use per turn is your hands, typically two.

Each item or spell will indicate how many hands it uses (if any).


After the combat phase, can hexes be claimed even if the ships weren't involved in combat? From the Eclipse rulebook, page 21:

  Influencing hexes:  If a hex has no population after all
  battles have been resolved and you have at least one Ship
  there, remove the previous controller’s Influence Disc (returning
  it to his Influence Track). After this, you may place
  your own Influence Disc there. Also, if your Ship is in a hex
  without an Influence Disc after the Combat Phase, you may
  place a disc there.

A literal interpretation of the last sentence means that just having a ship in a hex allows one to stake a claim with an Influence Disc.  Obviously, this would apply for the following two combat-related situations:

Defeating ancients or the GCDS, leaving behind an unclaimed hex.
Two opposing armies fighting over an uncontrolled hex, leaving behind an unclaimed hex.

However, this also opens up a third intriguing possibility:

Moving a ship into an unclaimed and uncontested hex, later claiming it without needing an Influence action.

Is this third interpretation legal, or are hexes claimed in this step limited only to ships which actually did something during the Combat Phase?

You interpreted the rules correctly. The rules state:

  if your Ship is in a hex without an Influence Disc after the Combat
  Phase, you may place a disc there.

Which does not require that you actually participate in combat, just that you have a ship in a hex without any influence disks. So you are allowed to claim an influence disk free hex by ending your turn with a ship in that hex.

This forum post at Board Game Geek discusses the same question.

It is an incorrect interpretation of the rules, these rules only apply to hexes where combat has taken place.

That said, if you move your ship into a controlled hex and you didn't fight any other ships there you still are in combat. If that hex was populated you get a shot at destroying the population. If there's no population left the influence disc is removed and you are able to claim it by placing an influence disc.


Would Panharmonicon give my Myojins extra divinity counters? If I control a Panharmonicon and I play a Myojin of Seeing Winds (or any of the Myojins for that matter), would the Myojin enter the battlefield with two divinity counters instead of just one?

Panharmonicon will not double the divinity counters on any of the Myojins because the ability that adds a divinity counter is not a triggered ability. Myojin of the Seeing Winds' ability says

  Myojin of Seeing Winds enters the battlefield with a divinity counter on it if you cast it from your hand.

This is a static ability that creates a replacement effect of the type described in rule 614.1d that modifies how the creature enters the battlefield.

The difference between the card Myojin of the Seeing Winds and cards like Noxious Gearhulk is the wording on the card.

Easier way to explain it is,  look at Dark Depths, the wording on it is:

  Dark Depths enters the battlefield with ten ice counters on it.

And it triggers "When it has no counters". If the first part was a triggered ability and triggered when it entered the battlefield, then Dark Depths would enter the battlefield with no counters on it, the trigger would go on the stack (and panharmonicon would make it trigger an additional time if it was a creature or artifact (let's pretend it applies to lands for the sake of the explanation), panharmonicon would make it get an additional 10 ice counters on it which would also go on the stack, the game would then check that it in fact has no counters, so the transformation ability of it would go on the stack, making it so that dark depths would be simply a 0 mana 20/20 indestructible.

The wording on Myojin, which is the same as the one in dark depths is not a "When it enters", meaning, it doesn't check if it can resolve on entering, the wording is "it enters with(...)", meaning the card already comes into play with it and doesn't gain it when it enters.


Does blinking a Planeswalker restore its loyalty? If I were to use a blink effect on a Planeswalker say after an ultimate (largest cost) Loyalty ability (and providing it still had Loyalty remaining), would its loyalty restore to the noted amount on the card?

From what I remember, if a card is exiled, unless stated otherwise, all counters are removed.

If this is so, when the planeswalker returns to the battlefield, would it then add the loyalty counters to match its noted amount back on the card?

Yes, a planeswalker will return as if you had just played it, with full loyalty counters.
Blinking a Planeswalker means to first exile it, which indeed removes all counters from it, and then returning it to the battlefield, with a number of loyalty counters on it equal to the loyalty printed on the card.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.
121.2. Counters on an object are not retained if that object moves from one zone to another. The counters are not “removed”; they simply cease to exist. See rule 400.7.
209.1. Each planeswalker card has a loyalty number printed in its lower right corner. This indicates its loyalty while it’s not on the battlefield, and it also indicates that the planeswalker enters the battlefield with that many loyalty counters on it.

It doesn't matter how or from where a planeswalker entered the battlefield, it will always gain as many loyalty counters as it has loyalty printed on it whenever it does enter the battlefield.

Yes, because it goes out and comes back in, making it a new object, so it is restored to the original counters, and can use it’s loyalty abilities again as well


In Pegs and Jokers, is it legal to split a seven card between my peg and my partner's peg? In Pegs and Jokers, there are two teams of three each. Player A has four pegs in the castle and his fifth peg is two holes away from going in to have all pegs in the castle. Player A wants to play a seven card and move his last peg two holes into the castle (he would then have all five pegs in his castle) and use the remaining five moves to advance a peg belonging to his partner to his left. Is this legal?

I think it depends on the variant that you're playing. This site lists the rules that come into play here. First, the basic rules:

  In the basic game, except in special circumstances described below, you may only move your own pegs.
  ...
  When playing a 7, you may either move one of your pegs forward 7 holes, or split the 7 between two of your pegs, moving them 1 and 6, 2 and 5 or 3 and 4 holes forwards. Of course the split move can only be made if you have at least two pegs in play.
  ...
  When, and only when, all five of your pegs are in the home (safe) position, occupying the five holes of your home track, you use your turn to move the pegs of your left-hand partner, if that player still has playable pegs. If left partner's pegs are also all home, you move the pegs of the next partner around the table who still has playable pegs.

As I read this, the ability to move your partner's pegs depends on the state of the game at the start of your turn. Player A still has pegs out, so he would not be able to split the 7 with his partner's peg; he only has one peg out, so he could not split the 7.

If you're using Arizona Rules, then it would be allowed:

  Throughout the game, you may move any of the pegs belonging to your team (so for example any of 20 pegs in the 8-player game with 4 on each team). Therefore you may discard without moving only if you are unable to play a card (other than a joker) that moves any of your team's pegs.

and this situation is explicitly mentioned in the North Carolina Rules:

  As in the basic game, you can only move your own pegs until your last peg is home. After that you move the pegs of the partner nearest to your left. You can use a split move to take your last peg home and move your left hand partner's peg with the remainder.

Because it's explicitly mentioned in the last variant, I do not think it is permitted in basic play.

Yes, we allow a 7 to be split when last peg enters home with any partner. We also use a 2 to switch places with a partner. Makes an interesting game and it speeds up the game, especially when 6 are playing. IL and in FL


Does "whenever a creature attacks" count for each attacker separately? Hissing Miasma is an enchantment that says:

  Whenever a creature attacks you, its controller loses 1 life.

Does the attacker lose one life per attacking creature?

Yes (though they will be lost one at a time).

There's a rule specifically covering this:

  603.2c An ability triggers only once each time its trigger event occurs. However, it can trigger repeatedly if one event contains multiple occurrences. See also rule 509.4.

If your opponent attacks you with an Elf and a Bear, two instances of the event "a creature attacks you" occurred (the Elf attacked you, and the Bear attacked you), so the ability will trigger twice.

You will place these on the stack where they will resolve one at a time, each causing him to lose one life (for a total of two).

Yes, the attacker will lose one life per attacking creature.

The ability is a triggered ability,when a ability is triggered it gets a 2nd trigger if say a elf and another creature attacks you as well


Is there much strategy and planning in 7-Wonders or is mostly luck? I have played about 15 games of Seven Wonders now.

When I ask the winning player why they won, they tend to tell me what they did rather than why they did it, and rarely does it involve anything clever.  The smartest thing I've seen a winning player do was start with the board with Glass as a resource and bury to Glass cards to build up his wonder for the first two phases of his wonder.  But winning often is related to things out of your control, such as

Your neighbor builds up lots of resources so that you can use them for trading.
No other player goes for the same strategy as you so they don't build the cards you want.
Your neighbors build up little military, so you don't need to waste resources contending with them and can still get lots of points from beating them.
Your neighbors pick the same strategy as each other, so you can get a valuable guild.
You get access to resources needed to progress through building your wonder early.

In contrast, Dominion and Race for the Galaxy, both games that I really enjoy, a skilled player can exert a lot of control over the game.  I readily admit luck is a factor in both games, but there is a lot of room for skill to influence the outcome.  Whether its from picking a better strategy from the initial board setup and picking appropriate card counters as the game progresses in Dominion, or building a tableau to mitigate advantages in probable phase selections and choosing actions to counter opponents selections in Race, there is a big return on skill for both of those games.  I just don't see the same room for planning, strategic decisions and maneuvering in Seven Wonders.

What am I missing?

7 Wonders is a very different kind of game than Race or Dominion.  Race & Dominion are both "group solitare" games.  By that I mean that there is little one can do to affect one's opponent.  The game is mostly your own strategy.

7 Wonders is strictly an "adaptive" game. You cannot go in with any kind of strategy; even choosing wonders is random according to the rules.  Every decision you make affects all other opponents, neighbors more than the others.  If you don't take that into account, by, say knowing "I'm going to pass these 6 cards, and I know my left neighbor will likely choose this card, so I should choose to do X", then yes, the game will feel random.

My biggest criticism of this type of game is that weak players give other players big advantages.  If you want to enjoy 7 wonders, play with people who know the game well, start thinking about everyone's tactics not just your own, and stop worrying about strategy.

What you are missing? The same thing I was. This article helps a lot! It explains the "why" in great detail.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/691370/some-complex-strategies-for-7-wonders


How does Infinite Reflection work with Commander and commander damage? Does a Commander which has been turned into a copy of another card still do commander damage (i.e. will 21 damage dealt to a single player from the copy lose the game for that player)?

Alternately, does a card which has been turned into a copy of a commander do commander damage?

Examples of both cases:

Our antagonist has 50 life and no commander damage dealt.

Our protagonist has a (any) commander and Malignus on the battlefield.

Protagonist enchants Malignus with Infinite Reflection and then attacks with his/her commander (which is a copy of Malignus). Antagonist does not block. 25 damage is dealt. Does our protagonist win the game due to commander damage?

Alternately:

Our antagonist has 50 life and no commander damage dealt.

Our protagonist has a 6/6 commander and 3 other non token creatures on the battlefield.

Protagonist enchants his/her commander with Infinite Reflection and then attacks with all 4 creatures. Antagonist does not block. 24 damage is dealt (6 per creature). Does our protagonist win the game due to commander damage?

It seems like the answer to one of these questions should be yes. I feel like it's probably the first one (a commander turned into a copy of another card doesn't lose its commander-ness), but I'm not familiar enough with the rules to say for sure.

I found the answer to this in the rules:

  903.3. Each deck has a legendary creature card designated as its commander. This designation is not a characteristic of the object
  represented by the card; rather, it is an attribute of the card
  itself. The card retains this designation even when it changes zones.

  Example: A commander that's been turned face down (due to Ixidron's
  effect, for example) is still a commander. A commander that's copying
  another card (due to Cytoshape's effect, for example) is still a
  commander. A permanent that's copying a commander (such as a Body
  Double, for example, copying a commander in a player's graveyard) is
  not a commander.

So the answer is that in the first example (commander copying Malignus) the antagonist loses the game. In the second he/she does not (yet).

Infinite Reflection cannot be used on your commander because all commanders have to be legendary and if you control 2 copies of a legendary permanent you must imedatly sacrifice one before any other action could be taken.

In your scenario every time you played a creature you would have to sacrifice it or your commander.


How likely is it to get a complete set of commons from a single booster box? I am looking at getting into MTG again. Thinking about just playing pauper and maybe some EDH. However it's kind of fun opening packs. My thoughts are I buy a box at the release of a set and just use it to build play sets of the commons.  Sell off everything else except perhaps a couple cards that may work with EDH or something. Not asking if this is the cheapest way, just whether or not it would be viable to get a full common play set from a single box or maybe two.

The exact value is difficult to calculate. This is due to the print runs of the cards - the 74 commons have "print runs" of 5 to make the printing easier. There are hundreds of these, but the fact that no pack contains the same cards does complicate the calculation.

I did throw together a pack simulator to test this and it ran in the background. Below is the output after 10 million trials. The highest was 200 packs and the lowest was 45. On a different run (of about 22 million trials) I was able to get a playset in only 44 trials. This run I've let go for 35 million trials and it was only able to get that 45, although eventually I got so unlucky I needed 215 packs on one of them. The last 17 million trials have not changed the min and max, though. I don't expect them to be changing any time soon.

Thus I think it's safe to say you are never going to get a playset from a single booster box.

I modified it to check the number of boxes and found a very consistent: 2 boxes were sufficient 39.2% of the time, three boxes 58.8% of the time, and four boxes sufficient 2.0% of the time. Five boxes were only necessary on 0.03% of runs but that was consistent far far into the tens of millions of trials.

If you want to play it safe, buy 3 boxes - you'll have them all 98% of the time.

new max: 72 on trial: 2
new max: 77 on trial: 3
new max: 81 on trial: 4
new low: 72 on trial: 6
new max: 87 on trial: 9
new max: 88 on trial: 10
new low: 65 on trial: 21
new max: 92 on trial: 25
new low: 64 on trial: 31
new max: 95 on trial: 42
new max: 108 on trial: 64
new low: 61 on trial: 78
new max: 115 on trial: 80
new max: 116 on trial: 110
new max: 119 on trial: 146
new low: 60 on trial: 153
new low: 59 on trial: 162
new low: 58 on trial: 222
new low: 56 on trial: 296
new low: 55 on trial: 607
new low: 53 on trial: 744
new max: 140 on trial: 2928
new low: 51 on trial: 6183
new max: 156 on trial: 9309
new low: 49 on trial: 49366
new max: 162 on trial: 60593
new max: 170 on trial: 112123
new low: 48 on trial: 117347
hit trial: 500000
new low: 47 on trial: 830525
hit trial: 1000000
new max: 186 on trial: 1307797
hit trial: 1500000
hit trial: 2000000
hit trial: 2500000
hit trial: 3000000
hit trial: 3500000
new max: 195 on trial: 3563925
hit trial: 4000000
hit trial: 4500000
hit trial: 5000000
hit trial: 5500000
hit trial: 6000000
new max: 198 on trial: 6005659
hit trial: 6500000
new low: 46 on trial: 6614767
hit trial: 7000000
hit trial: 7500000
hit trial: 8000000
new low: 45 on trial: 8015142
new max: 200 on trial: 8333263
hit trial: 8500000
hit trial: 9000000
hit trial: 9500000
hit trial: 10000000

OP asked for anecdotal evidence in one of the comments.

Back in the day (Tempest, Exodus, etc.) I generally had to buy 2 boxes of boosters to get a complete play set of commons (i.e. 4 of each).


Axis and Allies - Is there a best country? I've been told by several people that different countries are statistically better choices for Axis and Allies?

Is there any evidence that one or more countries have a significant advantage?

Answering the question with AAMC bid statistics

Others have explained why the Axis have a significant disadvantage in the 2nd Edition rules. I'll attempt to provide hard evidence and quantify this advantage. The popular play-by-email (PBEM) site Axis and Allies Members Club (which I have no affiliation with and which I hadn't logged onto in years until I did some research for this post) keeps statistics on the games played by its members.

There's such a strong belief that the game is unbalanced in favor of the allies that the club has introduced a concept known as bidding to even out the game. Before the game starts, each player bids for how many extra IPCs they would need to be given to play the Axis. Then are then allowed to use this money to purchase and place additional units on the board prior to the start of the game.

Bidding can either be hidden (both bids placed in secret and low bid plays the Axis) or open, where players bid each other down over multiple rounds until someone calls uncle (like the old game show Name that Tune).

I haven't played in years and looked up my old game logs. I had about a 0.500 win percentage with an average bid of about 12. There is a (fairly vapid) thread on the AAMC message boards asking what bids are running now, the consensus seems to be the low 20s. Lastly, I logged on and checked the game logs for the club's top ranked player. The average bid over his last 20 games was something like 22. The difference in the bids is explained because I always played no first turn Russian attack, which is evidently worth about 10 IPCs to the Axis (because they can save the units in Finland, or at least the fighter).

So, among the very seasoned 2nd edition players over at AAMC, the consensus is that it's not fair to take the Axis unless the Allies spot them the equivalent of more than 7 infantry on the first turn to be placed anywhere on the game board.

That's a fairly insane unbalance in the game. I believe the only reason it didn't tank the game completely is because although the Allied advantage is large it is also hard to capitalize on if you're inexperienced: the Allies require more finesse to play (flawless execution of strategies like shuck-shuck), often much more than the novice A&A player has.

It is possible (although you need luck on your side) for Germany to take the UK capital on their first turn....

Ultimately, each country has its own strategy, so my thinking is that it ultimately comes down to choice and style of play. I personally like going Russia for the additional challenge...


How many artifact lands can I play a turn? I bought the 5 artifact lands from Mirrodin to add to my artifact deck; it works with the artifact theme (having all of my cards be artifacts) and goes well with my Darksteel Juggernauts.

The thing is, the other day a friend told me that, because they are artifacts and not basic lands, I could play a basic land and as many artifact lands as I have in my hand in a single turn. Is this true?

I find it hard to believe as that would make then overpowered and everyone would use them.

Can anyone verify this or point me to an article where artifact lands are discussed?

Artifact lands may be artifacts, but they are also lands, and all the usual rules about how often you can play and land (i.e. once a turn, on your turn) still apply to them.  The same goes for creature lands like Dryad Arbor from Future Sight: if you've played a land already that turn, you can't then play your Dryad Arbor.

If you want to dump out a ton of mana production on your first turn, you're going to have to invest many thousands of dollars for a large collection of Moxes, I'm afraid to say.

From the Comprehensive Rules, section 305, Lands:

  305.2. A player may normally play only one land during his or her
  turn; however, continuous effects may increase this number. If any
  such effects exist, the player announces which effect, or this rule,
  applies to each land play as it happens.

  305.9. If an object is both a land and another card type, it can be
  played only as a land. It can't be cast as a spell.

Essentially, the fact of an Artifact Land being an artifact doesn't mean it is no longer bound by the rules for lands; it must follow all the normal rules for lands, and all the normal rules for artifacts too - so it is a valid target for Shatter, and so on.

Just because artifact lands are artifacts it doesn’t mean you can just spam them on your turn. The normal land rule applies to these lands meaning you can only place one land each turn unless other card texts say otherwise. If wanting to create lots of mana in early turns, expensive cards such as moxes and other 0 mana costing cards that produce mana - like black lotus - would be needed


Alternative to Dixit Odyssey voting boards+pegs I recently bought Dixit Odyssey to enable more players at the same time. One thing about Odyssey that I absolutely don't like, is the new voting system with the cards and pegs. It's a lot harder to tell who's already placed a vote and we generally end up needlessly waiting for everyone to vote (when everyone already has).

We'd really like to go back to using upside down numbered tokens to vote with. Where can I get those for 12 players (in the right colors)?

There aren't official tokens for more than 7 players. Instead, you can have the rule that people hold their hands over their voting cards on the table to indicate readiness. That makes it easy to tell if someone is still deciding, and if you hold the voting card face down against the table it stops the pegs falling out.

There's a wide variety of cards that have numbers on them. The cheapest is probably simple playing cards; you can get a deck for about a dollar, so three dollars will accommodate twelve players (one suit for each player). You could also buy index cards and make your own; it would be cheaper and more customized, but more work, and the cards wouldn't take as much abuse.


Do reserved cards influence the end of the game? I have some reserved cards in Splendor and 15 prestige points at the end of my turn. Is this the final round of the game, or do I have to buy all my reserved cards to end the game? Do reserved cards have some "negative" points assigned to them for points counting?

Reserved cards have no effect on the end game trigger, and do not count as negative points. The rules just say that "When a player reaches 15 prestige points, complete the current round so that each player has played the same number of turns. The player who then has the highest number of prestige points is declared the winner".

Not officially, but it is a common house rule I have run into, among a few groups of players, that you have to have 15+ points but reserve cards count as -3 each.

So you could go out with 18 points and a reserve card, but your score is 15. Likewise if you have 15 points and a reserve card, you need to get rid of it, or get 3 more points to close it out.


What is the expected duration of a game of War? In the card game War you deal a standard 52 card deck between two players. The players than flip cards with the higher card winning. In the case of ties (wars), each player plays N additional cards an the player with the highest Nth card wins all the cards (subsequent ties follow the same rules). The game can last a very long time and seems to never last a short time.

What is the expected number of "turns" until the game is completed?

I learned to play war with N equal to 3 (i.e., a total of 10 cards are played in a war: the original tie, 3 face down, and a final comparison card).

For completeness assume the game is over if a player has less than 5 cards and gets into a war (i.e., does not have a final card to flip).

Assume that upon playing your last card from your hand, you shuffle the winning cards into a random order and resume.

Assume the cards are in random order to start.

War is actually not a game but an Automata, as players don't have any options.

Wimpy Programmer already made this simulation, he found that when shuffling the winning cards, the mean number of turns is 262, the mode is 84, and the max (on a sample of 100,000 trials) is 2,702 turns.  He also found that without shuffles of the winning cards, the game might be endless.

He used N=2 while you play with N=3, higher N shortens the game, however I don't think that it will make a big difference.

Just a quick answer here, war actually is a game, because how players pick up the cards, affects the outcome.  You can choose to pick up the cards in different orders after each round.  But it is very difficult to play strategically.
As for the question at hand, I built my own simulation, and for 5 trials, with shuffling, I got:
58, 144, 354, 428, 189
This comes to an average of 234 rounds.  Obviously, you can do more trials, to get a more accurate number, but it's definitely a long game to play!
My source code is

    <textarea id='editor' wrap='off' style="display:none;" readonly="true"></textarea>


Most important buildings in 3 player version In Machi Koro (base game), finding an optimal strategy depends on the number of players involved, since you take turns rolling the dice. Green and purple buildings are only activated when you roll the dice, red buildings only by your opponents and blue by every player.

In a two player game, most of the strategies I've come up with hinge on using green buildings. In a four player game, blue and red are dominant. But what about 3 players? Is there an optimal strategy, or are all options considered equal?

I guess I'm looking for a list of buildings with the highest expected return rate in a 3 player game (unless you think expected return is not the primary metric for choosing your buildings).

This is an interesting question in part because I think it will depend on what your opponents have. Blue buildings trigger on every roll, but don't tend to generate as much income as the green buildings. If your opponents have a lot of red buildings, I'd guess it would be more helpful to have green buildings so that you can earn a lot in one go (and red buildings trigger first). Blue buildings can have income trickle in more regularly, but the income will trickle out for your rolls that trigger red buildings and for their rolls that trigger purple buildings.

Red buildings will probably still be useful, though not as useful as in 4 player games.

I have not played a lot of three player games of Machi Koro, but I would guess that it provides the best balance between the power of the differently colored buildings.

As usual, I think it depends on what your opponent have.
Some guidelines I usually follow:

Most of the players are still rolling with one dice? Then try to buy the Sushi Bar: it is cheap and you receive a lot of income if your opponents roll a 1.
Is there a Mine available and you can purchase it? Do it. The number 9 is likely to be rolled with a huge amount of chances.
Are your opponents builidng a lot of red buildings? Build the IRS if available.


Can I strike backward directly? I am an amateur player of carrom and I have seen in tournaments players striking backward their striker to pocket the coins behind the hand.

Is this allowed?

According to the rules of ICF (international carrom federation) you can strike backwards directly. It is popularly known as thumbing as you use your thumb to strike the coins behind the baseline.  Watch any international tournament matches on youtube. you will notice players thumbing.

Yes it is allowed now by ICF but in India a lot of people on the streets are yet to adopt the change


What is a good opening in Blokus? I have played Blokus enough times to get a feel for the game and one thing that always bugs me is how to play the first few moves.  There seem to be a couple of competing aims:

Get rid of big, awkwardly shaped pieces;
Create plenty of corners to leave lots of future moves open.

Assuming this is the case, which pieces are the 'most awkward', and does playing these achieve the goal of creating lots of corners?

Also, how many moves can you have before you have to start worrying about what other players are doing?

To help with answering this question here's a link to a picture showing a Blokus naming convention.

Ever since I learned about "the Barasona opening", I've had a hard time not starting all my Blokus games with it.

The basic idea is that your first four pieces leave no possibility for an opponent to move "through" your corner, without the use of his one-piece.

The pieces you use are F, X, W, and then N or Y.  You can see a picture of the Barasona in action here: http://boardgamegeek.com/image/112251/blokus.

Of course, the problem with the Barasona is that, while it provides a disincentive for other players to move towards your unprofitable corner, the moment the other players realize this they will probably all start using the Barasona themselves, and you're back to square one.  Blokus is an arms race!

Hope this helps!

Use the 'W' shape piece first or second move.


Can Mirrorworks' ability be activated multiple times for the same artifact? Mirrorworks reads like this:

  Whenever another nontoken artifact enters the battlefield under your
  control, you may pay 2 (colorless). If you do, put a token that's a
  copy of that artifact onto the battlefield.

If I cast say, a Darksteel Relic, could I then pay 4 colorless and get a total of 3 Darksteel Relics (the original and two copies)?

Since the thesunneversets is looking for an explict rules that prevent paying multiple costs to get multiple effects.
No. You can only get one token copy of Darksteel Relic for each nontoken Darksteel Relic that enters the battlefield.
Mirrorworks contains a triggered ability. We know this because its rules text begins with the word "When."

112.3c 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.” Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”

From rule 112.3c, we also know that the [Trigger Condition] is "another nontoken artifact enters the battlefield under your control", and with rule 117.12 (below) the [effect] is, "put a token that's a copy of that artifact onto the battlefield."
Rule 603.2c explains that abilities only trigger one time for each event that occurs (so if multiple nontoken Darksteel Relics were coming into play, it would trigger once for each occurence).

603.2c An ability triggers only once each time its trigger event occurs. However, it can trigger repeatedly if one event contains multiple occurrences. See also rule 509.4.
Example: A permanent has an ability whose trigger condition reads, “Whenever a land
is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, . . . .” If someone casts a spell that destroys all lands, the ability will trigger once for each land put into the graveyard during the spell’s resolution.

The final piece of the puzzle. We know from all the above, that there is a single existence of the triggered ability on the stack, and we know from the rule below that you can only get one token copy of the nontoken Darksteel Relic (the ability didn't say, "you may pay 2 any number of times", and this isn't an activated ability which allows playing a cost for an effect any time you have priority)

117.1. A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action or to stop another action from taking place. To pay a cost, a player carries out the instructions specified by the spell, ability, or effect that contains that cost.
117.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The “If [a player] [does or doesn’t]” clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.
Example: You control Hesitation, an enchantment that says “When a player casts a spell,
sacrifice Hesitation. If you do, counter that spell.” A spell is cast, causing Hesitation’s
ability to trigger. Then an ability is activated that exiles Hesitation. When Hesitation’s
ability resolves, you’re unable to pay the “sacrifice Hesitation” cost. The spell is not
countered.

When the Mirrorworks trigger resolves, it gives you the option of paying a cost may pay 2. Then the [If you do] clause checks whether the cost was paid to determine if the [effect] (put a token that's a copy of that artifact onto the battlefield) occurs.

It doesn't say you can't pay 2 multiple times; it says "Pay 2 and put a copy," nowhere does it state this ability can only be activated once.

And since it dose not state a limit it should work multiple times provided you pay 2 for each copy since each "pay 2" is added to the stack as the artifact comes into play, then it resolves and the copies are made.
Since this is actually not a triggered ability it is actually an activated ability since mana is payed for it to resolve.

For example, triggered abilities resolve as the result of an action being made, i.e. a land entering and you gaining life--no mana cost involved. If there is mana involved it always states you cannot activate more than once.

And activated ability, e.g. "Pay 1 red, get +1/+0 until end of turn," since it does not say you cannot pay 10 red and get +10/+0, you can!
Mirrorworks is both a triggered and an activated ability since its conditional is "When a nontoken..." and its activated is "Pay 2..." you can pay 2 multiple times provided it is paid as the artifact is put into play since each instance of the pay 2 resolves at the same time.

Basically, because the card does not state "this can only be activated once," it should be able to be activated multiple times for the same card, and after you have paid the 2 for each copy you wish to make then the copies come into play.

If it can only be activated once it should say "Pay 2 only once". With the text as is, you should be able to pay 2 multiple times.


How soon is "Just Played" Ainoa and some other general have an ability which reads:

  Force an opponent to move an Agent he just played to a different District

Does this mean I have to use the ability at the same time as the player is playing the Agent? Or can I wait a another players turn, or right before they place another Agent to refer to the "Just played" agent from previously?

For instance, if it is possible to wait, then a tactic that could be used is to wait and see what other players place first, or if the player next turn uses a relic - the ability can be used then on the previous Agent.

The rules are not clear on this.

My understanding of this is that it should be from the current round of play.

I must admit but it's been a while since I've played Arcana. Good game, with enough innovations to have a place among my deck builders!


Is it possible to design a two player game of skill with absolutely no luck? I really do mean absolutely no luck. This would disqualify even games like Chess as White has an inherent advantage, winning between 52 and 56 percent of all games. A good test for a game with absolutely no luck is:

If player 1 plays again as player 2 and vice-versa, both playing to the best of their abilities, then the second match would be played out exactly the same as the first match.

Is it even possible to design such a game? If so then what would the rules of such a game entail? If not then why?

By Zermelo's Theorem, every 2 player game has one of the following:

Chance
Hidden information (this also includes simultaneous moves)
Either first or second player has a strategy that will guarantee them the win
Both players can guarantee a draw (or force the game to go on forever)

Any game that has (1) is clearly out.

Any game that has (2) is also out if you view chance as our way of modeling information that is unknown. After all, the same rules of probability work whether it's unknown because it will be chosen soon by the roll of a die, or is unknown because an opponent has already chosen something but isn't telling us.

Any game that has (3) is out by your definition, which is reasonable because presumably you choose who goes first by chance, and that determines the winner.

So your only choice is to go for (4): games that under perfect play end in draws (or are infinite). For example, tic-tac-toe can be thought of as fitting your requirements because under perfect play every game is always a draw, no chance involved.

Note that we can't always distinguish games in category (3) and (4) - for example, though you talk about the "inherent advantage" of first in chess, it's entirely possible that this advantage is merely an artifact of our incomplete understanding of perfect play, and that two perfect players might always play to a draw (perhaps even in the same way each time). You can also convert any game with (3) into a game with (4) by wrapping two rounds together in a single game where first player alternates, and declaring the overall game a draw unless one player wins both times. So while chess may or may not fit your definition, two-round-chess does.

ADDENDUM, addressing common objections to this answer:

The English definition of "game" is broader and fuzzier than the "extensive-form" definition I am implicitly using to apply Zermelo's Theorem. If you wish to consider other types of games, including timed contests of prowess and trivia, read other answers.
My analysis of (2) is certainly controversial - I consider rock-paper-scissors a game containing luck but you don't have to. For more on different views of chance, read about Bayesian vs frequentist schools of thought.
I consider simultaneous moves under hidden information because you could imagine that players alternate but the first player's move is hidden until the second player moves.

Yes, and it's already been done.
It's called InstaGib over LAN.
Latency is neglible, weapons always kill when they hit and have 100% accuracy.
Everyone has the same amount of life, the same gun, infinite ammo.

You both start at the same time, and you can eliminate the random factor of spawns by placing only 2 spawnpoints.

One for Red, one for Blue.
Here's an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuRJNn-R1C4

edit: monoRed is right. Excuse my noobness.


Companions lost on death in same room as other explorers I understand the general ruling on companions lost on death. Essentially it says "whomever enters the room first gains custody of the companion". However, this doesn't quite make sense for the scenario I'm in right now: two heros and the traitor are in a room. One hero has the madman, and dies fighting the traitor. Now the madman, last hero and traitor are all in the same room. Who gets the madman? We eventually decided that you had to move out of the room and back into the room to take the madman, since that's what the rules seem to say, but that seems illogical.

Tl;dr if a companion is in the same room as two explorers, who gets the companion?

The rules as written do seem to imply you have to leave the room and re-enter. However I agree with you that this is silly - the spirit of the rules as I read them is that the lost companion gloms on to the first available explorer. So to resolve the ambiguity I would house-rule the relevant section:

  If another explorer enters the room or starts their turn in the room, he or she gains custody of that companion.

Or if you prefer more instantaneous glomming,

  If one or more other explorers are already in the room, the next in turn order gains custody of that companion immediately. Otherwise, the next explorer to enter the room does.

Here is an option for you....
What if the companion will attach to the last person in the room.  If its multiple friendlies, you could agree on someone leaving the room, if enemies, well it looks like we have a fight on our hand!

However that may just seem to aide the aggressor in most scenarios.


What ways are there for a Standard Werewolf deck to handle Ratchet Bomb? What can a Standard (M12, Scars, Innistrad) Red-Green werewolf deck use, either in the main deck or the sideboard, to handle a deck with Ratchet Bomb?

Some back story: When a werewolf is in its transformed state, its CMC is 0.  So an opponent can cast Ratchet Bomb, then tap and sac it for 0 and destroy anything with a CMC of 0, which hits all transformed permanents (and all non-land 0 cost permanents).

On color

Green:

The obvious choice in your situation is Full Moon's Rise.  It buffs all your werewolves while it's in play and you can sacrifice it to save all of them from a Ratchet Bomb.
Another direction is Withstand Death, but this only provides the means to save creatures on an individual basis and is a sideboard card at best.
Asceticism gives you the option of regenerating creatures and hexproof on top of that.  However, regenerating a large number of werewolves could get expensive.

Artifacts:

Phyrexian Revoker is another great way to ruin Ratchet Bomb's day, but it has its own limitations and weaknesses as a creature.
Sundial of the Infinite would work as long as they are trying activating the Ratchet Bomb on your turn.

Off color

For others who might have the same concerns in a different mana base.

Blue:  Obviously any counter is going to prevent Ratchet Bomb from ever entering the battlefield.

Steel Sabotage would be a good one specifically for countering Ratchet Bomb.

Black:

Memoricide can remove any Ratchet Bombs that are not in play thus preventing them from ever being used.
Surgical Extraction could be used for a similar effect, but unfortunately can only be used if a Ratchet Bomb is already in the Graveyard.

White:

Stony Silence can prevent the activation of a Ratchet Bomb.
Nevermore can be used to ensure that Ratchet Bomb is never cast.

Couldn't I Ancient Grudge the ratchet bomb in response to it coming out before its ability goes on the stack? I might be wrong but I thought that it being an instant (and red/green double artifact kill is really a great mainboard card in my opinion.) would beat its ability.


Is pile shuffling considered slow play? Pile shuffling does not randomize a deck. Except during pregame, where pile shuffling allows players to count the number of cards in the deck, it might be considered a waste of time, and therefore considered slow play.

I see tons of players pile shuffle at large tournaments. I watch them pile shuffle while totally engulfed by hordes of judges because they are playing on camera. I always pile shuffle my deck during pregame to count cards. I pile shuffle my opponent's deck to do the same.

Is pile shuffling at a Magic: the Gathering tournament considered slow play, during pregame or otherwise?

This question is related to the question about Mana Weaving. The difference between the two questions is the actual, real-world experience I have at tournaments and watching video coverage. I've seen judges ask a players to stop mana weaving. I've never seen a judge ask a player to stop pile shuffling. So even though I would expect the answers to be the same from a strict rules standpoint, the answers appear to be different in reality.

If the answer depends on the REL, please answer for both Regular and Competitive.

The tournament rules now clearly cover pile shuffling:

  Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random and may not be performed more than once any time a deck is being randomized.

The description from the update bulletin explains a bit more:

  Section 3.9 (Shuffling): This change has to do with "pile shuffling." Pile shuffling alone is not a sufficiently random form of shuffling. Update states that a player may only pile shuffle once each time a deck is randomized. The one pile shuffle is allowed in order to count the number of cards in the deck.

So, pile shuffle once, and you're okay, as long as you still actually shuffle your deck - it will not be considered slow play. Pile shuffling more than once would be against the rules, though it's not clear whether it'd be deemed slow play or just improper shuffling.

I am terrible at expressing my thoughts in maths, but the idea with pile shuffling before or after randomisation is likely to be a way of proving that you're not attempting to cheat.

Even if you're able to remember a certain order of 60 cards, pile shuffling will rearrange the order of every single one of those 60 cards. Suppose you are able to memorise the order in which your 60 cards are at point A. Now perform a pile shuffle. You now need to shift the position of every single one of those 60 cards by x and remember the new order. Now perform another shuffling technique. Even if the second technique is not one that does sufficient randomisation either, you will still need to shift those 60 cards by another amount y on top of the shift by x. Now add a third method on top of that, shifting once again, now by amount z. I suppose it is possible to know the new order of the cards, but highly unlikely.

This does not even take into account what will happen if one of your 3 methods is actually one that DOES actually randomise the order of the cards instead of simply shifting them around.

This is what I feel is meant by the rules when they state sufficiently randomised. They don't have to be actually randomised, they simply have to be jumbled enough that it is unlikely that you still had significant influence over the order and position of the cards.


Can you owe a player in monopoly A player lands into someone´s property and they are supposed to pay $1000, they don't have enough cash (only have $600) but have property and houses they can mortgage. Can the two players agree to say I owe you $400, will pay later when I get the money?

You must do everything in your power as the debtor to pay off the debt

Count your cash
Sell houses
Mortgage properties

If you then still don't have enough you can ask other players to buy the mortgaged properties from you to raise enough cash.  This could come from the person you owe money to.  Otherwise, you are declared bankrupt.

In practical terms, not many players want to continue playing with no money and wholly mortgaged properties, therefore usually bankruptcy is the best option.

Anything in Monopoly has value if another player ascribes value to it, and this can include non-tangible things. The only specific rule around loans (based on tournament rules) is that "Money can only be loaned to a player by the Bank and then only by mortgaging property" (page 10, Miscellaneous). That would seem to preclude "I will pay you back" and "IOUs" (except when the bank runs out of money). Whether that includes "Gifts" is another question entirely.

However, certain versions of Monopoly have introduced alternative "interests" that can be traded, which inherently gives them value (the value of which is determined by the other players, of course). On the Playstation 1 version of the game, for example, a player may offer instances of "Rent Immunity," whereby the owner of a property chooses not to collect rent the first X times the receiver lands on a certain property.

It's unclear whether that is officially allowed by tournament Monopoly rules ("loan" is not defined very well), but it demonstrates that there are more ways to resolve a debt than via Mortgages and Bankruptcy. It is presumably also at a player's discretion to accept less than the required amount of Rent. Likewise, a player could simply "forget to ask for rent." The tournament rules do specifically call out this scenario.

  The owner may not collect his/her rent if he/she fails to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice. (page 8, Paying Rent)

In your case, if you did not want to eliminate the payer, you could simply "forget to ask" and have the next player take their turn, and the debt would be nullified.


response with 4 cards in major and long (6+) minor Partner opens 1 hearts. You hold 4 cards in spades, 6+ cards in diamonds and 2 singletons (a total of 8 hcp). What is the correct bidding? I assume 1 spades. But what do you bid, if Partner rebids 1 no-trump or 2 hearts?

The following guidances will apply for any natural non-canapé system of bidding, including but not limited to SAYC, Goren (4-card majors), Five Card Majors, Two Over One, and many Precision and ACOL variants.

The importance of finding any existing 8 card major fit, particularly a 4-4 fit in a major, and of identifying misfits promptly, underlie the requirement that a hand such as you describe must respond 1 Spade. Due to the weakness of your hand (6-9 points) you are only entitled to make one free-bid (ie non-forced and non-invited response) during the auction. The specific reasons for making this bid as 1 Spade instead of 2 Diamonds are the following:

To protect against partner having a hand that is 4-5 in the majors. Even if playing the Flannery Convention partner may have this shape but be outside the range allowed by the convention.
To maximize partner's opportunity to make his prepared 1 NT rebid with a balanced 15-17 HCP (when playing Weak Notrump) or a balanced 12-14 HCP (when playing a Strong Notrump).
To maximize partner's ability to make his prepared 2NT rebid with 18-19 HCP.
To keep the auction low until:
1) adequate combined partnership strength is revealed to enable playing safely at a higher level; and
2) A fit is revealed that makes it desirable to try for a game or slam contract.

With a hand strength of 6-9 points (or 6-11 points if playing Two Over One) it is still incorrect to respond 2D over 1 Heart when holding 6 diamonds and only 3 spades. In such circumstance the correct response is 1 Notrump. It is absolutely imperative for bidding success and partnership harmony that proper discipline be exercised in the making of 2-over-1 responses to a suit opening. Such bids are immediately raising the level of the auction and, even more importantly, removing bidding room; they can only be engaged in successfully when the partnership is known to have adequate strength to do so safely.

Note that having made a 1 Spade response (to a 1 Heart opening) with a 6 to 9 point hand and 4-6 distribution in spades and diamonds, it is still incorrect to rebid 2D if partner rebids 2C. This bid again promises hand strength of 10+ points, by being a second free bid. In many systems this is stronger still by being an Artificial Fourth-Suit Forcing call.

You have been asked for a preference by a partner who has declined to show additional strength; do so. The only acceptable calls at this point are:

Pass, showing a hand that distinctly prefers Clubs over Hearts, and cannot raise to 3 Clubs because it has only 6 or 7 points;
2 Hearts, showing a hand that prefers Hearts to Clubs, or has no preference;
2 Spades, showing a 6 card or longer spade suit and denying three card heart support;

If partner rebids 2 Hearts over your 1 Spade response, this is showing a minimum unbalanced hand with 6+ hearts and denying 4 spades. With your singleton the partnership has announced being in possession of about half the high card points in the deck, and has found a seven card major suit fit. Pass is the only call to even consider.

If partner rebids 1 Notrump over your one Spade response, then you are in territory usually governed by specific partnership agreements. Either or both of 2C and 2D will often be conventional bids inquiring further about Opener's major suit distribution and point range.  You do not have the mandated strength or major suit length to consider any of these. When not conventional they will typically show more strength (10+ points) than you possess, as again they are a second free-bid. As above, just Pass and be thankful of getting out of this mis-fit auction cheaply, Weak opponents might even enter the auction and give you the chance for getting a plus score from setting them.

With 6-9 high card points, your main choices are to raise hearts (if you have three), bid one spade (if you have four), or bid 1NT if your hand is suitable (not an option with your lopsided hand).

You may not bid two diamonds or anything else at the level of two, because a "2 over 1" bid shows 10-12 points and an "invitational" hand (to game in a suit or no trump), if partner has more than a minimum.

Playing weak "jump shifts," you may jump to three diamonds on six or seven diamonds, basically as a pre-emptive move, on something like 3-6 high card points. This is a "terminal" call that discourages partner from seeking game. With eight high card points opposite an opener, your hand is too strong for such a preempt, and too weak for an invitation, so make the available one-level suit bid, which is one spade.


Why is Trade Secrets banned in EDH or Commander? Ban list for commander

I don't see any announcement for Trade Secrets. Why has it been banned? Is there any mention of this card from Wizards, a card they made specifically for Commander?

Commander/EDH is a community-moderated format. Its banned list is not managed by Wizards of the Coast or the DCI. Official announcements from the EDH Rules Committee an be found on mtgcommander.net.

In this case, the April 2013 banned list announcement explains (emphasis added):

  Trade Secrets is much like Limited Resources in that has some issues in a multiplayer environment. It isn't a problem when one player draws four cards and another draws eight. Trade Secrets is a problem when both players decide to draw 80 cards and effectively turn a four-player game into a two-player game. It just doesn't add enough to the format to justify the games that it single-handedly ruins.

Duel Commander, also known as "French" 1-on-1 EDH, has a separate rules committee and banned list. You can find their official postings on duelcommander.com. Trade Secrets isn't banned in Duel Commander, since it's not a problem outside multiplayer formats.

This card can literally just kill you and hand the win to an opponent, it never should be played.

The moment it resolves, they choose to draw 52 cards and you lose as a state based action.


What is this card game called in English? What is the name of this card game?

you deal out cards between two players, the person that deals gets 8 and the other gets 7.
You then put all of the cards onto the side with the very last card of the deck facing up.
Player with 8 cards puts down first, it can be any card.
Second player takes a card and then puts down as well.

You have to take a card and put down every time it’s your turn.

In order to score points in the game you have to combine cards together of the same suit only if it’s for example, 345 same suit. Or you can do JJJ, QQQ.

The minimum you can put down is 3 cards.

Cards 3-8 = 5 Pts.
Cards 9-K = 10 Pts.
Card Ace = 15 Pts.
Card 2 = 50 Pts.

In order to take cards from where both players have put down you have to score at least 25 Pts. first.

The goal of the game is to score the most or if lucky to close the game up and catch the person with points in their hand. This game usually goes on for several rounds until one person scores 500 points.

There are more technical rules to this game but I’m trying to summarize. I know the name of this card game from a different country but I do not know the name of it in English (if it even exists).

Can anyone guess?

I believe you  are referring to Rummy or some variation of it

It has many different variants but the crux of the game is draw a card and put one down in order to make sets and runs.

The closest I can find is the Rummy variant 500 Rum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/500_rum).


Why is real-money-betting necessary for poker to be fun? Obviously, all games may be played with an ante, but it is often not mandatory for the game itself to be fun.

I've long wondered what makes poker so different from everything else: poker, when played without real money, instantly becomes boring and random. And what's even more curious is that even a very small amount of money in play (say, 1€ per player on an 8-player table) is sufficient to turn the game into a very interesting and very disputed battle.

Do there exist out there some other games that are meaningless when not played for money? I'm told that old timers always play backgammon with an ante, but I've played backgammon many times without, and found the game pretty interesting by itself.

So what's the big deal with poker?

When you fall behind in a "for fun" game, the best strategy becomes to make high risk yet high reward choices. Essentially, if you are sitting in last place, you've got nothing to lose so you might as well risk it all for a shot at the top.

In real life poker, you are always in a situation where you have something to lose: your money. Every dollar counts, so players will not change their strategy.

Well, poker is competitive game so no wonder so many people love gambling. It combines luck and skill and, unlike casino games, you compete with other players and can have an advantage. But poker is not the only opportunity, for example, many games are described here: Skill Games for Money Taking part in a tournament risking a small amount of money can be much more interesting. It will make you play your best game.


Can Munchkin Quest be used for classic Munchkin? I received "Munchkin Quest" as a gift. I had expected to get the classic "Munchkin"; I don't really know this variant but exchanging it is not an option.

I wish to play this with some of my not-so-board-game-aholic friends, and I imagine that the classic version is way easier, what with the tiles and creatures and markers taken out of the equation. I hope to "upgrade" them as time goes by, but better to start them on Level 1, right?

So, finally, my question: Can one play a round of classic Munchkin using a box of Munchkin Quest? Or, are there prohibitive differences?

Thanks...

Short answer: No

Longer explanation:

They are totally different games. Munchkin is a card game. Munchkin Quest is a board game. They share:

A theme: Kill the monsters, take their stuff, stab your buddy - parodying power-gaming RPGers of a certain stripe
An artist: John Kovalic
A goal: Reach level 10 first
A Publisher: Steve Jackson Games
An official website: http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/

But the materials in MQ will not allow you to play Munchkin. And no amount of Munchkin sets will allow you to play MQ.

While the games seem similar, in that they share the same concept, goal, and certain mechanics, they are two DIFFERENT games, that function in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ways.

tl,dr; No, you can't.


Is the following considered battle-forged? I have recently been collecting models for my first WH40k Army, but I have yet to receive a core rule book that I have ordered. However, I do have the Space Marine book and have constructed a Gladius Strike Force that includes the base core requirements (1captain/chaplain, 3 tactical squads, an attack bike, and 1 devestator squad) with a handfull of auxiliary components. If the cost of this met whatever allowance a match had, would this be considered a Battle-Forged army?

Your choice really. If you take a formation you generally aren't Battle Forged (you get formation benefits instead)... However all you need to be Battle Forged is an HQ and two Troops. If your formation includes that you can choose whether to play it as Battle Forged or as the Formation.

I'm pretty sure yes. You don't need to use the main rule books Primary Detachment if you don't want to.


How can Glacial Chasm be useful? Glacial Chasm reads:

Cumulative upkeep—Pay 2 life. (At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on this permanent, then sacrifice it unless you pay its upkeep cost for each age counter on it.)
When Glacial Chasm enters the battlefield, sacrifice a land.
Creatures you control can't attack.
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you.

Wondering what the strategy to use this card is? In a 2-player game, the game is essentially over regardless who controls the card. Please give me your insight, thanks.

It's a little hard to tell from your question, but it sounds like it might be worth making sure you understand what the card does.

First off, "Cumulative upkeep - Pay 2 life". The definition from the comprehensive rules is:

  702.23a ... “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this permanent is on the battlefield, put an age counter on this permanent. Then you may pay [cost] for each age counter on it. If you don’t, sacrifice it.” ...

So the first upkeep after you play this, you'll pay 2 life, the next you'll pay 4 life, then 6 life, and so on, until you decide not to pay and sacrifice it instead. So assuming you start at 20 life, and aren't gaining any, the longest you can keep it is three turns, at which point you'll have paid 2+4+6=12 life, and paying 8 more would kill you. You could also sacrifice it after less than that if you don't want to pay that much life.

In the meantime, it's preventing all damage that'd be dealt to you. So if your opponent is trying to kill you with damage, which is reasonably common, you're pretty much invincible for three turns. If it prevents more damage than the life you've paid to hold onto it, you've come out ahead on life (though you'll be down two lands).

So, is that useful? Could be, in the right sort of deck.

If your deck is one that struggles to survive until it sets up for victory, that could be quite helpful. Maybe a couple turns of preventing damage is all you need, and then you can kill your opponent before you even have to worry about not being able to pay the upkeep. Maybe all you really need is to prevent damage for one turn, and then you'll be able to stop what your opponent is doing some other way, and can sacrifice it before you even need to pay life. If you're in situations like this, you don't care at all about whether your creatures can attack, and you may not even have any creatures.

On the other hand, if you don't manage to get ready to win the game in time, you'll eventually have to sacrifice it and your opponent will be able to hit you again - and you'll have been paying life, so you'll be in worse shape to survive.

In all, this is a pretty niche effect. On top of that, it's an old card that can only be played in formats with all kinds of other powerful old cards, so it faces pretty stiff competition for inclusion in serious decks. There are plenty of other ways to stave off defeat for a couple turns (including dealing more directly with threats), and often it's better to try to win faster than to try to just delay your opponent.

But, nonetheless, it still sometimes sees play in legacy lands decks like this one. That's a deck built around using lands to provide effects, so it's actually a bit of an upside that Glacial Chasm is a land: it can be searched up with Crop Rotation or brought back from your graveyard with Life from the Loam. It'll still only be useful in certain situations, so it's just a one-of in a sixty card deck, and many lands decks don't include it at all. But some do, so there you go: sometimes useful.

I actually use Glacial Chasm in a casual deck of mine. It is a Sultai aggressive mill deck that can plough through an opponent's deck by turn four or five and usually by turn seven if I'm playing defensively with the few creatures in the deck (tarmogoyf, nighthowler). Glacial Chasm can often times let me survive the additional turn or two I need to finish off my opponent's library.


Can I use two different cards with the same name in Commander? I have two cards with the same name but different art and the card descriptions on the bottom. The card in question is Forsaken Sanctuary. It's a white/black land and I'm not sure if I can use both of them, it is the first time I've ran in to this.

No, card art or any other piece of information printed on a card doesn't matter. For card identity, the only factor is the English name being equal or not.
There are several reasons why cards with the same name can look different in print. They can be translated into another language. They can have alternate art in the same set (e.g. Hymn to Tourach). They can be reprinted in a different set, potentially with new art and/or general card style. Cards from different sets can have different printed characteristics, such as differently worded abilities, or different types (see THE GRAND CREATURE TYPE UPDATE
) due to changes in the rules or general wording conventions. Very early cards can even have misprints, such as Blue Hurricane.
However, ultimately the only factor in deciding whether or not two cards are identical is their English name; on a related note, the official characteristics of a card can be found on the Oracle website

108.1. Use the Oracle card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.
201.2. A card’s name is always considered to be the English version of its name, regardless of printed language.
903.5b Other than basic lands, each card in a Commander deck must have a different English name.

You can't use both but that you can do it pick up the other dual lands like shock lands or even buddy lands for the colors.


What has been your experience with random villager roles in Werewolf? In Werewolves there are many Villager roles: normally we play essentially the same roles every time and the players know exactly which are the roles that are going to be used.

If you have 8 players you could choose to play with, for example, 2 wolves, 3 plain villagers and 3 "special villagers" taking at random the 3 special villagers from a pool of say, 6 possible ones.

The main advantage of this variant is that no one knows if a specific role even exists in that round until the end of the round, which may or may not be fun.

The downsides include

the moderator will have to spend more time calling for all the possible roles
using cards from a poker set becomes more of an issue with more roles, so you'll probably want to have cards that actually say which role you are

Additionally, the wolves can fake to be villagers much more easily.

What do you think about this variant?  Have you ever tried anything like this?  What elements were fun at first but weren't in the long run?

I've found that if you introduce too much chaos it becomes way, way more difficult for the villagers to figure out what's going on. Even if they were picking 3 roles from among 4 you've added enough chaos that you'll likely need at least one more villager (depending on the roles).

I've played it that way a few times and it's been kind of fun, but it throws deduction and intuition out the window, leaving it pretty much entirely a game of chance. Which, of course, the villagers almost always lose since only the wolves have any real idea of what's going on.

I love the introduction of additional roles on both the good and evil sides.

Here's a run down on possible mechanical variations:

Additional good roles (e.g. bodyguard, seer, witch) - By themselves, one or two adds something to the game, especially in a big group, but can unbalance the game towards 'good'
Additional evil roles (e.g. cultists, sorceress) - Good for balancing out evil when good roles are in place, plus the additional element of perhaps the werewolves not knowing who's on their 'side' makes it more fun for them in the daytime.
Random Roles - Random roles allows the game to deviate from fixed dominant strategy for certain known roles, and allows more deception (werewolves can pretend to be good roles not in the game as a defense)
No-reveal games - In these games, when someone is killed the group doesn't find out what they were.  (The moderator will declare victory when its obtained).  This version is much more difficult for both sides and completely changes role strategies.  Suggested only for experienced players.

Overall, any of these things depend on the group and balancing the roles.  Nothing particularly becomes stale because you can simply change the mix of cards to effect a different game.


What happens to Auras and/or Counters on a creature that is targeted by a Cloudshift? If I cast Cloudshift on a creature with  counters, does it retain its counters or does it loose its counters? What about Auras? Would a creature that was Cloudshifted keep its auras?

If an object changes zones, counters and auras on it fall off.
A creature is a permanent, and a permanent is an object:

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. [..]
109.1. An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem.

When an object changes zones, it becomes a new object:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

Auras fall off the next time state-based actions are checked:

303.4c If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Counters cease to exist:

121.2. Counters on an object are not retained if that object moves from one zone to another. The counters are not “removed”; they simply cease to exist. See rule 400.7.

Loses them. No.

Cloudshift effects the creature only. Any counters that were on it become disassociated when it leaves play. Any Auras that were attached stop being so when it is exiled, and go to the graveyard.


Why isn't the minimum bid for a property its mortgage value? It seems rather odd that the minimum bid for an unmortgaged property in Monopoly is $1, instead of it being the mortgage value (or mortgage value -10% approximately).

  Bidding may start at any price.

You can mortgage a property at any time, getting its mortgage value out of it. The only point at which I can see this making a difference is when all remaining players except 1 have less than the mortgage value in assets, which is very unlikely since the maximum mortgage value is $200.

Imagine this scenario. I only have $20 in cash and the only assets I own are Park Place (Mortgage Value $175). Boardwalk is up for auction. The maximum bid I can make is $195, which is cash on hand and Mortgage Value of Park Place. If I can buy Boardwalk for $180 or less, I should do so. The worst case scenario would be that I would have to mortgage Park Place for $175, and pay an additional $5 when I win the auction. I could then mortgage Boardwalk for $200, use $18 to unmortgage Park Place, leaving me with $18 which is pretty much back where I started. While this calculation isn't perfect as it depends upon how many properties you have to sell to get enough cash to win an auction, it would seem reasonable to begin the auction at/near Mortgage Value - 10%.

From the official rules (emphasis mine):

  BANKER… Select as Banker a player who will also make a good
  Auctioneer. A Banker who plays in the game must keep his/her
  personal funds separate from those of the Bank. When more than five
  persons play, the Banker may elect to act only as Banker and
  Auctioneer.

As many people who play auctions in Monopoly know, starting a typical English-style auction at a $1 minimum bid and allowing increments of $1 each makes for painfully slow auctions, especially for higher value properties.  However, the Auctioneer's primary purpose isn't to make auctions fast, profitable, or even interesting; he's there to sell property.  Selling property moves the game along, and the faster the property gets into the hands of the players, the faster everyone can get to the interesting trading and development part of the game.  There should never be any cases where any property remains on the board after someone lands on it.

However, the rules explicitly state that the Banker needs to be a good Auctioneer.  Any Auctioneer who lets all of his auctions run forever for no good purpose doesn't really qualify as "good".  Adequate, sure.  Competent, maybe.  But not good.

Regardless of the starting bid, any decent auction will result in the property selling at a reasonable market price; the only variable is how long the auction runs before this price is reached.  If the opening bid is too high, nobody will bid until the Auctioneer lowers it.  If the opening bid is so low that everybody's bidding, he can make larger increments to weed out the cheapskates.  He has many tools at his disposal to figure out what this reasonable market price is, and exactly which tool is needed depends on the situation.

An Auctioneer who knows how to control an auction as efficiently as possible to sell property is a good Auctioneer.  An Auctioneer who does nothing but lets his players control the auction is just a Banker.

As the opening question states, properties will rarely if ever sell at below the mortgage value, if for no other reason than because other players don't want their opponents to get free money.  As such, starting an auction at or near the mortgage price is perfectly reasonable in most situations.

However, most situations are not all situations.  There will be cases where nobody actually wants the property at mortgage value; it could be because all cash is tied up in developments, it could be because people are saving up for that last property in a colour group, it could just be because nobody likes utilities.  By having no fixed minimum bid, the Auctioneer thus has the option to sell the property at a loss, just to sell the property.  That is his job, after all.  Sell property.

Breaking one of the tools in his toolbox makes for a less efficient Auctioneer, and we don't want that.

The chances of all players being unwilling to spend $1 on a property, which they can immediately mortgage for what is effectively a full refund, is negligible; if the price is right, any property should sell.  Fixing a minimum bid in the rules would open up too many chances of a property going unsold, which would inevitably slow down the game each time someone lands on that square and the whole process starts up again.

Even a property that's immediately mortgaged can eventually be paid off and activated, or traded to other players.  An unsold property is just useless.

Newest standard edition (post 2008) rules say "Bids start at M$10".


Why isn't MU shown on Runner identities? The fact that Runners have a default 4 memory units is absent from all printed data, and I'm curious if there's a specific design reason why. I can see how, thematically, the MU is not really a Runner trait, and that it's really more of a hardware thing to increase their memory slots. But Chaos Theory, for example, has +1 MU. Why not have her with a printed 5 MU?

Without answering for the designers, I'd say that it's simply because the Runner's MU is a basic game rule. It's not something that typically changes with Runners, but it's a resource to use.

Similarly, the Runner identities don't tell you how many cards are in your starting hand, or how much money you start with, but that doesn't prevent there from being a Runner identity that does these things differently.

Because, in most cases, the Runner identity doesn't play around with MU (compare to Link; most Runners have 0 but a lot have 1), it's just not useful to spend card space and player attention on the Runner's starting MU. It would be more distracting to see starting MU on the card, as if it were an important factor in how the Runner works, even though [almost] all of them are identical in that regard.

There are many attributes of runners and corporations that are not printed on IDs because they are the same for most of them.  Each of these has an exception.  Starting hand size (usually 5 but not for Andromeda), max hand size (usually 5 but not for Cerebral Imaging and The World is Yours*), starting credits (usually 5 but not for GRNDL), and starting MU (usually 4 but not for Chaos Theory) are some examples of this.  Meanwhile, starting link strength is shown on the runner ID, since it varies more often than these other attirbutes.  At the end of the day, which of these attributes FFG did or didn't include was an aesthetic decision.  Since Netrunner has the "golden rule" (card abilities trump the rulebook), they could have done more or less of these through card abilities versus card properties.  For example, they could have not included link strength on most runners and given runners a "+1 link" ability in the text box of runners that have this (or +2 in the case of Sunny Lebeau).

For lack of an official answer from FFG, all we can do is speculate why they printed link on the runners and not MU.  Based on their release of the L5R CCG, they probably designed the core set along with the first cycle (or at least with the first cycle in mind).  One thing they wanted to do was have all runners have exactly one ability.  Thus, they needed link to be a separate attribute, so that runners could be given extra link in addition to a text ability.  Meanwhile, Chaos Theory (who came out in the third datapack) was going to have more starting memory, but no other ability, so her "+1 MU" needed to be a text ability.  Based on this, they couldn't print MU the same way they printed link or Chaos Theory would have an empty text box (she would say "0 Link, 5 MU" and nothing else).

Now, they did eventually do exactly this with Sunny Lebeau (who has 2 link and a blank text box), but that was much later and it could be argued that Sunny's ability is a deck building one due to her micro-faction, making her more akin to The Professor (who's ability is only used in deck building).

The functional difference of this aesthetic choice is slight: namely the interaction between Chaos Theory (who has the ability "+1 MU") and Cerebral Static ("The Runner's identity text box is blank.").  Currently, Cerebral Static causes Chaos Theory to lose her bonus MU since it is a text box ability.  If starting MU were printed outside the text box (such as underneath starting link) and Chaos Theory had 5 MU and a blank text box, she wouldn't be affected by Cerebral Static.

In my opinion, that FFG didn't print 4 MU on every runner identity was a massive oversight and leaves something extra to remember for both new players and infrequent players.  MU behaves very similar to Link, as it is a runner resource used and modified throughout the game and they should have printed "4 MU" underneath the link strength on every runner (except Chaos Theory, who should say "5 MU").  Hand size is a resource players are used to from other games and starting credits is not something you need to remember throughout the game, whereas your memory limit is.  In the L5R CCG, they printed "+7 fate per turn" on every identity (stronghold) in the core set; even though this value isn't different for any identity yet (they may print some for which it is different later), this makes it so that players do not have to remember this when playing and makes the game much easier for new players.


How can I improve my deck building skills? I've been playing M:tG for nearly a decade now. I understand the rules very well, I've participated in a few draft tournaments, and I've built a few decks that I'm very proud of.

Nonetheless, I seem to have hit a wall in my MtG deck-building ability. In draft tournaments I rarely finish in the top half. I see other players pulling cards that I've discounted as low-power or junk, then I'm astounded at how effective they make them. (I rarely read MtG sites, so I'm not often aware of what the "buzz" around the best cards is.) When I look at the deck listings for top tournament decks, I often can't understand how they're supposed to play or why they're so powerful. I realize that the better players are able to see interactions between cards and identify sources of power that are effectively invisible to me.

How can I get past this block? I realize that this is a broad question, but I'm wondering if there's a blog, a book, or a series of articles that can help a middling, mostly casual player up his level of play.

Details on my play style, which may help focus answers:

I'm definitely a Johnny. I strongly prefer the black/green/white side of the spectrum. I almost never play red/blue. I find that I'm naturally drawn to the following mechanics, and tend to build decks that contain lots of:

Life gain
Creature buffs, +1 tokens, regeneration, etc.
Creature destruction, -1 tokens, etc.
Mid-size creatures (neither 1/1 weenies nor 8/8 monsters)
Enchantments of all kinds
Non-land mana generation

Whereas I consistently underestimate the effectiveness and fall prey to decks that contain:

Direct damage
Creature control
Artifacts
"Draw a card" spells and abilities

Even when I've tried to stretch myself and build a deck using these mechanics, what I built was much weaker than what a friend of mine built starting from the same card pool. Furthermore, I have a hard time building decks that can successfully resist a deck that's heavy in creature control or direct damage.

It does seem, from your description of your play style, that you do have a problem in consistently misinterpreting what things help people win Magic games.  Let's have a look at some of the things you say you like, and that you underestimate:

LIKES

Lifegain - with a few rare exceptions, lifegain cards are TERRIBLE - they do nothing to help you win the game, just slow down the rate at which you lose it.
Creature buffs - if you spend a card putting +1/+1 counters on a creature, and your opponent Terrors it, you've just 2-for-1'd yourself.  Not good.
Creature destruction - okay, your instincts are correct on this one.  Removal is and always will be king.
Mid-sized creatures - these tend to be the least efficient choice.  Either you want highly efficient "weenies" who can win the game for you fast, or you want massive monsters who can end the game in a couple of swings.
Enchantments of all kinds - I assume you include Auras in this.  See the 2-for-1 problem I mentioned under Creature Buffs, above.
Mana generation - it would be fair to say that mana ramp strategies can play a part in successful Tier One decks; but you need a definite game plan and a strong likelihood of consistently using all your mana every turn.  Just having more mana than your opponent, while he's swarming you with creatures, seems like a really bad place to be!

UNDERESTIMATES

Direct damage - this is obviously amazing, because it can act as 1-for-1 removal early on to keep you in the game; but then go straight to the opponent's dome later, when you're only a few life points away from victory.  Look at Fireball and it shouldn't be hard to understand why this is a top pick in almost any draft format.
Creature control - Mind Control is also a #1 draft pick.  By casting it you not only gain a creature, you also steal the opponent's best creature, making it a sort of automatic 2-for-1.
Artifacts - well, these vary from good to bad, but one of the great things about artifacts is that they don't require a complicated manabase to pilot.  Artifact decks never get mana screwed, so you shouldn't underestimate them!
Card draw - something like Divination may not look impressive, but you need to get your head around the idea that getting 2 cards return for an outlay of 1 card is the cornerstone of winning games of Magic...

It seems to me that you would do well to learn more about the principle of card advantage.  If your opponent plays a card and you remove it with a card, you're level pegging.  If you play two creature cards and he removes them with one card, he's a card up.  If you play a card that gives you 7 life, he's also a card up.  Whoever is the most cards up at the end of the game often wins!  The alternative, of course, is blazing speed: kill your opponent before he can get too many cards up on you...

I could talk about this stuff forever but this answer is already getting long; hopefully there are plenty of things for you to think about here already!  Feel free to ask about anything that is unclear in the comments though.

Proper mana curve, proper land/spell count, synergy, tempo, card advantage, removal, having a game plan, proper card evaluation, having a sufficiently high creature count, avoid double colored problems (e.g. a card that costs WW in a primarily black, secondarily white deck), prioritizing offense over defense.  Most of these would take a paragraph or more than a page to explain, so in the interest of brevity, just be mindful of these aspects of deck construction and try to improve at them by paying attention to what the meta tells you is best (e.g. look at Grand Prix top 8 decklists and pay attention to how many lands and creatures they play, what their mana curves are, etc.).

As an additional shortcut to success, look for authorities on card evaluation.  For instance, some Pro Tour event coverages will have Draft Viewers, in which you can see how each player in a pod drafted their deck.  So you can think about the decision and contemplate what their reasoning was behind their pick.  Doing this also gives you some insight to the average professional's card evaluations.  Also, you can watch the twitch streams of professionals to watch them draft as they talk through their decision-making process.  Sometimes there are Drafting With articles in which a pro drafts a deck and discusses their picks.  Although it is not a great resource, you can also go to draft simulators and look and their pick orders.  There are also instructional strategy books such as Next Level Magic.

For card evaluation skills, there are a few levels to evaluating a card.  The first is to do a basic efficiency calculation; e.g. add-up what you believe the power, toughness, and abilities should be worth, come to an estimated fair cost, and compare it to the real cost to determine how undercosted / overcosted it is.  Next, connect it to frames of reference; e.g. if you knew that Wind Drake was decent in the past, and the card you are evaluating is essentially Wind Drake, then it might be decent.  Then look at in holistically in-context, i.e. think about how it actually plays in a real game.  Finally, think about how the card does or doesn't fit into the synergies of the color combination.