source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
How can I teach kids how to play Battleship? I like playing Battleship, and I would like to teach my nieces to play. What's a good, simple strategy to teach someone new to Battleship? In my particular case they are 8-12. <Q> Teach them two things: <S> Don't let your ships touch each other. <S> Don't let your ships touch the sides. <S> By doing that, no matter where a ship is hit, there are at least two adjacent places to target that will be misses. <S> Children less familiar with spatial concepts might take longer to place their ships, but there's also a lot of flexibility given those rules, so one niece could put all her ships facing the same direction while another one could have them alternating back and forth across the board. <S> It may be useful to remember that there is a difference between teaching the game itself and teaching the game as you or someone else might play it. <S> There will be time to teach them more specific strategies later if they become interested in the game and also show interest in strategic thinking; with this in mind, pay attention to how they respond to what you teach. <S> If one niece doesn't seem interested in planning, let her put her ships where she likes. <S> If another one questions you right away as you explain how to set up your ships – "But if I do that, you'll know what I'm doing!" <S> – then you could probably go straight into more advanced techniques with her. <A> In terms of finding ships, instead of placing them, try teaching the concept of sub-dividing spaces, diagonally. <S> Start with a simple X shape on the board, then proceed to making other angular lines within the shapes. <S> You can use the trick of "try to place a ship inside this pattern and see how hard it is" to prove the point. <A> I use Battleships as a teaching tool in my English Foreign Language classes, so I've developed a simple way to teach the game to my teenage students. <S> "This is a game about ships at sea. <S> They can't see each other, so they use maps to try and hit their target." <S> Explain the different ships. <S> I wouldn't go into too much detail at first. <S> "You each have one long ships that takes five spaces...". <S> If you're playing on graph paper, draw out an example. <S> Show them an example round. <S> This should include missing, hitting and sinking of ships. <S> Let them play. <S> Watch the game and see if they understand. <S> By playing they will learn to develop their own strategies, which will make it more enjoyable to them. <S> They'll be watching you, so that will inform their decisions in future games.
|
I'd recommend breaking the game into steps, something like this: Help them set up the board. Start with a real world example. Don't teach them strategies, because they'll be less likely to want to play more often.
|
What are the restrictions on picking up locomotives? If, after drawing one of the five cards from the face up train cards, and after replacing that card, the second card is drawn from the top of the deck and is a locomotive card, is the player allowed to keep that card? Likewise, if both cards are drawn from the the top of the stack and the second card is a locomotive card, is the player allowed to keep that card? <Q> It varies by which Ticket To Ride game you're playing. <S> In USA, Europe, and Asia, you may do any of the following on your turn: <S> Draw <S> a face-up locomotive draw two face-up non-locomotive card <S> draw two cards off the deck <S> draw one face-up non-locomotive and one card off the deck, in either order. <S> In Switzerland and Nordic Countries: draw two face-up cards draw two cards off the deck draw one face-up card and one card off the deck, in either order. <S> The difference has a lot to do with how they are used - the Switzerland and Nordic rules don't allow engines to be used for plain routes, only for tunnels and ferries. <A> The general rule is that if a card is drawn without looking at it, then it doesn't matter whether it's a locomotive or not <S> - you get to keep it regardless. <S> So the answer to both your scenarios is "yes". <S> In fact, if you're really lucky, it's possible to draw two locomotives from the stack. <S> When you are considering picking up a visible locomotive (i.e. one present in the five face up cards), then different rules apply. <S> So if you pick another card, either face up or from the stack, then you cannot pick up a face up locomotive. <A> Yes - just as if the first card drawn from the top of the (face-down) deck is a locomotive card, the player still gets to draw a second (which may also be a locomotive!). <S> The key point here is that cards drawn from the deck rather than from the face-up cards are private ; they're information that you don't have to share with other players, so in particular you don't need to let them know whether you've picked up a locomotive card or not.
|
You can only pick a face up locomotive if it is the first and only card you pick up.
|
What's a good handicap for a less experienced player in an MTG Draft? My drafting group has a few hardcore players like me who have been playing magic for a while. We've memorized almost all the commons and uncommons in the sets we're drafting (usually Innistrad or 2012), know a lot about how to win at drafts, know the good archetypes, and have a bit more deck-building experience compared to some of the other people we'd like to add to the group. The new people know the mechanics of the game and have played enough to know how to build a decent deck, but I'm worried that the rest of us will have a significant advantage that takes away from everyone's fun. What handicaps can be used when drafting that give a weaker player about an equal chance at winning while removing as little of the fun as possible? Obviously we'll coach them a bit about the techniques we've used that have been effective, but until they're completely up to speed I don't want them to be annihilated and quit. Should we give them a handicap during the actual draft, like an extra few picks from another booster after the draft is over, or a handicap during the actual games? What handicapping techniques have you used that work well? <Q> To be contrarian: in my experience, if you're adding a sufficient number of new people (which it sounds like is the case here), I'd encourage not handicapping them at all. <S> My recommendation would actually be to start not with drafting but with some form of sealed-deck play (maybe a simple three-round league or the like), so that the new players have fewer decisions to make and can learn what the core elements of a limited deck are. <S> Once they understand the essentials of limited then just let them loose on a draft - the experienced players may well run the table, but the newer players should still be able to have interesting games with the experienced drafters and excellent games among each other (this is why you need a sufficient number of new people), and IMHO the (slightly) 'deep-end' approach (along with some measure of coaching, post-draft analysis, etc) is the best way to get truly interested players motivated to get better. <S> One plausible alternative, though, that might be worth looking at is some form of team draft/sealed, where each of the new players is paired with a more experienced player that they can directly watch, talk with, and learn from; 2HG is a tough format to draft (as opposed to playing sealed with), but it's a great and underutilized choice for this sort of thing. <A> Generally, I agree with Steven, the best thing to do is to coach them, but not give them an explicit handicap of any kind. <S> That way they will learn how it is really done. <S> Of course they will lose more often than they will win, but booster drafts are a bit more random than Constructed so they may win some as long as they know the basic rules, and anyone learning a new game should expect to lose a lot before they start winning. <S> With that said, if you really want to give them a handicap, you can use any of the nomral ones used in casual games as long as everyone agrees who counts as new and who counts as experienced. <S> For instance: Give the new players 25 life instead of 20 Give the new players a starting and max hand size of 8 instead of 7. <S> I've done both of those before when playing against new players (though one or the other, both is probably a bit much). <S> Other options that I've heard of but haven't tried myself include letting the new player start the game with a basic land of their choice already in play. <S> And one I've never heard of anyone doing before but would probably work nicely for a booster drafter is let each of the new players start with an extra booster that is not drafted and just theirs. <S> It would give them a fair bit of additional flexibility in deck construction and protect them somewhat from poor draft choices without affecting the actual matches directly. <S> It won't affect the actual gameplay and you don't have to remember past the initial drafting who counts as new and who is experienced. <A> One big component of drafting is teaching them some of the basics. <S> Check out my question and the answers here for what you could teach them: <S> What are good strategies for booster drafts? <S> Another big component of draft is simply knowing what’s out there. <S> If you’ll be drafting Innistrad, there’s nothing better you could truly prepare them with than to crack open a box of boosters (maybe even some pack wars) to get them familiar with what’s available in the set. <S> Knowing what’s in the draft will give players a significant increase in deck building ability than going in cold. <A> It sounds like your newer players' disadvantage will be mostly in the deck creation phase of the draft. <S> I suggest handicapping the experienced players in this phase. <S> Impose a time limit per pick on the experienced players <S> Consider increasing the minimum deck size for the experienced players, this will force them to include more of their weaker cards. <S> The idea is to make it harder for the experienced drafters to build a great deck, without having to impose house rules on the actual games. <S> It also has the added benefit of pushing the draft skills of these players even further.
|
Edit: I've never tried it, but the more I think about it, the more I think giving the new players an extra non-drafted booster is the way I would do a handicap in a casual draft. Impose a time limit for deck creation after the draft on the experienced players Give the new players more flexibility around side boarding between games
|
"Ticket to Ride: Europe": how to accommodate differences in players' strength? I play "Ticket to Ride: Europe" with my kids (age 8 and 12) and I win too often. They do not want me to let them win: there's no fun in winning if you know the opponent didn't play to their full ability. We would all love a fair way to account for the difference in skills, though. So far we experimented with reducing the number of train cars you start with: the youngest got 45, as in the rules, older got 40 and I got 35. The youngest won, but the feeling was it was too easy for him. <Q> Increasing the number of cards flipped on tunnel routes should be considered. <S> Likewise, one can readily balance things with a requirement for more cards per track segment. <S> For the most experienced, increase the card requirement by 2 per chunk, but do not increase the score. <S> 1 additional for the more experienced. <S> It's brutal, but changes play very little, just the length of time it takes to be able to claim a route. <A> Giving the weaker player 3 train cards per turn instead of 2 has created balanced, competitive (2 and 3 player) games for us, with everyone trying their hardest. <S> Face up locomotives (wild cards) count as 2 train cards, but count as 1 if blindly drawn from the deck. <S> Minor side effects: <S> Face up wild cards get depleted quickly by the weaker player <S> The weaker player can (and does) more easily block routes <A> One of the interesting ways of adding a “handicap” without breaking the balance is to make some promises. <S> So you would playing the standard rules, but in a way to make your life harder. <S> Destination Tickets <S> As a minor handicap you could say that you wouldn't discard any Destination Tickets on start. <S> A bit more serious — when getting new Destination Tickets you would keep two instead of three, or even all of them. <S> Moreover, you could spend the first turn by getting more Destination Tickets without doing anything else. <S> Or say you'd draw more Destination Tickets when you'll spend half of your train cars. <S> Also, you could reveal one or more Destination Tickets, so our opponents would know where to block you. <S> Drawing cards <S> You could say you would always draw in a specific way, like always take two random cards without touching the face-up ones, or always draw one face-up and one random. <S> Or don't ever draw locomotives from the face-ups. <S> Also, you could then show the drawn random card, or always show any number of cards in your hands. <S> Claiming routes <S> You could say you would claim routes in a specific order. <S> For example, you could say you would claim routes starting from the smallest and at any time you would claim the route that is either higher or smaller than previous by one. <S> So, you could claim 1-2-1-2-3-4-3-4-5-4 etc. <S> There could be many variations of such handicap, like messing with colors or saying you would claim only those routes whose colors are there in face-up cards. <S> All those things wouldn't break the balance, because you could do everything from this list anyway. <S> But the things you're promising to do would be clear from the start, so there won't be a feeling that you're just playing dumb with your opponents. <S> Also, this would give you a new challenge :) <A> There are two handicap rules I play with to even out skill levels with kids (who otherwise know how to play). <S> The first is that the experienced player(s) lose all of the cards they invested if a tunnel fails to be completed (as opposed to the cards returning to the players hand). <S> The second is to not let station placement count against the kids' scores, so they always get that 12 point bonus as though non stations had been placed. <S> Another variant I have thought of but haven't had to try is to simply let kids score their trains as though the route was one step higher. <S> So, a 2 segment route would be worth 4 points, for example. <S> This compensates for kids' tendency to place too many small routes. <A> In a game like Ticket to Ride there is little 'engine building' going on, so it doesn't matter if the turns are early or late. <S> Try giving your youngest 2 extra turns, your oldest one extra, then you take yours, all at the beginning of the game. <S> so it would go: youngestyoungestoldestyoungestoldestyouyoungestoldest youetc.
|
One easy handicap that works in many games like this is to simply give extra turns.
|
If I put a copper and add 4 more random cards into my hand from my starting deck, does it change the odds of getting the 5:2 split? I was thinking about a situation where someone accidentally reveals a copper from their starting hand while shuffling their deck or discovers that they only have 9 cards in their starting deck (and they are certain they put the required 3 Estates in). If they added a copper from the supply to their first hand, and drew 4 more of the remaining 9 cards, would their odds of getting a 5:2 or 2:5 hand versus a 4:3 or 3:4 hand be any different than if they drew a normal 5 card starting hand from a normal 10 card deck? (I realize that a 5:2 hand is slightly different than a 2:5 hand, in that it allows you to change your possible 2:5 coin buy after an opponents first purchase. The thing I am wondering though is if it changes the chances of getting a 5:2 split versus the more likely 4:3 split). <Q> Short Answer: <S> No. <S> Long Answer: <S> Mathematically, this can be proven using hypergeometric distribution . <S> This can be calculated using the following function, where N is the size of the deck, <S> n is the number of cards drawn, and m is the number of coppers available: P(X=k) = <S> (m choose k) <S> * ((N-m) choose (n-k)) <S> / (N choose n) <S> With a normal starting deck, you would use values of N=10 , n=5 and m=7 . <S> Without boring you with the math proper, these would give you a result breakdown as follows: <S> 2 copper: 1/123 copper: 5/124 copper: 5/125 copper: 1/12 <S> So you would normally have a 1/12 + 1/12 <S> = 1/6 chance of getting the 5:2 split. <S> Now, if the first card is preemptively selected to be a copper, this changes our starting numbers. <S> Since the first card is known, your starting draw would effectively be a four card draw from a nine card deck containing only six coppers. <S> Punching in the values N=9 , <S> n=4 and m=6 into our function, we end up with the following table: 1 copper: 1/212 copper: 5/143 copper: 10/214 copper: 5/42 <S> Even though the spread of numbers is significantly different, your odds of a 5:2 split work out to 1/21 + 5/42 <S> = 7/42 = 1/6 , which is exactly the same as before. <S> However, note that although the odds of the split themselves are unchanged, by selecting out the first copper you are now over twice as likely to get the 5:2 draw as you are to get the 2:5 draw. <A> I believe a probabilistically equivalent question is "If a single card revealed from an opening hand is copper, does it tell you anything about the starting deck? <S> " Order doesn't matter (even in your example situation, as every hand is guaranteed to have copper, that the first card is copper isn't significant). <S> Bayes' Rule for conditional probability says that P(A|B) = <S> P(B|A) P(A) <S> / P(B) <S> Let A be the event that there is a 5:2 or 2:5 split and B <S> be the event that a random card revealed <S> is a copper. <S> For P(B|A) , the number of coppers in the first two hands are 5:2. <S> Which hand is first (the 5 or the 2) is equally likely, so the probability of revealing a copper from the first hand is the average probability of revealing a copper from the two possible first hands, i.e. P(B|A) = <S> (1.00 + 0.40) <S> / 2 <S> = 0.70 <S> Now we must consider the 4:3 case to calculate P(B) . <S> If the first two hands are 4:3, same comments about order apply, and the probability of revealing a copper is P(copper revealed | 4:3) = <S> (0.80 + 0.60) / 2 <S> = 0.70 <S> Thus the probability of revealing a copper doesn't change based on a 5:2 or a 4:3 split so P(B) <S> = P(B|A) <S> = 0.7 . <S> But this is the definition of statistical independence, and going back to the original Bayes' Rule, P(B) and P(B|A) can cancel, so P(A|B) = <S> P(A) . <S> The odds of a 2:5 split are unchanged by reveal of a copper in the hand. <S> It's initially more counterintuitive, but it follows directly that a first card Estate also provides no information about the breakdown. <S> (In all cases P(estate revealed) = <S> 1 - P(copper revealed) , so we'd have .3's instead of <S> .7's.) <A> Knowing that the first card is a copper (or an estate) doesn't bias the 5/2 distribution at all. <S> Knowing the first two cards, however, does bias the distribution. <S> The best justification I can come up with is to mark a single copper as your special copper. <S> If you divided the ways of getting a 5/2 split into different classes depending on 10 different possible locations of that special copper, each of those 10 sets have equal size and an equal ratio of 5/2 vs 4/3, so you haven't really told me anything about the likelihood of a 5/2 by telling me which of those 10 subsets you are in. <S> Output of some sims: 0.16722C <S> 0.16752CC <S> 0.19536CE <S> 0.10769E <S> 0.16728EE 0.37528 <S> Here is the Python code that produced the numbers. <S> import randomimport collectionsdef split_is_25(start): <S> cur = start rest = <S> [] <S> startC = start.count('C') <S> startE = start.count('E') <S> rest.extend(['C'] <S> * (7 - startC)) <S> rest.extend(['E'] <S> * (3 - startE)) <S> random.shuffle(rest) <S> split <S> = start + rest rand_split = <S> [split[0:5].count('C'), split[5:10].count('C')] <S> rand_split.sort() return rand_split[0] == 2N = <S> 100000tests = <S> ['', 'C', 'CC', 'CE', 'E', 'EE']counts = <S> collections.defaultdict(int)for i in range(N): for test in tests: <S> counts[test] <S> += split_is_25(list(test))for test in tests: print test, float(counts[test]) <S> / N
|
The odds of getting a 5:2 split over the more common 4:3 split is unchanged, even if the first card is intentionally chosen to be a copper.
|
Does a creature with Lifelink provide lifegain equal to its power, or the defender's toughness? I have recently began playing a deck that has a number of creatures with lifelink in it. I want to be certain I understand the mechanic and the following question occurred to me. Which damage total do you use to determine the life gain from lifelink? I had assumed that if a 3/3 creature with lifelink was blocked by a 2/2 creature that the life gain total would be 2, the maximum that the blocker can absorb before dying. This seems to be incorrect, as when I read the example attached to CR 119.4c [...] attacks with a 3/3 creature with wither and lifelink. It’s blocked by a 2/2 creature, [...]. The damage event starts out as [3 damage is dealt to the 2/2 creature, 2 damage is dealt to the 3/3 creature] Have I been short changing myself? <Q> Yes, you've been shortchanging yourself! <S> 702.14b Damage dealt by a source with lifelink <S> causes that source's controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much life (in addition to any other results that damage causes). <S> A creature with 10 power blocked by a creature with 1 toughness deals 10 damage to that poor little blocker. <S> Creatures with 10 power are not known for their discretion or moderation; they don't deal 1 damage on the grounds that that will be enough to do the job. <S> No, they smash that blocker into smithereens and leave behind a smoking crater! <S> I think your confusion may arise from the old card Drain Life , whose text reads: Drain Life deals X damage to target creature or player. <S> You gain life equal to the damage dealt, but not more life than the player's life total before Drain Life dealt damage or the creature's toughness. <S> Drain Life is the exception though, not the rule; for lifelinkers the creature's toughness is irrelevant in determining how much life is gained. <S> (See also though Abattoir Ghoul , a recent card which offers a kind of new spin on the Drain Life idea.) <A> Yes, you have. <S> When a creature with lifelink does damage, you gain life equal to that creature's power , since that is how much damage it deals (outside of a few corner cases). <S> In the case of a 3/3 lifelink creature being blocked by a 2/2 creature, the 3/3 creature still does 3 damage to the blocking creature, even though 2 damage would be sufficient to kill it. <S> Therefore you gain 3 life. <S> (The cases where this does not happen include cases where damage is prevented , such as if your opponent plays Fog , or if the blocking creature has protection from your creature's color.) <A> I had assumed that if a 3/3 creature with lifelink was blocked by a 2/2 creature that the life gain total would be 2, the maximum that the blocker can absorb before dying. <S> This is somewhat incorrect. <S> Creatures don't "absorb" damage. <S> Strictly speaking, dealing damage and killing a creature are separate game events. <S> Damage is marked on creatures, and every time state based actions are checked, the damage marked on every non-indestructible creature is compared to its toughness, and every time the former is greater than or equal to the latter, the creature in question dies. <S> This is why, for instance, Sengir Vampire says "Whenever a creature dealt damage by Sengir Vampire this turn dies" rather than "Whenever a creature is killed by Sengir Vampire". <S> Sengir Vampire doesn't actually kill creatures: it deals damage to them, and then the damage kills them. <S> When a creature you control with lifelink deals damage, the sequence of events is: damage is dealt, then you gain life, then the damage dealt is compared to the toughness of the creature that was dealt damage. <S> The toughness of the creature is irrelevant to life gain, and isn't checked until after the life gain. <S> The other creature is indestructible? <S> The life gain is still the damage dealt. <S> The creature dealing damage has deathtouch? <S> The life gain is the damage dealt.
|
The life gain is the damage dealt.
|
What happens when a deal is passed out in Duplicate Bridge Tournaments? I understand how duplicate bridge works, but I'm still missing one small conceptual part of the scoring, being the outcome when a deal is passed out. Is the score for that hand just assumed to be 0 for both sides, making it identical to a hand that happened to have a 0 score? What happens if some tables play the hand and score highly where others just don't play it since they all passed? Are certain measure taken in the creation of the hands to avoid deals that are likely to be passed out? <Q> I understand how duplicate bridge works, but I'm still missing one small conceptual part of the scoring, being the outcome when a deal is passed out. <S> Is the score for that hand just assumed to be 0 for both sides <S> Yes. <S> Why would there be an exception? <S> Passing out the hand is a perfectly valid way to play it. <S> making it identical to a hand that happened to have a 0 score? <S> There are no other ways to have a 0 (raw) score. <S> What happens if some tables play the hand and score highly where others just don't play it since they all passed? <S> The usual rules for converting score to matchpoints (or team IMPs, if you use those) apply. <S> Are certain measure taken in the creation of the hands to avoid deals that are likely to be passed out? <S> No. <S> It's not a TD's responsibility to speculate on how a hand is likely to be played before play occurs. <A> But in some (NB not all) of those clubs where the hands are dealt at the first table rather than set up by the TD, it is the convention to re-deal a hand that is passed out the first time, on the grounds that it's likely to be passed out every time, and so give everybody the same score. <S> Of course, this alters the play at subsequent tables: before you pass out, you have to consider that somebody at the first table did bid on one of these hands. <S> So it's only used in friendly club evenings. <S> (FWIW, I am opposed to this variant: I reckon on a small but reliable bonus from simply passing bad hands, and letting the rival pairs go down after trying out their gadgets) <A> If a hand is passed out, every team that passes it out gets a 0 raw score. <S> These players will also get the same matchpoint score as other teams sitting in the same seats (East-West, or North-South) with a 0 score. <S> There is the likelihood that SOME pair(s) will play out the deal. <S> Then they will get a higher or lower matchpoint score than average, depending on high they do relative to 0. <A> In reality a passed out deal on the first round should not be reshuffled and redealt. <S> The reason it is done is that people pay table-money to play in a tournament and want to play the requisite number of boards with card-play as well as bidding. <S> Therefore people feel "ripped off" if a board gets passed out. <S> In a duplicate pairs contest, a board that is passed out will score 0 for both sides and will therefore you will beat any pairs going minus with your cards and lose to any going plus. <S> If the scoring is match-points, this will determine where you are placed in the field, just as with any other board.
|
In tournaments, certainly, a passed hand is treated like any other; both pairs get a zero score.
|
In Ticket to Ride, how do you overcome bad initial tickets? I've played fewer than a dozen games but have noticed that I can now guess with about 75% accuracy whether I'll win or not just based on my initial 3 tickets drawn. If I have a long transcontinental route and a shorter one which partially overlaps it, I'll probably win (discard the 3rd card). Same if I have two medium routes that together make a long transcontinental route. On the other hand, if I have 3 very short routes, I'll probably lose. It's even worse if the 3 short routes don't come close to overlapping or stringing together. What strategy can be used to overcome initial bad tickets? Any rule alteration suggestions for reducing this effect? <Q> I have won games with a bad initial draw by simply forgoing tickets. <S> This really works best when you have two tickets that are only worth 4 - 5 points. <S> Keep the lowest value tickets, return the highest. <S> Ignore <S> the tickets completely Immediately aim for as many five and six train routes as possible. <S> If you can hit the stretch of three six train routes across the top of the US or a the bottom, that might lead to the longest route bonus. <S> Be willing to 'waste' a turn, perhaps two, per player breaking/blocking them using one, two if you must, train routes. <S> Watch the San Francisco, Portland and Seattle section for easy opportunities to block; Houston works well as well here. <A> In that situation, I would recommend getting rid of one of the three, and then drawing additional tickets immediately. <S> These additional tickets will either give you your corresponding transcontinental route to put you in the situation you like, or give you a bunch more short routes, some of which likely correspond with the ones you already have. <S> If none of them work, keep one, and then draw additional tickets again. <S> You want to do this early, because it is possible that you will end up needing to not go for one of your short routes at all. <S> While it hurts to lose points from a ticket, it can be offset if you complete enough other ones, and it is better than just completing some disconnected short routes and then relying on a lucky ticket draw at the end of the game. <A> As for a strategy to overcome this, it seems like that you're using only one strategy which is based on completing a long route, with overlapping tickets, as the main method to gain points. <S> Something to try next time might be then to start on your hardest route, but watch for a clear destination from an opponent. <S> Then spend some time blocking him. <S> There are a few key routes that are not only worth points, but also are hard to go around. <S> You will need to pay attention to which colors your opponents are collection as well as where they're building their trains, so it is a more difficult strategy to pull-off, but it can work well. <S> I've seen several games where the only people to complete routes were people with small ones, and therefore the small routes tickets won. <S> Since you also asked for an alternate house-rule, one that adds fun is to draft the starting cards. <S> Everyone draws three, picks one, passes the rest left, then people pick one of the remaining two and discards (face-down) the last one. <S> You get to select from more cards (2 of 5) <S> but you also get an inkling of what your opponent(s) may have. <A> I've seen games won with as few as two total tickets, even if they're small and not near each other. <S> In those cases, the strategy generally was to make one long transcontinental route (often through Canada or along the Gulf Coast, picking up many 6-train connections) <S> that covers both tickets, getting many points from the connections and the longest continuous route bonus. <S> This hinges on being able to do this quickly and somewhat clandestinely, but if you're able to visualize the ideal place for each of your trains at the beginning (with a contingency plan or two in case you get blocked) and draw your cards for the long term (i.e., taking colors you don't need right away if you'll need them for one of the routes you want later), this can be done. <S> If you and the people you're playing with don't object to blocking for the sake of blocking, some tactical play when you're low on trains can also go a long way to helping you by hurting your opponents. <A> There is a perfect route that takes up almost all the twelve point and up tickets. <S> the only catch is you have to be willing to forgo going to Miami. <S> The route is as so- <S> CAL-VAN-SEA-PORT-SANFRAN-LA-PHO-SANTA-DEN-KC-STL-CHI-PIT-NY-MON with a divert to NAS-ATL. <S> This route takes about 38 trains, give or take, and almost guarantees a completed route if you draw at games end. <A> The problem of three short routes is fairly easy to fix; you should try to make them part of a total of five or six. <S> That means redrawing destination routes at least once early on. <S> You'll sacrifice a turn, but it will probably be worth it. <S> That is, you should try to transform your hand into two good routes and two or three short (additional) ones. <S> If the second draw is bad, better luck next time. <S> The hard one to play is three long, unconnected routes. <S> Then you will probably have to throw one away (hopefully you don't have two to Miami), and hope that you can you can fulfill the two that you keep. <A> I could be wrong, but every time I won (2-3 players) I won by taking a lot of 3 or less train paths, because of how efficient they were. <S> I could draw 2 cards I needed, and next turn play them with no problem, and finish tickets relatively quickly. <S> I usually go from Seattle to Chicago via Houston, avoiding Miami, (the game makes it so difficult, yet worth so much) going up to New York, and making a left turn. <S> This can be done relatively quickly, except for San Francisco to Los Angeles, and is very connectable with everything.
|
Something you may be missing is that if your tickets are only short routes, you can finish them easily and them spend the rest of the time doing two things: Claiming 6 train routes Preventing your opponents from completing tickets.
|
What are effective strategies for playing control against aggro-control? In Magic, there's a style of deck known as " aggro-control ", which plays a mixture of cheap threats and disruption (especially counterspells). Against a pure control deck, aggro-control seeks to set up quickly in the early turns and then protect its board position from sweepers and spot removal using countermagic, long enough to get an opponent to 0 life. From a control player's perspective, this can be a difficult situation because you're on a pretty fast clock, but your normal tricks against aggro decks (like Day of Judgment on turn 4) just don't work with any degree of consistency. What are some strategies that you can employ, either during deckbuilding or in play, to improve a control deck's performance against aggro-control? <Q> You could try playing more spot removal (such as Condemn or Path to Exile ) instead of mass removal. <S> Typically aggro-control decks have problems if you succesfully remove their first threats. <S> This way the control deck won't die in the early turns and will be in a good position to win the game, because it has a better late game. <S> The reason behind spot removal being better than mass removal in this kind of match-up is that it demands more answers: they only need a single counterspell to deal with your Day of Judgment, but they will need two if you play two Condemn. <S> However, they'll need two answers if you play a second Day of Judgment, but usually you wont survive to your next turn if they counter the first one. <A> I often had good luck with cheap creature removers or delayers that are often underestimated, like unsummon, twiddle, swords to plowshares or similar. <S> Another card that usually makes people laugh but that can serve you well in this situation is force spike and sometimes mana short cast on the opponent at the beginning of their turn. <S> At times I used with some success island sanctuaries and even stasis and maybe kismets, but you need to build quite a complicate deck around them, and requires some luck to have a good combination of cards in your first draw... <S> What really made my aggro-control decks struggle where the quick discard+control decks. <S> If you are forced to discard your creatures before you can put them in play on the first few turns, then you're probably doomed... <A> This depends greatly on what deck you are playing and in what format. <S> One of the best ways to stop (or more like delay) <S> a Tarmogoyf is play one of your own. <S> It's cheap, stops his goyf, is probably bigger than his other guys and beats very well if you want him to. <S> Since most of the aggro-control decks rely on tempo and you'll probably win in the long run, <S> siding in cards like Daze or other cheap counterspells/removal might help you get through the tough early game and still have enough power for the late game. <S> Maybe you want to disrupt his hand before he gets the chance to cast what he wants (Thoughtseize and the likes)? <S> It all depends on your deck and what you're up against. <S> If you want to give a more specified question we'll be able to give a better answer. <A> Return to Ravnica provided some new answers to this: Supreme Verdict and Abrupt Decay .
|
A good way to get around his disruption with mass removal is cards like Pernicious Deed or Engineered Explosives which you can play any turn you think it's safe.
|
How to decide if I should use a counterspell in MTG? I always have a hard time to decide if I should use a counter spell in a given situation and one step earlier if I should save enough mana for a counter spell this round. I am currently facing this problem with my variation of Solar Flare . The main idea of this deck is to stall the game for at least 5 to 6 rounds while building up your graveyard and overpower the opponent with fat creatures afterwards when the fifth or sixth land is out there. My counter spell of choice is Mana Leak . My dilemma is, that I usually want to use it early in the game, because it is harder for my opponent to pay the additional mana cost and my plan is to stall him anyway in the beginning. On the downside I have used my counter spells often before the real threats are out there and my opponent feels comfortable in the middle to end game because he knows that it is unlikely that I have any more counter spells available. I also do not want to use my counter spells after round 5, because I usually need my mana in those rounds to pump out and resurrect creatures. Without any ramps in this deck I have no flexibility to save up mana each turn instead of playing my creatures. What is the expert opinion on that dilemma? How do I decide when to use my counter spells? Can I even formulate such a strategy without knowing the deck of my opponent well? <Q> Considering your link to Solar Flare builds, I'll assume you're talking about the Standard format as of right now. <S> The timing of your counters relies heavily on what deck your opponent is running. <S> To some extent, it does rely on knowing your opponent's deck, but most Standard decks fall into an archtype. <S> Recognizing those archtypes isn't too difficult if you spend some time in the format, and recognition means you'll know what some of the more commonly-run threats for those decks are. <S> Assuming your opponent is running aggro and is effectively racing to see if they can take you down before you can start to get some of your meaner cards (traditionally Sun Titan into a Liliana via Unburial Rites, etc.), you need to be able to survive their early game. <S> This may mean throwing counters away early on, on things that could build into bigger threats (e.g. Lord of the Unreal, Phantasmal Image, Stromkirk Noble, etc.) <S> to slow them down. <S> Assuming your opponent is running control, you're looking for bombs and other counters. <S> They're doing the same thing as you; playing the waiting game, looking for the opportunity to get something game-winning through. <S> This often means a slow game, where each player will play a land and then pass, leaving mana open for counters and their-turn fun (like White Sun's Zenith, Blue Sun's Zenith, and Forbidden Alchemy). <S> Midrange decks are much harder to gauge - you'll often have to play a game before you get a good feeling for what their bombs are, what you're watching out for. <S> Lastly, one of the strongest things you can do is threaten a counter. <S> Whether or not you have one in hand (and whether or not you're even playing them, if you're still playing blue), if you leave mana open for a counter, they may not play a more threatening card for risk of it getting countered. <S> Never let your opponent feel comfortable - even if you've played three Mana Leaks, what's to say you don't have another counter (Dissipate, Negate, etc.), or destruction, or a Snapcaster! <S> For this reason, I'd caution against tapping out, as you lose this threat entirely. <S> One more note - there's a reason Snapcaster Mage is so popular! <S> Every Snapcaster (ideally used) means another Mana Leak, Dissipate, Doom Blade, Go for the Throat, or Dismember that you've already used once. <A> I always consider what is being cast and how it might impact me. <S> A 2/2 first striker? <S> I won't worry too much about it because I have other answers for that. <S> A 1/1 infect flyer? <S> That can be a pain from time to time so I might get rid of that. <S> As others have suggested anthems are probably not worth countering unless they're really a threat ... <S> Honor of the Pure? <S> Maybe not ... <S> True Conviction? <S> Countered! <S> You know what threats your deck can otherwise clear, so concentrate on the stuff <S> you don't have good answers for and on things that seem key to your opponent's strategy (of which you have imperfect knowledge). <A> But assuming you have no idea what he's playing: You need to understand your own game plan. <S> As you say, you want to survive until the sixth or seventh turn, at which point you have better things to do. <S> So, you'll have to counter or otherwise deal with spells which threaten to kill or severely damage you before the mid-game rolls around. <S> For instance, you probably won't need to counter spells like Ponder that merely improve your opponent's card selection; but you will definitely want to stop him getting down efficient turn-2 and turn-3 beaters, especially if you have no other removal in hand. <S> Deciding when to leave up counter mana is even harder than deciding when to counter something, but it follows the same basic principles: if I tap out now, and my opponent plays creature x, is it going to cause serious problems for my game plan? <S> If so, it may be better not to take the risk and keep the counter option available, even if this slows down your development. <S> It's a risk-reward thing - in this respect, sometimes Magic is a lot like poker...
|
Well, knowing the (approximate) deck of your opponent well will certainly help you immeasurably when deciding what to counter.
|
Why is Bazaar of Baghdad supposedly such a good card? I've been looking at the card Bazaar of Baghdad : (Land) Tap: Draw two cards, then discard three cards. Almost everywhere I've seen has it as over 200$, and most of the Arabian Nights set is much cheaper than that, so I assume its ability is extremely powerful. However, I can't really figure out why. It gives you a net loss of 1 card no matter what, and I suppose its ability could be compared to having the ability to mulligan later in the game but have a wider choice of cards to pick as your new hand. It would help you find a specific card in your deck if you're running a strategy based on that card (and I notice its most popular in vintage, where this is more prominent) I could see it being a decent card, I can't see where it might otherwise be valuable. Is Bazaar of Baghdad an extremely good card? What decks would it work best in? How would I know when to use its ability in a game? <Q> While all of these answers get at some measure of Bazaar's popularity, I should note (as Ian does somewhat in passing) that virtually all of Bazaar's value at this point comes from it being <S> the key card in the Vintage Dredge deck; Madness and Flashback are both effectively moot, but in Vintage Dredge is an immensely powerful strategy. <S> Note that in the Dredge decks, Bazaar is all upside; <S> drawing 2 cards means you have two opportunities to dredge, and the discard 3 puts cards in your graveyard where you want them - Dredge would rather not have cards in its hand! <S> See, for instance, the first decklist at http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/22161_New_Phyrexia_In_Vintage_Dredge.html - this is a pretty good example of Bazaar at its most powerful. <A> most of the Arabian Nights set is much cheaper than that, so I assume its ability is extremely powerful. <S> Bazaar of Baghdad is from one of the first MtG expansions with a relatively small print run and is on the Reserved List (won't be reprinted), so that's going to make it more expensive regardless of utility. <S> It would help you find a specific card in your deck if you're running a strategy based on that card <S> (and I notice its most popular in vintage, where this is more prominent) <S> I could see it being a decent card <S> , I can't see where it might otherwise be valuable. <S> Here you answer your own question. <S> Many Vintage decks are based on broken combos. <S> Many broken combos like to have certain cards, or many cards, in the graveyard. <S> Important point you may be missing: it's a land, so it can't be countered. <S> Its effect costs zero mana and is repeatable. <S> With that in mind, any card that basically says "pay zero mana. <S> draw two cards. <S> put three in the graveyard" is going to be very very desirable. <S> Is Bazaar of Baghdad an extremely good card? <S> Yes. <S> What decks would it work best in? <S> Combo decks. <S> Reanimator decks. <S> Graveyard decks. <S> It's not legendary, so you can have multiples. <S> It can be untapped by, say, a Candelabra of Tawnos and reused. <S> It can enable crazy graveyard strategies like a Golgari Grave-Troll . <S> Play it with flashback spells to turn the card disadvantage into an advantage. <S> If you don't want to lose your cards to the graveyard, it combos nicely with Library of Leng . <S> Play it with draw spells or Howling Mines . <S> How would I know when to use its ability in a game? <S> When you have card advantage, are looking for a game-winning combo piece, or need an answer now . <S> Any deck built to rely on it is probably going to use it as soon as possible, as often as possible. <A> A draw-and-discard card is more powerful than just a late-game mulligan. <S> One obvious use, for example, is in discard-and-resurrect decks, planning to discard powerful creatures and flashback spells early, then resurrect them into play for less than their casting cost. <S> The cost is increased disproportionately by age, however. <S> Arabian Nights / Antiquities came out before magic really took off, and hence there were quite a low absolute number of cards printed compared to later expansions. <S> Short form: it's very rare now, and useful. <S> Hence expensive. <A> A good description of its usages can be found in this SCG article . <S> From that article: <S> One of the most powerful effects in Magic the Gathering history is the interaction between Squee, Goblin Nabob and Bazaar of Baghdad. <S> These two cards have the power to create card advantage like very few things can. <S> Once operating, this combo creates a virtual Ancestral Recall, for free each turn, which cannot be countered by conventional means. <S> It is a reusable non-counterable draw-discard engine. <S> This means it's incredibly useful with graveyard and discard mechanics; namely, Dredge, Madness, and Flashback. <S> It essentially lets you filter through your library piece by piece, with the only real cost being one less land usable for mana and the loss of a card from your hand. <S> This is offset by its usability in winning games quickly. <A> The more information you have on where your cards are the more powerful position you are in and the more options you will get.
|
Bazaar of Baghdad is a very good card. There are plenty of game mechanics that like to have cards in the graveyard the most simple is a reanimation deck which will love the chance to draw the key spells it runs on, while also getting some of its high cost targets into the graveyard The key is that in an open format (especially Vintage), an extra card discarded is not necessarily a 'loss'.
|
A reference of practical tsumego? There are insanely many tsumego in existence, but many of them are very artificial and would never occur in real games. While any tsumego helps to improve, specifically learning shapes likely to be encountered in actual games would be of great benefit. I'm especially thinking of fast games with little time to actually read. Are there any collections of problems that are likely to occur in real games, or at least close to it? <Q> Life and Death by James Davies is part of the Elementary Go series, and has a systematic treatment of common shapes. <S> It has saved me more reading time than I can count. <A> The second part of the book contains problems arising from joseki and joseki variations. <S> This is an advanced book - aimed at dan-level players. <A> I'll second TimK's suggestion of Life and Death , particularly for developing a general approach, and also throw in a few others I've found useful: <S> The Korean Problem Academy is an excellent collection of progressively more difficult problems. <S> The books themselves are the best way to go if you can find them, as they have no answer key but generally can be solved relatively quickly and with patterns that show up in actual games. <S> Rescue and Capture by Yang YiLun is not really about L&D per se , but there's a strong related element in finding tesuji to rescue or capture groups. <S> You can still find this book over on Yutopian . <S> For speed games in particular I'm partial to the advice that you should find the level of problem that you can solve "almost instantly" since what you are doing is training speed reading and pattern recognition. <S> This means that you may end up doing problems that are "below you rank," but that's an excellent way to be able to actually see and solve the problems in game.
|
SmartGo has a wide mix of problems, many of which fit with what you are looking for. Get Strong at Life and Death starts with a section on standard shapes.
|
How often should I bluff in poker? Obviously bluffing is an important element of poker, and bluffing too often, or not often enough will negatively affect your winnings, but is there a rule of thumb for how often you should bluff? For example, if I bluff once or twice an hour, is that too infrequent? If I bluff about once in a button cycle, is that too often? What's the optimum bluff frequency? EDIT: I found these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_(poker)#Optimal_bluffing_frequency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds#Bluffing_frequency According to David Sklansky, game theory shows that a player should bluff a percentage of the time equal to his opponent's pot odds to call the bluff. For example, in the final betting round, if the pot is $30 and a player is contemplating a $30 bet (which will give his opponent 2-to-1 pot odds for the call), the player should bluff half as often as he would bet for value (one out of three times). and David Sklansky, in his book The Theory of Poker, states "Mathematically, the optimal bluffing strategy is to bluff in such a way that the chances against your bluffing are identical to the pot odds your opponent is getting." So, if I generally bet half the pot, I should be bluffing 40% of the time; if I generally bet twice the pot, I should be bluffing 25% of the time. Sounds like a lot to me - how does this sit with everybody's experience? <Q> A rough rule (from economics) is that you should bluff until the money you lose from getting caught approximates the money that you would forego from not bluffing. <S> That is, you should equate the "marginal utilities" of the two activities. <S> If you "never" get caught, you aren't bluffing enough. <S> That is, you are leaving money on the table with a number of bluffs that you could have "run" but didn't. <S> You SHOULD get caught, partly for "advertising" purposes, and partly so that you "start" to lose money bluffing. <S> Then bluff "a little more" and stop when you lose a little more. <S> If you get caught "too often," you are losing more money than you're making with your last few or "marginal" bluffs. <A> One of the most important things in bluffing is the image you have on the table. <S> If you generally play tight, your opponents will trust your bets more and your bluffs will be more effective. <S> Otherwise, if you are a loose player you could a lot more hands and <S> your opponents will trust you less, and call your bets more often. <S> So, if you are a tight player, you should bluff more, because you will win pots with them more often, and if you're a loose player you should bluff a little less. <S> Anyways, if you are loose and bluff often, they will trust you less and call more (as said above), and you can make profit from this when you actually have a strong hand. <A> How can there be a right answer to this question? <S> You bluff for 2 reasons. <S> 1 - To take a pot when you don't think you have the winning hand. <S> 2 - To make people believe you are willing to bluff so you can sucker them in when you have a winning hand. <S> How often you can bluff totally depends on how well you've convinced others that you aren't doing one or the other of the above. <S> That varies by night. <S> That varies by the cards you've been getting. <S> That varies by how well people know your style. <S> That varies by how well you think the other players at the table can be bluffed. <S> It varies by how often other players call versus fold. <S> It varies by how other players have reacted to your bluffs. <S> IOW, there is no way someone can say to bluff a certain percentage of the time since there are way too many variables. <S> Besides, if you learn that someone bluffs say 2 times per hour then any decent player will use that knowledge to their advantage. <S> And anybody bluffing 25%-40% of the time at tables I play at will lose their shirt night in and night out. <S> The rules of thumb that I use if I am going to bluff: <S> I believe that I am going to win with that bluff. <S> (Notice that I didn't say hope) <S> I am playing for option 2 above; <S> and then I ensure that I only lose minimal money. <S> The amount of money in the pot versus how much I need to put in has really good odds <S> and there is still a prayer that I'll win outright. <S> You can't put a frequency on any of those options because it's all about feel and reading the other players. <S> Besides that, I think bluffing is far over-rated in poker anyways. <S> In general, when you bluff you put up a relatively high amount of money, but you get relatively little in return since you are trying to get people to fold. <S> You are far better served learning when to play your cards and when to fold them and maximize your profits from that. <S> People aren't stupid. <S> You can make money bluffing in the short term, but eventually people catch on and set you up.
|
It varies by how often you think other players are bluffing.
|
When is it optimal to purchase a Mint on a 5/2 split? Every now and then, what seems like a golden opportunity comes up: you start the game with five coppers, and the Mint is in play. By purchasing this, you can instantly trash five of your starting copper. However, this leaves you with only two copper in your deck: not enough to purchase a silver. Say your second buy is the third copper you need for the silver. Now there are seven cards in your deck: three copper, three estates, and a mint. This means there is about a (correct me if my math is off) 30% chance that you'll only draw two coppers on your third draw. If some 2 cost cards are in play, this is less of a problem. Having a Moat or Cellar, for instance, could draw out coppers, and Secret Chamber or Lighthouse could provide the necessary money to obtain the first silver. This has already been discussed a bit on Dominion Strategy , but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus. When, if ever, is buying a Mint for your first or second buy an optimal move? <Q> Almost never. <S> Mint/Fool's Gold is an elite opening because it allows you to get a massive density of Fool's Gold in your deck quickly. <S> Mint/Lighthouse is acceptable, especially if there are lots of attacks, but you need a plan to transition your deck into higher value cards quickly. <S> Every other opening is sub-optimal, according to the Councilroom statistics (which are derived from Isotropic games). <A> If Mandarin is also available, buying Mandarin/Mint with you turns of 5 buy is sometimes worth it, as the +3coins from the Mandarin mean you can easily get a silver and start minting silver and gold (or other special treasures) <S> Now dark ages is out there is another good Mint Combo, Mint/Squire. <S> Squire gets you cash and a silver, which is better than any other 2 cost card when you have only 2 coppers left in your deck! <S> If there is a trasher and a good attack card as well then its even better! <A> I agree with philosophyguy's answer. <S> Additionally, in rare situations where there are no other trash/upgrade cards, I'd consider opening Mint/Embargo and then embargoing Mint.
|
A first turn Mint wrecks your economy, and being able to buy good cards on turns 3 and 4 is really important in order to not fall behind your opponent.
|
What is a good resource to discover new games? On this site recomendation questions are banned. You are not allowed to ask: I often play risk and Axis & Allies. I don't like Settlers of Catan because bla bla bla ... What other games would I like? See meta pages: Game Recommendation questions are banned Should we ban game recommendation questions? - Done I was just wondering where/how members of this community discover new games. I have played a number of games including: Chess Monopoly Multiple Risk type games Ticket to Ride Axis and Allies Settlers of Catan Suppose I want to find more games like this. Where/how should I look? What is a good way to discover new games? <Q> Online, I think BoardGameGeek is a great resource. <S> It's kind of to board games what IMDb is to movies - tremendous repository with lots of rulebooks, user reviews, and more. <S> It can be a bit hard to know where to start, but they also have a dedicated recommendations forum, and most people are happy to help. <S> If you live in an area with a hobby game store or a Meetup group, they're also a great resource for information, and more importantly, the ability to try things out before you buy them (as @shujaa points out). <A> In the past decade, I also find myself using funagain.com for recommendations, as follows: <S> I start with the All Time Best Sellers list to see what has been popular with gamers over time. <S> If I'm looking for a certain type of game, I choose one of the filters from the drop down menu, which are (various combinations of): <S> Board Games (Kids) Board Games (Family) Board Games (Strategy) Card Games Puzzles (Jigsaw) Puzzles (Logic) <S> Toys <S> If you click on a certain game, in addition to the description and reviews you also see suggestions for similar games. <S> For example, clicking on all time best seller Carcassonne shows under the picture various classifications you can click on such as theme and genre, but most importantly "other" which shows things like "games for older children." <S> Whether or not you choose to buy your game from Funagain Games, you may as well use them as the great resource they are for game recommendations. <A> Staff in game stores (or other customers) are often very helpful. <S> In my experience, small, independent game stores are staffed by people who love games and play lots of them, and they're happy to talk to you about it. <S> Also, many game stores keep store copies so you can try it out before buying. <A> I don't know about where you live, but over here, there are many board game clubs that welcome people once a week or so. <S> The one near my place has more than two hundred games, and players to play with. <S> They also organize some events several times a year, where some clubs and shops come together and put their games in common. <S> In these, you have more than 500 games and 100 people to play with. <S> I think it's the best way to discover a new game. <S> Try and check in your area if you have such a thing. <A> The BoardGameGeek has a fun annual convention in the Dallas area in the Fall where you could get hands on experience with a wide range of games in a very flexible atmosphere. <S> Getting tickets is hard unless you get them at the exact right time in the spring though. <S> Their site is a must-visit for anyone interested in games in my view <S> and I agree with the first answer on that. <S> Several other conventions might be a good place to attend and see many other games as well. <A> I found that site that has good price and a vast inventory : http://www.fungamescafe.com/fgcIndex.php . <S> With BoardGameGeek they are our two major provider of idea for new games.
|
By far my best source of recommendations for games that are new to me are my gaming friends.
|
Should You Take "Your Opponent's" Sheep In A 2-Player Game? As you may well have guessed by now I play a lot of online Agricola; here's a situation that comes up all the time. If I'm the second player, and sheep come up as the round one action card, quite often my second action will be to take starting player, take 2 Clay at the beginning of round two, positioning myself to get an early Fireplace and score a sweet 6-8 Food in round four. Obviously this is a powerful sequences of plays and if left unchecked sets you up quite nicely to expand without food worries in rounds five through seven. Nevertheless, I'm always quite surprised at the alacrity with which most of my opponents like to take the sheep in response to my building a Fireplace, obviously having to release all but one into the wild. I feel like I'm continually soundly beating the players who "waste a turn" depriving me of sheep; obviously I'm not overjoyed to be losing a few "free" Food, but equally I'm delighted that my opponent has spent a crucial early turn doing virtually nothing except trying to annoy me. My question is simply, have I miscalculated the value of the sheep-stealing move? If you are playing an opponent who aggressively takes 2 Clay and builds a Fireplace hoping to celebrate the first Harvest with an enormous sheep barbecue, would you spend an action taking sheep from under his nose and why? Can anyone effectively break down the pros and cons of such an action for me? <Q> I've been allowed to cook 4 sheep in a 2er before and still lost the game. <S> Badly. <S> I do think in general, your opponents are over-valuing "scattering the woolies" (as one BGGer puts it) <S> if they're just making a knee-jerk response to your First Fireplace. <S> Assuming you keep one, it's theoretically a 2-point move, but only if you don't cook it later and never take Sheep the rest of the game . <S> Otherwise you're spending an action (that you would've done anyway later) just to block. <S> Blocking is necessary in 2ers, but you need to do it in a way that's a net positive in score for you (e.g., if your opponent gets begging <S> card(s) <S> because of it). <S> I think if you're that worried about your opponent getting 8 food, you're probably already behind. <S> There are enough ways to get food in a 2er that "stealing" some sheep isn't likely to make up the difference. <A> It all depends on timing and what that players are able to do. <S> This is only relevant in a 2 player game where every point you stop your opponent receiving increases your lead by a point. <S> There are however numerous situations where it wouldn't help as the first stage actions are very valuable. <S> You'de probably be better denying them reed for family growth. <A> There are certainly situations where it's worth releasing the sheeps , especially in a 2-player game. <S> I would even argue that you can never let your opponent get 8 food that early. <S> If I take the sheep and release all but one, sure it does me no good now, but later it nets me 2 food or 2 points. <S> That forces you to make at least one bad move on for example Day Labourer , and probably have to spend one or two moves in Stage 2 getting food. <S> In many 3-player games I've seen a huge advantage going to the player who gets the first sheeps, and in that case it's more of a loss for me to spend that move since the third player is the only one that benefits from it.
|
If you can ensure that the other player takes a begging card if you take 'their sheep' then that is at least a 3 point move (with the exception of Mendicant ).
|
Sacrifice enablers for EDH I'm building my first EDH deck and have chosen Thraximundar (Grixis) as my general. My deck has a lot of synergy centered around sacrificing creatures. I find it easy to benefit from sacrificing and have plenty of targets for sacrificing but I need more ways of enabling the sacrifice triggers. So far I have Viscera Seer , not much to go on. <Q> There are tons of options: <S> Attrition or Blood Rites , while requiring to pay mana, would kill your opponents creatures (or the opponent himself in the case of the rites). <S> If you need something that doesn't require mana to activate you could try Bloodthrone Vampire , Carrion Feeder or Devouring Swarm . <S> Hell's Caretaker can be an interesting choice, because it gets creatures back when sacrificing others, but can be activated only once per turn. <S> There are lots more, here <S> you have Magiccards search of creatures that have an activated ability which requires to sacrifice a creature and are black, blue or red. <A> http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&color=+![G]+![W]&text=+[%22sacrifice%20a%20creature:%22] <S> Teach a man to fish. <S> The Gatherer is your friend. <S> Once you know how to use it, you can find many of your own answers. <S> You might want to examine the Advanced Search to narrow your search, or the Help Page to get an idea how to search. <S> Explanation of the URL variables above ('?' <S> starts the query, '&' separates variables, Left Hand Side (LHS) is the variable name, RHS is the value of the variable): <S> action=advanced (gives responses for a greater range of variables) <S> color=+![G]+![W] <S> (card mana cost does NOT ('!') contain Green AND does NOT contain White mana) <S> text=[%22sacrifice%20a%20creature:%22] (contains the exact RULES TEXT ( <S> '"' is %22, space is %20. <S> URLs cannot contain these special characters, so they must be encoded) "sacrifice a creature:" You can type your own search examples on the Advanced page, and then examine the URL to see exactly how your query is posted to the database. <S> Technically, this search result would possibly show us cards that don't match the color identity of the Commander, if a card existed that contained a [G] or [W] activated ability, but not a whole lot of these exist. <S> So just for fun, try replacing the RULES TEXT with this search strings. <S> text=+![B]+[%22Sacrifice%20a%20creature:%22] <S> This will return all sacrifice a creature activated abilities on cards that don't contain Black Mana symbols on the card. <S> You will note that the botto of page 0 is Quagmire Druid which doesn't match our Commander's color identity. <A> Although I generally shy away from suggesting a single card, in this case Braids, Cabal Minion fits the bill so perfectly that it's tough to ignore. <A> You should have a look at cards that make each player sacrifice creatures/permanents. <S> Examples: Pox, smallpox, smokestack, innocent blood, fleshbag marauder. <A> http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?text=+[%22sacrifice%20a%20creature%22] Without wishing to suggest specific decks for you, the above link should at least give you plenty of ideas to get your creative juices going! <A> Most Thrax decks I've seen use Grave Pact or Butcher of Malakir . <S> These are good "rattlesnake" cards that also greatly magnify the value of anything you feed to a sacrifice outlet. <S> Consider <S> Malfegor and Death Cloud if you want additional bulk effects of this type. <S> Sacrificing your own dudes for mana is also pretty awesome because you can often turn that mana into more dudes to sacrifice. <S> Phyrexian Altar and Ashnod's Altar serve as the basis for many token-sacrifice engines. <S> Skirk Prospector can do the same for Goblins, as can Basal Sliver for Slivers. <S> Cards that create Eldrazi Spawn -- in particular, repeating ones like Pawn of Ulamog and Rapacious One -- are also good for giving you a bit of extra mana while Thrax has something to munch on. <S> In my Sheoldred reanimator deck, I actually use fatties as sacrifice victims, feeding them to Soldevi Adnate , Miren, the Moaning Well , and Xathrid Demon . <S> Minion Reflector is an excellent way to get double value out of ETB triggers. <S> The tokens it creates have a built-in self-sacrifice effect, but you might as well feed them to something else. <A> Found a few that I have somewhere in my collection that look like good options: Carrion Feeder <S> Phyrexian Ghoul <S> Thanks for all the suggestions <S> there are far more cards suited enabling sacrifices than I thought.
|
Lyzolda, the Blood Witch can be sweet, drawing you cards when sacrificing black creatures or dealing damage when sacrificing red ones. Attrition is also worth mentioning, since it's such a cheap outlet with one of the best beneficial effects.
|
What is a good strategy for selecting commons and uncommons for trade folders? I recently came into several large collections of Magic cards that I am looking through for trade stock, obviously cards such as Counterspell tend to be good trade stock even though they are common; however, what is a good strategy for going through the rest of the cards? Are their certain abilities or creature types that I should look for or is it best to just look for what is still legal in Standard? <Q> There are really three distinct things you're looking for: Playability in Standard Playability in Vintage/Legacy Playability in EDH/Commander and other popular variants <S> The first two are actually fairly easy to gauge; the more playable a card is, the higher its price is (typically). <S> Use something like Magic. <S> TCGPlayer , http://magiccards.info/ , or another pricing site to look up your cards and see if they're of value. <S> Alternatively, you could look up lists for the most playable (read: <S> highest value) common/uncommon cards in those formats and look for those cards specifically. <S> The third option is a little more difficult; since EDH decks are built with 100 cards with no more than 1 of any given card (besides basic lands), lots of commons and uncommons are more popular and playable than in Vintage/Legacy. <S> The key thing you're looking for really in any card is the effect-to-mana-cost ratio. <S> Cards like Swords to Plowshares, Lightning Bolt, Mana Leak, Terminate, <S> Sensei's Divining Top - things that are cheap with powerful effects are really what see play. <A> It really depends on who you're trading with routinely. <S> Generally speaking, if you want to move your trade stuff, you want to match your binder to both the interests and budget of the folks you're trading with. <S> Legacy staples won't move very quickly with a crowd where everyone plays Standard, for instance; nor will $20 tournament cards with a crowd that mostly trades "dollar rares". <S> I use two rules of thumb for common and uncommon cards: <S> "Is this played competitively?" <S> That's why a simple uncommon like Go for the Throat is $1.50 now ($6.00 for the alternate-art FNM card). <S> Generally, tournament staples for Standard are the most common and easiest to move, though it may vary in your local area (some places are noted Legacy hotspots, for instance). <S> "Is this an obscure card with an interesting ability that someone might want for casual play? <S> " The idea here is to put up the cards that'll interest folks who like discard decks, token decks, tribal decks, &c. <S> These cards aren't actually worth a lot, but they make it easier to balance out a trade. <S> They also encourage casual-leaning players to trade with you, since they'll think of you as a source of fun cards they can pick up easily rather than a guy with a binder full of terribly overpriced stuff. <S> I like trading with casual players because they're less likely to be obsessed with gouging you for "value" any time you want a card from them. <S> To showcase these a bit, I generally put thematically-related cards together: Words of Waste and Geth's Grimoire (not uncommons, I know) look so much cooler next to each other, for instance. <A> Here is a nicely formatted list of staples for EDH: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/21014577/EDH_Format_Staples_%42NEW%42 <S> While many of the cards on that list are rare there are plenty of commons and uncommons to look out for. <S> Due to the popularity of EDH/Commander these staple are in high demand and are well worth trading.
|
I'd recommend looking up lists of common and uncommon EDH staples and seeing what cards you might have.
|
Which of the 5 resources in Settlers of Catan (base version) is most important? Why? Experienced Settlers of Catan players know that the answer to this question will vary based on many board setup factors such as resource productivity, 2:1 ports, whether you can corner the market for one resource and thus trade for the resource you lack, etc. For the purposes of this question, let's exclude such factors, and consider the middle case where there are no obvious 2:1 port setups, nobody can corner a market, and the distribution of production is a middling 10 dots each for the brick and ore, 13 dots each for wood and grain, and 12 dots for sheep. Which of the 5 resources in Settlers of Catan is most important? Why? <Q> This will depend tremendously on the situation, but it's worth learning some generalities: <S> If you are playing with just the base set: brick and wood are completely identical as everything that needs one wood also needs one brick (roads and settlements). <S> Wheat is completely superior to wool/sheep as it is also needed for cities in addition to everything wool is needed for. <S> Wheat and Ore are about tied as you need 1 wheat for a settlement and no ore and 3 ore for a city and 2 wheat. <S> My experience is that wheat is slightly better as the ability to continue building settlements is usually worthy a slightly diminished city building capacity caused by an increase in wheat and decrease in your ore. <S> Anyone who has played 4+ games of Settlers knows that you need a variety of resources to win, although there are widely differing ways to get them, so there's no such thing as 'the best' resource as the distribution is so situational to the island layout, what other players have, what development cards and resources you have, and what everybody needs. <S> That is, until nobody goes for wool but you, making you the one who can build settlements faster and extort ridiculous prices from your adversaries for it until you take an early 3 point lead for a decisive win. <S> As I said, it's all relative. :D <A> The value of resources depends on the stage of the game, and your strategy. <S> A very typical strategy is to expand early until you have 3 or 4 settlements, and then focus on upgrading to cities while continuing to expand only when convenient. <S> If this is your goal, brick and wood will be important in the beginning, and ore important in the late game, with wool and wheat somewhere in between throughout. <S> On the other hand, it's possible to play a strong game without much emphasis on expansion, by focusing instead on cities and development cards, and only expanding when convenient. <S> The most important things are to have a strategy and make choices consistent with your strategy , however there is no "best strategy" and thus no "best resource". <A> If you are going for a one resource strategy(a 2:1 port and multiple good hexes), then Ore is definitely the best. <S> With only one resource, settlements/roads will be expensive to build. <S> This leaves cities as your main early game expansion option. <S> Since you need 3 ore to 2 corn, ore is the better choice. <S> If you are just going for a general game, then you want all the resources, but sheep is definitely less important than corn. <S> (As it is not required for cities.) <S> You can make do without sheep by trading for it when you need a settlement, while wood/bricks are needed in large numbers for roads/settlements and corn/ore are needed for cities and development cards in large amounts. <S> Note that you can win a game without wood/bricks (2 cities, largest army and 4 VP cards) <S> (5 settlements and longest road=7VP)
|
However, wheat is essential to virtually any strategy, ore is needed for a city/development card strategy, wood and brick are necessary in at least small amounts for any expansion via new settlements and roads, and wool is overall probably least useful. But you cannot win a game without ore.
|
Is there a best character in Button Men? Is there a worst character? Button Men is a free Print&Play game for 2 players. Each player chooses a character card, and the polyhedral dice associated with that character, and takes turns trying to capture their opponent's dice. There are over 200 characters created for it. Dice with more sides can capture opponent's dice more easily, but they are worth more to your opponents when they are captured. Some analysis has been done with regard to strategy , but have the clearly best and worst character cards emerged? <Q> (disclaimer: <S> i haven't played button men seriously in ages, but i'll share my impressions from back in the day) <S> Bunnies, with its 1-dice is also strong, but can too-often get trapped into not being able to make any attacks. <S> all down the line. <S> Yes, it can take anyone's dice, but odds are you're going to roll one of them low, and give up 30 points at once. <S> Do that twice <S> and there's no way to win against most buttons. <S> Some are banned from tournaments for power. <S> i think lab rats and bunnies were both banned at some point. <S> Some are banned due to non-playability (how would you roll a pi-sided die for the James Earnest button?), and some are banned for their swingy nature (the xxxenophile buttons, with their 3 x-dice, were considered too "swingy"; you could completely change the nature of your button between rounds, though it looks like they're back on the permitted list) http://www.beatpeopleup.com/tourname.html <A> There was a "Button Men Online" website until recently that had amassed HUGE quantities of statistics on different Button Men competing (albeit being controlled by people users on the site). <S> If you could get a hold of that data, that might answer your questions. <S> I've messaged <S> @cheapassjames <S> on twitter , he might have the data. <S> Possibly, you could contact the site creator, Dana Huyler (but the email dana_huyler@yahoo.com seems to be out of order). <A> The site buttonweavers.com is a relaunch, and data from the old site in the source files. <S> Characters winning 84% to 75% of games nelde, Snuff, mgatten, gslamm, relsqui, Discordia, skapheles, spindisc, Tilili, kestrel, Cristofore, bobby 5150, icarus, trifecta, roujin27, Lascivia, Weylan, flesh99, Jordan, NeoVid, Heather, fendrin Characters winning 25% to 12% of games <S> Tess, Trogdor, Mr. Peach, stoooooooo, gman97216, Golo, Limax, Cthulhu Cthulhu is the worst character in the game, based on almost 4000 games played with him. <S> Lascivia is the best official character. <S> The other characters like nelde and Snuff are from the Fanatics set, which isn't considered official. <S> 95% of the characters win 25% - 75% of the time.
|
My feeling is that Lab Rats is the best button, as its 2-dice will allow skill-attacks on far better dice than it has to give away. The worst by far has to be the dragon with d30s
|
How does the cost of designer board games compare to other forms of entertainment? Some people complain about the cost of designer board games. With most board games near the $50 mark, and some approaching $100, they might look at the price of a movie ticket, DVD, or video game and think that this is an expensive hobby. What do you think is the approximate cost of playing board games per hour of enjoyment when compared to other forms of entertainment? <Q> I'm an aging grog... <S> For me, I judge a game based upon player-hours of play. <S> At about $1 per player-hour. <S> Same rate I've used since the late 80's... <S> And at that rate, the $30 supplement I just got for TTR/TTRE <S> has some way to go. <S> 1st two plays were 4p @ <S> 2.5h and 3p @ <S> 3h - so far, $19 of the $30. <S> One more large play should do it. <S> Dominion and Intrigue got enough time to "pay off"... and did so rapidly, even tho most were 2p games. <S> The $50 Cargo Noir is close. <S> At 1.5 to 2h per play, and 3-4p per play, I've gotten 7 plays out of it since mid Dec. <S> Now, I will say, I never adjusted for inflation, and find most movies on DVD today not worth the $1/person/hour, so that metric still works for me. <S> You might, however, consider a more movie based metric. <S> A movie is $5 at matinee, per person, and typically 1.5 to 2 hours. <S> If we add the anticipation and post-movie discussions, we can justify calling them 3 hours. <S> That calls for $2 per person-hour. <S> I'll note also that I'm 56 hours in on a $50 videogame (Skyward Sword) and 30 in on another (Ocarina of Time 3D), so that $1-$2 per player-hour is quite well holding. <S> Mario-Cart, at that rate, paid off in the first week: 10 hours, 3 players, two days; $20 paid for the disk. <S> Update for Dec 9 2012: The latest supplement I got for TTR paid off with another $12 of play. <S> Update for July 2013: All the mentioned games have since paid off. <S> And the Wii has paid off. <A> For me personally, dollar per hour calculations aren't useful. <S> I usually peg costs to something else. <S> Recently, I've been using Chipotle burritos. <S> When I look at a $50 game, I determine whether I would rather have that, or 7 burritos over time. <S> As far as being an expensive hobby, I'll quote someone from BoardGameGeek, on the MSRP of Antiquity being $125: " <S> I would pay $125 for two sheets of plain white paper if they consistently provided the kind of enjoyment I get from Antiquity. <S> " Value is relative. <S> It's certainly cheaper than skiing (for instance) and the right game should be playable dozens, if not hundreds, of times, which most single player video games and movies can't boast for most people. <S> It is an expensive hobby if you need to have new games all the time, but most people don't do that. <A> My copies of Splotter's Indonesia and Duck Dealer have long since paid for themselves, and paid for my copies of Roads & Boats and Antiquity (which haven't yet, but I anticipate they shall eventually). <S> My general rule of thumb is that a game needs three to five fun plays in it before I really feel like it's been worth the money, even with the cheaper end of things. <S> It's not just a matter of hours of play, it's also important to factor in that the time I spent playing game <S> X , I did not get to spend playing game Y . <S> The few hours I spent playing Shadows <S> Over Camelot <S> I will never get back at any price. <A> Seeing how most Video Games start at $60 for standard versions it puts it on par with the price of a designer board game. <S> Same would be true for 2 people to go to the movies with popcorn+soda mixed in. <S> DVDs are probably the only case where the cost to entry is lower than a board game. <S> I tend to calculate the cost of a game vs the number of times I am likely to play it. <S> Settlers in all it's variants, Ticket to Ride, and <S> even Mah Jong for me have paid for themselves many times over. <S> Dominion I have played only a couple of times but feel I got value out of it. <S> Revolution was hot enough for the number of plays I had to make it seem like a worth wile purchase <S> even tho <S> I haven't played it for like 8 months now. <S> I think a key factor you have to work into the price in the intangible entertainment value. <S> When you sit around a board talking with your friends there is more social interaction than in most movies, DVDs, or video games unless they are specifically party games. <S> It's hard to put a price tag on good conversation, jokes, and potential stories you will tell for years about what happened while playing a game versus going to a movie. <A> For example, my group has played my copy of Chaos in the Old World probably 50 times. <S> At $40, and each of those games being a 4-player 90-minute game, that works out to $0.13 per player-hour. <S> That's better than anything I can think of except for exercising outside or a library card. <S> The expense of driving too meet at game nights certainly eclipses the cost of this game. <S> (Traditional card games are probably the very best bet; you can get hundreds of player-hours of Bridge, Poker, Spades, Hearts, etc. <S> out of a $2 deck of cards.) <S> On the other hand, a game you don't enjoy and never play again is much worse, quite possibly $10 per player-hour. <S> (And you're not even enjoying that!) <S> So if you're buying games without having played them before, you'll have to accept more risk with the purchase. <S> Reading reviews or being prepared to sell/trade the game can mitigate this risk.
|
If you are measuring dollars per player-hour , board games are an excellent value--provided you find a game that your group actually will play time and again.
|
Do physical implementations of single player board games have any advantages over their electronic counterparts? While multiplayer board games can give you the enjoyment of hanging out with your friends and family, and all the social benefits you reap from those kinds of interactions face to face, instead of being in front of a computer screen... What benefits does a physical implementation of a board game offer a solo player, that cannot be better implemented in software? (Is there something that software cannot implement better?) For all those single player game enthusiast, what reason would you play a physical version of a solitaire game, if a computer implementation existed? ( Note: Please no "It doesn't require batteries" comments) <Q> A lot of this really applies to all games, not just single-player ones. <S> Computer versions have limited interfaces: small screen, limited controls. <S> This is the biggest reason for me. <S> It's pretty much impossible, with current technology, for a computer game to provide a comfortable view of a table-sized board and components, or for it to make it really easy to grab a small object out of that landscape. <S> It's a bit of an extreme example, but take a game like Arkham Horror (which can be played solo in various ways). <S> Imagine dealing with that on a computer screen, even a huge one. <S> (There's actually a Vassal module for it - the interface definitely could be improved a lot, but it still gives you an idea of the issues faced.) <S> Physical versions are more intuitive and satisfying. <S> Even when things are of a size that's possible to fit on a screen, I usually find that "physical interfaces" much more comfortable. <S> There's just something about physically seeing and moving objects, and having at least a little bit of a third dimension to them, that makes it a lot easier on my mind. <S> I'm often frustrated by a feeling that things are somehow trapped in two dimensions on a screen. <S> Physical games are easier to customize. <S> If there's for whatever reason an issue with a game, it's a lot easier to fix it by drawing on a card or adding some more tokens if it's a physical game, or just changing the rules in a way that a computer version might not let you. <S> Board games have been optimized as board games. <S> There's a bit of a circular nature to the question. <S> These games were designed to be physical, trying to take advantage of everything there is to offer in the format, and to minimize disadvantages. <S> Electronic games are a different format, and hypothetical optimal games in that format (even confining ourselves to a similar category, turn-based things, and so on) will not end up being the same games. <S> I'm not trying to suggest that these reasons always justify choosing a physical game - there are a lot of things computers can do that physical games can't (e.g. instantly shuffle an enormous deck) - but that seems to be outside the scope of the question. <A> There are three things that physical solo games have <S> that computer implementations don't: <S> The larger interface tactile interaction (the feel of the bits, the ability to handle them the ability to houserule as seen fit <S> Further, if you have ever seen children with boardgames they don't know or don't like, they will gleefully repurpose the pieces... and create new games from them. <A> This can be advantageous if you are travelling or camping. <S> A small board game will be more portable than a laptop computer. <S> (Though perhaps not a smartphone) <S> A board game will never require electricity, which is good if you are camping in an area without electricity, or at an airport where you can't find a powerpoint. <S> Board games can be used in areas where computers aren't allowed. <S> eg. <S> high security environments.
|
In addition to the other answers given, I'll offer: Physical board games don't require a computer, or electricity .
|
How can I tell what has changed in a Comprehensive Rules update? As an example, the Comp Rules were updated February 1, 2012. I know that a reference to "Fateful Hour" was added to 207.2c since I know to search for fateful hour, but how do I know what else changed? Does Wizards of the Coast release an official list of changes when they make a revision? <Q> They put an article in their website written by the current Rules Manager (the main authority in Wizards for Magic rules). <S> This is the one that corresponds to the February 1, 2012 rules update . <S> If you search for more articles by the same author, you'll find the articles for older rules updates. <S> Searching for articles of previous Rules Managers is trickier. <A> I don't believe they release a full changelog every time they make a change to the rules, because most of the time, they're minor patches, like adding/removing creature types, or adding a few new block mechanics. <S> However, when big changes happen, such as Sixth Edition or M10, they usually discuss those changes in detail, in form of an article, such as this . <S> I do believe though that a full diff of rules changes would be pretty awesome for the rules lawyers among us. <S> A website doing this could be fully automated, just checking the rules in txt format once a day or so. <S> EDIT: <S> Googling a bit revealed this gem , which seems to be exactly what I had in mind: A privately maintained, exact changelog between rules versions <A> Within this update bulletin, is a section called Comprehensive Rulebook Changes . <S> You can search for the latter, and eliminate most other update bulletins not referring to the rules changes. <S> Search for comprehensive rulebook changes <S> Even if Wizards didn't release this list of changes, you could use something like the Internet wayback machine, and a text difference tool (meld, fd, etc.) <S> to find the changes yourself.
|
Wizards releases what they call Update Bulletins.
|
How are jokers colored in decks with more than two jokers? So, normally you have two jokers, a big joker and a little joker. The big one is sometimes distinguished by being red (or colored). How does it work with decks with 4 or more jokers? Is is supposed to alternate black, red, black, red, or is only one supposed to be red, or should the red thing just be avoided with > 2 jokers and some other scheme used to identify their rank? <Q> There is no common convention for 4 Jokers. <S> According to Wikipedia There are usually two Jokers per deck, often noticeably different. <S> For instance, Bicycle Playing Cards prints their company's guarantee claim on only one. <S> More common traits are the appearance of colored and black/non-colored Jokers. <S> and other websites , there are normally only two jokers. <S> The qualities of which, including appearance were probably borrowed from the Tarrot trump cards the Magacian/Juggler and (which is red in color, and outranks) <S> the Fool (which is black in color), both of which have the apperance of a court jester. <A> The one 4-joker commercial deck I've seen used 2 black and 2 red. <A> The Maverick brand of playing cards (U.S. Playing Card Co.) is one example that sometimes has 2 jokers that simply say, "Maverick" on them and two that show the logo. <S> Each design is in red on one and blue on the other. <A> Most playing card decks I played with here in Hungary usually come with 3 jokers. <S> They have circled stars in the corners. <S> Two of the jokers have black stars, one of them have red.
|
To the best of my knowledge, there's no standard for ranking jokers.
|
What's a good counter-strategy to Workshop/Garden? If we play a board that has Workshop and Garden kingdom cards, I almost exclusively play them as my strategy. In the early game, I focus on buying Workshop and by the third round I typically get two "buys", one in the Action phase with Workshop and the other in the Buy phase. Mid-game, I switch to buying Garden (which gives you one VP for every 10 cards in your deck) and if I have less than 3 coins in the Buy phase, I get an Estate or Copper. This strategy has proved to be almost 100% effective in rushing to deplete three decks and ending the game around turn 16 or 17. I've only lost once or twice using this strategy and it's usually when I deviate from my plan and forget to pick up an Estate/Copper or pick up another card on a whim. For this scenario, I'm only playing the base set and the third pile I'm depleting is Estates. What are effective counter-strategies to a Workshop/Garden strategy? <Q> Workshop/Gardens is usually a dominant strategy. <S> There are a couple of exceptions: <S> Bishop can counter Gardens by buying Gardens and then trashing them for VP. <S> This prevents the Gardens player from being able to get a favorable Gardens split and means that the Bishop player can focus on getting VP chips or Duchies while the Gardens player is buying out Workshops and whatever other pile. <S> Cursing attacks can often foil a Gardens strategy. <S> Since Gardens games tend to end fast, a difference of 3 or 4 points can be huge. <S> The threat of pumping up the value of the opponent's Gardens is overrated; even if the Gardens player gets all 8 Gardens, 10 curses would still be a net loss of 2 points. <S> Discard attacks can significantly slow a Gardens player. <S> Only having 3 cards in hand means that the person can probably keep a Workshop and 2 treasures, which will frequently be Coppers. <S> That's not enough money to keep acquiring Workshops or to get a double Gardens. <S> Ghost Ship is especially brutal because the Gardens player will have lots of bad cards, and so forcing him or her to see those cards multiple times instead of being able to just discard them is really painful. <S> Embargo can make Gardens unattractive very quickly. <S> Put an Embargo on the Workshop pile, then the Estate pile, then the Copper pile. <S> Embargoing the Gardens themselves is ok, but usually the gardener will be gaining Gardens via Workshop and so the Embargo won't matter. <S> If you Embargo their buy possibilities, however, it quickly slows down their deck. <S> A quick mega-turn engine may be able to overwhelm a Gardens deck. <S> I'm thinking about Native Village/Bridge, which can be used to end the game in a single turn. <S> This engine might be fast enough to buy a couple of Provinces, drain the Estates, and end the game on piles. <S> It's ridiculously difficult to simulate because of the pile-ending conditions and needing some intuition in order to decide when to pull the mega-turn, but I played a couple of solo games earlier today and it seems viable as a strategy. <A> I did ask about expansions for a reason. <S> My first two thoughts were modified versions of Workshop/Gardens: Ironworks and Silk Road. <S> Maybe this isn't what you're asking exactly, but if either of those is around, you can beat Workshop/Gardens at its own game. <S> Ironworks should be able to beat out Workshop - it does cost one more, but the extra benefit it gets you upon gaining a card makes it well worth it, especially given that I doubt you're buying a Gardens on your first two turns with a 4/3 split. <S> Silk Road can easily be worth as much as Gardens if you're going all out gaining cheap victory cards. <S> Compare the effort of gaining four victory cards to that of gaining ten cards. <S> If Tournament is in the game, along with anything at all that might net you a reasonably early province and let you use it, you can do very well with most of the prizes. <S> If someone manages to get all the gardens and the estates in a two-player game, they'll probably be at either 35 or 43 points. <S> That's not that hard a score to top if you're the only one at all capable of buying provinces. <S> And toward the end of the game, it's very easy for the richer player to grab up a few of the lower VP cards and take a big chunk out of the Gardens deck. <A> I've not found Gardens to be anything like unbeatable. <S> As with many Dominion strategies, one counter is "also play it". <S> If we're splitting the gardens, they aren't as good. <S> In fact, with Gardens in particular, buying them just for denial -- whether if i'm trashing them (as the Bishop answer, but it also works with remodel, etc.) <S> or just not getting many points for them -- can be particularly effective. <S> If you're ending the game after 17 turns, even with a workshop or a +buy you're unlikely to be getting to 40 cards.
|
Another way to counter a Gardens strategy is with trashing attacks -- Thief or Pirate Ship removing your spare treasures might keep you below your next point-shelf, especially if you're rushing things.
|
What are the order of actions in Monopoly? Another question arose from my previous question : What is the order of actions in Monopoly? There are a number of actions that may take place: Roll dice Move token Purchase property Pay rent Improve properties Trade with players Go to jail I'm sure there are others too. I checked the rules and didn't notice any specified order for your turn. Also, what actions can I take when it's not my turn? For example, can I trade with another player, or improve my properties? <Q> Given the way the rules are themselves ordered... <S> Throw the dice <S> move the indicated distance or to jail <S> (if 3rd double in a turn) collect $200 if land on or pass Go <S> resolve space <S> ownable properties <S> pay rent if owned and not mortgaged buy it if unowned (optional) aution property if still unowned <S> (not optional) non-ownable properties resolve as indicated. <S> collect $200 if resolving puts you passing Go. <S> Pass the dice or roll again, as appropriate. <S> The only action which is doable outside one's turn (according to the instructions I've got off-line, in my deluxe box) are buying auctioned properties, buying or trading properties with other players, and using cards that say "use at any time." <S> All other actions (buying houses/hotels, selling houses/hotels, mortgaging properties, unmortgaging properties) can be done at any point in your own turn. <A> The turn structure looks like the following: 1. <S> Trade/build. <S> All players may trade properties, mortgage/unmortgage properties, and buy/sell houses/hotels. <S> If the current player is in Jail, they may pay $50 or a get out of jail free card during this step. <S> 2. <S> Movement A. Roll and move token. <S> If you land on or pass go, collect $200. <S> If this was your third doubles, instead go to Jail and and the turn. <S> If you are in jail and your roll does not get you out of jail, end the turn. <S> If you are in jail and it is your third roll, pay $50 and move your token as normal. <S> B. Resolve the space you landed on . <S> If it's unowned, purchase/auction property. <S> If it's owned by someone else, pay rent. <S> If it's chance/community chest, draw and resolve a card. <S> If it's go to jail/luxury tax/income tax, follow the instructions on the space. <S> While resolving the space you landed on, players may trade/build as in step 1, but only after the effect of the space has been determined. <S> 3. <S> Handle doubles. <S> If you rolled doubles, go to step 1. <S> The support for this comes from both the Monopoly Millennium Edition rules and the current standard Monopoly rules . <S> Building and mortgaging can be done at any time: You may buy and erect at any time as many houses as your judgement and financial standing will allow. <S> Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time Unimproved properties can be mortgaged through the Bank at any time. <S> Trading properties is not mentioned as something that can be done at any time, but it is also not listed with a timing restriction. <S> "At any time" means that you can do it on anyone's turn, while paying rent, etc. <S> However, rolling, moving, and the determining the consequences of the space you land on are atomic: <S> [on your turn] throw the two dice and move your token When you land on a property owned by another player, the owner collects rent from you <S> Consequently, another player may not build properties after seeing what you have rolled but before determining what rent is owed. <A> The three main actions are: 1) <S> Roll dice2) <S> Move token3) <S> Pay the "piper" (rent, purchase price, fine, or go to jail) as the case may be. <S> In the case of some chance or community chest cards, you may receive money. <S> The two "stickier" issues are trades and property improvements. <S> Most interpretations of the rules say that you can trade properties or other consideration (get out of jail free cards) at any time. <S> That's because it takes two players to make a trade. <S> The one caveat is that if you have landed on something and owe rent or a fine, you cannot trade property until it is clear that you can pay the rent/fine from other sources. <S> The main question mark is regard to improvements. <S> Here, the official rules are not clear. <S> Another set of "house rules" say that a player may buy/sell/mortgage property only at the BEGINNING of a turn (before the dice have been rolled). <S> Basically, these rules are meant to prevent players from buying houses and jacking up the rent AFTER someone has landed on a property. <S> In "real life" you couldn't just move a house onto property where people are "staying;" the house would have to have been built beforehand.
|
In many games, there are "house rules" that say a player may buy and sell improvements (including mortgage and unmortgage) only during his/her own turn.
|
Can Russia make a truce with Japan (without USA/UK knowing)? Just played a 16 hour game of Axis & Allies (classic). I thought the guy playing Russia just didn't know what he was doing, but it turns out he had made a deal with Japan to just leave him alone. Thus it basically became Russia kept to himself while the UK battled Germany and the USA fought Japan. Needless to say the Allies lost handily. Is this allowed? Can a player basically switch teams or have a truce with the other team? Without any other players knowing? <Q> It looks as if your friend has read too much history and not enough of the rulebook. <S> But Stalin, whatever else he may have been, was a good game player <S> : the troops he transferred from Siberia to Moscow kept him in the game that turn, and allowed him to win on one front while keeping the other at status quo till the last turn, when he made a dash for the Far Eastern victory points. <S> Getting back to the question: of course secret inter-player agreements are 'allowed', if only because there's no way of stopping them. <S> But they only work if both players believe it is in their interest to keep to the agreement. <S> In A&A, it's a zero-sum problem; this Russian strategy benefits either the Axis or the Allies, and all the information to work it out is available to everybody. <S> In your game it was a very bad plan; but in Stalin's game it worked like a charm. <S> A friend of mine summed up a similar situation as "Everybody's happy? <S> Then somebody's miscalculated." <A> It sounds to me like the USA player made the mistake here, not the Russians. <S> Having Japan ignore/not attack Russia is a big boon to the Allies, IF they concentrate on conquering Germany as quickly as possible, and pretty much ignore Japan in the early going. <S> Since concentrating on Germany gives the Allies the best chance of success regardless of what the Axis do, they should be doing that anyways. <A> SOMEONE goofed on the ALLIED side. <S> You can say that person was the U.S. player, who got bogged down in a war against Japan instead of concentrating on Germany. <S> But the other person that was slack was the Russian player. <S> The WHOLE PURPOSE of making a non-aggression pact with Japan was so that Russia could work with the UK to concentrate on Germany. <S> This country can't defeat both Russia and the UK (who start with 54 IPCs versus 32 for Germany) unless Japan is reducing the income of Russia and the UK in a big way. <S> In this context, with Russia being "spared," Japan's conquering Australia, New Zealand, and India won't do it, especially if she has her hands full with U.S. <S> Unless Russia sat by and did nothing while Germany defeated the UK, Japan neutralized America, and the (enlarged) <S> Axis powers finished the game by ganging up on Russia.
|
Russia did have such a truce with the Japanese (actually, there was no declaration of war until Germany had been beaten), and I'm sure Stalin would have loved it if the US and Japan had pounded each other into shreds while the Red Army was busy.
|
Making 2-player Starcraft more enjoyable In theory and according to the rules book, Starcraft can be played by 2-6 players. From my own experience and what I heard from others, it does not work at all for 2 players. The random factor gets really high and the game--which takes quite some time to set up--is over within a few moves if one party attacks early on. It is not fun that way. I have heard from others that it starts getting interesting with 4 or more players. Unfortunately we don't have that many players available, so I am looking for ways to make the game more enjoyable for 2 players. Can anyone provide such house rules or strategies? <Q> The Brood War expansion includes a number of scenarios, one of which is explicitly designed for two players. <S> The gameplay in a scenario is pretty much the same as the core game, except with predetermined galaxy layout and often some form of "capture the objective"-style mechanic added (the two-player scenario, for example, prevents either side from moving onto the Terran's home planet unless they have control of a "bridge" zone first). <S> I don't have the rulebook handy for reference <S> so I don't know if the two-player scenario is entirely playable with only base-set pieces. <S> Fantasy Flight Games offers this scenario for free download, which is for four players (two teams of two players); there's no reason it can't be played with two players each playing both factions of a team. <S> It does however require pieces from the expansion. <A> To be honest I think the game function very well with only two players. <S> In fact the best game I ever played was with just two people. <S> If you're looking for ways to prevent super early aggression I have a few ideas... <S> Add a Planet <S> Obviously this will change a few dynamics in how special victories are can be obtained but this is actually a recommendation made in the expansion pack rule book. <S> With this they recommend increasing the point limit but in a two player game one extra planet will make a pretty small difference and allow for more room to breathe before players are able to attack each other. <S> No Mobilize Orders on Home Planet <S> During the first planning phase don't allow players to place Mobilize orders on planets with other players home base. <S> Going through a whole round without threat of attack is more than enough time to prepare adequate defenses. <S> Strategies to Prevent <S> Getting the air defense module severely limits the other players ability to be aggressive. <S> By dropping your base on an area with a high supply cap (3 or 4) and getting the module, this makes it so that they have to land elsewhere on the planet first before they can attack your base. <S> This allows you to be the attacker and arrange the fight how you want. <S> Another thing to remember is that if they are building a lot of units early on they may be preparing for an attack. <S> During this time investing in some better buildings or upgrades can lead to you have one better unit than them which could make their attacks very hard in the future if you hold them off. <S> Hope some of this helps. <S> Like I said, I've played a fair amount of 1v1 games and they were actually quite fun. <S> P.S. <S> as was mentioned before the expansion pack has some great scenarios, one of which is specifically designed for two players. <S> There are also a few new mechanics that I think help out with the problem you mentioned, in particular the defend order which makes stopping early aggression much easier. <A> Since Starcraft supports Team Play Variant , couldn't you an your opponent each play both people on a single team? <S> (is Team Play also unbalanced?) <S> Otherwise, you will have to develop some sort of AI , or alternate turns controlling a third player (if that is possible strategically).
|
More people is a lot of fun but the game is definitely enjoyable with just two. I think it mostly comes down understanding the game mechanics that allow you to stop early attacks such as the air defense module and simply blocking their orders.
|
What's the highest score that can be achieved by pegging? Nearly every cribbage player knows that 29 is the highest-scoring hand that one can achieve, and that 19 and some others are impossible to score. However, I'm curious to know what is the highest score one can achieve during the play of the cards (also known as "pegging"? What cards would need to be played, in what order, and what would your opponent's pegged score be? This question is meant to exclude the final count of points in one's hand. I'm sure the answer probably differs between 2, 3, and 4-player games because there are more cards available when there are more players. My question is focused on the two player game. If anyone happens to have answers for the others as well though, those would be interesting to know. <Q> If you scroll down to "Pegging Maximal Score" , they outline how the dealer can peg 30 points. <S> I found that page from an answer to the question that you linked above ... not sure how you missed that! <S> Added: <S> Joe O'Brien showed, that dealer can score 30 points (not 26 points as we stated before with a dealer's hand 4,4,4,7, pone's hand 4,8,10,K, and the jack as a starter). <S> In Joe's example <S> Dealer hand 7,7,4,4 ; <S> Pone hand 7,7,4,4. <S> Sequence of play is as follows: <S> Pone 7 7 4 4 <S> Dealer 7 7 4 4 Dealer Points 2 13 <S> 2 13 <S> Dealer Totals 2 15 17 30 <S> This example of dealer maximal cribbage hands is in the article based on the letter of Joe O'Brien. <S> Update - Joe O'Brien showed that there is a hand that will give thepone a total of 24 in pegging. <S> The Pone holding 5 5 4 4, and theDealer holding 5 4 4 (na/). <S> The Pone hits both the fifteen and thethirty-one, picking up a triple at the 15 mark and a pair and four ofa kind on the way to the thirty-one mark. <S> Kyle Graham showed, thatpone can score 22 points (in opposite to other articles, that statesmax pone score is 18 points). <S> Pone's hand: <S> A, A, 3, 3; Dealer's handA, 3, 3, NA. <S> The sequence of play is A, A, A, 3, 3, 3, 3, NA; Ponegets 6+2+14 = 22 points. <S> Later our player Kenneth Anderson showed,that the maximum cribbage scoring for Pone pegging is 23. <S> Pone's hand:5 (or 6) 4 4 4; Dealer's hand: 5 (or 6 <S> ) 4 9 9 (9 9 could be any cardsworth 9 or above). <S> Total Pone points: 5+6+12 = 23 . <S> More examples ofpone maximal cribbage hands are in the article based on the letters ofJoe O'Brien, Kyle Graham and Kenneth Anderson. <A> The Cribbage Statistics page answers this question, 78 for the dealer <S> (hand + pegged + crib) <S> Non-dealer is dealt 3 3 4 4 5 J and Dealer is dealt 3 3 4 4 5 5. <S> Non-dealer discards J 5 to the crib (as ill-advised as this may be). <S> Dealer discards 5 5 to the crib. <S> Note that the J is suited to the remaining 5. <S> The remaining 5 is cut. <S> Play is 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 go. <S> The dealer scores 29 total peg points. <S> The dealer's hand is 3 3 4 4 5 = 20 <S> The dealer's crib is J(nobs) <S> 5 <S> 5 5 5 = 29 <S> The total score for the dealer is 29 + 20 + 29 = 78. <S> The maximum number of points that can be scored in a single deal by the non-dealer in a two player game is 48 (pegging + hand), with the following example : Non-dealer is dealt 5 5 4 4 crib crib and Dealer is dealt 4 4 5 9 crib crib. <S> Cut card is a 6. <S> Play is 5 5 5 4 4 4 4, with the Non-dealer pegging 24. <S> The Non-dealer scores 24 in the hand for a total of 48 points. <S> Combining this hand with the highest dealer hand, a standard 121 point game can be completed in just two deals. <A> Another possibility for 32 points is if both players hold 6 6 7 7 and you are the dealer. <S> First player plays 7, you play 7 for 2, they play 7 for 6, you play 7 for 12 and a go. <S> 15. <S> Then all the 6s get played for another 15 points. <S> The extra 2 points being if a jack is flipped. <A> I pegged 26 points in a three hand game. <S> I kept ace ace 2 2. <S> I led ace, then ace, ace, ace, for 12, then king, 9 <S> , I played 2, then 2, 2, 2 for 14.
|
The maximum number of points that can be scored in a single deal by the dealer in a two player game is 78 (pegging + hand + crib):
|
Where can I find a copy of Starbase Jeff? One of my favorite games is a now out-of-print game from Cheapass games called Starbase Jeff. I've been looking for a copy of it for years and haven't had any luck. Sadly, the game wasn't designed by James Ernest but another game designer, so I doubt it will eventually join the other fine games that he has put out for free on the cheapass site. Does anyone know where I could get a copy of the game? <Q> Currently Starbase Jeff is available for free on the Cheapass Games website. <S> You'll have to print it out yourself but that sort of thing isn't super complicated and might be easier than locating a copy of the original version. <A> With the apparent passing of the designer , my guess is that the copyright would revert to his estate (probably his wife). <S> This isn't the time or place to be asking her to release it to the public domain though. <S> It appears that at least two places have the out of print game for sale, although I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the products they are selling. <S> BGG Marketplace Noble Knight <S> this appears to be a sale house middleman like CardShark. <A> that would be your best bet. <S> I actually have a copy that I am going to list on the auction forum some time in the next few weeks (just depends on when I get everything listed and ready to go). <S> I am hippyhillary on the geek.
|
you can check the boardgamegeek.com marketplace, auctions or auction forum periodically.
|
Are Summon - [insert-creature-type-here] cards creatures? Back in the day we didn't have Creature - Name card types, instead we had Summon - Name card types. Long ago in magic, cards were printed entirely differently, and this actually creates some interesting situations with the present day rulings. For example, in the past the Defender ability was non-existent. There were instead creatures printed Summon - Wall and such creatures with the Wall subtype were ruled to not be able to attack. It's supposedly possible now with the introduction of Defender that such old walls without Defender can actually attack, drastically changing how some cards have been used. My question is, if my opponent has such a card, Summon - Wall , or perhaps Summon - Goblin , etc., does that count in the present rulings as a Creature Card? Can I target it with " destroy non-black creature ", or perhaps " return target creature to opponent's hand "? The confusion between my group of players is the word Creature is actually not on these cards, and it is on every other creature card that's out in this time and age. <Q> Yes, these cards are MtG cards with the type Creature. <S> A cards official wording is what currently appears in the Oracle Online reference. <S> From the Comprehensive Rules 108.1. <S> Use the Oracle card reference when determining a card’s wording. <S> A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at http://gatherer.wizards.com . <S> Summon (Obsolete) <S> All such cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to say “Creature — [creature type].” <S> (Many of these cards’ creature types have also been updated.) <S> See Creature. <A> All of those cards have received errata in the official Oracle. <S> If you visit Gatherer and look up any of those old cards, you can see the new wording for it. <S> Many creatures gained subtypes, so it's worth checking into. <S> For example, Llanowar Elves went from "Summon Elves" to "Creature - Elf Druid". <S> Also, all Interrupts becames Instants. <S> Also, you'll find that all those walls will likely have Defender in the Oracle ruling :-) <S> Hope this helps! <A> Possibly not, if and only if R&D's Secret Lair is in play: <S> P.S. <S> I was just about to correct "in play" to "on the battlefield" there, but actually I don't have to, since I have R&D's Secret Lair in play :P
|
Older creature cards were printed with “Summon [creature type]” on their type lines.
|
Is pawn promotion to rook or bishop something that is seen in play? Reading What is the proper Algebraic Notation for a pawn being promoted? made me wonder whether pawn promotion to rook or bishop ever happens. The only time I can think this might happen is when promotion to a queen would provide stalemate. Are there any other situations where one might choose a rook or bishop over a queen (or knight)? Secondly, has this ever been a case where promotion to a rook/bishop gave an advantage in an actual game? <Q> Under-promotion to bishop/rook happens from time-to-time. <S> I've only seen it in three cases: <S> The pawn will be captured regardless of what it's promoted to, and the promoting player wants to be cocky <S> It's checkmate with just a bishop or just a rook, and the promoting player wants to be cocky (in those cases, a queen would mate also) <S> Promoting to a queen is stalemate Of those, the only one that's interesting is #3. <S> It's extremely rare, but has happened in tournament games. <S> For example, in the game Ruben - Sultan Khan, 1930 : <S> Playing 1. <S> f8= <S> Q leaves Black in stalemate, but 1. <S> f8= <S> R <S> does <S> not (though 1. Kf6! <S> would have been better :) ) <S> Here is another example ( Vasiukov - Tukmakov, 1976 ) <S> White, in a last-ditch effort, played 1. <S> Rg1+ - 1.. <S> hxg1= <S> Q would be stalemate! <S> Black responded 1.. <S> hxg1=R! 0-1 <S> Under-promotion to knight is more common (though still very rare) than to rook/bishop because, unlike rooks/bishops, the knight has the possibility to attack squares the queen <S> cannot, which can sometimes be necessary to win material or force checkmate. <A> Without going into two much detail, its possible for the opponent to place his King in a place whereby your pawn being promoted stalemates him, but an under-promotion to a rook or a bishop leaves a square unthreatened for the opponent's king to move into. <S> Unfortunately, the situations I've seen where in semi-casual or academic play, and I have no citations involving players of note or repute in these scenarios. <A> Tim Krabbé compiled a list of over 40 serious examples of promotion to rook and bishop , including some seen in the top answers. <A> If you have a winning position but you are running out of time, then you'll want to be able to deliver checkmate without having to think for too long about each move. <S> In these situations a rook can be safer than a queen because you are less likely to <S> accidentally put your opponent in stalemate, even if you could have delivered mate with a queen had you more time to think about your moves. <S> For this reason I have seen blitz games at lower levels where the winning player promotes to rook to safely finish it off. <S> But I'm not aware of <S> this having been done at master level or in slow games. <A> If black move and selects Q then it's stalemate.
|
I have seen situations where under-promotion to a rook or bishop has been a key move to prevent a stalemate.
|
Can the "Sacrifice (this card):" activated ability be placed back on the stack? This is a broad question so for simplicity I will use Seal of Fire and Naturalize . Scenario 1: Common exchange- creating a baseline. Player A uses Naturalize on Seal of Fire Player B Sacrifices SoF in response. SoF is highest on the stack and goes off first. This leaves Naturalize without a valid target. Scenario 2: Complicated exchange- Is this legal? Player B Sacrifices SoF. In response Player A targets it with Naturalize. SoF is on the stack and it's ability has not resolved. Player B (as above) sacrifices SoF in response to the Naturalize. Can Seal of Fire be placed back on the stack by re-activating its ability, potentially with a new target? <Q> No, your second example is not possible using the game rules . <S> Player A cannot target SoF with Naturalize, because it is currently in the graveyard. <S> If they wanted to target the SoF, they need to do so when they had priority. <S> Player A cannot prevent the SoF from being sacrificed for its ability anyway, since the ability exists independently of the source that created it. <S> Seal of Fire says, "Sacrifice Seal of Fire: <S> Seal of Fire deals 2 damage to target creature or player. <S> " It is an activate ability whose [Cost] is "Sacrifice Seal of Fire. <S> " If Player B paid the cost to activate SoF, it would no longer be on the battlefield by the time the Active Player received priority. <S> 112.3b <S> Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. <S> They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] <S> [Activation instructions (if any).]” <S> A player may activate such an ability whenever he or she has priority. <S> Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. <S> See rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.” <S> 116.1. <S> Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority. <S> The player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, and take special actions. <S> 112.7a <S> Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. <S> Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. <S> After you sacrifice a permanent, it is placed into its owner's graveyard. <S> 701.14a <S> To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. <S> A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s <S> a permanent he or she doesn’t control. <S> Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action. <A> user1873 is right. <S> Scenario 2 is not legal since the sacrificing is a cost. <S> To try to it clarify further:If Seal of Fire instead did "T: Destroy ~this~ and deal 2 damage to target player" it would still deal 2 damage to the player if you destroyed it before the ability resolved. <S> 112.7a <S> Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. <S> Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability. <S> Note that some abilities cause a source to do something <S> (for example, "Prodigal Sorcerer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing anything directly. <S> In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. <S> Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. <S> In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. <S> The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists. <S> A common analogy is that of a soldier throwing a grenade at you. <S> Shooting the soldier after he has thrown the grenade won't prevent the grenade from killing you The only way you can stop it <S> is either counter the ability ( Stifle ) or prevent it from fulfill other restrictions like destroying mountains for Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle 's land limit. <S> Credit: <S> http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=305059 <A> No. <S> You seem to think that responding to an activated ability is to do something before it has been activated, but that's wrong. <S> There are two parts to getting the effect of an activated ability: <S> First, the ability must be activated (or copied). <S> Then, the ability resolves. <S> In between activating the ability and it resolving, players will get priority (possibly more than once). <S> To respond to the ability is to do something after the ability has been activated, but before it resolves. <S> Costs to activate an ability are payed when activating the ability, so paying the activation cost happens before one has a chance to respond to the ability. <S> The cost to activate an activated ability is found before the ":" in the ability. <S> That means that sacrificing Seal of Fire is part of the cost of activating the ability, and therefore happens before one has a chance to respond to the ability being activated. <S> Note that everything I've said here also applies to spells (cast, then resolves) and triggered abilities (added to the stack after being triggered, then resolves).
|
It is not possible to sacrifice a permanent twice.
|
Is Duplicate Bridge (standard Matchpoints) a game of pure skill? I'm inclined to say "no" because because each of the following could be considered lucky: A finesse can be tried 2 different ways and your partnership selectsthe one that works You play a routine, obvious hand against the strongest partnership ofthe match You play a challenging hand against the weakest partnership of thematch You play a hand that better maps to your bidding system than that ofthe other partnerships playing the same hand You purposely pursue a poor risk/reward chance at an overtrick andmake it, earning top score, in order to avoid an average result But in discussing this a few minutes ago, I got to wondering what if you controlled for most of these things - assume 2 human partners playing a Duplicate Bridge (standard Matchpoints) tournament against a bunch of expertly programmed robot bridge players, all at the same level, all using the same bidding system. In these more controlled circumstances, would Duplicate Bridge be a game of pure skill? <Q> Even with the same experts playing North-South, there will be luck involved. <S> For instance <S> When you have a pure guess in a two way finesse for a Q or distribution etc. <S> When you have a guess during bidding (sacrifice or not etc) <S> System wins/losses. <S> When you overbid/underbid/play incorrectly and hit a lucky lie of the cards. <S> Same hand could be played differently on different tables, because of different actions taken (during bidding or play) by the players. <S> One might play like a bozo, but resulting in the expert to take the wrong inferences, handing you a win (it happens!) <S> etc. <S> What you say will reduce the randomization of the field (some people call it field protection), but will not eliminate luck completely. <S> For instance, a world class level Matchpoint contest will have very little randomization (similar to your proposed situation), but to win you need to play well (skill) and need some luck. <A> I would expand on Aryabhata's answer by noting a fundamental fallacy in the question: the assumption that correct play by a given system always results in the same action on a given hand. <S> There are many reasons - psychological, strategic, and game-theoretic - why in many situations the correct play is not constant. <S> One of the most common answers given by good players to the question "Wasn't I right to bid the game/slam?" is "Did you need to force a top-bottom swing? <S> " Part of improving one's play is better reading of when to force a swing, and when to play for an average-plus, or even an average-minus. <S> Likewise in possible preemptive or psyche situations, one should not be too predictable <S> - the optional game-theoretic strategy is to make the action part of the time . <S> There is a further fallacy in the assumption that a given bidding system prescribes a single action for all bidding situations. <S> Bidding systems are presented this way to novices and intermediates, to teach them the fundamentals. <S> In reality, complex auctions sometimes can be approached soundly in different ways by players sufficiently knowledgeable both of fundamentals and the intricacies of their system . <A> Of course there is still an element of luck in Bridge for the reasons laid out. <S> In pairs competitions there is the luck of the "field", i.e. what your opponents do against you when they arrive at your table. <S> If they do all the right things, your prospects are limited. <S> However they are still there. <S> The skill is in making the most of your own prospects on a hand. <S> There will always be some hands where the opponents do all the right things, and there you "range" of available scores maybe only between 0 and 25% (at MP). <S> Just ensure you get the 25% and don't end up with the total bottom under some illusion that "it's going to be a bad score anyway". <S> Those 25MP will add up in the whole total you get at the end of the tournament. <S> And here is where your own skill will come in over the course of a lot of tournaments. <S> Of course you'll also throw some points away but assuming you throw away fewer than anyone else, you won't always win but you will sometimes and when you don't you'll probably not finish last very often. <S> The other factors that have been mentioned, of course, is that the percentage play or bid is not always the winning one. <S> Most games, even ones that are pure skill, have an element of luck. <S> For example tennis is pure skill <S> but you can get a lucky net-cord shot. <S> Similarly you can get flukes at snooker and even at chess, <S> your not-properly-thought-out move could happen to be the right one. <S> Not that you had worked it out, but it just so happens it was. <S> And in a round-robin chess tournament of course with grandmasters, you may play very well in most of your games and still only come away with draws.
|
Of course, most of the time it is your skill that matters, but luck does factor in, especially against equally matched opponents.
|
Should I prefer Farmers or other followers? My friends and I have played three or four games of Carcassonne with varying winners, and fortunately we're all about the same experience with board games in general. I'm beginning to find, however, that our games are being decided by the farm at the end. It is common for thirty or forty points to be decided at the very end. With this in mind, should I start shifting my strategy toward keeping only one or two followers open for quick road/city/abbey completions and lay down more farmers? <Q> It sounds like you are pretty new to Carcassonne. <S> It's pretty easy to start playing and have your group think that nearly everything should be finished and the board should look nearly square at the end without many blank holes in the grid. <S> If this sounds familiar, then yes, there are likely to be big farms and its a good idea to get in early on the farm. <S> You could change your style though. <S> I view every meeple played by my opponents as something to be attacked and stranded ! <S> When an opponent plays a farmer, that meeple isn't moving ever again. <S> You need a good reason to extend that farm in any way. <S> Play around it. <S> The next road juncture you play should be positioned to cut off the farm. <S> Do not play city tiles on the farm. <S> Just leave it alone! <A> I think the answer to this question really depends on the state of the board. <S> Generally, if there are large farms with lots of smaller cities, then of course you should shift towards laying down farmers early and claim farming territory. <S> But if there are a few large, unfinished cities which look hopeless, or lots of little farms broken by many roads, then it doesn't make sense to lay down the farmers early. <S> If a farm is going to score 9+ points easily, then "quick" cloister/road/city completions are not going going to make up the difference. <S> On the other hand, meeple management is important — if you tie up all your meeples too early, then you could put yourself at a disadvantage. <A> Beware of laying too many farmers too early on farms that are quite close to each other, lest cunning opponents join up all your farms so you end up with one farm, which may be quite large, but only scores you the points for the cities once, not for the multiple farmers. <S> AND beware of farm 'thieves' <S> - my friend is a master of this - he'll wait until the last 20 or so tiles, then start adding farmers on tiny bits of what look like non-point-worthy sections of field, and then on subsequent moves join them up to MY farms - usually with a 2-point meeple (from Inns & Cathedrals expansion) or actually two or more meeple, thus depriving me of my huge farm score <S> I'd been building up the whole game. <S> The swine! :) <S> EDIT: <S> I released <S> I didn't actually answer the question posed. <S> I usually use around 3 meeple for farmers during a game, then try deploying any and all remaining meeple as farmers near game end to grab last minute points from any remaining un-farmed fields. <S> Deploying too many farmers too early on can lead to the above noted things happening, by which time you have little way of gaining any foothold back! <A> But there are certain things you should avoid: Do not overcommit meeples to farming. <S> They become trapped and you'll become frozen from scoring. <S> This is especially important later in the game. <S> Ask yourself if committing a farmer is worth it. <S> It's easy to see if the board board will turn into a cluster of small cities, or some giant disjointed cities. <S> I prefer to observe this pattern before I commit. <S> Three or six points early in the game are not worth losing my meeple. <S> I can use them to score similar amounts while retaining their use. <S> Don't rush. <S> Joining farms belonging to opponents is easy with careful planning. <S> Keep an eye out for curved road tiles and green patches on city tiles. <S> I've seen games won and lost with the last tile on too many occasions. <S> There's no such thing as a useless tile. <S> Tiles that seem useless can be used defensively to prevent people from taking over or infiltrating your farms (or other features). <S> Advanced players prefer to score small quick gains while holding on to their meeples. <S> At the end of the game you'll usually see a blitz for small farms and other features as scoring opportunities diminish. <S> I play regularly against players with circa 1800 ELO, and I've observed this pattern. <S> In the end, the biggest mistake newbies make is they over commit meeples to farming, or completely overlook it. <S> The trick is finding the right balance and reading the board well. <S> It's about using your meeples efficiently, and this is very situational, but the above guidelines should stand.
|
The answer, as ever, is it depends. Farmers are a great way to swing the board and win a game, but you have to be really careful because your meeples are essentially trapped.
|
MTG: Enchantments that require opponent to pay mana to attack I had a deck many years ago that was blue/white and used a blue enchantment that made players pay 2 colorless to attack. I can't remember the name of the card, but it was around Mirage, no later than Urza block. I also had Kjeldoran Outpost and Thawing Glaciers . The main concept of the deck was to get out the mana generating diamonds from mirage, then blow away the lands with Armageddon and keep the opponent locked out of attacking for a while. This card is stuck in my head and I can't seem to find the name of it anywhere. I remember seeing it reprinted as a white enchantment sometime ago as well. If anyone knows what this card might be, please let me know the name. I have not found anything via searching so far. <Q> You're thinking of Propaganda from Tempest, which came out right after Mirage. <S> Ghostly Prison is the white version and Collective Restraint <S> is a close cousin designed for multicolor-happy decks. <S> (There's also the rather terrible Koskun Falls .) <A> You're right, a version was printed in white. <S> More options: Windborn Muse <S> - If you want a body not an enchantment. <S> Norn's Annex - Could be a weaker or stronger version, depending on your opponent. <S> Collective Restraint - Domain Version. <S> If you play 3+ basic land types, even better. <S> War Tax - <S> In late game if you have lots of mana, can really lock your opponents down. <S> Peacekeeper - Drawback: Also locks down your creatures, has upkeep cost. <S> Upside: Hard lockdown. <A> More recently, there is the enchantment Sphere of Safety from Return to Ravnica . <A> In addition to the ones mentioned above, there's also Elephant Grass , which unlike the others has a cumulative upkeep (making it harder to keep around), but which trades that for costing just G, making it a perfect card for the Enchantress decks in Legacy. <A> Most of these pillow fort effects have similar wording, which includes the phrase "can't attack you". <S> Here's a Scryfall search for cards printed in a core/expansion set (no Commander or promo sets) <S> which returns 19 results as of this answer's posting. <S> Results seem to be divides into a few categories: <S> Permanents that tax or otherwise prevent opponents from attacking you. <S> Examples include Blazing Archon , Baird, Steward of Argive , <S> Propaganda , Koskun Falls Permanents that prevent some creatures from attacking you. <S> Examples include Sandwurm Convergence , Reverence Single-turn effects such as Chronomatic Escape or Forbidding Spirit
|
Here's the cards you were thinking of: Ghostly Prison Propaganda
|
What interesting 3-player strategy games are available? In my apartment there tend to be 3 of us wanting to play board games regularly, and we're fond of strategy games. Unfortunately, 3 is not the optimal number for most of the more interesting ones that we've come across. We're familiar with Carcassone, Cataan, and Forbidden Island, but we've been wondering if there are games that are more towards the Quorridor, Blokkus, etc style of game that are somewhat quicker to play and where moving and/or placing pieces is the main part of the game. And, for that matter, if there are games like this that explicitly work optimally with 3 people (We've tried 3 person Blokkus and it's messy). <Q> I really, really recommend Ticket to Ride: <S> Nordic Countries as an interesting and balanced three player game. <S> Its unique selling point, over the other Ticket to Ride games, is that it is specifically designed for three! <S> You can play a two-player variant, but you can't for four or more. <S> So you're genuinely getting a game that works best for three. <S> Agricola gives you a different initial board layout for three players, and has many Occupation cards that are specially designed for 3+ players (in addition to the standard ones for 1+ players, and some for 4+ players). <S> You really feel like the designer paid lots of care and attention to making sure the game would work amazingly for 2 and 3 player games, as well as for larger groups. <S> (And indeed there's even a serviceable solitaire option!) <A> Check out Samurai . <S> To be honest I haven't played it all that much yet (~10 games) but it feels like a game that's easy to learn but has depth in it. <S> It plays best with 3 or 4 players. <S> You can play it in a few different ways: with random placement, random tiles or chosen by players. <A> If by 'like Blokkus' you mean an abstract, then I recommend Talat . <S> A game of balancing focus between two opponents. <S> I've only been able to play it a handful of times, but have enjoyed it more every time. <S> I love playing this game. <S> One thing that I continually enjoy about it is how differently it plays with different numbers of players. <S> The 2 player variant creates the most strategic game, while 3 players uses the normal game rules, but creates a big game of risk when deciding which cards to pass (since you will see each hand more than once). <S> Always ready to recommend 7 Wonders. <A> Have a look at San Marco - it's an older title <S> but it is one of the best puzzle-ish "euro-style" games with three players (not as good with four).
|
The other game that is universally acclaimed to be amazing, and is very good for different number of players, is Agricola . Another quick recommendation if you want to play something with a variety of player (3 player included) would be 7 Wonders .
|
What is optimal end play in Settlers? Part of what makes Settlers of Catan both balanced and exciting are two sets of slow-the-leader rules: The robber and trade embargoes. While this means you have a chance to win even after a slow start or a seemingly poor starting position, it conversely means it can be difficult to close out the game for victory after having a great starting position, making many great tactical decisions, and having the lead for most of the game. The most extreme example I've seen is the leading player with 8 victory points lose to a player who had 4 victory points, 10 to 9, as everyone successfully and almost completely stalled out the leader for many turns. Much more common are games where someone reaches 8 or 9 points first goes on to lose to someone with 2 fewer victory points. Is there one (or a small set of) end play technique(s) that significantly increase(s) one's chances of winning when faced with opponents who competently employ slow-the-leader techniques? <Q> Plan your last few VPs with resources you can gather yourself. <S> For example, if you have decent wheat and ore resources, build your extra villages before your towns. <S> That way when you have only the cities left to build and are a VP or two away, you can finish off on your own power without trading. <S> Obviously ports can increase your versatility in this manner. <A> In my (amateur, non-tournament) experience, hoarding a couple of dev cards is the strongest protection against disruption by other players in the late game. <S> Good players, of course, won't just ignore your dev cards, but they still don't know exactly what you're going to do to win (e.g. build up, build out, claim Longest Road, build a single extra settlement and then plop down two VPs in cards). <S> Also, unlike resource cards, dev cards are safe in hand. <S> The only game mechanic that discourages stockpiling development cards is the one-card-per-turn limit. <S> One downside of this late-game plan is that some opponents may overvalue your dev cards, leading them to punish you with "slow-the-leader" tactics even when you're already rather behind. <S> Another is that the cards you draw are random, so it's quite possible you'll "whiff" and get something you can't use. <A> They do work, but a highly cooperative defense can stop even a fairly self-sufficient leader with 1-2 random development cards. <S> Sometimes these will be the only options available to the leader. <S> However, I've found that "sneak attacks" work even better, when they are available as an option. <S> What all sneak attacks have in common is that you purposely do NOT take the lead, but rather stay just a point or two behind the leader or perhaps convince other people that even though you're tied for the lead that the other person is more likely to win. <S> Then, when the right circumstances hit, you leap to victory on a turn where you start with only 6 or 7 victory points. <S> There are a number of ways to do this. <S> Here are some more common ones: <S> Hold off using a Monopoly card even if you get it very early in thegame. <S> Wait for exactly that right moment when there are many of oneresource that you can monopolize and efficiently convert into severalsettlements/cities/dev cards. <S> Hold off using a Year of Plenty card until you happen to have a card combo in your hand where employing it results in a 3 victory point turn. <S> Have a couple roads that go off to horribly unproductive locations - but are nonetheless potential settlement sites. <S> Many people automatically assume you'll never build there - but you will on the turn it vaults you to victory. <S> Sometimes people have a hard time seeing how your disjoint road network can turn into a longest road by closing certain loops. <S> This one is actually the most common type of successful sneak attack for me - people often have no clue that I can take the longest road with just 2-3 more road links closing 1 or 2 loops. <S> If you have to spend many turns defending against endless robber attacks and overly cooperative trading, you may or may not win no matter how good you are. <S> On the other hand, if you time a sneak attack right, you just win. <A> Yes, an optimal strategy does exist. <S> What that optimal strategy would be though, would depend upon when your opponents start to slow the leader. <S> Let's assume that in your group that your opponents begin attempting to slow the leader at 8 VP. <S> Your best approach then would to make sure that you are self sufficient by 7 VP, and have some defense against the robber. <S> Self sufficiency can be obtained by controlling a 3:1 port, or by controlling a 2:1 specific resource port, although the latter is more susceptible to Robber disruption. <S> Robber defense is best accomplished by trading Ore, Grain, and Sheep for development cards. <S> The rules, if I remember them correctly allow you to use a development card before you roll, so you should have at least one uninterrupted resource roll. <S> If all your opponents are always moving the robber over your developments, make sure to block their Ore, Grain, and Sheep production to reduce the number of Knight development cards moving the robber. <S> The nice thing about all your opponents buying Development cards, is that it makes it easier to ensure the 7- cards necessary for the Knight 2VP bonus.
|
In addition to the hidden Victory Point cards, you can use Monopoly, Year of Plenty, Road Building, and sometimes even Soldier cards to unexpectedly snatch up the final point or two that you need to seal up the game. Hoarding development cards and developing self-sufficiency, as mentioned by other answers, are two good common strategies I've seen employed often in Settlers. Hold off using a Road Building card until it results in you getting longest road and a new settlement all on the same turn.
|
Does the flanking provided by Slivers stack? If I was to play 2 Sidewinder Slivers would the 'All Slivers have flanking' ability stack causing creatures blocking my Slivers to get -2/-2 until the end of the turn or would it gain flanking twice but the second instance has no effect so creatures blocking my Slivers only get -1/-1 until the end of the turn? <Q> Each instance of Flanking triggers separately. <S> After the stack resolves, creatures blocking will have -2/-2 until end of turn. <S> The Rules : 702.24. <S> Flanking 702.24a Flanking is a triggered ability that triggers during the declare blockers step. <S> (See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step.") "Flanking" means "Whenever this creature becomes blocked by a creature without flanking, the blocking creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn." <S> 702.24b <S> If a creature has multiple instances of flanking, each triggers separately. <A> This is ever so slightly different than just giving -2/-2. <S> When your creature is blocked two abilities go on the stack, each one to give the blocker -1/-1. <S> The end result is indeed that the blocker ends up with -2/-2, but there are some various corner cases you could create with certain cards where it matters! <S> NB: You can tell it's a triggered ability because it starts with the magic words "When, Whenever, or At." <A> Yes. <S> Each sliver will have 2 instances of Flanking. <S> Since those are triggered abilities, each instance will trigger, go to the stack, and resolve separately.
|
Flanking is a triggered ability, so it can trigger separately for every instance of the ability that the creature has.
|
Is Saboteur biased towards the miners? I recently played a couple of games (i.e. six rounds) of Saboteur with ten and then nine players. The miners found the gold every round, and it was only a close thing once. The saboteurs win a bit more gold than the miners if they're successful, but I'd be surprised if this was enough to balance the game. There's a similar question about ways to balance the win ratios, but I'm interested in whether the game as it stands has a balanced expected return for both sides. Edited to add game information: Rules The rules for Saboteur are available from the ZMan games site. Role Cards The role deck contains 11 cards: 7 gold miner cards (whose aim is to find the gold) 4 saboteur cards (whose aim is to prevent the miners from finding the gold). Gold distribution The gold deck contains 28 cards in the following denominations: 16 cards with 1 nugget 8 cards with 2 nuggets 4 cards with 3 nuggets If the miners win a round in an n player game, then n randomly select gold cards are distributed amongst the miners (for a 10 player game only 9 cards are distributed). If the (1/2/3/4) saboteurs win a round then they are awarded (4/3/3/2) gold each (respectively). Question clarification: I am interested in the expected amount of gold for those playing as miners, and for those playing as saboteurs. This is almost certainly different for different numbers of players, but I am interested to know whether the expected winnings is anywhere near the same for both sides. <Q> If the good dwarves just cooperate and go for the gold, they will win most of the time. <S> However, if the good dwarves break each OTHER in order to keep competitors from getting gold, it gives the Saboteurs a much better chance, obviously. <S> I think Saboteur was designed with an expectation that good dwarves would be more cutthroat and selfish than a lot of groups play them instinctually. <S> That said, I recommend you pick up Saboteur 2, which adds (and replaces) some cards and roles. <S> It's much more well-balanced and more consistently fun. <A> In my experience, if you're playing the Saboteur base game with a group of experienced players, the saboteurs have a better chance of winning than the gold diggers. <S> During the first few (5-10 maybe) games, most gold diggers will get plenty of satisfaction from a 'team win'. <S> If there are 5 diggers and 2 saboteurs, and this results in a 5 vs 2 play stile, the digger 'team' will win every time. <S> However, in Saboteur, there is an 'I' in team. <S> After a few team wins, some diggers will want to be the #1 digger, getting the first pick. <S> When this starts to happen, suddenly it's not 5 vs 2, but 1 vs 1 <S> vs 1 <S> vs 1 vs 1 vs 2 , and <S> even worse it will be more difficult to tell saboteurs from diggers. <S> Diggers will create detours, cut off personally infavorable routes, and break tools of players (even known diggers) on their right hand side. <S> That's when the saboteurs start to win. <S> If you go one step further, you'll start keeping track of the amount of gold people collected in previous games (at least for as far as you can tell). <S> If you're ahead as a digger, it can be worth getting second or third pick. <S> If someone else is ahead, you can sabotage them regardless of their role. <S> That's about when the playing field evens out between diggers and saboteurs. <A> EndersGame has a post on BGG talking about a teams chances of winning a particular round. <S> It doesn't take into account the fact that the game is played over multiple rounds for points, so you would have to take into account ACT points for each player when they win, and self sabaotague from teammates trying to get the most points by finding the gold. <S> There is at least one large game database of results you could consult to draw some conclusions. <S> Board Game Arena has 1500+ online games recorded for Saboteur <S> (bottom left of page). <S> On the Saboteur page itself, you can review the results of previous games, and some interesting statistics about that particular game. <S> You would be interested in Number of gold nuggets earned by saboteurs/miners , but some of the other statistics might be useful. <S> Unfortunately, you must either donate money to BGA to become a member, or get other players to join BGA through referrals to examine the statistics. <S> It also appears to me while looking over a handful of 100 or so games, that few if any games are played with 9+ players. <S> Most of the large games are 7 player. <S> If you have too small of a sample size, you can't draw any accurate conclusions. <S> The interface for displaying the old game results isn't very well designed for gathering data across a large number of games. <S> I haven't dug too deeply into the GET/POST messages that my browser sends to their server to see if it is possible to extract only the information that you are interested it, but I mention it here in case any other code monkey wants to dig into the problem themselves. <A> I think it sort of boils down to a basic Nash Equilibrium for the miners. <S> If you're playing for teams (i.e. cooperating), Miners have the upper hand. <S> Tactics vs Strategy, Aggressive vs Cooperative. <S> Saboteur is meant to be played one against one, with the chance of the bad guy sneaking in there. <S> It can be a big help to introduce new people to game emphasizing that while there are "teams" it's still one person winning ; it's still every man for himself. <S> How new players approach the game will dictate whether they're tilting to cooperation or to simply winning on their own merit. <S> It also hinges a bit on the type of gamers you have. <S> Casual players don't seem to care as much about team winning because it can be too analytical, whereas the folks who are really into gaming tend to overthink. <S> For example, if you have one guy who is not a Saboteur, he will invariably analyze the play and realize his chances depend heavily on the miners as a team winning, and tend to rely on increasing the odds in his favor, through tactics, to win the extra gold or two he needs to be the single winner.
|
Saboteur 1 does seem to be biased towards the "good dwarves" if you don't play it in really cutthroat fashion.
|
If you disturb a Jenga block, can you push it back into place? In Jenga, when you are moving your block out and another block next to it moves, are you allowed to push the other block(s) back? <Q> According to the official 2000 version of the rules: <S> As play proceeds and the weight of the tower shifts, some blocks become looser than others and are easier to remove. <S> Since this rule includes the proviso before touching another block I take this to mean that you can't touch blocks after you have started to remove your block. <S> I believe it would be within the spirit of the rules that you could try and replace the block you started to remove, then try and remove the block you disturbed. <S> The key is that you can only touch one block at a time with only one hand. <A> You can only use one hand. <S> you can touch multiple blocks at a time to support the tower to get a block out as long as it's only one hand as well. <S> If you disturb a block while trying to get your block out, you may leave it there but it is recommended to fix it so the tower doesn't fall or leave the next player with a move. <A> In the situation where a block touching the block you are removing is so loose that it gets significantly moved while you remove your piece <S> there isn't much point in caring about the second piece. <S> All that really happens is you give the next player a very easy turn because they know a piece that will come out easily. <S> From a game play point of view there really isn't any difference in all the possible rules: <S> Use the removed piece to tap back into place any dislodged pieces. <S> Use other parts of the same hand to hold the loose piece in place. <S> If a second block is disturbed you must replace the piece you are attempting to take and take a different piece (probably one you found to be moving during the other attempt). <S> Remove the piece in the other direction <S> so it doesn't disturb a second piece (wont always work, sometimes a piece will be disturbed which ever way you attempt to take out the piece). <S> Just leave the other pieces where they lie. <S> While it might be important to pick a rule, I can't see a huge strategic difference between them.
|
You can touch other blocks to find a loose one — but if you move a block out of place, you must fix it (using one hand only) before touching another block.
|
What is optimal robber placement in Settlers? Every time I think I've mastered Settlers, I discover yet another novel tactic or strategy. This time it's Robber placement. I've usually selected robber placement based on a combination of factors, including who is winning, which hex reduces the most dots worth of production (x2 for cities) that isn't mine, several variations on which resources are scarce, whether a 2:1 port for an abundant resource is occupied, and trying to take a card I need from a player I think likely to have it. Which of these factors to emphasize for any given robber placement is a fairly complicated decision that depends on what stage of the game you're in, how much the leader is winning by, and what you're needing next. All this is standard stuff for those who have played more than a few games. But I just ran across an idea I hadn't heard before: When not trying to stop someone close to winning, nearly always place the robber on the most valuable hex of the person on your right only. The reason for this is that this person won't be able to retaliate for at least 3 rolls of the dice (in a 4 player game), while the other players may be more favorably disposed to you for not getting them. And if this player (to your right) retaliates, it is immediately your turn next giving you a chance to possibly roll a 7 or play the robber (if you have it). So assuming robber retaliation is somewhat predictable, this seems to be a sound strategy. I don't have a strong opinion yet on how well the person-to-the-right robber placement strategy works - as I don't know how predictable retaliation is in general or with the specific groups I play with. But I do now wonder: For advanced Settlers players, what is optimal robber placement? Is it this player-to-the-right placement method (because retaliation is mostly predictable)? Is it the standard tactics I listed above? Or are there different and perhaps more subtle tactics for Robber placement I haven't even thought of? <Q> I can't figure out if you are asking one overly broad question, or many smaller-scoped questions... in any case: The "player to the right" strategy ignores a few possibilities, including: - one or both of the two players after you roll a seven, - one or both of the two players after you play a soldier, - your victim is known to (not) have in a particular resource in hand. <S> Retaliation is predictable in the sense that good players will make decisions based on cost/benefit/probability analysis (including "dots" on the chits, scarcity of resources, etc.), while poor players will be swayed by subjective reasoning (retaliation, etc.). <S> We play with promises of immunity, bribes - you name it. <S> This makes it harder to pin-down a specific strategy, but I will say that it's mostly the analytical approach that you mention. <A> My answer is very subjective: <S> I play for fun and not very competitively so when placing the robber, I take into account the "human factor". <S> This is my thinking, "where you place the robber isn't as important as who you hurt by placing the robber". <S> Maybe I just play with really vindictive players, but I find the robber really pees some people off. <S> They stop trading with you and the talk trash about you, turning other players against you and now you have no chance of non-bank trading. <S> (Also in the Cities and Knights expansion, people can really hurt you if they want to.) <S> The best Catan player <S> I know places the robber on a 2 then 3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 <S> just so people know he's not trying to hurt anyone. <S> It seemed to work for him. <S> I try to play on the 6 or 8 that two other players have built around. <S> That way at least your spreading the pain around rather than targeting an individual. <A> As you say, the decision of where to place the robber depends on a lot of factors, and their weight depends on the particular situation. <S> I think it is worth considering turn order and likely robber residence-times, but these are just additional factors to consider. <S> And whether each player has unplayed development cards that could be soldiers should be considered along with seat placement. <S> If everyone has (potential) soldiers, then, all else being equal, I think the player-to-the-right would be the optimal choice. <A> Usually they aren't. <S> But your "rule" is a good "tiebreaker. <S> " <S> Meanaing that it is one of SEVERAL considerations (you've named most of the others). <A> For advanced Catan players this is a non-topic as retaliation itself is a non-topic. <S> Why should I block you with the robber if it doesn't benefit me the most or why should I not block you if it benefits me the most? <S> What you should weigh againt each other are things like "what do I get" vs. "what does the person blocked lose" as it might be more beneficial to get a much needed resource than having someone else not get something or the other way around. <S> Blocking a resource <S> so others don't get it while you still get a bunch <S> WOULD give you a monopoly on it and a favorable trade position, BUT it would only really be worth it in the long run and a 7 is statistically speaking coming up every 6 rolls, which is hardly enough time to get the others into a tight spot and force them to trade with you in expensive trades. <S> Both things I mentioned might be tie breakers if everything else is the same... <S> but that's very very rarely the case to begin with.
|
For the reasons you mentioned, you should place the robber on the player to your right, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.
|
Erasable yet bold crayon for Empire Builder Games (e.g. Eurorails)? We have kids, so we have lots of types of crayons in the house. Everything from airline freebie to crayola. None of them are very satisfactory for Eurorails (and related games). Either they are too light to see or they won't erase easily. The original factory crayons are long since gone/lost. What crayon do people recommend for Eurorails? <Q> I don't think you will get a definitive answer, but probably just lots of suggestions. <S> There has been.discussion about this question before on BGG . <S> You are going to get a range of answers: Crayola Washable Crayons. <S> China Markers. <S> Dry Erase Markers Wet Erase Markers. <S> Standard Crayola Crayons <A> Or to use clear laminate purchased in rolls at a home-decorating or home improvement shop. <S> Now, I used china markers on a couple crayon maps in the past, and even they don't erase completely cleanly from all "factory laminated" boards. <S> Another good option is a sheet of plexiglass or sheet vinyl and overhead pens over the map. <S> Plexiglass sheets are available in many home repair shops. <S> These have the advantage of being able to be washed in the sink. <A> For the lack of boldness I subbed brown for yellow, purple for orange. <S> I bought both Empire Builder and Empire Express straight from Mayfair but got different crayons with each. <S> Express came with no-name crayons that leave a slight stain on the board. <A> Highly recommend China markers ( Like these) . <S> Just be sure to test them first. <S> I had a yellow one once that wouldn't entirely erase.
|
I found Crayola brand washable crayons to work the best. Your best bet is to take the map to a map or printing shop, laminate it properly, and use overhead pens. Rolled clear vinyl is available in many fabric stores (for making covers for furniture and for covering lace tablecloths).
|
Programme to help with face to face diplomacy Can anyone suggest a programme or website that will allow playing diplomacy with all players on one computer. Ideally this should not involve logging in and out, or having a window open per player. I would like to use it purely as a movement judge, so once all orders are submitted on paper, then they can be copied onto the screen, and the "Go" button clicked to show the results (ideally with nice arrows showing where units bounced, convoyed etc.). I have found many programmes and websites that provide great interfaces for play-by-email or play-by-web for a single player, but nothing for helping with face-to-face games. <Q> jDip is an exact fit for that. <S> It is a free java program so can run on any platform. <A> Diplomacy Games Manager - Stewart Cross. <S> Diplomacy for Windows XP - With Local Area Network support, internet, e-mail. <S> Stewart Cross has an interesting article on the difficulty in creating the Diplomacy GM . <S> If you are looking for reviews of the PC game, you might check GameSpot , or AllGame (although it looks like this site is a data farming site like Answers.com). <S> I would normally use GameFAQs.com, or MobyGames.com, but both don't seem to have much useful information on them. <A> The software I know of is Realpolitik . <S> I know that at games Dan Burgess has hosted in Chicago, they've used this program (eg see his comment here ), but I believe not in lieu of ordinary analogue adjudication over a board. <S> The general setup as I understand it is that a non-playing host loads the moves into Realpolitik and adjudicates, which is synced up to a computer screen in a different negotiation room(s), so that players in that room can see the current position of the board while negotiating. <S> I've never actually see this in progress, if you want more information, I'd contact one of the Windy City Weasels . <S> Call me skeptical, but I'm not convinced of the advantage of using automatic adjudication (perhaps if I see it in action I'll become convinced, <S> maybe cutting down on errors is one possibility, but not the one mentioned in comments). <S> The orders still needed to be read, and the results assimilated by the players, so I don't see a major time saving (since assimilation usually occurs simultaneously with hand-held adjudication).
|
The kind of software you are looking for exists. MSN - Gaming Zone used to support Diplomacy, but something must have happened between Hasbro and Microsoft to change this.
|
Why does an open pinfu get 2 extra fu added to the score? In riichi mahjong, a concealed pinfu hand is worth 20-fu if it goes out on a tsumo. However, a hand with no points that has been opened gets a 2-fu bonus for no reason other than being an open pinfu. Even if the hand has another yaku to go out on (since yaku is only given for pinfu if it remains concealed), the final score is calculated with a minimum of 30-fu (due to rounding) when going out on a tsumo. One effect of this is that it is impossible to make a 20-fu 1-han hand, since any hand that goes out with 20-fu would be guaranteed two yaku: one from menzen tsumo (1-han) and one from pinfu (1-han). Other than that, I can't see any reason why open pinfu should be getting those two extra fu. Is there any actual reason for it, or is it "just one of those things" that's lost to the history of this game? <Q> I wonder is it related in any way by the fact that it is the lowest possible score? <S> THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE SCORE <S> Many charts won’t have a value for 20 Fu, 1 Han. <S> That’s because you just can’t make a hand that cheap. <S> What happens if you make an open Tanyao using Shuntsu only, a Ryanmen wait, and win by Ron? <S> Should be worth 20 Fu, 1 Han right? <S> Actually, such a hand is called “kui-pinfu” or open pinfu, and will be scored as 30 Fu, 1 Han. <S> Since a kui-pinfu is the only way to get 20 Fu, 1 Han, we can thus say the lowest possible score for a hand is 1000 points. <S> Unrelated to kui-pinfu is the 30 Fu, 1 Han hand won by Tsumo. <S> Such a hand is called “gomi”, because of the payments (500, 300 = 5, <S> 3 = go, mi), and because “gomi” means “trash”. <S> Wikipedia has this to say, since a no-points hand must be self drawn, add 1-han yaku of self pick to the hand. <S> The reason why there are no scores in the 1 han/20 fu cell is that such a hand is impossible. <S> The only 20-fu hands are the no-points hand (pinfu, 平和) where the winning tile is self-drawn. <S> However, since a no-points hand must be closed, making the win via a self-drawn tile automatically adds 1-han yaku of self pick to the hand. <S> Therefore, a 20-fu, 1-han hand cannot possibly exist. <A> There is no very good answer to this question. <S> To directly answer your question: it's just one of those things that's lost in the history of Mahjong. <S> A similar question would be, why is a tsumo-pinfu hand only worth 20 fu? <S> Tsumo is worth 2fu by itself, but for whatever reason, Mahjong evolved so that tsumo-pinfu is only worth 20 (in fact, this combination is the ONLY way to get a 20 fu hand). <S> One possible reason could be that as Mahjong developed, people liked the idea that the smallest possible hand is worth 1,000 points (30fu, 1han). <S> One can also speculate that it is similar to tsumo, in that open tsumo is worth 2 fu as sort of a consolation for not getting a yaku (though, menzen-tsumo gives both the yaku and the fu, except in the case of tsumo-pinfu). <S> But other than speculation, there is no given reason for why tsumo-pinfu should be worth 20, but pinfu with some other yaku by ron is worth 30. <A> To clarify this matter, we first have to understand kui-pinfu. <S> Kui-pinfu happens if one wins by claiming a discard with an open hand with melds and waits to which no fu is awarded, the hand is not 20 fu but counted as a total of 30 fu. <S> Hence, it is similar to the rule that chitoitsu is 25 fu and not rounded up. <S> In conclusion, a pinfu is worth 1 han 20 fu + 10 fu (menzen-kafu) if ron and 2 han 20 fu if self drawn(with menzen-tsumo) while a kui-pinfu is always 30 fu. <A> The base exponent (bazoro) was not included, and points were rounded to tens, not hundreds. <S> There's a style of play that can be called "22-style <S> " (aru-shii-aru) in which the minimum value of a winning hand was 22 points. <S> However, as we know, if a hand has at least one run exposed, a valueless pair, no sets and finishes the last run with an open-ended wait, the hand would score no points aside from the base score (fuutei). <S> So it was decided that an "open pinfu" hand would score 2 points in order to not have valueless hands. <S> There was some doubling, but I am not an authority on what they were, and how different they were from modern yaku, both in scoring and in presence/absence. <S> Scott Miller did do some research down this field and most likely contacted people from the 101 Competitive League ( http://www.101fed.com/ ). <S> They still play with rules faithfully matching <S> how mahjong was most likely played in Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. <S> However, during and following WW2, the game evolved considerably. <S> As modern riichi mahjong became what it was, the old style got left behind. <S> The 101CL now has a grand total of 18 regular members in 2016 (from a peak of 45 or so in the 1990s), showcasing exactly how unpopular the old rules were to become over time (for fair comparison: JPML has around 650 and Saikouisen NPM has about 400, and there are other pro organizations). <S> Because of this transition, attempting to catalogue what japanese mahjong was in the sixties was done extremely poorly in a 1964 book whose author I do not care for (E.N. Whitney?), because of the overlapping explanation of old style, modern style, as well as some rules that were still in flux somewhere between. <S> Her paragraphs on furiten are comically imprecise precisely due to this transition. <S> My recommendation to NJ players is to ignore any written reference prior to 1980, as it does no one any good to dwell on the specifics of ancient practices, and not to revive apocryphal yaku from that era.
|
The apocryphal historic reason was that before modern riichi mahjong, there were many things that were not part of the game.
|
What is the best way to learn chess strategy and tactics? I am interested in learning chess. I am already familiar with the rules of the game, but I am very weak when it comes to tactics and strategy. I am afraid that if I just register at chess.com and start playing games, my ability to improve to my chess score will be limited by the fact that I won't understand the reasons for my losses. On the other hand, I don't feel like there is anything worth doing well that you can completely learn from reading a book. I'm also just not sure how to find the book that is right for me. Most books seem to either be for beginners that don't know what the pieces do, or for rather advanced players whose techniques just don't apply to me yet. Also, I don't own a Windows machine, so running Chessmaster or Fritz would be difficult, though not out of the question. <Q> It was definitely more efficient than just reading chess books, which I did on the side. <S> If there is a chess club nearby, you should definitely check it out. <S> I am guessing from your focus on online chess sites, books, and chess softwares that playing over the board with a human opponent is not an option. <S> On chess.com, you can ask if your opponent would want to discuss the game afterwards. <S> Even if that does not work out, just by playing alone you are already building up your collection of chess patterns. <S> In my case, I learned the dangers of the Nc7 fork, vulnerability of the f7-pawn, the Q+N smothered mate combination, among others just by having them inflicted on me. <S> After you have fallen victim, say, of the Nc7 fork several times, it will be so much harder for your next opponent to pull the same tactical trick on you. <S> You may even be the one to inflict the Nc7 fork in your next game. <S> There is no substitute for practice. <S> As for books, you may want to try books with lots of tactical puzzles. <S> For one thing, you will be actively solving problems rather than passively absorbing information. <S> And for another, the time you spent working on tactics will pay immediate dividends at the board. <S> To get started, you may want to look at Heisman's annotated list of chess books. <S> The link jumps straight to the section on tactics, but you should definitely check out the rest of the page as well. <S> I hope that helps. <A> I also am very bad at chess, but one thing that has helped me improve somewhat in both chess and Go is reviewing my own games. <S> After I finish, I go back over it and see, with the benefit of hindsight, what I could have done better. <S> This works even better if you have someone more experienced (perhaps the opponent from that game) to reveiw it with you. <S> Also, I agree that books are of limited help. <S> But readin and then playing a game and actively trying to apply what you read about does seem to help me. <S> With that said, I am very much a beginner myself, so take everything with a grain of salt. <A> At my low level I would say that in game of chess strategy is secondary one should concentrate on tactics a good site to do it is http://www.chesstempo.com/ <A> One really cool way to learn chess solo <S> is <S> "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess". <S> It's and older book, but if you can find it <S> I believe you'll find the effort worthwhile. <S> It starts with mate in one problems and progresses to mate in 3, using a <A> To learn a game like chess, the very best is to have a teacher, friends to play, and maybe a chess club to play at. <S> a very good chess teacher can be $75/hour however, registering for USCF membership is $50/year to play rated chess games at a chess club. <S> I'll stick more to books, software, and websites, since that is what I have more experience with. <S> Currently, I'm trying to study chess myself and these articles by Dan Heisman <S> are the best I've found on the subject. <S> Dan Heisman's General Book Guide , Chess Books and Prerequisites , An Improvement Plan <S> Currently my study plan would be (as an advanced beginner) <S> Puzzles <S> Chess: <S> 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games (book) Chess Tactics for Beginners (software) <S> ChessProblems.com <S> (website) <S> Theory <S> Teach Yourself <S> Chess (book) Chess Mentor (software) Chess Magnet School (website) <S> Play handheld chess computer ChessMaster (software) Internet Chess Club or Free Internet Chess Server (internet services) <A> I am going to have to agree with the comments above, go to a chess site and play a few games, try to find an opponent that will explain what they did after the game is over. <S> On sites like chessworld.net, your opponent can see your score, and if you ask honestly what you should have done, most will tell you. <S> In a lot of cases when I found those willing to help, I challenged them to another game, and it involved running dialog... Probably not fair games, but it did help to see what they were doing at the time they were doing it.
|
When I started working on my chess, I improved a lot just by playing at least one game a day with more experienced tournament players who would point out reasons why I lost afterwards.
|
Do copied spells use the original's casting location? Let's say I flashback an Increasing Vengeance in order to copy a Shock twice. Then, I cast Reverberate from my hand targeting the Increasing Vengeance which in turn will also copy the Shock. Will the new copy of Increasing Vengeance make one copy of the Shock I target or two? <Q> The new copy of Increasing Vengeance will only make one copy of the Shock - it was never cast, much less cast from your graveyard. <S> This isn't particularly simple - most of the time, when a spell or ability is copied, most of its characteristics are copied along with it (costs paid, choices made, etc.) <S> - however, in this instance, since the evaluation of whether or not an extra copy is provided on resolution of Increasing Vengeance, that information is not actually copied. <S> If it was phrased different it might actually work - something like "if the flashback cost was paid, copy twice." <S> But phrased the way it is, you get only a single copy. <S> Relevant rule: 706.10. <S> To copy a spell or activated ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn't cast and a copy of an activated ability isn't activated. <S> A copy of a spell or ability copies <S> both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. <S> (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.") Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. <S> If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability. <S> A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. <S> A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. <S> A copy of an ability is itself an ability. <A> You get one copy of the shark Shock <S> * from the Increasing Vengeance. <S> Reasoning, by Comprehensive Rules, emphasis mine: 706.10. <S> To copy a spell or activated ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn't cast and a copy of an activated ability isn't activated. <S> A copy of a spell or ability copies <S> both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. <S> (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.") Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. <S> If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability. <S> A copy of a spell is owned by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. <S> A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. <S> A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. <S> A copy of an ability is itself an ability. <S> Since the copy of the Increasing Vengeance wasn't cast, when the copy of Increasing Vengeance resolves, it will fail to see it was cast from the graveyard <S> since it wasn't actually cast , it's a copy. <S> * Oops. <S> Left original word struck out for entertainment value. <A> The answer can be divined from the second ruling on Gatherer for Reverberate: <S> When Reverberate resolves, it creates a copy of a spell. <S> You control the copy. <S> That copy is created on the stack, so it's not "cast." <S> Abilities that trigger when a player casts a spell won't trigger. <S> The copy will then resolve like a normal spell, after players get a chance to cast spells and activate abilities. <S> As the Reverberated Increasing Vengeance hasn't been "cast", it certainly hasn't been "cast from the graveyard"... and thus won't copy Shock twice!
|
A copy of a spell is owned by the player under whose control it was put on the stack.
|
What game mechanic can be used for evenly selecting other players but not yourself? I am looking for a game mechanic for a game I am designing, that would let players randomly select other players, but that by the end of the game all the players were selected equally. My first instinct was the destiny deck from Cosmic Encounters. In that game there is a deck with a few cards representing each player. On their turn the player draws a card, and interacts with the selected opponent.The limitation of this solution is that sometimes players select themselves. Cosmic encounters solves this by having rules for how to interact with yourself, but my game lacks this. Even if i was to simply put the card on the bottom of the deck and draw a new one, there is a chance with the last card being left of the last player who must take the last turn. At this point selecting another player randomly would unbalance the game, giving them an extra time they are selected.Is there any other mechanic that can be used to solve this?(I am in no way set on using cards. Any mechanic would be OK) <Q> Finally the last player uses the first one as target. <S> This way each player is the target exactly once in every round. <A> Use decks to indicate relative seating position instead of particular players. <S> So, for a four-player game, the deck would have cards saying: The player to your left. <S> The player two seats to your left. <S> The player three seats to your left. <S> Since you want each player to get drawn the same number of times, you'll need a copy of this deck for each player. <S> The advantages of this method over a deck of absolute positions are: <S> You don't need to assign each player a number or color identity. <S> For example, deep into a game of Puerto Rico , you don't want players to have to remember who was Player 3. <S> You don't need to make a custom deck for each player, which slightly simplifies manufacturing and setup. <A> Sounds like a good use for a bag of items - pawns colored per player, tokens, whatever you prefer. <S> When you need to randomly select an opponent, draw one. <S> If it's yourself, set it aside so you won't draw it again, then add it back in after you finish drawing. <S> ... <S> but of course, the situation you're trying to create isn't exactly ideal. <S> If you reach the last player, and the only option left is that player, you're stuck. <S> If you're okay with creating a little bit of inequality in player selection in this somewhat rare case, you could with it in an approximate way - if you do get stuck, just refill the bag and draw again. <S> Otherwise, if you can handle a tiny bit of extra information (which is theoretically public to players with good memories), you could just draw the last two on the second-to-last turn, and swap the order if necessary. <S> This isn't foolproof; the last two could both be for one of the last two players... <S> but it might be good enough - and you could fall back to refilling the bag. <S> Edit: <S> One other way to deal with potentially getting stuck: if you're okay with this kind of information, just leave the pieces out after being drawn in stacks/rows, so that you know how many are left of each in the bag. <S> This is again something that an observant player could already know. <S> You can then figure out if you need to do something besides draw randomly at the end. <S> If you don't like any of this, I'm afraid there's not much you can do besides carefully constructing a deck at the beginning of the game. <A> If you're happy with the way everything is working except for this edge case, you could just make it so the last 2 cards are drawn simultaneously. <S> The second to last player gets the first card drawn unless the last player would end up with him/herself, in which case they switch. <A> One possibility is a separate destiny deck for each player. <S> If you make the game for 6 players, then each player would have a "destiny deck" that includes the other 5 players. <S> In games with fewer than 6 players, then the player colors not used are removed from all the destiny decks (though even if they forget, they can be discarded when drawn during the game). <S> To facilitate faster game starts, it would be nice to color code each destiny deck. <S> So the red player would have a red on the back, color of another player on the front. <A> Have one deck, with X cards for each player. <S> When you need to select a random player draw a card from the deck. <S> If you draw yourself, draw again. <S> Shuffle any cards drawn for yourself back in and discard the card you drew for another player. <S> Since each player draws from the same deck, in general everyone will get picked the same amount. <S> The exception would be if one player is drawing from the deck more than other players the deck may eventually be JUST their cards. <S> So you'll need to make sure that X is large enough to avoid a reshuffle unless a) everyone chooses other players evenly, or a small amount of unevenness is acceptable.
|
If it is acceptable that the order of the players turns is different every round, you could have a deck with a card for each player, then draw the top card and let that player have the next card as target, and then the next player takes the third card as target.
|
Where can I practice MTG draft online and actually play against my opponents for free? I've been having fun practicing drafts on draft simulators like this one , but sometimes I'd like to actually be able to play with the deck I built. Since all of the other players on these simulators are Bots, I have to be content with always wondering if I actually drafted well or not. Are there any ways to do this on the computer? All I really want is the ability to be able to draft and then play against my opponents without having to pay every time; I don't really care if they are human or not, but I'd prefer it if they were actually decent at the game if they are bots. I also don't care about the creating a virtual collection as I have all the pictures of cards I could possibly want on this cool little website. I know there is Magic Online, but it's my understanding that it is far from free, so unless somebody knows of a way I can draft as many times as I want on MTGO without ever paying a dime, it does not meet my requirements. Am I doomed to never being able to get any experience similar to MTGO without shelling out a decent amount of money every time I want to play? Or is there some way to practice realistic drafts complete with swiss rounds online without paying a continual monetary upkeep? <Q> <A> You can use Magic Workstation .It works well <S> and you always find player of different levels. <A> Check out magic-league.com. <S> They have a community of gamers who use the above-mentioned tools (MWS & NetDraft) to do free drafts and sealed deck games. <S> Its a good way to connect with outher ppl looking to draft and play. <S> They use IRC channels to organize the drafts: http://magic-league.com/play/chatroom.php <A> Netdraft is free. <S> It is unfortunately a bit of a hassle to set it all up (find opponents via mIRC, opening your firewall...). <S> http://netdraft.wikispaces.com/ <A> I know this question is extremely old by online standards, but I'm adding an answer in case anyone that doesn't know about Arena stumbles on this question in the future... <S> Answer: <S> Wizards of the Coast now offers an option to draft and play against real opponents, possibly free. <S> Magic: <S> Arena (sometimes referred to as MTGA or just Arena) is freemium software that has a realistic free-to-play path, similar to Hearthstone. <S> There are plenty of YouTube videos and podcasts that will help you "go infinite" with drafting, and you should be able to at least draft once a week <S> if you just play a few hours per week to grind out the rewards.
|
You can draft at CCGdecks.com, tappedout.net, or drafts.in, and the free client Cockatrice is excellent for playing.
|
Why play Land Grant? When looking through recent results of Pauper daily events in Magic Online , I noticed that some of the Infect decks are using Land Grant . For the life of me, I can't figure out what this card is doing in the deck. It doesn't accelerate your mana It doesn't find lands other than Forests You have to reveal your hand to use it (or pay 1G, but I'm pretty sure that no one ever does that) In other words, it's functionally identical to just having another Forest in your deck, except with additional downside. So why are they playing it? Pauper is a very competitive format on MTGO, so I don't expect people to put cards in their deck for no good reason... but I can't figure out what the reason is. <Q> Generally: It lets you play less actual lands (like in 1-land Belcher Decks). <S> It lets you find the right land (when you are using dual lands). <S> It's a free way to increase storm count. <S> It filters your deck making it slightly smaller. <S> By using free cantripslike Land Grant and Gitaxian Probe <S> you make your deck virtuallysmaller, thus increasing the chances of all the other cards showing up during a match. <S> In this particular case, knowing how infect decks work in Pauper, I would say it's basically reason #5 (deck thinning). <A> There's nothing "functionally identical" about a card which puts a forest into play and a card which puts a forest into play and removes a card from your deck. <S> q.v. Street Wraith, Urza's Bauble, Mishra's Bauble, Gitaxian Probe; all cards which have a very minor upside (if any!) <S> but which allow you to play a deck that's functionally less than 60 cards big. <S> If you don't feel a 56-card deck has a significant competitive advantage over a 60-card deck then, no, you probably won't understand why anyone would play Land Grant over a basic forest. <S> But let's notice that the 40- and 60-card minimum deck sizes in various Magic formats are not just arbitrary! <S> They exist to make deck construction suitably challenging. <S> But almost every rule in Magic can be broken somehow, and Land Grant and friends effectively break the minimum deck size rule. <S> Yes, there's only a small competitive advantage in drawing from a library that contains 9 lands instead of 10. <S> But every little helps, especially in a deck like Infect that basically only wants to draw one or two lands at most, and then as much aggressive business as possible. <A> The deck thinning+tutoring alone would be considered by many to be a useful effect. <S> A card with an even more useless effect, Gather <S> Your Mind was once a very popular thinner in YGO TCG. <S> I don't think the revealing effect is surprising. <S> It's par for the course in Magic (in any card game, in fact, now that I think of it) when something relies on presence or absence of something in the hand.
|
The card has a lot of uses, similarly to fetch lands and cantrip spells. It's a free way to shuffle your deck.
|
Where can I find a database with a list of all magic cards? I am going to write a program to manage my library of Magic cards and I am looking for a database file or list of all of the cards that have been released. I know that the Gathering site is useful, but it limits the number of cards I can return in a search. I would happily accept a spreadsheet file, database file, or even a text file. The more information contained in the database, the better. Having associated images would just be fantastic, but at this point I would settle for names and basic stats of the cards. <Q> This website also provided information to work with its associated site for serving images, found here: http://mtgimage.com . <S> Unfortunately however, subsequently this website has been shut down by <S> WotC. <S> this websites appears to be designed specifically for developers, with explanations of what each property in the JSON objects means. <A> You can grab a complete list here <S> it's in .xls too! <S> I have downloaded a copy <S> but it looks to be someone's personal list and might disappear at any time. <S> I don't have the ability to attach a file yet so download it quick! <S> If that is not what you want then your best bet would be Cockatrice but be aware of breaking the Gatherer ToS. <A> Here is it in XML and ASCII, complete from what I gather. <A> For people that are still searching for a program to save you set, put in trade cards and or make a wishlist. <S> I found this awesome site that does exactly that! <S> http://deckbox.org/ .After <S> you have listed all of your cards, you can even see the value of your set. <A> I have not seen anyone mention this one. <S> But MTG Studio ( http://www.mtgstudio.com/ ) has what you are looking for. <S> I use it to manage my collection.
|
as an alternative, you can also get the full set of cards in JSON format - including all sets, languages, printings and detailed information - from this website: http://mtgjson.com/
|
How to describe the strengths and weaknesses of white to a new mtg player? When I'm teaching Magic: The Gathering to a new player, one of the things I usually give them early on is a run down of each of the different colors and its pros and cons. I usually try to come up with 2 sentences and no more than 3 example cards to describe the color. Normally, I use descriptions that are something like this: Red: Uses the power of fire to damage life totals, creatures, and destroy lands/artifacts. Has trouble dealing with enchantments, flying, and tricky spells. Examples: Shock , Shatter , Demolish . Black: Uses the power of death and evil to profit from other misery with powerful removal, creatures, discard spells, and detrimental enchantments. Has trouble dealing with enchantments, vulnerable to removal, and has slightly weaker creatures. Examples: Doom Blade , Mind Rot , Sorin's Thirst Blue: Uses the power of the mind to manipulate the field of battle by drawing cards, countering spells, messing with opponents' plans in general, and playing flying creatures. Has the weakest creatures in the game, even though it has many of the best flying creatures. Examples: Divination , Cancel , Darkslick Drake (or any other good flying creature) Green: Uses the power of nature to grow and expand until its massive creatures are too much for opponents to handle. Good at dealing with artifacts/enchantments, and has strongest creatures in the game, but also has worst flying creatures and very little removal. Examples: Llanowar Elves , Leatherback Baloth , Naturalize White: Uses the power of life and justice to play powerful creatures, life-gain spells, sweeper spells, small creatures, and good defenses. Second best in flying and creatures overall, but weak against ?????? Examples: ????? While these are rough examples that could all use a bit of polishing, I definitely feel like my understanding and explanation of white looks the weakest. Currently, I look at white as the 'all-around color' with fewer strengths and weaknesses than the others, but I'm having trouble characterizing it in more specific ways. How would you explain the pros and cons of the color white to newcomers to MTG? What example cards and general characteristics of white decks would you include? What might you add to my other explanations to make them more helpful and accurate, but still keep them clean and concise? <Q> You might not be aware but Wizards already has a page describing to a new player what the core concepts of each colour of magic are. <S> Here's what they have to say, even more concisely than how you explain the colours: <S> White: <S> The color of Justice White spellcasters use superior tactics, efficient creatures, and the power of righteousness against their foes. <S> Blue: <S> The color of Wisdom Blue mages focus on using superior knowledge to gain control of a battle, and slowly gain the upper hand. <S> Black: <S> The color of Ambition Black sorcerers are willing to do whatever it takes to win a battle, even if it means sacrificing everything to do so. <S> Red: <S> The color of Chaos Red conjurers try to win as quickly and dramatically as possible, smashing and burning their way to a quick victory. <S> Green: <S> The color of Nature Green shamans win duels through the brute force of mother nature, summoning giant creatures to squash their enemies. <S> I think some of your explanations need a bit of work. <S> For example, black isn't (always) explicitly evil, just selfish and ambitious; and red isn't just "the power of fire" (although the element of fire is associated with it) just like blue isn't "the power of water". <S> White: <S> Uses the power justice to play efficient creatures and deal with combat threats. <S> Best at manipulating enchantments, artifact equipment, and life gain, and second best in flying. <S> Worst at direct damage: white relies on superior tactics in combat to deal the lethal blow. <S> Examples: Elite Vanguard , Pacifism , Lifelink . <A> White is definitely "law and order" but there a plenty of planes in the multiverse where the law and order it imposes would definitely be unjust or outright evil to us. <S> White's all time greatest strength is 'imprisonment' style creature removal. <S> Super efficient spells that get rid of a creature for little mana <S> but either give some benefit to the victim in exchange for the efficiency or are restricted in timing/ <S> aren't permanent. <S> White's overall focus is really still on small creatures coming together to form a more powerful army. <S> Latest sets aside <S> , I think Angels are a secondary theme to the idea of a united army being stronger than the individual little humans or knights or whatever. <S> White's greatest weakness mechanically is placing high value on lifegain, which is generally not a powerful mechanic, and a lack of ways to replenish your hand. <S> Even Green has better options for picking up some more cards. <S> Uses a single minded devotion to Law and Order to deal with enemy trouble makers and unite small creatures together into armies that are greater than the sum of their parts. <S> Has objectively the best removal spells in the game, but they come with a 'benefit' to the opponent or are not 'permanent.' <S> White also includes the iconic Angels that are among the most recognized cards in magic and some of the most powerful creatures ever printed. <S> Examples: <S> Oblivion Ring , Honor of the Pure , Baneslayer Angel <A> There's a lot of detail that can be gone into here, but I'm just going to focus on a couple of points: <S> First of all, I disagree that white "has good creatures". <S> White, aside from a few powerful Angels at the top end, has good small creatures . <S> You'll rarely find cost-effective white creatures in the middle or at the top end of the mana curve. <S> White's primary weakness from my point of view is that, while it may be a combat colour, its main strengths are defensive . <S> White direct damage is practically nonexistent; its removal is strongly conditional on having been attacked first, or temporarily rather than permanently disables a threat. <S> Lifegain is the key example, but in other ways too white is a very reactive rather than proactive colour. <S> Red, black and green have different ways of dishing out pain to the opponent, but apart from its "weenie swarm" strategy, white, like blue, generally contains threats rather than presents them. <S> Whether that is ultimately a strength or a weakness depends in the long run on your play style! <A> Let me try to complete your proposition without adding too many words: <S> White: <S> Uses the power of life and justice to play powerful creatures, life-gain spells, sweeper spells, small creatures, and good defenses. <S> Second best in flying and creatures overall, but weak against decks constructed specifically against white and some blue contrlling and countering decks; it also lacks direct damage options . <S> Examples: Serra Angel , White Knight , Disenchant , Swords to Plowshares , Armageddon , Wrath of God , Righteousness , Circles of Protection . <S> Enjoy! <A> White: <S> Has really good cheap creatures. <S> Not necessarily big ones, but they often have useful abilities or come in numbers. <S> A classic deck concept is "White weenie". <S> White has the best unconditional sweepers and really strong spot removal, though the spot removal always has a drawback. <S> Gather the Townsfolk , Mirran crusader , Wrath of God , Condemn , Honor of the Pure .) <S> If I were to add more it would be about good at handling (offense/defense) enchantments and possibly mention their top end bombs. <S> Though I think it's of less importance. <A> White: <S> Excels at creating hoards of small creatures to overwhelm the opponent. <S> It is also the color able to most easily handle any permanent type. <S> It's weaknesses come from the restrictions placed on it's removal. <S> Every spell has a drawback, whether it be sorcery speed, temporary nature, or hitting your creatures as well as your opponents. <S> Ex: <S> Gather the Townsfolk , Day of Judgement , Oblivion Ring
|
White is the strongest defensive color with protection, damage prevention, life gain and spells that are only able affect creatures attacking them.(Card examples: I would not associated white directly with western concepts of 'justice.'
|
When should you side lands in and out? Some Magic writers advise players to side out a land when on the draw in Limited, in order to improve the probability of drawing a strong starting hand. Is it reasonable to do the same (side out a land on the draw) in Constructed? And, if so, why isn't it commonly done? Assuming you have a good reason to have land in your Constructed sideboard in the first place (usually cards like Wasteland ), when is it strategically beneficial to bring in extra lands instead of only making spell-for-spell substitutions? <Q> A recent case of this was in pre-Avacyn Restored Standard. <S> There were some versions of UB Control that had 3 Nephalia Drownyards main-deck and another one in the sideboard. <S> In a control mirror with both decks full of reactive cards, the player who has mana advantage usually wins the game, because he or she can play many spells in one turn (e.g. play a threat, counter a removal spell against it, then counter the opponent's counter). <S> With lands in the sideboard, this deck could side in an extra land, taking out a removal spell. <S> This way they would hit their land drops more easily and have another win condition in the deck, since milling was the best win condition in UB mirrors. <S> For reference, the 2nd place finisher of GP Baltimore 2012 , as Hackworth pointed in the comments, used 2 lands in his sideboard. <S> Its player goes so far as to say that Nephalia Drownyard is "the only card that matters in the mirror." <A> For the first question, I would say that while the same mathematics work for constructed as well, sideboarding lands just for mana balance reasons in constructed does not seem reasonable. <S> Secondly, in limited you have infinite lands in your sideboard, <S> while in constructed you would have to remove a real card from the sideboard to fit in a land. <S> Since the sideboard cards in constructed typically are very high impact cards in the right situation, this cost is quite significant, and likely higher than any benefit from potentially better mana balance. <A> Tengfred has already made what I think is the crucial point here: your constructed sideboard allotment is a parsimonious 15 cards. <S> If you're spending slots on the ability to subtly rejig your mana balance between games on the play and on the draw, you're probably doing it wrong. <S> Having said that, if you can genuinely only find 14 nonland cards that would improve your deck in any imaginable scenario, then I can imagine worse things than a land in the 15th slot. <S> An extra land is almost always going to be a better draw against a creatureless deck than a removal spell, for instance!
|
Firstly, in constructed the impact of a single land on the mana balance of your deck is smaller than in limited due to larger decksize (and the effect is quite small to begin with).
|
What happens when a piece is kinged in checkers? In checkers, what is supposed to happen when a piece gets to the other side of the board and becomes a king? Does the move end? Can the piece continue to skip in the same turn it becomes a king? Can it choose not to be kinged and skip again? I've looked up a couple of different rules and I can't really find any sort of set rules for this. What is the actual rule? <Q> <A> There are many variants of checkers/draughts , and for most of them (including the Checkers variant played predominantly in the English-speaking world), promotion is both mandatory and ending the move. <S> Quote from the American Checkers Federation's official rulebook : 1.16 <S> When a man reaches the farthest row forward (known as the “king-row” or “crown-head”) <S> it becomes a king, and this completes the turn of play. <S> The man can be crowned by either player ( ) by placing a man of the same colour on top of it before the next move is made. <S> (It may be necessary to borrow from another set if no captured man is available for the purpose). <S> 1.19 <S> If a jump creates an immediate further capturing opportunity, then the capturing move of the piece (man or king) is continued until all the jumps are completed. <S> The only exception is that if a man reaches the king-row by means of a capturing move it then becomes a king but may not make any further jumps until their opponent has moved. <S> At the end of the capturing sequence, all captured pieces are removed from the board. <S> However, for the variant for Russian checkers , promotion during a capture sequence happens <S> en-passant (i.e. in passing) <S> and the crowned man has to continue jumping as a king. <A> When a checker reaches the furthest row on the opposite side of the board, its turn ends, because it can make no further FORWARD move. <S> It cannot "skip" or make any other move. <S> Beginning with the NEXT move, it can move backward. <S> In order to do so, it must be "kinged," which it cannot refuse such, at the end of the preceding turn.
|
From the Wikipedia article on checkers : If a player's piece jumps into the kings row, the current move terminates; having just been crowned, the piece cannot continue on by jumping back out (as in a multiple jump), until the next move.
|
How to mitigate the intial luck factor in Race For The Galaxy? Background (feel free to skip) : My mom and I often play RFTG together (I am a very fortunate child to have a game-playing parent :), and we've noticed that there usually isn't as much luck in the game as we initially thought; there are few situations where you cannot find some favorable way to play out your cards and tableau. While the luck factor is definite present, as it will be in any game that involves powerful combinations of randomly drawn cards, but smart play can mitigate the effect. In fact, one of my favorite situations in the game is when I have a bunch of cards with no obvious strong combos and have to work with what I have to find some sort of strategy. However, I've noticed that there is substantially more luck in the early parts of the game. If you get an initial draw that contains mostly high-drop cards, cards that aren't good in the early game, or no good combinations (tons of goods, but no way to actually do anything with them except trade ONE of them for 2-4 cards). Some luck later on can easily fix this if you get a nice card, but sometimes I feel like the game is decided after turn 4 when one of us has a killer initial combo and the other has had a bad start. I understand that the luck factor is relatively small and will be minimal in a series of 5 or more games, but I would still like to reduce it since we purely play for fun and rarely get to play 2 games in a row. I don't consider myself anywhere near an expert player, and I'm sure we're not always playing our cards optimally. However, I am sure that there are some opening hands that are sufficiently worse than others to drastically effect the outcome of the game, and I'd like to adjust this in our friendly games. Question: Here's some ways I've thought to prevent players from getting screwed over by bad initial draws in RFTG: Start with 7 or 8 cards instead of 6. Still discard down to 4. Implement a mulligan system for initial hands. You can discard your 6 initial cards, reshuffle the deck, and draw 5 (still discard down to 4). I suppose this could probably be extended to allow players to discard those 5 to draw 4 and keep all of them, even though I don't think many people would go for the second mulligan. Would these methods potentially be effective in reducing some of the initial luck in the game? How might I improve them? What other methods might be effective towards reaching this goal of a slightly more 'skill-based' RFTG by mitigating the effect of terrible initial draws? <Q> A world you know will be on the table the whole game is a much bigger deal than four cards, of which you'll likely only play one or two, and sometimes none. <S> The implementation of Race for the Galaxy at keldon.net does this. <S> (Side note: some of my friends think Rebel Freedom Fighters is overpowered. <S> You can always just disallow a start world if you're in that camp.) <S> This said, I think you might be overstating the importance of the starting hand. <S> It's not meaningless, but I can't reliably predict how well my game will go based on it. <S> I've had scores over 100 when I started out with no clear path based on my start world and hand. <S> You have to be willing to explore (+5) on the first turn sometimes. <S> It really doesn't put you that far behind - at most one turn, and there's a good chance you'll get to piggy-back on someone else's develop <S> /settle anyway. <S> (Half the time you don't, it's because they explored too.) <S> However it happens, each time you draw cards, it may completely change your game. <S> Luck isn't just on the first turn , and I think that with a choice of two start worlds, the luck in the rest of the game will be more significant than the initial luck. <S> Finally, if you're not playing with the third expansion , maybe you should be. <S> It adds the ability to do a one-time search for a chosen category of card; you can choose to search for a 1- or 2-cost windfall world (or 1- or 2-defense if you're going military). <S> If you're really desperate to get going, it is more reliable than the +5 card explore on the first turn. <S> (Of your suggestions, I think mulligans are better - larger initial draws can improve average and good hands too. <S> I think you'll probably be pretty satisfied with two start worlds, but if you do still want to allow mulligans, you might want to restrict it to "bad" hands by some definition, to keep from focusing too much on the mulligan decision, and possibly improving some okay hands.) <A> Yes, both suggestions would lessen the amount of luck in an initial hand. <S> +2 <S> cards reduces initial bad hands by an additional 33%-100%, depending upon whether you are counting total draws or total discards. <S> Your second suggestion makes players make an interesting decisions, but might lean too heavily on trying to find the perfect draw (I would need to do some math to figure that out). <S> Either suggestion will still be subject to some unluckly starting hands, but both will lessen the degree to which those hands will occur. <A> I give each player 2 start world ; one of each type - military and production. <S> The each player gets 6 random cards and then you start drafting by picking one of the six according to you're preferred start world <S> and then each of you give the remaining five cards to the left player. <S> Do that 3 other times and on the last draft you have to choose between 2 cards and the other goes in the discard. <S> Then you choose one start world from the two you got according to your draft and everyone unveil their start world at once. <S> If a player really had a baaaaaaad drafting <S> I let him have a mulligan <S> and he can get to do a normal draft of two other start worlds <S> and he picks 4of6 cards. <S> That's how I reduce luck factor. <A> Luck in your cards runs throughout the game. <S> The enjoyable thing about RFTG is trying to make the best of whatever cards you have at any particular point. <S> But when it comes down to it, luck isn't actually that important in RFTG! <S> My wife and I used to play it a lot, but she got tired of it because I won about 95% of the time. <S> Skill is far more important. <S> So, my answer of how to mitigate the luck factor is to play enough to develop your skill, such that the luck is less important!
|
In my experience, the most effective way to reduce luck at the beginning is to give players a choice of two start worlds .
|
What is the duration of copyright on a board game map? If copyright on a board game map exists, how long will it last? When does the map become public domain? For example, there are plenty of Sokoban maps on-line.Some of them were created by Thinking Rabbit, some by Yoshio Murase.When will their copyright expire? <Q> If the "board game map" is subject to copyright restrictions, then it is protected for 70 years in the USA . <S> For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. <S> IANAL, this does not constitute legal advice. <S> Puzzles cannot be protected by copyright, and neither can map layouts. <S> A computer could probably create trillions of puzzles, many of them might be duplicates of those created by others. <S> These puzzles follow algorithms for legal box pushing rules, so it is quite possible that these puzzles fall under mathematics which isn't subject to copyright protection. <S> If you copy a complete collection of puzzles though, you might be in trouble. <S> Copying individual puzzles from many different sources might constitute research. <S> The Trivial Pursuit <S> lawsuit might be of interest to you. <S> When you copy from one source, it’s called plagiarism; when you copy from many sources, it’s called research. <S> Worth's case was thrown out of court by Judge Wm Matthew Byrne, <S> Jr. It never even came to trial. <S> In 1987, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, declaring that Trivial Pursuit was “substantially different” from “Super Trivia”. <S> The courts decided that the presentation of facts in an encyclopedia, where entries are listed alphabetically, was very different from the rewriting of those same facts as questions, and their division into categories randomly picked on a Trivial Pursuit card <A> Currently in the US its 90 to 120 years or life of the author plus 70. <S> US lawmakers keep extending the copyright so that Mickey Mouse doesn't go into the public domain. <S> So anything printed in your life time won't be available in the public domain for a long time if you live in the US. <S> The copyright owners can release it earlier, but you'd have to contact the owner to find out if that's the case. <S> IANAL(I am not a lawyer, this is a layman's understanding of the law) <S> Someone else will have to elaborate on copyright laws in other countries. <A> In France, something drawn usually falls under the `droits d'auteur' (author rights) laws which protect one's creation 70 years after his death.
|
As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years.
|
Too many Tech-Victories seen in 2-player rules for Civilization I have been playing Civilization The Board Game some times with my girlfriend, but each time, the game quickly becomes a race for the tech-victory. Since it is a large advantage to research tech in general, this victory is easy, and we do never even attack each other, since the tech victory is easier. Can you propose some alternative rules which would change this behavior? We thought about just removing the possibility to win by tech, but my prediction is, that this will just make culture-victory the new tech-victory. <Q> For simplicity, I will focus on the base game (Sid Meier's Civilization the Board Game, as published in 2010) without any expansions because this is what I assume you are currently playing. <S> Tech victories are common while learning the game rules. <S> This is because the Research phase acts as a sort of timer; if everyone acquires approximately 1 technology per turn, then someone's tech victory is likely to happen close to the 15th turn regardless of other game events. <S> Tech victory is what eventually happens if the empires are grown without focussed strategies, or if opportunities to advance are often missed (fewer strategically useful actions per player per turn). <S> However, after the learning phase is over, you will see that tech victories are not at all that common . <S> In fact a tech victory is quite a feat for anyone except Russians, whose espionage is the easiest way to speed up research. <S> And some speed up is very much necessary. <S> Games played between seasoned players are won around the 11th turn in one way or another. <A> We recently played the Civilization Board Game with 3 players and had a similar experience. <S> In our case one of the players was the Soviets (who have the ability to "steal" tech by marching units into other players cities), and also managed to get a wonder allowing them to steal a technology once per turn. <S> This speeded up the tech victory win, however in fairness all 3 of us were within 4-5 turns of a tech victory by the end of the game anyway. <S> We came to the conclusion that the tech victory was a bit of a cheap win (much like the tech victory condition in the computer game) because researching tech is something you need to do anyway in order to remain competitive at all. <S> In future games we may simply disallow the tech victory (I don't think that the culture victory will take its place as a unlike tech, getting culture points is something that you need to explicitly work on - often at the detriment of city development / research / military), however my suspicion is that this will lengthen the game considerably. <S> Our game was fairly lengthy (about 3 hours) and so with hindsight it might be that we just weren't being agressive enough with the alternative victory conditions. <S> Update: Having played a couple more games (included 1v1 games) <S> I've concluded that a tech victory is just a side-effect of being too nice to each other! <S> Charging at each other with traditional armies generally seems to bring games to a close long before anyone is close to a tech victory. <A> I've been thinking about this problem. <S> On top of that I've also noticed that the wonders barely get used in our games. <S> Haven't tested this yet <S> but I think it might work to balance the huge benefits of learning tech. <A> The easiest solution in general if you want to make a 'feature' less likely chosen is to make it more expensive or add (additional) preconditions. <S> In this case you can make it more expensive. <S> However, you also have to watch out for not unbalancing the game.
|
So we thought it might work to restrict level 3+ tech until after the 4 ancient wonders are placed, then restrict level 5 until all medieval wonders are placed.
|
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. <Q> I found the answer to this in the rules : 903.3. <S> Each deck has a legendary creature card designated as its commander. <S> This designation is not a characteristic of the object represented by the card; rather, it is an attribute of the card itself. <S> The card retains this designation even when it changes zones. <S> Example: A commander that's been turned face down (due to Ixidron's effect, for example) is still a commander. <S> A commander that's copying another card (due to Cytoshape's effect, for example) is still a commander. <S> 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. <S> So the answer is that in the first example (commander copying Malignus) <S> the antagonist loses the game. <S> In the second he/ <S> she does not (yet). <A> In the first case our protagonist's commander, currently pretending to be Malignus, will deal 25 damage, ending the game. <S> A Legendary Creature that is designated as Commander retains this designation even if it later becomes something else. <S> As such, combat damage dealt by the commander will count towards commander damage. <S> Since the designation of Commander is not a copyable characteristic, our antagonist would not lose the game in the second case (although he or she is well on their way to losing already.) <A> The simplest definition of what makes a commander a commander is this: The attribute "Commander" is inherent to the card itself. <S> It cannot be removed, copied or transferred. <S> It is just something that IS. <S> (Much like how a token will never be a card.) <S> Using Infinite Reflection, even if you found a way around the Legendary Rule, only a commander CARD would ever do commander damage. <S> This explanation is further explained in the in the Rule 903.3 example. <S> We can break this example down into three parts. <S> 1. <S> A commander that's been turned face down (due to Ixidron's effect, for example) <S> (or casting it face down, like Akroma, Angel of Fury ) <S> is still a commander. <S> 2. <S> This also includes things like T urn to Frog , which I use to minimize Commander damage I would take, (which will 1+ whatever is buffing the frog) <S> 3. <S> A permanent (that includes tokens) <S> that's copying a commander (such as a Body Double, for example, copying a commander in a player's graveyard) <S> is not a commander .
|
A commander that's copying another card (due to Cytoshape's effect, for example) is still a commander .
|
In bridge, what are the proper followups to a Jacoby transfer? In bridge, over a 1 NT opening, a responder might bid 2D/H with five hearts/spades asking the opener to "transfer" to 2H/S. The idea is to try to find an eight card fit, assuming that the NT bidder has three in the major. But suppose the 1NT bidder only has two of the designated suit. Does s/he have to accept the transfer, or can one bid 2NT in this situation. Assuming the opener accepts the transfer, is the responder (i.e. 2D/H bidder) supposed to go to 2NT to give the opener a choice of a NT or suit contract? <Q> Well, the proper followup is what you have agreed upon. <S> The 'normal' responses to a transfer allow you to bid the major at the 2 level (usual completion of the transfer) or bid the major at the 3 level, which shows a maximum hand and 4 cards in the major in question (called super-accept). <S> Assuming your agreement is the above, bidding 2NT with doubleton in the major, instead of completing the transfer is just silly. <S> You partner could have 6 cards in the major and a bust hand and might have been planning to pass the 2H bid from you. <S> With a 6-2 fit, 2H will play very well as compared to 1NT. <S> Even with a decent 5 card suit and nothing else, 2H will likely play better than 1NT. <S> 2NT might just be too high. <S> This is because the trumps serve as stoppers in other suits, and also provide entries into dummy. <S> With partner having an invitational/game forcing hand and exactly 5 card major, you will always be able to reach 2NT or 3NT when you need to. <S> With an invitational hand and exactly 5 cards in the major, partner will rebid 2NT, which you can then pass (or go on to 3NT if you have a maximum hand). <S> With a game forcing hand and 5 hearts, partner will bid 3N. <S> You are denying partner the chance to bid 2S after transferring to hearts which can show some hand types (some people play it as 5-5 in majors etc). <S> Bidding 2NT is a unilateral bid. <S> Remember that your partner is the captain. <S> You have narrowed down your hand with your 1NT bid. <S> So violating the transfer to bid 2NT to show doubleton is pointless with no real gain (you will always get to deny support later), and has only downsides. <S> Also, from a system point of view, having 2NT show a doubleton is inefficient, as later followups will clarify that situation. <S> You are just wasting space and getting to a bad contract/wrong siding it for no reason. <S> That said, some people do have followups other than 2 or 3 of the major, but those typically show 4 card support and some other feature (like doubleton/values in the suit bid). <A> Root and Pavlicek's book Modern Bidding Conventions (Standard American) is very clear about that. <S> This will not always lead to an optimal result, but like many other conventions, the first 2 bids of the Jacoby Transfer are just the start of a longer communication sequence and departing from the sequence this early in the bidding would waste much of the benefit. <S> Also - despite the 5-2 fit, this is usually a good place for the contract to land when a weak responder is not even assured of taking a single trick (without ruffing). <S> The contract with the 5-2 fit gives you a ruff or two from the dummy and an opportunity to attempt finesses that require a lead from dummy. <S> In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is one of the major benefits of the Jacoby Transfer, as a 1 NT contract with zero support from dummy often leads to going down 2-3 tricks, whereas the 2H or 2S contract with 5 in dummy and 2 in declarer can often be made. <A> Today with 20 pts, I opened 2NT with a singleton ace of hearts. <S> My partner bid 2 diamonds, I said "transfer" and choose to bid3 NT. <S> The computer printout, showed we could have made 4clubs,5 spades, and 5 NT. <S> Didn't play to 5, but did make 4. <S> I wasthe only player in that contract and the high board. <S> My partnerupon laying her hand down, only had 4 hearts, not five, andonly 6 points.
|
In Standard American with strong 1NT openings (typically 15-17 or 16-18 points), the 1 NT bidder must accept the transfer, even with only 2 in the suit.
|
How do Layers work? Trying to expand my knowledge of Magic, and hopefully become a better player, I've come across several references to "layers." From what I've been able to find, they are as follows: Copy Control Text Type Color Add/Remove Power Could someone elucidate the significance of the order and exactly what this layering thing means? <Q> I completely agree with Hackworth that an in-depth answer would probably require an article, but I don't recommend the Comprehensive Rules (very dry)... <S> so try this article instead. <S> It's got loads of good examples that really demonstrate when this stuff becomes useful. <S> e.g. You have a Giant Growth ed Grizzly <S> Bears <S> (2/2 +3/+3 = 5/5) and someone casts Ovinize on it <S> (loses all abilities and becomes a 0/1). <S> Without reference to the layers system, how do you explain to someone that the Bears are now 3/4 creatures, not 0/1? <A> A more detailed answer would mostly consist of quoting the Comprehensive Rules Book verbatim, so I suggest if you want to dive in there, go straight to the source . <A> While Murgatroid and Alex P are right that a complete understanding of Layers would require a full quotation of the recommended references, there is a space here for a broad overview. <S> Fundamental Concepts of Layers Magic has a lot of effects that modify permanents in play. <S> Often times these effects can be confusing or mutually exclusive when stacked, so the rules for how to deal with modification effects are very detailed. <S> The basic concept is called the Layer System. <S> At any point in the game when you have to understand what kind of object a permanent is you start with the base object and then apply all existing effects that are modifying (or could modify it) one at a time until they have all been applied. <S> The order in which these effects are applied is largely determined by the type of modification being done. <S> For example, Type changing effects (like turning a land into a creature) are applied before rules changing effects (like giving a creature vigilance) which are applied before power/toughness adjusting effects (like giving a creature +3/+3). <S> The categories of modification are referred to as "layers", and there are 7 layers with several subcategories. <S> Inside a layer or sublayer, order is determined first by dependencies (an effect that makes all lands creatures will be applied before an effect that makes all creatures goblins), and then finally by "timestamp", the time when the effect came into existence, with older effects being applied first. <S> Newer effects can and will overwrite older effects if there is a conflict. <S> There are no distinctions between effects that are being granted temporarily ("until end of turn") by oneshot effects and effects that are being granted statically by a permanent on the battlefield. <S> All that matters is the type of effect and the time the effect began applying. <S> The result of all this is a system that about 99% of the time works in the most intuitive fashion possible, and mostly only fails to be intuitive when there is no single intuitive answer (I'm looking at you, power/toughness swapping). <S> That's honestly pretty impressive considering how many bizarre interactions it has to handle ( Opalescence <S> x2/ Humility being the most famous).
|
The basic answer is that the layer system determines how to apply continuous effects to every object in the game so that they get their actual state beyond what's printed on the actual card.
|
Backgammon Statistics To Know I recently committed to memory the likelihood of "Entering from the Bar" in a game of backgammon. i.e. 1 point defence - 97%2 point defence - 89%3 point defence - 75%4 point defence - 56%5 point defence - 31% Besides the usual likelihood of "throwing a number x", what other statistics are there that I can learn to improve my backgammon game? <Q> These were all more or less directly copied from the source attributed at the bottom of the answer: <S> Directly rolling a particular number (e.g. 2) 30.55% Rolling a particular double (e.g. 3-3) 2.77% Rolling a particular non-double (e.g. 5-1) 5.54% Rolling any double 16.66% Chance of getting off the bar with one or two pieces and X open points: OpenPoints 1 piece 2 <S> pieces1 <S> 31% 3%2 <S> 55% 11%3 <S> 75% <S> 25%4 <S> 89% <S> 44%5 <S> 97% 69%6 <S> Move <S> Direct and Indirect Chance1 <S> 31% 2 33% 3 39% <S> 4 42% 5 42% <S> 6 <S> 47% 7 <S> 17%8 <S> 17%9 <S> 14%10 8%11 <S> 6%12 8%13 <S> -14 <S> -15 <S> 3%16 <S> 3%17 <S> -18 <S> 3%19 <S> -20 <S> 3%21 <S> -22 <S> -23 <S> -24 <S> 3% SOURCE (and more stats): <S> http://www.paulspages.co.uk/bgvaults/tips/dicerolls.php <S> More info on observed Backgammon statistics: http://www.bkgm.com/motif/stats.html <A> I'd learn the chances for the roll combinations. <S> There are 36 possible rolls, (let's say of one red and one green die) as follows: 6-6: <S> 1/3611: <S> 2/36 <S> (two 6-5s)5-5: <S> 1/3610: <S> 2/36 <S> (two 6-4s)9: 4/36 (two 6-3s, two 5-4s)4-4: 1/368: 4/36 (two 6-2s, two 5-3s)7: 6/36 <S> (two 6-1s, two 5-2s, two 4-3s)3-3: 1/366: 4/36 (two 5-1s, two 4-2s)5: 4/36 (two 4-1s, two 3-2s)2-2: 1/364: 2/36 <S> (two 3-1s)3: 2/36 (two 2-1s)1-1: 1/36 <A> The chance of getting a total of x on the two dice is simply (6-|7-x|)/36 <S> where |7-x| is the absolute value of 7-x. <A> You should always accept a double if your winning expectation from the current situation is 25% or more. <S> You should never accept a double when you have less.
|
100% 100% Chance of moving X points in a single roll: (direct and indirect combined; direct alone is always 31% for 1-6 only).
|
What is a good 'Baker's Dozen' solitaire strategy? I am wondering what a good strategy is to win the 'Baker's Dozen' solitaire variant? So far, I have tried to keep the cards descending in the same suit, wherever possible, but when the Kings are at the top of the tableau pile, it makes it very difficult. <Q> OK, so I finally figured it out and for the record, here is what I found works well. <S> If you can stack cards descending by suit, do that <S> but if it isn't possible and you have to stack on a different suit, make sure that there aren't any cards of the same suit that are of a LOWER value beneath them. <S> That way you can ensure you aren't locking up that suit in that tableau pile. <S> That worked for me! <S> Also, don't forget that you can put an Ace on top of a 2 if you need to pull a King from another tableau pile. <A> I play this game all the time <S> and it's often winnable <S> but sometimes it takes a lot of undos to get there <S> (my winning percentage is about 47% over 300+ games). <S> I find that if I can empty a stack early, my chances are better. <S> Also, because you stack cards onto the same suit, there's no harm in having one suit get way "ahead" of the others. <S> In fact, it may help to focus on one suit at a time. <S> Of course, you have to be prepared to switch focus to a different suit if the opportunity comes up. <A> baker's dozen has a number of variants. <S> the one i play most has all cards face up and kings placed at top of stack. <S> this variant can be won almost all the time (99.5 to 99.9%). <S> the strategy i use is to:1) <S> put all the aces and deuces up on their appropriate pile, and some of the higher cards if not needed later;2) try to find the best king(s) to uncover and look for queens that trap a card in between to start the build;3) <S> this means that sometimes a lot of rearranging will happen later in the game to get the suits matched.4) <S> when reducing a stack it's best to uncover the higher valued top cards and not to build on the suit piles;5)when building a stack, look for potential blocks to remove.
|
when building a stack the primary task is to bring a card that can potentially trap cards above it, and only secondarily to match suits.
|
Phage the Untouchable as a Commander? I was looking through the Black Legends with thoughts of building a mono-black EDH deck, when I came across Phage the Untouchable . Am I right in assuming that if she is cast from the command zone, you lose the game? (As the command zone is not considered your hand.) Is there any way to get her from the command zone into your hard or graveyard so you could cast her without losing the game? The only one I can come up with is having a Platinum Angel in play, so you don't lose the game when you cast her. <Q> Torpor Orb should work. <S> You could make the deck have a minor focus on creatures that normally are a pain to get out, like Leveler ... <A> Casting Phage <S> the Untouchable from the command zone would be a sorcery-speed "Summon Game Loss" spell. <S> As Affe points out, she could be countered when you play her, which would put her in your graveyard (or library, depending on the counter spell used). <S> You'd still need to get her back to your hand to cast her, though. <S> If you have Platinum Angel <S> you can't lose the game and it will make Phage's ability do nothing, <S> Sundial of the Infinite in response to the enter the battle field trigger will fizzle all triggers on the stack, or Torpor Orb <S> stops her enter the battle field from ever going off. <A> Casting her from your command zone results with a resounding <S> you lose the game , if she enters play. <S> There are several ways to still use her effectively. <S> I will list a few ways below <S> that will help you to "Make it Work". <S> It is not the strongest style, but black has the tutors to pull it off if you really want to do it. <S> It is funny to see the look on people's face when you reveal Phage as your commander. <S> They don't know whether or not to take you seriously at first, but some might realize how big of a threat you are when you throw down a pair of Lightning Greaves . <S> A few ways that prevent the loss are (there may be a few others, but this is all I can think of off the top of my head <S> and I can't look through my deck at the moment): <S> Having Platinum Angel in play (You can not lose) <S> Giving one of your opponents Abyssal Persecutor (keeps their opponents, you, from losing) <S> Having a Torpor Orb in play (Phage's enter the battlefield ability does not trigger) Having a Sundial of the Infinite in play (End you turn in response to her ability going on the stack <S> Having Phage countered by an effect, such as Nether Void or Withering Boon / Dash Hope <S> so she goes to graveyard (choose to let her go to graveyard and use one of black's many ways to get her back into your hand to hard cast from there) <A> Hyppy's exactly right <S> : the command zone isn't your hand, so casting Phage the Untouchable will cause you to lose the game. <S> Unfortunately, there are very few ways to get around Phage's drawback in a mono-black deck . <S> The options available to you include Platinum Angel , Torpor Orb Sundial of the Infinite , and some truly awkward counter-your-own-Phage-and-then- Disentomb -her shenanigans. <S> I don't think any of these are reliable enough to make Phage a worthwhile commander. <S> The easiest way to play Phage in Commander is to use an alternative general and just dig her out . <S> Your options include: <S> Maralen gives you the built-in ability to search for Phage, though the big downside of running her is that your opponents will tend to immediately assume your deck is an "unfair" combo deck before the game even begins. <S> (Ditto Griselbrand , but he's banned.) <S> Cards like Sheoldred, <S> Whispering One and Geth, Lord of the Vault are less threatening but still thoroughly powerful mono-black generals. <S> The black legends from Odyssey and Onslaught blocks are the closest "flavor" fit. <S> Going whole-hog "Vorthos" here probably means playing Cabal Patriarch as your general with Phage, Chainer, Dementia Master , Braids, Cabal Minion , and Balthor <S> the Defiled in the deck. <S> With cards like Cabal Coffers and Mirari , you can still make a pretty powerful deck despite any flavor constraints. <S> (Alternatively, you could use Karona as your general and play Phage and Akroma within the deck in reference to her individual parts.) <A> Or maybe not.
|
You're correct in assuming that you would lose the game. Lich's Mirror should also work to get her out.
|
Is Go played for money? Playing for money in this meaning would be single games played for some stake, not tournaments with a prize money. Backgammon has a large tradition to be played like, chess a smaller one (I think). I havn't heard of Go in such a context. Is this (widely) done? <Q> In the West, Go is almost exclusively played for fun. <S> The exception here would top players who strive for tournament price money. <S> This is actually a pretty important, there have been intense discussions between the organizers of the major Go tournaments/congresses and top players about the sum and distribution of money. <S> In Asia, Go is more often than not played without money on stake, however, betting on your own games is well known, too, especially for older folks. <S> In Japan, there is a basic differentiation how money is distributed according to the result: <S> In ban-go <S> the winner simply takes it all. <S> In me-go money is exchanged according to the territory at the end, so winning with a large difference is advantageous. <A> Go is generally a teaching game, where a higher-skilled player will grant an opponent a number of handicap stones in order to even the playing field. <S> This is not really compatible with the cutthroat atmosphere that wagers bring to the table. <A> If you go to Chinatowns, particularly in New York or San Francisco, you can find games played for money. <S> Some of them are run honestly, in other places, you might get robbed. <A> Korean baduk servers (baduk = Go) have a bet system.
|
In Korea, betting games are called Bang Neki , typically with a fixed sum for winning and extra money for each bang (score difference of 10 points). There is no particular tradition of players gambling over a game of Go.
|
In the official rules of Monopoly, can you offer immunity to other players in deals? In the official rules of Monopoly, can you offer immunity to other players in deals? Also, what about tournament play, which has different rules again? For example, it was a common house rule from my childhood that where two players were making a deal, but one of the players was more at risk of landing on the other player's property in the next move or two, the owner of those properties would offer immunity for the next time around the board (or maybe even the next two or three times around the board). So this is a popular house rule, but is it allowed in the official Monopoly rules and in tournament play? <Q> The official rules are here . <S> You only have to pay rent if the owner of the property asks you for it: <S> The owner may not collect the rent if he/she fails to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice. <S> However, you could argue that offering immunity violates the spirit of the no lending rule: <S> No player may borrow from or lend money to another player. <A> Going by the official rules , you don't have a choice whether to collect rent or not: <S> When you land on property owned by another player, the owner collects rent from you... <S> This doesn't give the property owner any choice in the matter, they simply do collect rent. <S> However , you could offer immunity as follows: <S> The player who lands on your property pays rent. <S> You immediately pay them back the amount they just paid. <S> To do this, you'll have to be able to give money to another player. <S> There is a rule forbidding loans between players: <S> No player may borrow from or lend money to another player. <S> but a gift is not the same as a loan . <S> Another way to give money to another player is to sell them an unimproved property for $0, then buy it back for the amount you wish to give them. <S> This is allowed by a different rule: <S> Unimproved properties, railroads and utilties (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private transaction for any amount... <S> All of this comes with a caveat: You can't do anything to force someone to grant you immunity, it's entirely up to them choosing to act in good faith. <A> "Immunities", whether lifetime or partial, are not permitted in the official rules. <S> "Official" tournament rules used to be available online that addressed this, but Hasbro has sent cease-and-desist letter to most sites hosting copies of the official Monopoly rules. <S> Their current site's section for instruction manuals is less than helpful. <S> Unofficial but credible reference: http://mospaw.com/monopoly/some-obscure-monopoly-rules-explained/12/information
|
I can see nothing in the rules that would explicitly prevent one player offering immunity to another player.
|
Would a turn order opposite the disprove order affect the strategy or gameplay in Clue? The official Clue rules call for a clockwise turn order, and a clockwise order of disproving suggestions. Would changing the order of the turn, or the order of disproving a suggestion so one is the opposite/reverse of the other have any meaning effect on strategy or gameplay? Miss Scarlet— the player with the red token— always plays first. Play then proceeds, in turn, to the first player’s left. Proving a Suggestion True or False - As soon as you make a Suggestion, your opponents, in turn, try to prove it false. The first to try is the player to your immediate left . This player looks at his or her cards to see if one of the three cards you just named is there. If the player does have one of the cards named, he or she must show it to you and no one else. If the player has more than one of the cards named, he or she selects just one to show you. If that opponent has none of the cards that you named, then the chance to prove your Suggestion false passes, in turn, to the next player on the left. <Q> It makes a subtle difference, in that, to prove you wrong, they have to reveal a card in your proposed solution. <S> If you (Ay) say Col M in the Kitchen with the Pipe, and <S> the next player (Bee) has <S> Col M, the one after (See) has Kitchen and Pipe, you don't find out that See has kitchen or pipe; you only know that Bee has the Col M card. <S> To find out if Kitchen and Pipe are out there, you need to use a guy that YOU don't have, and Bee doesn't have, so that See has to reveal either kitchen OR pipe. <S> Also note, in the above example, See knows which card was revealed to Ay, because he has the other two. <S> He can now mark it off. <S> But going the other way, Bee doesn't know which card was revealed to Ay. <S> The reverse can happen in other ways, too. <S> If you go with first to reveal, you might find out about the pipe or kitchen AND Col M. <S> Note <S> that, if the first to disprove is the one who played last, you have reason to suspect that they don't have their called suggestion; it changes slightly the strategy in what you pick, because you know that they will get to examine you based upon what they have just tried to solve with. <S> If you go with simultaneous reveal, you guarantee learning more than what you're supposed to. <S> If you just change the turn order the other direction, you learn either the pipe or the kitchen, but not the Col. <A> One variant I've played is to make suggestions to a specific opponent. <S> That opponent is then first to either show you a card or say they have no matching cards, and it then proceeds clockwise from there, until either one of your opponents shows you a card or noone does. <S> This allows a bit more strategy in that you can tailor questions for specific opponents. <A> The player who reveals his card always learns a little less than everyone else. <S> This is because everyone else learns that he has one of the suggested cards, but the revealer already knew that. <S> In the normal rules, the next player to act is also more frequently the player who reveals a card. <S> If you reversed the suggestion order, this disadvantage would go away. <S> This probably only has a minor impact, but you'd have to test to be sure. <A> I can't imagine changing turn order would change much. <S> When I play, we usually roll to see who goes first and pick you pick a character on your first turn. <S> I think any fixed order would be equivalent, but if the order were randomly determined after a suggestion is made, that would need to be accounted for in the suggestion. <S> Sometimes I'll be really only testing one person on one card, so I'd have to be more careful if I didn't know the order. <S> This would probably also slow down gameplay and be a bit confusing. <S> I suppose you could have the suggester (or another player) <S> determine the order of proving accusations false on each turn. <S> This would change the game, at least if I was playing and following the strategy outlined in this answer , because then (following that example) <S> Player B could skip straight to Player A and capitalize more efficiently on what she learned from Player B's turn. <S> Thus I think it would weaken that strategy.
|
It doesn't seem to affect things. Changing the order of proving a suggestion True or False, could change things if the order was dynamic.
|
Trashing Estates in Dominion How vital is it to trash Estates in the early rounds of a Dominion game, given that there is an action card available to trash Estates? <Q> Multi-card trashing, when available, is usually the best way to open the game. <S> Indeed, as The Chaz says, you want to get rid of your coppers as well your estates. <S> Theory's writeup on the chapel gives a thorough coverage of the quality of dense decks. <S> You can also see how many of the best openings from the 6 million games played online involve the chapel. <S> Trashing with single card trashers like Remodel and Develop are less pressing and often not the best opening. <A> As with all games of Dominion, it depends upon the Kingdom Cards available. <S> Estates are no help to you in the early game (barring a Baron or similar card). <S> Trashing them will increase your average Coins per Hand, and make it easier to by more expensive cards, especially those in the 5+ range that tend to be better. <S> The choice of buying a card that Trashes an Estate rather than a Silver or other card will depend on the Kingdom cards available. <A> There are three main things you need to consider when trashing your starting cards: What will trashing do for me? <S> If there's a great engine on the board, then trashing is a great way to help the engine components line up. <S> On the other hand, if you're playing a money-based strategy, trashing is usually bad because your starting Coppers still contribute to your economy and there's a huge opportunity cost to trashing just your Estates (buying a trasher instead of a Silver, which slows your economy every time you draw the trasher, plus the decreased buying power on the turns you trash cards). <S> How will the game end? <S> If the game is going to end on piles, that means it's probably too fast to overcome a deficit from trashing your starting Estates. <S> Plus, in alternate VP scenarios, Copper is a great card because it moves your average hand value closer to $5, so trashing your starting Coppers is an even worse idea than trashing your Estates. <S> Conversely, if the game is going to end on Colonies, you have a lot more time to make up your initial VP deficit. <S> The tempo of the game can also be affected by attacks, actions like Masquerade (you want to be able to pass your Estates to your opponent, which means not trashing them on your own), etc. <S> How good is the trashing? <S> Chapel and Remake are elite early game trashers. <S> Trading Post is awesome if you open 5/2, but it drops to almost useless if you don't hit $5 until turn 5 or later. <S> Upgrade is an awful card for just thinning your deck, but trashing your starting cards is an ok consolation prize while you're trying to set up Upgrade->Grand Market or something similar. <A> A couple of years ago at Prezcon, I won 4 (out of 4) games using a straight Bureaucrat - Mine strategy. <S> I don't specifically remember if there was or wasn't a trashing action card available, but if there was, I didn't use it. <S> For what it's worth, there was a trashing action in the final, and I didn't use it, and I got trounced. <S> So "vital"? <S> Not at all. <S> "Valuable strategy"? <S> Typically.
|
If you have a card that can trash an Estate in your deck during the early game, you will most likely be better off trashing it.
|
What is the "shuck-shuck" strategy? I've seen lots of Axis & Allies discussion refer to "shuck-shuck" in passing. I understand it has something to do with the US and UK supporting Russia in northern Europe using fighters and transports. Due to my inexperience with the game, I can't really figure out what's going on beyond that. What is "shuck-shuck"? How did it get its name? How exactly does it work? Why is it such a fixture in A&A discussions? <Q> According to ' Axis & Allies: Countdown to Invasion ' article on the Wizards of the Coast website: "2. <S> The North Atlantic <S> The United States starts with a pair of fully loadable transports on turn 1. <S> Where can they offload? <S> Just two territories in the Eastern hemisphere, really. <S> They can make it to the United Kingdom and Africa in one move, either preparing for D-Day or launching Operation Torch. <S> Because they can't motor back and forth from Washington to Normandy (what many longtime players call the "shuck-shuck"), they must coordinate with their allies. <S> " <S> There was also an interesting ' How to prevent Shuck Shuck? ' <S> forum discussion about combating the 'shuck-shuck' strategy. <S> Hope that helps! <S> Dave (dmw71) <A> The shuck-shuck strategy is an application of the so-called "infantry push" mechanic. <S> America holds the balance of power in this game. <S> Nevertheless, the Allies can lose if America spends her building points on say, airplanes, and gets unlucky. <S> See Can the U.S. Open With an Air-based Strategy in Allies and Axis? <S> The strategy for a "guaranteed" American win was expounded by Don Rae: http://draidin.com/websites/AAEssays/Index.html . <S> Since infantry are the most efficient resource, the secret is for America to manufacture mostly infantry (and transports), and dump them in key spots in the Atlantic. <S> This could be North Africa or Norway. <S> If you fancy an invasion of France that might work. <S> But the whole idea is to build up an impenetrable defense line that the Germans can't cross. <S> Once this is done, the superior number of Allies' IPCs will prevail, unless they are VERY unlucky. <A> The idea is to get a constant stream of US land units into Europe where they can fortify Karelia, shift to defend Russia, launch minimal-force attacks into Ukraine, or whatever is needed. <S> After a few turns, US can have 5 trans, and build say, 8 inf, 1 arm per turn to load them. <S> These can be spread between East US and West US <S> however the player wants (again, assuming rules allow pickup from W Canada). <S> On the non-com phase, move the land units to East or West Canada respectively. <S> On the next turn, these units will be picked up by transports in the UK SZ, from E Canada SZ, and returned to the UK SZ where they can be unloaded in Finland, or alternatively in WE, if an attack is viable. <S> Another alternative is to land in Algeria, or Spain, depending on strategy, from the Spain SZ. <S> I think the poster above accurately pointed out where the term comes from (this guy Don, who wrote some essay about A&A strategy - http://donsessays.freeservers.com/ ). <S> He said the process makes the sound "shuck shuck", whatever that means. <A> Shuck Shuck gets its name from the sound that transports make when they land troops. <S> the spelling I think is what throws people off, spelled how it sounds would be like Shoook shoook
|
Shuck-shuck is when the US player uses a fleet of transports to move land units (mostly infantry) from Eastern Canada (and Western C, in most rule variations) to Europe, usually Finland.
|
What card sleeves should I get for Cards Against Humanity? They measure 63mm wide by 88mm tall. The base set has 550 cards (460 White cards and 90 Black cards). The expansion has 100 cards (80 White cards and 20 Black cards) plus 12 blank cards (8 white, 4 black). For the uninitiated, Cards Against Humanity . <Q> None , but I am betting this was a trick question. <S> The cards dimensions are fairly close to the standard dimensions of a Magic: the Gathering card. <S> The cheapest card sleeves you could buy are the aptly named penny sleeves . <S> These sleeves will run you on average $0.01 US. <S> Since Cards Against Humanity runs 550 cards in the base set, you would be spending $5.50 to sleeve the cards, slightly over 20% the cost of buying a complete replacement of the entire game. <S> I suppose if you buy online, and sufficient quantity, you might be able to reduce the cost of the sleeves by 20%-30%. <S> Sleeving will increase the thickness, so it will not fit in the original box. <S> There are other issues with sleeving. <S> Sleeves of any sort make shuffling more difficult. <S> Penny sleeves are also notoriously slippery because they don't have textured backs (Like Dragon Shield or other high quality sleeves). <S> High quality sleeves would cost you more than the original game itself to sleeve. <S> Games are meant to be played, and this game wouldn't suffer much from having marked cards. <S> As an Apples-to-Apples clone, the only danger of marked cards is that the judge might know which card you or another player through in the pot. <S> This problem can be eliminated by having the judge close his eyes, look away, and having someone else shuffle the cards before giving them to the judge (we usually do this anyway to prevent the top card being the card from the person who decided last). <S> I would recommend against sleeving. <A> [I have both expansions]. <S> Using both colors helps keep cards distinct. <S> Also, since we usually play around drinks it helps ensure that they stay protected/away from sticky surfaces. <S> Additionally useful, is that the write your own blank cards stay in tact (i used a sharpie and the text started to smudge off). <A> I also bought Ultra Pro sleeves for my deck, in black. <S> I made a fusion deck with the main set, 1st & 2nd edition, plus selected Apples to Apples cards. <S> Ended up with almost 850 cards in total, so I picked up a cardboard deck box from a game shop for less than two bucks. <S> With shipping, I was able to get them for $0.05 <S> /each on Ebay. <S> Well worth the amusement of a durable, well used and (pseudo) hacked set.
|
I bought ultra pro black sleeves and ultrapro white sleeves (700) for my cards against humanity
|
What brand of card sleeves are most reliable for Magic the Gathering? I use Dragon Shield, KMC and Ultra-Pro. The reviews and forums don't seem to have a consensus on the question, "Which brand is the best?" But have there been any quality control tests that show statistically one brand is more reliable than the others? <Q> I have not seen any independent quality assurance tests comparing the various sleeves, and I sincerely doubt there is a comprehensive one to be found. <S> It's probably not economical for anyone involved, since QA comparisons like that can be quite expensive. <S> From anecdotal evidence at my local shop, which has ~80 player FNMs every week, most players seem to agree agree that: KMC sleeves (matte or normal) are generally the most durable. <S> Dragon Shield will start split during shuffling. <S> Ultra <S> -Pro Pro-Matte will become dirty fairly quickly. <S> These are the three most popular sleeve types at the shop. <A> I'll share my experience on sleeving matter. <S> KMC <S> : I use the black matte KMC. <S> And, It's thick, so if you are a double-sleever guy (like me), don't choose it, since it would be super thick, and hard to shuffle. <S> But, easiness in shuffling is subjective, so, if you wanna try, go for it. <S> Anyway, it's unarguably durable and really smooth to shuffle though (0 break record so far). <S> Ultra <S> pro : The first "serious" sleeve I use (the rugged-back one). <S> And it's frustratingly breaking apart a lot. <S> BUT, I think they improving their sleeve quality later on, so, when I try it several years later (looking for cheap sleeve for my edh), it's surprisingly durable. <S> So then, when I buy them later (the non-glare one) for my modern deck, it turns out really good and the most "fit" generally for double sleeving. <S> I love it very much. <S> (10-ish break record the old one, 0 out of +-200 for the new one) <S> Dragon shield <S> : I never use them (don't quite like the color selection). <S> But, one of my friend (old player) use it, and I dislike it since it doesn't have a rugged back (harder to shuffle for me) <S> -never try to find the rugged back one. <S> But it seems a good amount of player satisfied with it, <S> so, it may be decent too. <S> Conclusion : <S> While the sleeve quality is important, but your sleeve durability also greatly affected by your shuffling technique. <S> So, if you shuffle correctly (i guess), then at least ultra-pro <S> (I specifically recommend the non-glare one) is decent enough. <S> not to mention it's somewhat cheaper than KMC. <S> There's a non-glare variant too, which is I use to double sleeve my modern deck. <S> So far, my subjective rating for Ultra-Pro is 9/10, and KMC is 8/10 (mainly for being too thick to double sleeve. <S> Hope that helps. <A> I haven't seen any QC tests but I have been using both over the past year. <S> I have every color of Dragon Shields (except Brown and Pink) and I have only had an issue with 1 set (some tearing on about 10 sleeves). <S> I double sleeve my cards using Perfect Fits on the inside <S> and I riffle shuffle. <S> that puts a ton of stress on the sleeves <S> Ultra Pros are good, not as thick as Dragon Shields, but I haven't had an issue with them. <S> However, I've seen many of an opponent tear an Ultra Pro midgame. <S> I always put it to my friends this way... <S> In the lifetime of a box of sleeves you can buy one box of Dragon Shields or 3 boxes of something else. <A> My family own and manage a game store, and we have been into MTG and many other card games since their inception. <S> We like KMCs <S> the best all around, though some prefer Dragon Shields' color selection and price. <S> I believe Ultra-Pro sleeves have been gradually declining in quality. <S> I have seen too many packs with QC issues (incorrect cuts or gluing, etc). <S> They are the smoothest to shuffle, but show wear the first time they're shuffled, especially non-Pro-Mattes. <S> Most of our customers (especially the more experienced) miss the old days of Ultra-Pro, and end up doing as we do. <S> BCWs are excellent sleeves when you can find them. <S> Plainer and less color selection, but very affordable and durable. <S> I like them better than Dragon Shields but not as good as KMCs. <S> They're the best 'inexpensive' sleeves by miles. <S> This all depends on the pricing of your shop, of course.
|
For a 60-card deck, it's always KMCs (Only available in 80ct). I personally loves ultra pro, since I am able to double sleeve it without being too thick. For a Commander deck I invariably choose Dragon Shields (100ct).
|
Traditional 1-stone handicap before komi In "traditional" handicap, when there is a ranking difference of 1, black plays first and there is no komi ( Sensei's Library uses this term). But if you play without komi anyway, this is no handicap. In the days before komi, how was the 1-stone handicap handled? Or did the weaker player just take black, and handicap started at two stones? <Q> In Edo period go, the system worked like this: <S> Even: <S> Taiga-sen <S> (Alternating Black and White)One Dan difference: <S> San-Ai-Sen <S> (Black two out of three games)Two Dan difference: <S> Josen (Always Black)Three Dan difference: <S> Sen-Ni-Sen (Black two games, two stones on game)Four Dan difference: <S> Sen-Ni (Alternating Black and two stones)Five Dan difference: (Always take two stones)Six Dan difference: (two handis twice, three handis once)Seven Dan difference: (three stones twice, two stones once)Eight Dan difference: (always take three stones) <S> It is important to note that you had a different handicap against each player, based of your individual results against each other. <S> Also it was expected that you would play many games. <S> Almost like tennis where you try to break the serve, if you won consistently while playing white, it was impressive (Black is expected to win more often, getting the first move) <A> Taking the black stones always implied a handicap, even before the invention of komi. <S> It has been known for centuries that black had an advantage. <S> I think the real question is how even games worked before komi. <S> To my knowledge, there was no way to get actually even games. <S> The main workaround I could think of would be repeated color switching. <S> You may be be interested in the related concept of Jubango . <A> If the players were regarded as even in strength, they would alternate taking Black. <S> There was even an "intermediate" handicap where the weaker player would take Black, say, two times out of three.
|
If one player were clearly one stone weaker, he would ALWAYS take Black (with a "free" first move).
|
Which effects affect both opponents and which only one in Two Headed Giant? Say, for Cruel Edict I have to choose which one of my opponent's heads sacrifices a creature. But I think that Sudden Disappearance makes all of their permanents go away, not just one person's. Can someone tell me why? <Q> Cruel Edict and Sudden Disappearance <S> both only affect a single opponent. <S> all within the rules text ( example: Heartless Hidetsugu ), but this would be have the same effect in non-2HG duels or multiplayer games. <S> The only differences in 2HG with respect to rules text, is that players attack/defend in teams and take their turn as a team. <S> A card that referred to an attacking or defending player would be referring to both members of the teams, or cards that add/skip turns or phases. <S> The MtG Comprehensive Rules state: <S> 810.7a <S> Each team’s creatures attack the other team as a group. <S> During the combat phase, the active team is the attacking team and each player on the active team is an attacking player. <S> Likewise, the nonactive team is the defending team and each player on the nonactive team is a defending player. <S> Example: <S> One player in a Two-Headed Giant game controls Teferi’s Moat, which says “As Teferi’s Moat enters the battlefield, choose a color.” <S> and “Creatures of the chosen color without flying can’t attack you.” <S> Creatures of the chosen color without flying can’t attack that player’s team. <S> Example: If an attacking creature has forestwalk and either player on the defending team controls a Forest, the creature can’t be blocked. <S> 805.8 <S> If an effect gives a player an extra turn or adds a phase or step to that player’s turn, <S> that player’s team takes the extra turn, phase, or step. <S> If an effect causes a player to skip a step, phase, or turn, that player’s team does so. <S> If a single effect causes more than one player on the same team to add or skip the same step, phase, or turn, that team adds or skips only that step, phase, or turn. <S> If an effect causes a player to control another player, the controller of that effect controls the affected player’s team. <A> You are also "sharing" turns. <S> The same is true for controling another player's Turn (Mindslaver, Sorin Markov) <A> Sudden Disappearance affects only one opponent, even in Two-Headed Giant. <S> Players do not share control of permanents in Two-Headed Giant. <S> 810.5. <S> With the exception of life total and poison counters, a team’s resources (cards in hand, mana, and so on) are not shared in the Two-Headed Giant variant. <S> Teammates may review each other’s hands and discuss strategies at any time. <S> Teammates can’t manipulate each other’s cards or permanents. <S> Cards that refer to one opponent only affect one opponent. <S> Cards that refer to multiple opponents affect both. <S> The only change to what you'd expect from normal Magic is for certain cards that say "attacking player" or "defending player": <S> 810.7b <S> Any one-shot effect that refers to the “defending player” refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. <S> The controller of the effect chooses which one the spell or ability refers to at the time the effect is applied. <S> The same is true for any one-shot effect that refers to the “attacking player.” <S> Any characteristic-defining ability that refers to the “defending player” refers to one specific defending player, not to both of the defending players. <S> The controller of the object with the characteristic-defining ability chooses which one the ability refers to at the time the nonactive players become defending players. <S> All other cases in which the “defending player” is referred to actually refer to both defending players. <S> If the reference involves a positive comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls an Island) or a relative comparison (such as asking whether you control more creatures than the defending player), it gets only one answer. <S> This answer is “yes” if either defending player in the comparison would return a “yes” answer if compared individually. <S> If the reference involves a negative comparison (such as asking whether the defending player controls no black permanents), it also gets only one answer. <S> This answer is “yes” if performing the analogous positive comparison would return a “no” answer. <S> The same is true for all other cases that refer to the “attacking player.”
|
In general, the only cards that would affect both heads of an opponent in two headed giant (2HG) are cards that say each or A card that reads in part "target player takes an extra turn" will cause both heads to take an additional turn.
|
How can I play around targeted discard? Many decks in competitive Magic have access to targeted discard spells, like Duress and Thoughtseize . Against counterspells, you can rely on a variety of tricks like baiting counters, bottlenecking your opponent's mana, and good old-fashioned counter wars. Targeted discard cards allow your opponent to attack your hand on the very first turn of the game, and go right for your key cards — and it can often be backbreaking when your opponent takes away a crucial card like a combo piece or a sweeper. What tricks and tactics can you employ, either during deck-building or in play, to play around an opponent's targeted discard? (I know that one of the answers is going to be Force of Will . That's excellent, but please also include approaches that work in formats without free countermagic.) <Q> There are quite a few ways to play around discard decks: Play Leyline of Sanctity to make yourself Hexproof. <S> Since all relevant discard effects (except combat damage effects) come from spells and abilities that require you, the player, as a target, this one card hardcounters discard decks and, incidentally, also burn and many combo decks. <S> Play a deck without cards whose loss would cripple your strategy <S> /combo <S> Sligh comes to mind, or White Weeny, or Stompy. <S> Anything but Combo, basically, preferably Aggro. <S> If there are no key cards in your deck, you can't lose them to discard. <S> Play a deck that benefits from discard <S> Nowadays, there are many cards, keyword mechanics mechanics, and deck archetypes that benefit from you having few cards in hand or many in your graveyard. <S> Cursed Scroll , Ensnaring Bridge , Crucible of Worlds , Tarmogoyf , Hellbent , Threshold , and the Reanimator archetype are examples. <S> Draw more cards than your opponent can make you discard <S> All card advantage strategies apply. <S> While this does not directly counter targeted discard, it allows you to draw more cards and therefore more copies of your win conditions, overwhelming your opponent's capability to discard them. <S> Of course, if you lose all of your win conditions to discard, with no way to retrieve them from the graveyard, no amount of card draw will salvage the game. <S> Tutor for key cards <S> Nearly all discard, and AFAIK all targeted discard has sorcery speed. <S> Use instant speed tutor effects like Mystical Tutor to get you the cards you need exactly when you need them, without an opening for your opponent. <S> That increases your flexibility and allows you to carry 1 or 2 each of a wide range of strong cards. <S> Use targeted recycle to get the discarded card back Use cards like Regrowth or Noxious Revival to simply return the card you had to discard. <S> Either you get the card back immediately, or, if you have to put it on top of your library, play the recycler at the end of the opponent's turn. <S> If enough cards are in your graveyard, this even acts as a kind of tutor, since you may get to choose from a variety of cards. <S> Recyclers are not wasted, either, when your opponent doesn't play discard, so they can be easily integrated into the main deck. <A> To supplement Hackworth's excellent answer, I want to expand a little bit on why card draw in particular can be powerful against discard strategies. <S> Discard is inherently linear, in the sense that one discard spell doesn't make another inherently better; each Thoughtseize will trade one-for-one with the best card in your opponent's hand, but they don't interact much with each other and in extreme cases they can even interfere - stripping three cards from your opponent with one Fugue , for instance, might mean that the next one you cast only catches one card unless you wait a couple of turns. <S> By contrast, draw spells have a tendency to cascade; drawing additional cards means that you have more opportunity to draw additional card-draw spells, which in turn will feed even more cards into your hand. <S> This is somewhat less true with targeted discard, which is a great part of the reason why those spells tend to see play while 'victim-chooses' discard seldom does; and the cascading effect is somewhat less true with 'cantrip' card-draw, which I suspect is why Wizards has made those the primary form of efficient draw spells lately. <A> Addressing the second part about gameplay decisions: there are precious few ways to play around targeted discard once you've built your deck. <S> Here're some ideas, but in general, you can expect that it's not really possible to do so. <S> You could try to empty your hand of legal targets for your opponent's discard spells. <S> For example, if you're expecting Duress from your opponent, play your noncreature spells that turn even if they're less effective. <S> For example, if you have two copies of card A but only one copy of card B, play card B first. <S> Then next turn you'll always still have a copy of card A. <S> You could try to get the important cards out of your hand. <S> This requires specific cards, the most important one of which is Brainstorm . <S> In response to the discard spell, play Brainstorm and put your most important cards back on top, then draw them again. <S> When scrying, you could try to keep the important card out of your hand. <S> For example say you cast turn 1 <S> Serum Visions and see an important 3-mana card on top. <S> You can scry it 2nd from top, so that it's not in your hand <S> but you will draw it on turn 3 when you can actually cast it. <S> In this way a turn 2 discard spell from the opponent will not get the card. <S> Warning: if you are forced to shuffle your deck, you will lose the card.
|
You could try to play out the cards more vulnerable to discard first.
|
How does one set up a 1/4 board for Go – and is it a good way to start? As a beginner, I was handed a full go board. And, somehow figured it out. A beginner friend wants to start "small" on something like 1/4 of the board. Personally, I think that we should start with the entire board. <Q> There is a lot of discussion on whether starting on 19x19 or 9x9 is preferable, the general consensus tends to 9x9. <S> Personally, I started on 19x19 but would have preferred 9x9. <S> As a beginner, you first need to understand the most basic melee fighting tactics (atari, ladder, snapback, basic life and death, etc). <S> Those can be learned on both big and small boards, but small boards avoid introducing complex strategic issues and make for faster games that are easier to review. <S> You probably should stick to small boards until you are familiar enough with the game to stop making "obvious" mistakes (crawling with a dead group on the first line, playing out ladders, stuff like that). <A> If you have played go for a while, a full board can seem like a natural place to learn. <S> Obviously it is possible; So that asks the question: "Why do so many people learn on a 9x9 board?" and "Why does a 9x9 board exist at all?" <S> I have found, (past 10 years of teaching Go), that a 9x9 is the right place to teach people. <S> There are lots of reasons, (that you will probably find in the other answers - "get through your first 100 games quickly"), but my top reason is fear. <S> 19x19 lines looks like 18x18 squares to someone that has learnt to play, almost all other board games. <S> The mind can boggle at how complicated that must be; A 9x9 looks like 8x8 squares, which is the same dimensions as some other games use, (though they are mostly tactic based games and Go adds strategy into the mix.) <S> So to sum up, some reasons to learn on a 9x9: <S> Friendly size Get through teaching games quicker <S> Learn the rules without the distraction of the deeper complexities, (the fun part), getting in the way. <S> Still fun Cheaper to make or buy Easier to store <A> A 1/4 board (11x11), is not a standard size , so I do not believe that any official setup for black handicap stones exists. <S> Some confusion exists on what a quarter board is though, as I have seen a 9x9 also called a quarter board. <S> The handicaps for that board are listed here . <A> a 9x9 is a board that is set for a battle not a war. <S> and that is ok. <S> There is a lot less centre area in a 9x9, which is good because there is no territory in the centre. <S> I find a 9x9 takes 15 minutes to pay,where as a 19x19 will take an hour or more. <S> A 13x13 is a interesting compromise. <S> A small war. <A> Actually setting up the 'quarter board' is hard to do on a 19x19 board. <S> Most people use a small board specifically made for the size, or make their own. <S> It is possible to crop an area from the large board, but this can be inconvenient. <S> As for learning on one, I feel Pieter Geerkens comment is quite correct. <S> 13x13 gives a more balanced vision of the game than 9x9. <S> 19x19 is too large, 9x9 is too small, but good to introduce the rules with. <S> Once the player has the basic rules down 100% on 13x13 then 19x19 becomes more interesting. <S> After some years playing primarily 19x19, I've gone back to 9x9 and 13x13 to improve my life and death techniques and starting moves. <A> The basic board sizes are 9 x 9, 81 points or a "one-quarter" board, 13 X 13, or a "half" size board of 169 points, and 19 x 19, for a "full" board of 361 points. <S> Many full sized boards will have a 9 x 9, or 13 X 13, board printed on the back. <S> Otherwise, you could take paper and "block off the extra ten rows or columns of points above 9 x 9 on a full board. <S> I learned to play Go on a full-sized board and never looked back.
|
You might want to use a smaller board for the first five or ten games, just to learn the mechanics, but you'll want to transition to a full sized board as soon as possible so that you don't learn strategies that work on the smaller board but may be inappropriate for the full version.
|
Is it advantageous to go first in Dominion? The rulebook says: If the highest scores are tied at the end of the game, the tied player who has had the fewest turns wins the game. What advantages does the first player have over the other players? Do these advantages overcome the detriment of losing in a tie when the other player has had fewer turns? What effect does the number of players have on the advantage/disadvantage? <Q> Yes, it is certainly advantageous to go first in Dominion. <S> There are some good threads about first player advantage on the DominionStrategy forums. <S> Here is what Donald X thinks about first player advantage . <S> Donald X actually underrates first player advantage based on faulty understanding of optimal play with a disadvantage (his "proof" seems to require symmetric play, which is not optimal under the asymmetry that first player advantage can induce) and hence he understates the advantage. <S> Here is an expert player stating the reasons for first player advantage . <S> There is also copious data supporting the idea that first player has an advantage. <S> Here is some data analysis <S> I did that corrects for second player is better confounding problem @Jefromi mentions. <S> It says that first player advantage is worth about 2 or 3 points overall. <A> Your 3rd turn is safe from attacks. <S> For instance in a game where people will discard down to 3 "every" turn, you will get 3 turns of playing with 5 cards, while everyone else will get 2. <S> This advantage can be very significant <S> as dominion lead can snowball. <S> You will have the most chances to give away curses. <S> You have first dibs at all piles. <S> If any pile of good cards runs out you have a chance to have the most. <S> You can take a province and end the game denying everyone more turns. <S> So in a game where everyone is tied after an equal number of turns with 1 province left, you can take a province and win. <S> The tiebreaker in no way offsets this. <S> I would recommend letting everyone take the same number of turns, and letting players buy virtual cards from depleted piles on the last round. <S> Even with this and the tie breaker i do not feel like it <S> funny offsets the first turn advantage. <S> The only thing that may help more than going first is 3/4 vs 5/2 but that is fixed pretty easily <A> Some simulator data with simple mirror strategies might help to make this more visible: Sea Hag is the biggest offender: if both players go for Sea Hag, the first player will win almost twice as many games as the second player and in 4-player the first player will win almost 3 times as many games as the player in the 4th seat. <S> Cutpurse's cumulative effect is clearly evident when we add more players. <S> (Tact/Vault is the double Tactician Vault deck and HP/Baron is the Hunting Party/Baron deck) <A> The obvious thought is that if you scored the same number of points with one fewer turn, you did "better" (and thus deserve to win the tiebreak).
|
There are many advantages to going first.
|
Would Pillar of Flames get rid of a Blightsteel Colossus? Blightsteel Colossus is indestructible. The rules for indestructable says: 700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can’t destroy it. (See rule 701.6, “Destroy.”) Such permanents are not destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the lethal-damage state-based action (see rule 704.5g). Rules or effects may cause an indestructible permanent to be sacrificed, put into a graveyard, or exiled." The rules for destroy says: 701.6. Destroy 701.6a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard. 701.6b The only ways a permanent can be destroyed are as a result of an effect that uses the word “destroy” or as a result of the state-based actions that check for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g) or damage from a source with deathtouch (see rule 704.5h). If a permanent is put into its owner’s graveyard for any other reason, it hasn’t been “destroyed.” Now, the crux of the matter. Pillar of Flame reads: If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead Now, from my understanding of these rules, since the Colossus wouldn't die since it's indestructable, if they got enough lethal damage on it with Pillar of Flames being used on it, the colossus wouldn't be exiled since it would not die. Is my understanding correct? <Q> You are correct. <S> The answer to the problem is no, the Colossus would survive. <S> The reason is within the Pillar of Flames' text: <S> If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead <S> This works as a replacement effect that places the card in exile instead of the graveyard. <A> To expand upon Hyppy's answer, it would be helpful to know the definition of "die". <S> 700.6. <S> The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.” <S> It is used only when referring to creatures. <S> As Hyppy points out, the rules text for Pillar of Flame is a replacement effect. <S> If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead . <S> It modifies what happens if the creature is destroyed, moving the creature to exile instead of the graveyard. <S> Since Blightsteel Colossus isn't destroyed by lethal damage rules, or any other rules for that matter, there is no "dies" event to replace. <A> Interestingly enough, even if Blightsteel Colossus wasn't indestructible, it probably still wouldn't get exiled by Pillar of Flame. <S> According to 616.1: If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object's controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply , following the steps listed below. <S> If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). <S> An non-indestructible Blightsteel destroyed by (or one sacrificed after taking damage from) Pillar of Flame has two replacement effects, the one on the Colossus stating to shuffle it into the library instead of placing it in the graveyard, and the exile effect on Pillar of Flame. <S> The controller of the Colossus must choose one of these to apply, and it seems pretty likely that they would choose the shuffle option. <A> Given that the Colossus is indestructible, as has been stated, if you use Pillar of Flames, it will still take that 2 damage. <S> If you could then somehow get the toughness to 0 or below (a morbid Tragic Slip, for instance), in the same turn, it would indeed be exiled. <S> EDIT <S> As has been pointed out, you'd still have to deal with the double replacement effects. <S> As WLPhoenix, the controller would get to decide what happens, and honestly, why would he exile it?
|
Blightsteel Colossus is indestructible, so it would not be destroyed by damage to begin with and never trigger the replacement effect.
|
How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand? In Magic, at the start of the game, you draw 7 cards. How would you calculate the likelihood of drawing a specific card in your opening hand? For example, let's say I have a 60 card deck, and I'm running 4 Birds of Paradise . What is the percent chance that I will have at least one Bird in my opening hand? <Q> The calculation you are looking for is called a Hypergeometric Distribution . <S> This calculated your chances of drawing a particular number of "successes" from a population, without replacement. <S> Population Size: 60 cards Successes in Population: 4 Birds of Paradise Sample Size: 7 cards Successes in Sample: 1 (the minimum number we want to draw) <S> Results: <S> 39% chance of drawing at least 1 Birds of Paradise. <S> In the Hypergeometric Distribution calculator linked above, that result is represented in the Cumulative Probability: <S> P(X ≥ 1) <S> field: <S> the chance of drawing greater than or equal to 1. <S> The online calculator will also give you the odds of drawing greater than that many successes in the sample (6%, the P(X > 1) result), and exactly that number (33%, the Hypergeometric Probability: P(X = 1) result). <S> You can see the calculation on the Wikipedia page , or searching math.stackexchange.com for Hypergeometric Distribution. <S> Unfortunately, this site doesn't support math formatting. <S> (Note: You will also need to know how to calculate binomial coefficients (and factorials). <A> The odds of drawing a particular card in a 60-card deck are obviously 1/60. <S> If there are four such cards, the odds are 4/60. <S> The odds of NOT drawing one of those cards in the first draw is 1 - 4/60 = 56/60. <S> To calculate the odds of the entire first hand, we can do it backwards: <S> The odds of not having any of the four cards in the first card is 56/60 (as I said above). <S> The second card has odds of 55/59 (i.e. one of the remaining non-Bird cards after a non-Bird card was drawn to start), and then 54/58 and so on: Card 1 <S> : 56/60 chance of not being the card you targeted Card 2 <S> : 55/59 Card 3: 54/58 Card 4: 53/57 Card 5: 52/56 Card 6: 51/55 Card 7: 50/54 <S> The odds of ALL of these happening (i.e. none of the four cards being in your hand) is the result of multiplying all these odds together: (56*55*54 <S> *53 <S> *52 <S> *51 <S> *50) / <S> (60*59*58 <S> *57 <S> *56 <S> *55*54) <S> = ~0.6005 or ~60% <S> To calculate the odds of at least one of these cards being the one you're looking for, you can subtract this result from 1 (or 100%) to get a ~40% chance that (at least) one of your four cards will occur in a 7-card draw from a 60-card deck . <A> It will go beyond opening hand and will let you see by what turn are you likely to have drawn the combo that you need.
|
Magic Workstation besides many other tools for collection management, deck building, and online play has a very powerful probability calculator.
|
Can you place units in an Industrial Complex the turn you place it? Me and my friends were playing Axis and Allies: spring 1942 and one player placed an industrial complex on a country and then placed their units there, in the same turn. We looked through the entire rule book and we couldn't find it. We looked under the section for placing units and the appendix for Industrial Complex. Are you allowed to to this in Axis and Allies? <Q> No, you cannot use industrial complexes you captured or purchased this turn. <S> You must have missed it, top of page 22 . <S> Phase 5: <S> Mobilize New Units <S> Move the newly purchased units from the mobilization zone on the game board to eligible spaces you have controlled since the start of your turn, with the following exceptions (below). <S> You cannot use industrial complexes that you captured or purchased this turn . <A> Hey I just wanted to add to this question to say that I have an older version of Axis and Allies purchased back in the 80s. <S> In my version, it is NOT clear on whether you can place new units in the same space as a newly purchased factory. <S> In fact, here is the exact quote from my version of the rulebook: 'IMPORTANT: you cannot place newly purchased items on industrial complexes that you just captured.' <S> Here is another quote from Action Sequence 5: ' <S> Notice that it DOES NOT mention anything about newly PURCHASED factories, just capturing existing ones. <S> I have played for years with this rule and it has made for some very interesting games in the first few turns, when everyone is buying up the 3 or 4 extra factories to start a new offensive somewhere strange on the map. <S> They must have changed this in later versions of the game. <S> I had no idea until I visited this site. <A> Just to amplify the rules cited in a previous answer, on any given turn, you can BUILD an industrial complex, or you can build UNITS on a completed one. <S> But you can't do BOTH on the same turn in the same place. <S> It's unreasonable to expect this in any game. <S> And you have to own the complex at the beginning of your turn to build. <S> If it fell into enemy hands, and you recaptured it, you can't build units there either. <S> (That is, you can't "recapture" and "build" on the same turn in the same place.) <A> I think the answer is at the beginning of the rule book. <S> Step one is order units. <S> Step two is repair and pay for said units. <S> So, if a factory is fully damaged, you can repair it, but you can't place it until the next turn.
|
You cannot place units in a just-captured territory that has an industrial complex on it - you must wait until your next turn to place units there.'
|
Where to buy or how to cut blank hexes for own game prototype? Fellow board game player wants to test his game prototype, which uses a number of hex pieces (prefreably smaller than Catan or Eclipse ones). Is there a place to buy some blank ones? We could then use adhesive paper labels printed on inkjet printer. Or maybe there is a place to send full-hex graphic design and receive cutted pieces? Alternatively, do you have working DIY methods for cutting uniform hexes? <Q> Yes, you can buy blank hex pieces. <S> Print&Play <S> Productions offers cardboard hex tiles in several different sizes through Boards & Bits . <S> Chipboard Shapes <S> - Hex 1.19 <S> " [35 pcs] $2.00Chipboard <S> Shapes <S> - Hex 1.5" <S> [20 pcs] $2.00Chipboard <S> Shapes <S> - Hex 2.2" <S> [11 pcs] $2.00Chipboard <S> Shapes <S> - Hex 2.6" [22 pcs] <S> $ <S> 3.00Chipboard <S> Shapes <S> - Hex 3.9 <S> " [8 pcs] $3.00 <S> You could also get wooden hexes from WoodNShop for $0.15-$0.42 each, or at a discount by the 100s. <S> I am unsure if these would fit your purposes for tile laying, as I have heard complaints that the tile dimensions are not uniform enough for such a purpose. <S> C/ <S> O HEXAGON 1/8 <S> X 1 <S> $0.15 C/ <S> O HEXAGON 1/8 <S> X 2 $0.20 <S> C/ <S> O HEXAGON 1/8 <S> X <S> 1 $0.32 <S> C/ <S> O HEXAGON 1/8 <S> X 1 <S> $0.42 C/ <S> O HEXAGON 1/4 <S> X 2 <S> $0.20 <S> There is also plastic tiles , if you are so inclined. <S> With a little bit of work to remove the mesh backing, you could use actual hexagonal tiles from your local hardware store . <S> I don't know of any board game manufacturer that creates hex tiles with custom graphics. <S> Board game maufacturers are capable of creating protype board games, but my guess is the cost is prohibitive. <S> You probably don't even need hex tiles for testing purposes. <S> If the hex tiles need not be rotated, then square tiles can be offset every other row for the same effect as a hex tile. <S> If orientation is important, wooden tiles/disks can be substituted for hex tiles. <A> Quilters and schools often use die-cutters to make shaped pieces. <S> Hexagons are one of the standard die types, and are available in a variety of sizes. <S> Many cut multiples at once, tho the standard sized template is a 5x8" block with 1 large, or 2, 4, or 6 hexagons of smaller sizes (3", 2", 1" face to face) <S> Search for Hexagon die cut to find more variety than is worth listing here. <S> Craft stores and school supply stores often also have them. <S> To use them, however, you'll want a die-cutting press - itself a hundred dollar item. <A> at the Wikipedia entry for hexagons( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagon ) there is a really neat gif on how to draw a normal hexagon with a compass and a straight edge. <S> Otherwise I've used TheGameCrafter.com in the past. <S> They have a Hex playing cards . <S> although that's probably larger then catan. <S> (3.75in X 3.25in). <S> and you can even get blanks there (if they have them in stock.) <A> Another source worth checking out, specifically for the games market, is Blue Panther LLC: they seem to make pieces specifically for gaming and can do custom cuts or engravings when you're ready to take that step. <S> Have a look at http://www.bluepantherllc.com/ for the details. <S> I've done my own prototyping with wood pattern blocks, an educational tool you can find at a lot of school-supply stores; I was lucky enough to find a bag of nothing but hexes, but the shop I got it from has no idea what the model/part number on that bag was (if any) <S> and I can't seem to find specifically hex-shaped pieces online, just a set of hexes, triangles, squares, etc. <A> Disclaimer: I own this business. <A> FYI: <S> It isn't going to look as pretty as real hex tiles <S> but if you are just prototyping a game then you can functionally simulate Hexes tiles with Square tiles since six squares can fit around each square if you stagger rows. <S> Drawing dots one quarter and three quarters down each edge and connect the nearest dots with lines makes the hex nature of squares more apparent. <S> Real life example of someone using just square tiles to create a hex board: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/786116/beehive
|
Prawn Designs , based in California, sells custom bits and bases , including hexes. If you want to cut your own uniform hex tiles, you are going to need a die cutter ($600), and a custom die .
|
Can nonbasic dual lands such as "Azorius Chancery" be destroyed by the card text "destroy target land"? My cousin and I play MtG together sometimes. He has many years of experience, and I just started playing recently and we have had an argument when I tried to destroy his nonbasic dual lands such as Azorius Chancery , and Boros Garrison , with cards like Poison the Well , and Wrecking Ball , that have the card text "Destroy target land," and "Destroy target creature or land." He says that dual lands with the type/subtype "Land" and card text like... Azorius Chancery enters the battlefield tapped. When Azorius Chancery enters the battlefield, return a land you control to its owner's hand. Tap: Add {W}{U} to your mana pool. are nonbasic lands and can't be destroyed by cards with the text "destroy target land". So contrary to the card type/subtype being "Land" he says I can't destroy it. Is he right or wrong? The way I see it, if I can destroy, for example, a mountain with a type/subtype "Basic Land" using an instant/sorcery that has the text "destroy target land" (which he allowed me to do) then why can't I destroy a nonbasic land that has the type/subtype "Land". I would appreciate if you show some hard evidence or state your MtG experience, such as been to tournaments and have seen that it is or isn't legal to make your answers more credible when I show my cousin the responses if I'm right. <Q> The ultimate authority in these matters is the Comprehensive Rules (CR). <S> They are updated regularly, and are free to download. <S> The simplest rule from the CR that clarifies that nonbasic lands are lands: 305.8. <S> Any land with the supertype “basic” is a basic land. <S> Any land that doesn’t have <S> this supertype is a nonbasic land , even if it has a basic land type <S> So, all lands that don't have the Basic supertype are lands that are nonbasic, even if they have a basic land type. <S> There are several lands with a basic land type that aren't basic lands, like the original dual land cycle <S> ( Badlands et. <S> al., Pain Lands Sulfurous Springs , etc.) <S> , while there are only 5 basic land cards. <S> The basic lands have card names Mountain , Swamp , Island , Plains , and Forest . <S> Then the rule below shows that a card like Boros Garrison is a legal target for Poison the Well , because it is referencing an object with "Land" in the card's Type Line. <S> 109.2. <S> If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield. <S> If the card were specifically referencing only nonbasic lands, the rules text would have specifically said so. <S> ( Examples: Ruination , Blood Moon , Dust Bowl ). <S> Similarly, if a card is referring only to basic lands or lands with a basic land type, it would say so. <S> ( Examples: <S> Fiery Fall , Global Ruin , Null Chamber , Flashfires ). <A> From the Comprehensive Rules: 109.2. <S> If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield. <S> “Land” without any other modifiers means “a permanent on the battlefield with the Land type”. <S> Therefore a spell or effect that says “Destroy target land” will in fact destroy whatever land it targets, regardless of whether that land is basic or not. <S> There are effects in the game that only affect basic lands, or only affect nonbasic lands, but in those cases the extra restriction is stated explicitly. <S> For example, Earthcraft can't be used to untap a non-basic land, and Wasteland can't be used to destroy a basic land. <S> However, effects that just say “land” don't care whether the land is basic or nonbasic. <A> Continuing my effort to answer MtG questions using just the Basic Rulebook . <S> Azorius Chancery is a Land, because it has "Land" in its Type Line . <S> This is the area between the card art, and the rules text. <S> (See page 4, Parts of a Card). <S> Card type - <S> Every card has at least one card type: artifact, creature, enchantment, instant, land, planeswalker, or sorcery. <S> A card’s type is printed under its illustration. <S> Some cards, like artifact creatures, have more than one type. <S> Some cards also have subtypes, such as “Goblin” and “Warrior” in “Creature — Goblin Warrior,” or supertypes, such as “basic” in “Basic Land — Forest.” <S> Nonbasic land - Any land that doesn’t have the supertype “basic” on its type line—in other words, any land not named Plains , Island , Swamp , Mountain , or Forest . <S> You can’t put more than four copies of any one nonbasic land card into a deck. <S> Wrecking Ball can target Azorius Chancery, because it is a permanent with the proper characteristic "Land" in the Type Line, and it is a permanent on the battlefield. <S> (See Target page 9) <S> Target <S> - When you see the word “target” on a spell or ability, you have to choose one or more things for the spell or ability to affect. <S> You’ll be able to choose only certain kinds of things, such as “target red permanent” or “target creature or player.” ...
|
You are correct, you can destroy any permanent with the type "Land" using a card that says "Destroy target land."
|
What first turn kill in multiplayer FFA provides the best ratios? People love to figure out first turn kills in Magic: the Gathering, and have been around since the beginning, when someone threw together a deck with Channel , Black Lotus , Fireball , Mountain . Pulling off a first turn kill in multiplayer is much harder, because you need to do much more damage to your opponents. Assume the following: You have 4 opponents. Legacy Banned List . You get to determine every card you draw (including starting hand). Your opponents take no actions. ( goldfish ). What is the maximum amount of total life loss that is possible? Not sure of the best way to rank submissions, perhaps fewest cards used, least mana used, most life loss, or least expensive cards. Perhaps an average of those values. <Q> False Cure deck <S> - I used to have a Vintage version of this deck, using proxies for all the expensive cards in the deck. <S> Cast 1x Dark Ritual ($1) Cast 1x <S> False Cure ($1.50) <S> Cast 4x Skyshroud Cutter ($0.10) for alternate casting cost. <S> First Skyshoud Cutter causes opponents gain 5 life (25 life), False Cures and opponents lose 10 life. <S> Remaining 3 Skyshroud Cutter's do the same. <S> 7 Cards (AVG 22.9 life/card). <S> Cheating a little since we are giving opponents life 6 Mana (AVG 55.3 life/mana), or using CMC instead 8.42 <S> 40 * 4 life = 160 total $14 + <S> $1 + $1.50 + 4x$0.10 (approximate $16.90 total, AVG 9.47 life/$) <S> (Prices by TCGPlayer.com , 5th lowest Near Mint price) <A> Geth's Grimoire deck - Win through discard. <S> Half as cheap, with a better AVG life loss per dollar. <S> Swamp ($0.05) <S> {B} Dark Ritual ($1) 3x{B} Priest of Gix ($0.25) 3x{B} Priest of Gix ($0.25) 3x{B} Culling the Weak on Priest of Gix ($0.50 <S> ) 6x{B} Culling the Weak on Priest of Gix ($0.50) <S> 9x{B} <S> Geth's Grimoire ($0.25 <S> ) 5x{B} <S> Rotting Rats ($0.05 <S> ) 3x{B} <S> 8th card played, opponents discard down to 6. <S> Draw 4. <S> Culling the Weak on Rotting Rats ($0.50 <S> ) 6x{B} <S> #Threshold# <S> Cabal Ritual ($0.75) <S> 9x{B}0 <S> Liliana's Caress ($1.20) 7x{B} Lilianas Caress ($1.20) <S> 5x{B} (Unearth) <S> Rotting Rats 3x{B} <S> Opponents discard down to 5 and -4 life (16). <S> Draw 4. <S> Cabal Ritual ($0.75 <S> ) 6x{B} <S> Delirium Skeins ($0.05 <S> ) 3x{B} Opponents discard down to 2 and -12 life (4). <S> Draw 12. <S> Delirium Skeins ($0.05 <S> ) 3x{B} Opponents discard down to 0 and -8 life (2 triggers remain on stack). <S> Game Over 15 cards (AVG 5.3 life/card) 32 mana (AVG 2.5 life/mana) 80 life loss total (16 on the stack not included.) <S> $7.40 (AVG 10.8 life/$) <A> Damned Spirits - Spirits to grave, and turbo mana. <S> Cheapest combo so far. <S> Swamp ($0.05) <S> {B} Dark Ritual ($1) 3x{B} Dark Ritual ($1) <S> 5x{B} <S> Priest of Gix ($0.25 <S> ) 5x{B} <S> Culling the Weak on Priest of Gix ($0.50) <S> 8x{B} Iname, Death Aspect for 20 common Spirits ($0.20) 2x{B} <S> Songs of the Damned ($0.10) <S> B + 21 <S> = 22x{B} <S> Exsanguinate for 20. ($0.05) <S> Stats 8 cards (AVG 10 life/card) <S> I suppose you could "cheat" to increase the AVG by filling the deck with 52 cheap spirits. <S> This would allow you to Exsanguinate for 52 <S> (AVG 26 life/card). <S> The highest life per card average, but not realistic. <S> 35 mana (AVG 2.5 life/mana) <S> 80 life lost $4.65 (AVG 17.20 life/$) <A> Storm Kobolds - Storm for infinite damage (could Brain Freeze for mill and <S> then Burning Inquiry to draw opponents out). <S> Swamp ($0.05) <S> {B} Dark Ritual ($1) 3x{B} Priest of Gix ($0.25) 3x{B} Burnt Offering on Priest of Gix ($0.10) 2x{B} 3x{R} <S> Cloudstone Curio ($2.50) <S> 2x{R} 2x <S> Crimson Kobolds ($1 each) <S> For infinite bounce/Storm Grapeshot ($0.05) <S> Statistics 8 cards (AVG 10 life/card) 10 mana (AVG 8 life/mana) 80 total life loss (infinite technically) $5.70 (AVG 14.04 life/$)
|
Play Overgrown Tomb ($14)
|
How does Talisman 4th Edition compare with earlier versions? I played Talisman back in the 1980s - I don't know whether it was the first or second edition. I enjoyed it. Lots of years later I'm back into board games - particularly Catan, Dominion, Carcasonne. I see that the latest version of Talisman is a 4th edition. How does this most recent edition compare with the original game? What has changed? <Q> According to the posters on this thread , the only changes between 1st and 2nd edition were cosmetic. <S> Although one poster mentions slightly different wording on some of the wands. <S> The differences between 2nd edition and 4th edition are noted on this thread . <S> Cosmetic changes, including larger board, cards, plastic bits, and cardboard cutout characters. <S> RULES and GAME Mechanics 6) <S> Major Difference - Craft can be gained for every 7 points of craft monsters defeated. <S> 7) <S> Major Difference - Spell Casting Limitations - <S> In their turn, the maximum number of Spells a character may cast is equal to the number of spells, and whichever spells they possessed at the start of that Turn. <S> A Character may only cast one Spell during another Character's Turn. <S> This does not apply to the Command Spell. <S> (If you ALWAYS have a Spell due to the Wand or Ability, you draw your 'new' spell at the end of your turn) 8) <S> Major Difference - Mules are NO LONGER <S> OBJECTS, they are considered 'FOLLOWERS' " <S> The mule can carry an extra 4 objects for you while it is your follower. <S> If you lose the mule, you will leave any surplus objects of your choice in the space you are in." <S> I.E Mules can be 'Mesmerised' by the spell but <S> NOT 'Acquisitioned' by the spell, hence if you win a character to character battle, you can no longer 'take' the mule, as its no longer an object. <S> Visiting the Villiage shops is not optional, Market Day allows everyone to buy from a market rather than trade with each other, Orb of Knowledge is no longer one use. <A> I played the new version earlier this summer. <S> I had not played the original in more than a decade <S> but game play was pretty much the same. <S> The new boards and cards were beautiful, though. <S> Some of the playable characters from the original were missing (the elf is one I can remember off the top of my head). <S> Still, given a choice, I would definitely play the new edition. <A> I assume that by "4th edition" you mean "revised 4th edition" as it's the most recent version and differs substantially from its non-revised predecessor. <S> Talisman was always a very random game with many effects depending on the die roll. <S> To somewhat counteract this, revised 4th edition introduced the Fate stat. <S> Spending a Fate point allows you to reroll 1 die, giving players some amount of control over the fate of their character. <S> In my opinion, this is the most important difference. <S> * <S> Last but not least, the game finally <S> ** is more formalized. <S> For example, in the 2nd edition an effect might refer to a weapon, and the players needed to figure out on their own, whether a given piece of equipment is a weapon or not. <S> In the most recent edition if an item is a Weapon it is explicitly stated on the card. <S> *although 4th edition has it's own brand-new balance problems. <S> **to be honest, this might be already the case in the 3rd edition - <S> my knowledge about that version is very small
|
Many small changes address the balance issues from previous editions.
|
What to keep in mind when copying a small card game? There's an old card game I want, but it's been out of print for 15 years and currently going for >$1000 used. There are just 80 cards in the game, and I've got a friend who does own it. My plan is just to scan the cards, print them two-sided, laminate them and cut them out with a knife. I could also get plastic pockets and print the front and back separately. What are some common pitfalls in printing a card game, and what am I likely to have missed? (Don't worry, of course I'll mail a fit donation to the manufacturers.) <Q> As commenters have pointed out, the copying that you are describing is illegal in most countries. <S> This isn't legal advice (and it depends on where you're located), but a quick Google search about copying and protecting card games seems to suggest that you probably can make a copy if you don't directly copy the artwork or wording used in the original game. <S> It sounds like you can write out the rules in your own words, and make your own cards. <S> Of course, some would say this is ethically questionable. <S> And who knows what the issues are if the game mechanics are patented in some way. <S> (Don't worry, of course I'll mail a fit donation to the manufacturers.) <S> There's a better way. <S> If the game is out of print, but the manufacturers are still contactable, why not just write to them? <S> Something like "I am really interested in a copy of this game. <S> Is it possible to buy it from you still? <S> Are you likely to reprint it anytime soon? <S> If not, would you mind if I photocopied my friends copy and mailed you $70?" <A> Copyright concerns aside, I can help with the printing. <S> I recently made a 100-card game (actually a Fluxx variant) like so: <S> I printed out the cards in sheets of nine cards (onto standard A4 paper), then chopped them out with scissors. <S> This might take a while if you've got too many, but 80 should be OK. <S> To make them more sturdy, I bought 100 penny-sleeves and got a bunch of old, unwanted Magic cards (try your FLGS or CCG-playing friends if you have none). <S> I simply placed the printed cards (on paper) into a sleeve with a Magic card to make it firm and less vulnerable to breaking while shuffling/dealing/etc. <S> If the card-backs are significant (they weren't for me), you could print them out too and place them in the other side of the sleeve, but honestly that sounds like a lot of work. <S> For instance, if there are two types of card, you could put some Magic cards in backwards, or use different CCGs, or different colours of Magic card. <S> Not particularly high-quality, but considering the cost is the cost of printing a dozen sheets of paper and about a quid for the sleeves, it's prototype-gaming on a budget! <A> I have just built a prototype for a card game. <S> Since I was not using any art, I ordered the printing of the cards on those small business cards. <S> They are thick and sturdy enough to last a long while and easy to shuffle too. <S> The most of the card rules are common, so, not a lot of text needed to be on the cards them selves. <A> I'm also working on a custom Fluxx deck, have done a little research <S> , www.makeplayingcards.com has a lot of customization options. <S> Not sure they are the cheapest (but you can order a single deck if you want, $12 for 54 cards), but was referred by a friend who says quality is good. <S> Johno, would be interested in comparing notes on custom Fluxx decks...
|
You can avoid the issue of illegal copyright infringement if you have permission.
|
Are all jenga blocks of exactly same size? If you ever play the game it's easy to conclude that blocks dimensions vary, otherwise the occurrence of loose blocks would be symmetric/regular when the tower initially built. However, I was unable to find any reference to that fact anywhere in internet (apart a vague mention in this paper ). Hence, the question. Are all blocks exactly equal, and if no, what are exact sizes? How many different sizes of blocks are used? And as importantly, how do you know this? <Q> The Wikipedia page states that the blocks are: <S> Each block is three times as long as its width, and one fifth as thick as its length 1.5×2.5×7.5 cm <S> (0.59×0.98×3.0 in). <S> And the official website states: <S> A classic Jenga game consists of 54 precision-crafted, specially finished hard wood blocks. <S> I disagree with your assertion that, "blocks dimensions vary, otherwise the occurrence of loose blocks would be symmetric/regular when the tower initially built. <S> " If the dimensions were the same, but the weight varied, the weight would not be evenly distributed throughout the tower. <S> That aside, you are probably correct that the blocks are not all exactly the same size. <S> Only one size block is manufactured, but because machines that cut the wood have certain tolerances (probably in 10s or 100s of microns), you cannot get a perfect cut. <S> Even if you could, the wood surface isn't flat anyway. <S> The ridges of the grain are very deep, as can be seen in this scanning electron microscope images . <S> Finishing the wood would make some of these differences disappear, but even that wouldn't be perfect. <A> The inventor of Jenga actually mentioned this fact on a podcast called How to Do Everything in August of 2015. <S> https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-do-everything/id420543296?mt=2&i=349678276 <S> The trick is that the blocks are of slightly different thicknesses. <A> First off: nothing is "exact." <S> I mean literally nothing. <S> Even if the machine is set to be exact... <S> it probably is... <S> hardwood (yes, it is a compound word) will vary because it is a natural thing. <S> Every piece absorbs moisture at a slightly different rate and has natural variations. <S> Anyway, it is a game. <S> That is the point. <S> It is meant to be slightly off. <A> steel blocks could be milled to tight tolerance and maintain shape but the game would be very short. <S> wood blocks are used because of their inherent imperfections. <S> This allows the gaps between blocks to happen that make the game what it is, FUN
|
I do not believe that the block dimensions vary much, except because of manufacturing error. Even if they were made of aluminum, nothing is exact and there will be statistical variations that could be in the 5th decimal place, but nothing is exact.
|
Can a takeout doubler pass a redoubled contract? South opened one diamond. West doubled for takeout with the following hand: s) Axxx (H) Kxx (D) Kxx (C) Qxx North redoubled. This took me (East) off the hook with something like s) xxx (H) xxx (D) xxx (C) xxxx. I could pass, because the redouble allowed West to bid again. She bid one spade, we were doubled, vulnerable, and went down four (-1100). Could she have left in the redouble by passing? One diamond redoubled does not make game, although it makes a ton of overtricks. Even so, would the likely loss have been less than -1100 or even -800? Or was the problem with the takeout double in the first place. <Q> 1D redoubled making 4 is 830 non-vul and 1430 vul according to this (excellent) calculator: http://www.rpbridge.net/xsc1.htm . <S> Redoubled overtricks count! <S> Partner should bid 1S. 1S double going down 4 with a probable 4-3 or better fit (LHO or RHO both didn't mention spades) and two Kings seems quite unlikely, and that is against opponents for whom double of 1S will be for penalties. <S> It is probably more useful to play 1S double (by LHO) in this situation for something else (LHO cannot have a trump stack), in which case, you have even more reason to bid 1S. <S> In this case I would say the problem is with making the takeout double in the first place. <S> (Of course it depends on partnership style and form of scoring, but the below can probably found in most textbooks). <S> There is a rule of thumb regarding takeout doubles: <S> With a 12-14 hand balanced hand, you should avoid making a takeout double. <S> In this case you have a really flat hand, 4-3-3-3, with three cards in the takeout suit. <S> Your hand is defensively oriented with likely 3 defensive tricks in your own hand. <S> If you make a takeout double and partner jumps to the three level in your 3 card suit you will likely go down. <S> Another reason to pass with 12-14 defensive oriented flat hands is that if you have a game, LHO will likely pass and partner will get a chance to reopen. <S> And to answer the question in the title, sure, a redoubled contract by the takeout doubler can be passed, but it is probably a bad bid. <A> I don't think there's anything wrong with attempting to bid one's "best" <S> (least worst in this cae) suit after one's takeout double is redoubled. <S> It was unfortunate that this resulted in a terrible contract, but this is Bridge, bad breaks can and do happen. <S> I suppose the question is whether West was sensible to opt for a takeout double at unfavourable vulnerability. <S> Again, I'd say that while the risks are obvious if East turns out to be holding nothing, 12 points including an ace is not obviously a terrible hand to try one's luck with. <S> As long as West was aware of the risks, just accept that things went tragically wrong and move on. <S> After all, the alternative is to risk an irate partner (in a parallel universe, holding much better cards) demanding in the autopsy "why on earth didn't you make a takeout double on that textbook hand?!" <A> The takeout double looks reasonable - enough points and support for the other 3 suits. <S> As far as leaving it in one diamond redoubled vs bidding one spade, with the information your partner has to go on <S> it's impossible to say for certain which will lose you more points. <S> I'd definitely go with one spade if your opponents are vulnerable and probably pass if they're not.
|
It does of course depend on what you've agreed in your bidding system, some systems would require a shortage of the doubled suit (2 or less).
|
Can I mix Fantasy and 40k in a game? I'm trying to get my fiancée interested in playing Warhammer games. She's interested in fantasy and I'm interested in the sci-fi 40k branch of the game, plus I've already got an army in the making. If we got a fantasy army, is there any adapter between the two rulesets? <Q> Unfortunately they are completely different rulesets. <S> While they have a few similar mechanics(rolling to hit/wound or making characteristic tests), the structure of the games do not synch up. <S> Turn structure is different. <S> Ranged weapons, saves, movement, and combat are all different. <S> Applying some fairly common rules in one system to the other can have game breaking results. <S> Even if you did build a bridge between the two systems the armies would just not play well against each other. <S> Stats aren't balanced between the two systems. <S> They have different baselines(Armor saves in fantasy <S> are mostly 6 <S> +, if you have one at all, and in 40k 2+ and 3+ are not uncommon). <S> The closest you could get would be to have one person play Chaos Demons. <S> It's a little awkward because 40k and Fantasy use round and square bases respectively, but most players would give you a pass in friendly games. <A> Easy. <S> Pick an 40K army from one of the formats and model your stats off of it, but use Warhammer Fantasy models. <S> For example if your fantasy army has a lot of melee units, why not model them after tyranids like the hormagaunt? <S> Then just use the tyranid rules and costs, 40k rules, and your fantasy models. <S> Fluffing it up is up to you! " <S> Oh, no he didn't mutate to get his stat bonus, he reached into his bag of tricks!" <A> I did manage to mix the two, but not in the way you're probably thinking. <S> I had a WFRP campaign that I sent forward to the 40K time period. <S> It was quite straightforward to adapt a 40K unit into a WFRP NPC. <S> Probably not the kind of a solution you were looking for though. <S> Still, notable because it worked really well. <S> Very memorable game for all concerned.
|
The same demon models can be used in fantasy and 40k with the appropriate army book.
|
Do I have to physically cut into my Necron Overlord's Staff of Light to upgrade it to Warscythe? I'm just double checking so that I don't ruin a $20 model. Clarification: I don't plan on playing in tournaments, however, I would like to stick to the rules as far as my army is concerned just to make casual games smoother. I'm new to 40K and I figure if I skimp too much on the rules that I won't actually learn the game. My Necron Overlord finecast box did not come with a Warscythe, which the codex says I can upgrade him to in place of a Staff of Light. The model box does come with a Staff of Light, and the codex depicts a Warscythe as roughly a Staff of Light with one of the blades removed. If possible, I would like to keep the whole Staff of Light just in case I later decide to not use the Warscythe upgrade in my roster. <Q> Well, it depends. <S> 40K by the rules is WYSIWYG(What you see is what you get). <S> This means that if you give a guy an ax, he needs to be modeled with something <S> vaguely ax shaped. <S> If you give him a bolt pistol he needs to be holding something bolt pistol like(a holster at his hip works too) <S> This holds true for the war scythe as well. <S> There's some wiggle room on this because the game doesn't always specifically say what advanced alien melee weapons are supposed to look like. <S> So if you can squint your eyes and the thing the Overload is holding is two handed and sorta scythe shaped, your're probably good. <S> In most friendly games, telling your opponent what the character is armed with before the start of the game is generally sufficient. <S> Often people like to try out different combinations of wargear, and a certain amount of proxying is tolerated. <S> This is all dependent on the group of guys you play with. <S> Some groups may be stricter about the application of WYSIWYG than others. <S> Check with your gaming group to be sure. <S> If you plan on playing in tournaments--especially larger ones, you will probably have to go with a more explicit conversion. <S> Tournaments are more likely to enforce strict WYSIWYG for the sake of side-stepping potential rules arguments. <A> The consensus across a couple of forums appears to be that I can keep the Staff of Light and simply inform opponents that it should be considered a Warscythe instead. <S> WYSIWYG is flexible; not all options/upgrades have physical bits for display (e.g. Mindshackle scarabs). <A> (New player as well but in the process of magnetizing my army per suggestions for wysiwyg)
|
You are able to get a war scythe from a package of lychguard/praetorian (same box) and use it for the overlord, if magnets are used right you should be able to switch back and forth at will.
|
How can I get the trait clips in Betrayal at House on the Hill to stay on? Betrayal at House on the Hill features character pentagons with 4 traits that can increase or decrease and are marked by clips. I find (at least with my copy) that the clips slip and slide too easily; we often lose track of our stats. We've tried blu-tack but we aren't sure if that will damage the cardboard. We've tried writing them down but we still lose track as the stat tracker isn't always told/listening. So is there a better way to keep track of traits? Preferably an improvement on the clips. <Q> This is a common complaint . <S> The sliders are just too big. <S> Solutions that have worked for others include: Using an alternative print-out , with washers for tracking Wrapping each side of the character card with sticky tape, for thickness Laminating the cards Applying some PVA glue inside the sliders, and letting it dry before use <A> The little loopy bit can frame the numbers. <S> They stay in place, but can easily be moved and removed. <S> They don't damage the cardboard, and you can use plain silver ones, or get colored plastic coated paperclips. <A> I use the mobile apps , they not only keep track of stats but help with the haunt scenarios. <S> Here is the link for IOS and another for Android . <S> I have only used the IOS one <S> but it works well <A> Bite the plastic clip near the base. <S> The clip will have a tighter hold on the character card. <S> We had the same problem and this method fixed all our plastic clips. <S> No additional materials were required. <A> We had good success using sticky tape, but we put it on the sliders. <S> Specifically, we stuck a piece of single sided tape on the inside of the slider, and then trimmed the excess tape off with small scissors. <S> An advantage to this solution is that it doesn't mess up the character tiles. <A> This works for us, but there's still a good chance someone could knock the table or roll the dice onto your character tile and mess it all up. <S> I think the best advice on this page is the paper clips. <S> Second, would be biting them. <A> Just looking on the net and came across this on a 3D printing site. <S> https://www.shapeways.com/model/1577319/replacement-clips-betrayal-at-house-on-the-hill.html <S> I have not used these, nor was there any comments on them, but I am considering getting it. <S> If they do what they should do, they would fix the issue. <A> I used a pair of pliers to gently crimp each clip near the base and now they cling tightly. <S> I should note that it took a little trial and error to find the optimal pressure because the first clip became too tight, but this was easily remedied by gently spreading the clip using a butter knife. <S> Naturally, I would prefer more precisely machined parts, but today I have had no complaints with my modified clips. <A> My friend inserted a small slither of black electrical tape inside the slider. <S> This tightened the grip when applied and was invisible to the eye. <S> I still find the sliders too short to align with the number, but this at least keeps them attached firmly! <A> Check out this short vid for an easy fix for those slippery stat tracker clips. <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTsm2tNuTw8&feature=youtu.be <S> Video summary: <S> Place a piece of tape on the inside of one side of the slider. <S> Trim the edges with scissors <S> Add another piece if it is not tight enough <A> Another way to do it is to boil water and then dump the clips in. <S> Leave them for ten to fifteen seconds, then pull them out and let them clamp around a dime while running cold water over them. <S> Run the water until they are completely cool. <S> I had the ability to do them all at once, but you probably want to do them one at a time. <A> I use 8 sided dice by each trait. <S> It's easy to see and keep track, but I like the paper clip suggestion.
|
Using paper clips works great! We might try packing tape next time because it's a wee bit thicker. We would just set the trackers down on top of the character cards pointed at the proper numbers.
|
What happens if I use Sudden Disappearance? I just saw this card: Sudden Disappearance . Suppose I use it in my first main step.I attack while my opponent has his cards exiled. At the end step he gets them back. My question: Will those cards have summoning sickness when his turn comes? (for creatures) <Q> No, his creatures will not have summoning sickness. <S> He will control them continuously since the beginning of his turn . <S> 302.6. <S> A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. <S> A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. <S> This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule. <A> His creatures will not have summoning sickness and can attack normally. <S> However, that rule does not apply here, since your opponent got his permanents back during your turn, even if it's at the end of your turn. <S> He will start his turn with all permanents in play, so summoning sickness is not an issue for them. <A> They will have summoning sickness when they enter the battlefield. <S> But since they enter on your turn it will disappear when the turn changes (and it becomes his turn). <S> So no, they will not have it during his turn.
|
The rule informally known as summoning sickness says that a creature permanent cannot attack or use abilities with the tap or untap symbol in their costs if its controller did not control it from the beginning of his last turn.
|
I killed myself, did I win? I played an odd game of Shadow Hunters the other day. There were five players: two Shadows, two Hunters and one Neutral. I was dealt the Neutral, Charles. For the unaware, his win condition states: At the time you kill another character, the total number of dead characters is 3 or more. His special ability is: After you attack, you may give yourself 2 points of damage to attack the same character again. Partway through the game, the following situation presented itself: It was my turn and I'd just attacked a player that was so damaged one more attack would surely kill them I was within two points of death One character had already died I declared that I was going to use my ability, revealing my card, and electing to attack the wounded player again, given that I would take two damage in doing so. I rolled a good attack and killed the player in question. I then subtracted my two damage killing myself. Three characters were dead, as my win condition required. My group were happy to award me the win under such strange circumstances, but I'd like to clarify: Was this a legitimate move in this scenario? Did I win? Also, given that the already-dead character was a Shadow and the nearly-dead character was a Hunter, was this the only way I could have achieved a solo victory in this game? <Q> I don't know of any official rulings on the game, but I would not interpret that as a win for Charles. <S> The sticking point is: <S> At the time you kill another character , the total number of dead characters is 3 or more. <S> So what was the total number of dead characters when you killed the Hunter? <S> Your interpretation is that it was 3, because a Shadow was dead, the Hunter was dead, and Charles was dead. <S> However, I don't think this works - at the time you killed the Hunter, Charles must have been alive ; dead characters can't attack, after all. <S> Thus, Charles would have died after killing the Hunter, which means that at the time you killed the Hunter <S> the total number of dead characters was 2. <S> Fundamentally, the reason why this situation is confusing is because Charles should not have been able to attack at all . <S> I'm not sure if it's an official rule (I'll check later), but a lot of other game mechanics assume that if you reach maximum damage at any point during your turn, your turn ends and your character is dead - for instance, if you have two health remaining and draw the Spider card, you're dead and your turn ends, you don't get to attack. <S> Since Charles' ability deals two damage to him first , and then allows him to attack, by triggering your ability you should have simply died without doing anything. <S> As soon as three people who aren't him are dead, the game is over; thus, he either wins a joint victory alongside the Shadows or the Hunters (by taking the last kill), or he doesn't win. <A> I don't think that - Charles dying and his ability triggering to kill the 3rd player - is a win condition for Charles. <S> This is because any post-mortum win condition is explicitly stated (ie - be the first to die / etc). <S> I'd say this would set the precedent for whether or not someone can include their own death in a body count/ tally <S> (if its not explicitly stated, the assumption should be that they died and can't win). <A> Most games that I play have rules that have been very carefully play tested, and which can be parsed carefully for a correct interpretation. <S> Assuming this to be true, then the sequence described in this rule is very clear: After you attack, you may give yourself 2 points of damage to attack the same character again Charles attacks; Charles reveals the special ability, and gives himself 2 damage. <S> Charles performs the second attack allowed by the special ability (but, as per the other rules, only if still alive). <A> In some board games, once a skill is triggered, it will take the full effect no matter the character is dead or not. <S> So I think, even if Charles was dead when he killed another character, he won the game. <S> It is a kind of sacrifice attack.
|
As for the last part of your question, I think there is no way for Charles to be the sole winner in a five player game.
|
In bridge, is an "uppercut" a special case of a "forcing game?" In a standard forcing game, you the defender, may have four (or more) trumps, and ypu lead a long suit in which declarer is void in order to force him to ruff, thereby shortening his trumps to your number (or less). In an uppercut situation, you might have something like Qx. Nevertheless, if you lead a long suit in which both your partner and declarer are void, your partner ruffs with a J, and declarer (sitting to your right with AK ) is forced to overuff with a king, you and partner have "shortened" his high trumps enough so that he can no longer capture your queen with AK. So is this a special case of a forcing game? And suppose you are declarer (South) and the final trumps are Q in your hand, 2 in dummy, JT in East. If you lead a suit in which dummy and East are void, and dummy ruffs with his 2, forcing an overuff with the T, so you can now draw East's last trump, does this work like an uppercut? Is there a special name for this kind of play? <Q> I don't think there is a strict definition of the terms, but usually forcing game is reserved for cases where you strive to get opps to lose trump control. <S> Uppercut is to create trump tricks. <S> If people thought it was like forcing, they might not have chosen to name it :-) <S> In the third one, east is not obliged to overruff. <S> so not so sure about that. <S> Crossruff comes to mind... <A> Although both result in declarer losing tricks, the methods and results are not the same. <S> A forcing game is to try and reduce declarer's trumps to such a number that the defence obtains control of the trump suit - this can affect far more than just one trick. <A> No - the mechanics and card layouts are quite different. <S> A forcing game is the driving out, with a long side suit, of Declarer's low long trumps so that one defender develops (length) control of the trump suit. <S> In a pure forcing game it is important that the Defender with the short trumps not ruff - as that might compromise the honour trump holding in Partner's hand. <S> An uppercut is the generation of one or more high trump tricks, regardless of trump length and control, when the defender with short trumps forces Declarer to over-ruff with an honour or significant spot card. <S> To qualify as an uppercut the cards must have been distributed so that, left to his own devices, Declarer could draw high trumps from both Defenders with a single high card of his own, in a single trick - but the uppercut forces Declarer to instead use two high trumps (which he might not have) over two tricks, developing a natural trump trick for the Defender with long trumps. <S> It is quite possible for a hand to require both <S> an uppercut and a forcing game in order to destroy Declarer's trump control. <S> That two distinct mechanisms are occurring, over possibly different tricks, is the clearest indication that they are in fact separate techniques.
|
An uppercut is to try and promote an extra trump trick for your partner by forcing declarer to waste a high trump pulling a solitary defensive trump. Overall, I would say that they are different.
|
In bridge, are there some 13 point hands that should not be opened? Suppose you have: (s) Jx (h)KQxx (d) KJxx (c) Kxx. That's 13 points, by the usual count. But I can think of at least two things wrong with it. First, there are no aces, meaning that the hand has fewer "quick tricks" than the usual 13-pointer. Second, the Jack of spades is "stranded," meaning that might not be worth a full point because it can be picked off by the opponents. And, of course, there is no five card suit, meaning that you need 13, not 12 to open. Do the above negatives detract from your hand? Or must it be opened since you have 13? <Q> Sure the JS is a fairly pointless HCP, but the spade shortness is worth something in a trump game. <S> It's the kind of hand that should definitely be opened, but only at the 1 level. <S> The point of opening the hand is to let partner know you've got something, at which point you're looking for a 4-4 heart fit. <S> So in my opinion the hand should be opened, a heart response from partner should be supported, and a 'pass' is the probable response to all non-forcing circumstances. <S> The biggest danger I can see in this hand is falling into the "use NT as an exit if nothing else works" trap instead of following the "when there's no fit, quit" rule. <S> Advertise what you've got, and let partner decide if there's any game here. <S> Well, that's how I read the hand at least. <S> Additional: <S> Now to carry on to the more general question, could there possibly be a hand that technically should be opened, but in fact really shouldn't be? <S> The main point of opening a "weak opener" is to let your partner know that you've got the points; it follows that the time to NOT open it is when partner doesn't care . <S> When does partner not care what you've got? <S> When they don't have a hand good enough to do anything about it. <S> When can you know that's the case? <S> When the situation makes it obvious! <S> For example, when you're in 4th seat and LHO and RHO have both bid. <S> LHO obviously has 13+, RHO has 6 <S> +, you've got 13, your partner can't have much to talk about; there just aren't enough points in the deck. <S> When the situation tells you something like that, then you know it's time to sit in the weeds and help the opponents dig themselves into a nice deep hole. <S> In general, yes, you should open a 13 point hand. <S> Because your partner might really want to know. <S> But there will be situations (not hands, situations!) <S> where you shouldn't bid. <S> Like all good rules in bridge, you have to know when the rule doesn't apply. <A> I don't think there is such a thing as a hand that must be opened, of course if you deceive your partner too much they may stop playing with you. <S> In general I'd open 1nt (assuming weak nt) with this hand even without the J so certainly with. <S> The only occasion I might consider passing is if I'm in the fourth seat and partner has already passed, even this is likely to depend on score/vulnerability at the time. <A> I find this question amusingly old-fashioned. <S> I don't know any top player who wouldn't regularly open in 1st and 3rd seat <S> (s)xx (h)KQxx (d)KJxx (c)Kxx or, looking at your comparison hand, I don't know any top player who wouldn't open in 1st and 3rd seat <S> (s)xx (h)xxx ( <S> d)AKxxx (c)Axx <S> It's simply way too valuable to get in first with a bid to disrupt the opponent's bidding and help partner figure out what to lead on defense. <S> Letting opponents have lots of uncontested auctions is a losing strategy unless their bidding is bad or your play is so superior to theirs that you have them beat anyway. <S> You can reasonably safely jump in with either hand, and your partner might not be able to. <S> (Both hands are passes in 4th seat because of the weak spades. <S> 2nd seat depends on vulnerability and maybe a better read on the opponents' abilities.) <A> Assuming Standard American (5 card Majors), I'd open this with 1 diamond. <S> If partner responds 1H you can raise to 2H to show how weak you are. <S> With partner bidding 2D you can pass. <S> What's tough is when partner bids 1S. I personally would rebid 1NT because it best communicates the hand. <S> It denies Spade support, communicates the point count, and truthfully expresses a stopper in every suit but spades. <S> And it does not deny having a 4 card heart suit. <S> Two kinds: 1) 3-3-3-4 distribution. <S> This is the worst possible shape for a hand - not just for trump contracts but also for no trump contracts, especially if the 4 card suit is weak. <S> 2) 4-4-3-2 distribution where both 4 card suits are minor and the points are scattered around, with no solid suit anywhere <S> (Note: if you swap the clubs and heart suits in your example, that would fit this template and I would pass). <S> I do this not because some book says so, but because I've gotten into trouble bidding such hands far too often. <S> Both of these types of hands are better for defense then offense. <S> In the event your partner has 13 <S> + there's no risk of being passed out of a game - and if you're partner has 12 or fewer than you'll more often then not find that the zero score you get after the hands are passed out is better than the down 1 or 2 you would have otherwise achieved.
|
To your general point, yes there are 13 point hands that are better off passed. Sure there is, but it's important to note that it's all dependent on the situation , and not the hand .
|
BlackJack Game with no splitting I'm playing a black jack game that does not allow splitting. My question is, do I play A/A as a soft 12 or hard 2? If I play it as a soft 12, do I follow the same hit/stand procedures as say a soft 13 (in other words, double if the dealer shows 5 or 6). Recommendations? Should I ALWAYS play it as soft until it becomes a hard number (provided I'm not at 18 through 21)?? Thanks for your input <Q> I am no expert but this would be my answer. <S> I would play it as a soft 12, like a soft 13, and hold on to a good position (18 to 21) unless it becomes a hard number. <S> This seems to be the most practical solution I could think of. <A> You're obviously going to hit, so the only question is whether to double or not. <S> Since you have about a 70% chance of ending at something 16 or lower on a double, you really have to be looking for the dealer to bust. <S> There's no chance of you busting, so if the dealer is showing a lousy card like a 5 or a 6, doubling seems to make sense. <S> Otherwise, I'd just take a hit and proceed from there. <A> It's hard to say for sure, because there aren't a lot of places that prevent you from splitting aces, so there isn't a lot of strategy available that I could find about a soft 12 that says anything other than "split them, duh. <S> One site I found recommends playing a soft 12 as a soft 13 unless the dealer has a 5 or 6 showing; in that case, he mentions doubling down on 13 through 18, but does not mention 12. <S> That could be an oversight, or it could mean he would just hit a soft 12 ... he does mention a soft 12 in other situations. <S> (I have seen this mentioned other places too ... not sure who posted it first.) <S> Another one plays them the same except for a 6, where you would double down with 13 but not with 12. <S> That site specifically mentions a soft 12 separately from A-A (so you know to split aces if you can and hit if you can't - he does not recommend doubling down with soft 12 against anything.
|
" From what I could find, it looks to me like the consensus is to play a soft 12 just a bit more conservatively than a soft 13.
|
When is it ok to king-make? The other day whilst playing an epic, 4-deck game of Munchkin, I found myself well behind and in a position to let someone win so we could quit. I didn't want to leave early (I did anyway!) but the game had gotten out of hand somewhat. Would it have been ok to King-make? I'm considering a non-game specific answer to this wherever possible. I realise this isn't the sort of thing you do in munchkin. <Q> In my mind, it's best reserved for when it will allow ending a game " <S> Now-ish" <S> in order to either facilitate a different, more generally enjoyable game, or to allow players to leave. <S> There are a few other conditions where I find it less than unacceptable. <S> These basically boil down to "not letting A have a runaway victory by aiding B." <S> In some cases, it's a matter of allying with B (publicly or not) so that A has some competition because A is in a clear runaway. <S> I've seen this a lot in a variety of public scoring track games. <S> In others, it's quietly avoiding helping A because of A being in the lead, which results in B having a chance. <S> This is most frequent in my plays of Settlers of Catan - no one trades with the leader... <S> In this case, it generally lengthens the game needlessly, as the leader often is able to stay the leader. <S> The other condition is when the game allows for alliance victories, or as with Dune, one or more players has a kingmaking victory condition. <S> In Dune, the Bene Gesserit win by correctly predicting the turn of victory and the victor - the BG player works very hard to king-make. <A> Generally speaking, questions of etiquette should be decided within your group before you begin playing. <S> If the players are all serious competitive gamers, they will try to win no matter how slim the chances are. <S> Another big issue is the question of position: Is it better to guarantee getting second place, or try for a slim chance to win that if it fails, means you'll end up in last place. <S> There are no right or wrong answers, which -- if the players are not aligned in their point of view -- could lead to a frustrating gaming experience. <A> Never. <S> Everything else is unfair against the others. <S> If someone is clearly winning or you for any reason feel the game is just a waste of time to continue: Bring it up for discussion. <S> If the others feel the same way you can often just agree to give the leader the victory and end the game right there. <S> If they want to continue maybe you can drop out or you'll just have to play the game out to make your friends happy. <S> King making is quite bad etiquette.
|
The only reason you should help another player is if it increases your chances of victory during that game. In general, king making is contentious.
|
I died, what can I do until the world ends? The other day whilst playing betrayal at house on the hill, I died early on and didn't get back on the board as a monster in any way. What can I do to contribute without 'over doing it'? <Q> Following the haunt, the game tends to become semi-cooperative, with one antagonist. <S> In those cases, while you're not controlling a character, you could certainly offer advice and contribute to group-thinking . <S> I certainly think that answer, in line with previous ones, is most appropriate, but if you're desperate to house-rule an alternative, how about this "ghost" variant : <S> Your character remains on the board and has all their stats returned to their starting values, but cannot interact with anyone or anything (they're a ghost) and loses all their items/omens. <S> On your turn, you can move according to your speed as normal, and then nominate a character/creature in your room and an attribute. <S> Reduce that attribute by one on your character coaster and declare that the target character has a +1 bonus or -1 penalty in that stat until your next turn. <S> This represents you messing with monsters by floating candlesticks at them, or the heroes fighting on in your memory, or whatever. <S> If it's that kind of group, you could elaborate by describing in an appropriately thematic way exactly how you're causing the change. <S> You could target a team-mate who really needs to succeed at that Sanity check, or pick the Strength of a monster you're all wailing on. <S> Once a stat of yours hits bottom, you can no longer use it. <S> I doubt this variant would be over-powering. <S> It doesn't even counter-balance the loss of a full-fledged character if you ask me. <S> Disclaimer: I haven't tried it, but you could give it a go and report back. <S> In scenarios where it's every man for himself (i.e. it becomes fully competitive with no one traitor), any further interaction you have with the game would just be king-making, so you should probably concede that you've been eliminated and resort to heckling etc. <A> Some ideas that have worked out alright in games of Betrayal I've played: <S> Move the knocked out player onto the control team of another player's character. <S> Players can take these characters over in the event they die early. <S> This also works for guests who RSVPed with a "maybe". <S> Explicitly have all of the characters controlled collectively by all of the adventurers, with some rule to decide who will be the betrayer based on which character is the betrayer. <S> This changes the game quite a bit, but it's still pretty fun. <A> Before the Haunt happens, you can't die; you just go down to the minimum level on the stat(s) affected. <S> If you died after the Haunt began, may I suggest spectating, or a game of Solitaire? <S> Or, depending on how strict your group is, you can still kibitz. <A> You can do whatever you and your friends like. <S> It's a cooperative game, so you can continue to discuss plans and suggests moves with the remaining players just like <S> you could when you were alive. <S> The line between discussion, suggestion, and actually playing is pretty fuzzy. <S> How far you can and should go with it <S> depends entirely on your preferences and those of your gaming group, but essentially every group I've ever played with would be okay with a player continuing to participate exactly as they did before. <S> If no one wants your input - they're all silently making their own moves, no discussion - then you're not playing the game in a fun way to begin with. <S> The suggestions in Dan's and Johno's answers are mostly just specific degrees of suggestion/actually playing. <S> But I honestly don't think it's worth getting bogged down in a specific, regimented way of playing-while-not-playing, and I definitely don't think it's beneficial to modify the game to give you a token role. <S> Cooperative games are the ideal situation - just be yourself, converse like you always do, and let the game keep going.
|
Start the game with some number of additional characters (controlled by other players in turn). Let the knocked out player control one of the monsters (if there are more than one and player knowledge wouldn't make much difference).
|
What are Riggers and Contraptions in MTG and how do I assmble them? (Steamflogger boss question) I just saw this card called Steamflogger Boss today, but I've never heard of a Rigger, a Contraption, or an ability called 'assemble' in Magic. Am I missing something? Does this card refer to a very rare card type like locus of which there are only a few examples? It seems like the card would make perfect sense if I could only find something that could assemble a darn contraption... <Q> Steamflogger Boss was printed in the set Future Sight , and the card alludes to the fact that riggers and contraptions may be part of the game in a coming set (the preceding 2 sets in the Time Spiral block were about the past and present). <S> However, seeing as there are still no mention of the assemble mechanic as of 2012, it is still primarily a joke card in the same vein as the Unhinged and Unglued sets. <S> While a 3/3 for 4 mana isn't terrible , it is definitely weak enough that it will only see actual play in limited decks that desperately need to fill up some mid-range creature slots. <S> Aaron Forsythe, the director of Research and Development for Magic: the Gathering, commented that the card was purely a joke and was probably a bad idea. <A> Update: It is now the future. <S> We now know what this mechanic is thanks to Unstable! <S> Contraptions aren't put into your main deck. <S> To play with them, you must build a separate Contraption deck <S> In Constructed formats, such as Standard-but-with-silver-borders, Commander-but-with-silver-borders, and all-Un-set-Constructed-but-with-Steamflogger-Boss-I-guess, your Contraption deck contains at least fifteen unique Contraptions. <S> The Contraption deck is "singleton," meaning you're limited to only one of each Contraption. <S> The fifteen-card minimum and the one-of rule don't apply. <S> You can play whatever Contraptions you draft or open. <S> Several cards in the set will instruct you or a creature you control to assemble a Contraption. <S> To do this, turn the top card of your Contraption deck face up. <S> Then, put it onto the battlefield under one of your Contraption deck's three sprockets, helpfully labeled Sprocket 1, Sprocket 2, and Sprocket 3. <S> At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control at least one Contraption, you move the CRANK! <S> counter forward one sprocket ( <S> so, from 1 to 2, from 2 to 3, or from 3 to 1). <S> Then you can crank any of the Contraptions under that sprocket. <S> This causes their abilities to trigger. <S> You can put these abilities on the stack in any order. <S> Also, you don't have to crank a Contraption if you don't want to. <S> How you assemble your Contraptions determines what kind of infernal machine you're building. <S> Load up one sprocket to produce a devastating turn every three turns, or spread them out to make sure you get something every turn? <S> Taken as a copy paste of the major points for the article detailing them here . <S> To all you still back in 2012, I hope this was helpful, you just have to wait 5 years or so to play with them. <A> Actually, there are other Riggers besides the Steamflogger Boss. <S> Moriok Rigger from Fifth Dawn had <S> the Rigger Sub-Type retroactively added to it after the Grand Creature Type Update. <S> Any Changling is also a Rigger, as well as the Mistform Ultimus <A> Read the ruling at the page you linked: Contraption is a new artifact type. <S> There are currently no artifacts with this type. <S> And there's no current game meaning of "assemble." <S> Wizards had a bit of "fun" with Future Sight, creating weird card such as this one, Dryad Arbor , Ghostfire , etc. <A> Yes, Contraptions are (at time of writing) a joke, but let's not forget that a Steamflogger Boss does buff other Steamflogger Bosses (without even mentioning the many, many other Riggers that exist in the game of Magic, most of which are admittedly Changelings). <S> Your first Steamflogger Boss may just be a Hill Giant, but your second is a 4/3 haste, and by the time the third hits the table, you have three hasty 5/3 bad boys on your team. <S> Okay, maybe this scenario isn't exactly the pinnacle of brokenness, but it it goes to show that Steamflogger Boss's (first) ability isn't quite useless. <S> You could do worse for a cost of 3R... <A> Future Sight was a set full of "what ifs" - glimpses into possible futures for the game, and this was one of them. <S> Some of them were simply gags, and this was one of them. <S> (Although it's worth mentioning that new sets are starting to use terminology in the manner of assemble - detain, for instance)
|
In a Limited format, such as Booster Draft or Sealed Deck, your Contraption deck can contain any or all the Contraptions in your card pool.
|
Are the utilities worth buying? In Monopoly, there are two utilities. They cost 150, and rent is 4x the dice roll if one utility is owned, or 10x the dice value if both are owned. Are the utilities something I want to purchase if possible? Or are they junk? How valuable are they compared to the other properties on the board? <Q> The utilities are decent "fire and forget" properties, which pay for themselves quickly. <S> Think of them as equivalent to owning two railroads, but paying a bit better because you can't improve them further. <S> They don't have the same explosive-growth potential of railroads or properties, but they're cheaper. <S> You're not going to bankrupt anyone with them, but they can be decent money-makers over the course of the game. <S> A few comparisions: Number of Utilities: <S> Cost $150, pays $28 (average roll of 7), pays for itself after ~6 rents. <S> Cost $300, pays $70 (average roll of 7), pays for itself after ~5 rents. <S> Number of Railroads: <S> Cost $200, pays $25, pays for itself after 8 rents. <S> Cost $400, pays $50, pays for itself after 8 rents. <S> Cost $600, pays $100, pays for itself after 6 rents. <S> Cost $800, pays $200, pays for itself after 4 rents. <S> Owning the light blue properties as a monopoly (much harder to get than just a utility or two!) <S> : 0 houses <S> : Cost $320, pays ~13, pays for itself after ~24 rents. <S> 1 house: <S> Cost $470, pays ~$33, pays for itself after ~15 rents. <S> 2 houses <S> : Cost $620, pays ~$93, pays for itself after ~7 rents. <S> 3 houses <S> : Cost $770, pays ~$280, pays for itself after ~4 rents. <S> Edit: Someone has done a lot more math than I have: http://www.tkcs-collins.com/truman/monopoly/monopoly.shtml . <A> Utilities are worth buying, especially early in the game (before the house building phase starts. <S> Their main drawback is that unlike the color groups, they can't be upgraded further. <S> Consider Electric Co., which sells for $150, and is sitting between St. Charles Place (cost:$140) and Virginia Ave. <S> (cost: $160). <S> But the average rent on Electric is $28 (4 x 7, the average die roll), versus $10 for St. Charles and $12 for Virginia. <S> Only if the purchase of one or the other maroon completes the monopoly is Electric Co. worth less. <S> Likewise, the two utilities together cost $300, but an average rent of $70 (10x 7, the average die roll). <S> That's more than the $50 you can collect on Boardwalk, which costs $400. <S> Two utilities are even worth more than two railroads ($50 rent at a cost of $400). <S> It's the third, and particularly the fourth railroad that really adds value to them. <A> No, they are not worth buying. <S> Based on the work done by Truman Collins (linked to by Paul Marshall in his answer ), Tim Darling devised a strategy that pretty clearly states to <S> never buy utilities. <S> It takes too many dice rolls by your opponents to recoup your investment and there are way more interesting things you can do with your money. <A> The other answers point out the return on investment of holding the utilities, but I would argue that their value is in trading , which is more subjective as it depends on the players involved rather than pure mathematics. <S> Here are my observations: <S> Trading for a higher value property is obviously good for you. <S> My opponents often swap a train station for a utility, which is higher value and landed on more frequently, as well as having a higher mortgage value <S> If you can swap so that you have a housing monopoly and your opponent gets the utility monopoly, then they may feel it's a fair trade (i.e. you both get a monopoly), but you with the housing monopoly have better long term prospects, as you can develop them <S> As mentioned in the other answers, the utilities pay for themselves quite quickly, so mortgaging a utility can be a useful way to free up funds, e.g. to buy houses
|
They're better in the early game for fast and easy income, but later on they're more valuable simply as squares you can land safely on; everyone has become too rich to care much about such small rents.
|
Is "Longest Road" an overrated strategy in Settlers of Catan? At one level, "longest road," is an "obvious" way to win the game. At another level, could it be too obvious? That is, a player clearly pursuing this strategy might stir too much fear in opponents, who will then try to break up the road, or hamper him in other ways? Also it requires an abundance of certain materials, namely wood and brick. Could a single-minded focus these materials hurt a player's game in other ways? Is there a "better" way to build the longest road, i.e. build settlements with "short" roads some optimal distances apart, then connect them "naturally" toward the end, when opponents' attentions are focused elsewhere? Do people in your games use a "longest road" strategy too much, or conversely, "too little?" <Q> Like many great games, Settlers of Catan rewards those players who are willing to be adaptable. <S> Doggedly centering your strategy, from the beginning, on obtaining wood and clay (to the exclusion of other goods) and building road after road with it, is likely to secure you a certain number of victory points. <S> That number is nowhere near enough to win you the game - you're going to have to do other things with your time and resources at some point to clinch first place. <S> Does the Longest Road bonus incentivise road building? <S> Of course it does, to some extent, just as the Largest Army bonus incentivises buying cards. <S> What it <S> mostly does, though, is ensure that there is competition in various areas of the game. <S> If only one player cares about roads, the Longest Road bonus will fall to them without any effort on their part. <S> Likewise for Largest Army if only one player is bothering to buy cards. <S> However, gamer psychology is such that, given an obvious bonus to be obtained, players will not be able to bear letting it go easily, and at least some of them are likely to compete vigorously for it. <S> As such, I see the Longest Road bonus less as "a strategy" and more as a nice little, well, bonus... <S> if you're brave enough to enter into a competition with other players over it. <S> Competition is necessary for a game to work, but it can, as you rightly point out, paint a general target on your forehead, or make enemies of specific other players. <S> If that's not the type of thing you like to get involved in, you might indeed want to adopt a more surreptitious strategy. <S> Certainly I would tend to prefer not aiming for the Longest Road early: let other people set themselves up as "the one to beat" by gaining an early lead. <S> Keeping an eye on the road situation, and perhaps setting yourself up to win with a late road-building spurt, is great though. <S> As I say though, adaptability is key: if everyone in your group fancies themselves as road-builders, it's a very risky strategy. <S> If no one else is doing it... <S> you'd be a fool not to pile in there as quickly as possible, really! <A> I think Longest Road gives a player who happens to have an abundance of wood and brick late-game a way to convert those resources into VPs, and deny those same VPs to others. <S> It also rewards players who have built several settlements and built their opening settlements near each other, and slightly discourages shooting straight for cities--not that shooting straight for cities isn't still a great strategy if the appropriate resources are available. <S> Going for Longest Road before the player has at least 6 VPs from cities and settlements is probably a waste of resources in most cases. <S> The opponents can make more valuable resource investments in the short term and fight for Longest Road later. <A> It's only 2 of the 8 additional victory points needed (remembering that it's a race to 10, and you start with 2 already). <S> It is, at best, 1/4 of your victory. <S> Largest Army and new cities are likewise equally important. <S> For my own play, I've found that it's best to simply concetrate on getting the resource base you need, and then use longest road as a means to snap up the last 2 VP, rather than worth direct strategizing about... quite unlike one's establishment of settlements and cities.
|
Longest Road, while usually important to victory, is not worth pursuing to the exclusion of other elements.
|
Where can I find an exhaustive inventory of cards in Ticket to Ride? I have fallen quite in love with Ticket to Ride on my iPad, but don't have the physical board game. As I attempt to master the game, I'm finding one difficulty, however- I don't have an exhaustive inventory of the destination cards in particular, nor do I know the odds of drawing any one color after a certain number have already been drawn. Knowing, for example, the number of color cards would give me a better handle on the odds of drawing say, a 6th, 7th, or 8th white. As the game progresses, that is the kind of information that would allow me to plan a route. Additionally, knowing all the destinations helps me know the best routes to take to maximize my ability to be able to draw a destination card I've already connected. (Even in the classic game, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, andCalgary, for example, appear to be far more common then, say, St. Louis.) So, is there either a published list of all the destination cards, or else is somebody interested in posting the odds for them? <Q> The card distribution for train cars is in the rulebook , it is 8 colors 12 of each, and 14 locomotive wilds. <S> There are 30 destination tickets, they can be read here in high resolution with a BGG account. <S> They are listed here Denver to El Paso (4) Kansas City to Houston (5) <S> New York to Atlanta (6) <S> Chicago to New Orleans (7), Calgary to Salt Lake City (7) <S> Helena to Los Angeles (8), Duluth to Houston (8), Sault Ste Marie <S> to Nashville ( <S> 8) <S> Montreal to Atlanta (9), Sault Ste. <S> Marie to Oklahoma City (9), Seattle to Los Angeles (9), Chicago to Santa Fe (9) <S> Duluth to El Paso (10), Toronto to Miami (10) Portland to Phoenix(11), Dallas to New York City (11), Denver to Pittsburgh (11), Winnipeg to Little Rock (11) <S> Winnipeg to Houston (12), Boston to Miami (12) Vancouver to Santa Fe (13), Calgary to Phoenix(13), Montreal to New Orleans (13) Los Angeles to Chicago <S> (16) <S> San Francisco to Atlanta (17) <S> , Portland to Nashville (17) Vancouver to Montréal (20), Los Angeles to Miami (20) Los Angeles to New York City <S> (21) Seattle to New York (22) <A> While not intended as such, the various aides at BoardGameGeek.com include full lists. <S> The TTR-usa 1910 Ticket Values and City Frequencies.doc includes all the 1910 tickets. <A> The rulebook <S> indicates that of the 110 train cards, there are 12 each of 8 different colors, plus 14 wilds.
|
The t2r route points.xls file includes all 30 base tickets.
|
Are there any alternative rules for Settles of Catan to rely less on luck? Are there any rules to reduce the luck component is Settlers of Catan? I know there is one stated here , but I didn't understand this. How does this work? Are there any others? <Q> There is actually a commercially produced event deck . <S> When using it, you reveal a card every turn to get a number from 2-12 instead of rolling the dice. <S> A card that reshuffles the deck is mixed in the bottom 5 cards, so the exact composition when the deck gets thin cannot be exactly guessed. <S> (The cards also feature events that affect the game in other minor ways, if you choose to use them that way.) <S> Other games in the Catan series explore the idea of providing resources or compensation for players who strike out at the dice. <S> In a similar vein, Settlers of America gives any player Gold tokens who otherwise strikes out on a turn; gold can be later traded for other resources. <A> I guess you mean this one <S> https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/551/3329 <S> The idea is to set up a card deck with one card 2, two 3, three 4, five 6, six 7, five 8, four 9, three 10, two 11, one 12. <S> That's a total of 36 cards. <S> If you use that deck you'll have the same probabilities than adding two dices, but you may use it in a series, discarding every card that comes up. <S> So now you are sure that the probabilities will be the statistical results. <S> A side-effect (probably not desired) is that if the deck already showed several 6s, for example, you'll know how that few will be shown until the deck is completely discarded and reshuffled. <A> Letting players trade "future" resources can help a lot. <S> Trading someone a future resource means you're promising to give them that resource the next time you generate it (and when it's one of your turns). <S> For example, suppose you have a wheat, a wood, and a sheep, and you need a brick to finish your settlement. <S> You have a settlement on a 6 brick, but the dice have been against you the whole game, and you just haven't rolled many 6's. <S> You've had bad luck. <S> Meanwhile, someone else's 12 brick just rolled, but he can't do anything with it right now. <S> Ordinarily, you're just stuck passing the dice and waiting for your 6, but with future resources, you can sell two future bricks -- your next two bricks -- for your opponent's brick in hand. <S> You're able to cash in on what your 6 brick should roll in the future, rather than just what it happened to roll in the past.
|
Cities & Knights of Catan features an upgrade that gives you a resource of your choice whenever a number that doesn't produce anything for you is rolled.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.