source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
How does Piracy work? I just stumbled across a card I've never seen, Piracy . UU, Sorcery Until end of turn, you may tap lands you don't control for mana. Spend this mana only to cast spells. This would have been interesting back in the days of mana burn, but now it seems like this card boils down to "Tap all mana-producing lands your opponents control" . I can't see a situation where the opposing player's correct response wouldn't be to simply tap all their lands. If they don't, Piracy's controller can just do it. Or can they? Spend this mana only to cast spells. Does this mean they can't just float the mana and not use it? I would think that you could since it says spend which implies that the restriction is only on what you actually spend the mana on. Is my take on this card correct? (and is there anything interesting you can do with this?) <Q> The correct response as an opponent is to tap all lands they control. <S> No, <S> fizzle means to counter a spell on resolution. <S> This is the result of a spell having zero legal targets. <S> This spell isn't targeted, so it cannot fizzle. <S> Since the Magic 2010 rules changes, mana burn no longer exists, so your opponents can just tap all their lands for mana to prevent someone else using the mana to cast their own spells. <S> If your opponents allow the spell to resolve and take no actions, the player that cast Piracy is likely the active player, which means that they would receive priority to cast spells. <S> This would allow them to use any opponent's land to pay for casting their own spells. <A> In most scenarios, it‘s an "each of your opponents" version (great) of "mana short" without emptying the mana pool (nearly useless) that‘s 1 cheaper in CMC (good) but casts as a sorcery (bad). <S> You can use it to pull a counter. <S> If your opponents don’t invest the counter spell, they won‘t have the mana to use it for that turn. <S> However you must wait till their mana pools emptied or they can cast the counter from it. <S> It also combines nicely with Panoptic Mirror , causing it to be repeated on each of your turns. <S> This basically pulls a counter each turn, rendering you practically immune to counter spells and most of the time other instants cast during your turn. <S> Alchemist's Refuge to cast it in your opponent‘s turn for increased effectiveness. <S> Mana Vapors , which keeps one opponent tapped out in their next turn. <S> It‘s most useful in multiplayer or even better in team play, because your team mates can provide mana to you. <S> Also, tapping out multiple opponents protects your team mates from counter spells, too. <S> That being said, I only learnt of it by this question. <S> Maybe I’ll add it to a side board of a teamplay deck. <A> As no one addressed the second part of the question, lets answer both and start with the first one <S> : Everyone else is correct, when this card was printed the rules had players lose 1 life per point of mana they did not spend when their pools emptied each step. <S> People would either tap out their mana and take a big damage hit when that mana went unspent, or would leave the mana open, giving you access to their land to pay costs for your spells. <S> Now that mana burn is removed, there is no reason not to just tap out in response to Piracy. <S> For the second part, about the "Spend this mana only to cast spells" rider. <S> Mana can have restrictions on how it is spent, Cavern of Souls for instance lets you use the colored mana only to cast a specific type of creature Ancient Ziggurat 's mana can only be spent on creature spells. <S> Piracy restricts you to using that mana to cast spells, which is one of the least restrictive restrictions on spending mana there is. <S> You can cast any type of spell with this mana, what you cannot do is use it to pay for activating abilities, pay costs like Rune Snag , etc. <S> You can leave this mana in your mana pool, like any other mana, and it will empty as normal, you are not forced to spend it, just restricted in what you can spend it on.
|
No, there isn't anything interesting you can do with this spell now, it is a {U}{U} spell that taps your opponents out.
|
Properly choosing a random discard Sometimes an effect causes you to discard a card at random. In casual games, it's usually acceptable to have the player hold their hand out (or face down) and the other player picks a card. However, this is not really random. For example I often play mind games to influence their decision like sticking one card out really far while staring at another one. If my opponent wants to resolve a random discard that way, am I within my right to demand that it be settled with something more random, like a dice roll? <Q> Yes. <S> Many of us use dice even in casual games, because we can't actually make random decisions, and it's easy. <S> Random means, well, random, so a nonrandom method is not following the rules. <S> I don't think this is explicitly in the rules anywhere, though both die rolls and coin flips are mentions as methods of randomization. <S> It's left implicit that a nonrandom method does not suffice for a card which asks for a random choice; it's not what the card said to do. <S> 705.3. <S> ... <S> Other methods of randomization may be substituted for flipping a coin as long as there are two possible outcomes of equal likelihood and all players agree to the substitution. <S> For example, the player may roll an even-sided die and call "odds" or "evens," or roll an even-sided die and designate that "odds" means "heads" and "evens" means "tails." <S> It's also sometimes mentioned in rules clarifications, e.g. for Goblin Test Pilot from the Dragon's Maze FAQ: <S> There are many ways to do this, including assigning each possible legal target a number and rolling a die. <S> But again, I don't think it ever says explicitly "nonrandom methods are not random", because that's supposed to be obvious. <S> Any method is okay, as long as all outcomes are equally likely. <S> Determining what methods satisfy that criterion is left up to the players, or if necessary, a judge. <A> If you don't care that much about actual randomness, but you want to be sure your opponent has no way to know which card is which, you can just make sure you don't know either. <S> That way, all mind tricks or tells won't work anymore. <S> What I would do is shuffle my hand before presenting it to my opponent. <S> Since I don't know in which order the card are after shuffling, there is no information I can give to the opponent about it, whether willingly or not. <S> As a bonus, since the opponent saw you shuffle, he also knows there's no point in trying to think about which card to pick or read your mind or possible clues or trickeries. <S> It's also going quite fast since nobody has to think about anything, which means the time you lost shuffling <S> is not a problem any longer; chances are the whole process will be faster than using a dice. <A> In situations where a die roll is impossible, a series coinflips can be used. <S> this can be achieved by representing each number as binary. <S> First, decide on which of heads or tails to represent 0/1. <S> Then, flip the coin, recording the result, this gives you the "ones" column, or a value of 0 / 1. <S> Then, flip again for the "twos" column, giving you a value of 0 or 2, add this to the previous (giving 0, 1, 2 or 3 respectively) <S> Then, flip again for the "fours" column, giving you a value of 0 or 4. <S> Add this to the previous (giving 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). <S> This should be enough for 90% of situations. <S> It is zero indexed, so either add one to the final result, or label your cards from 0 to x. <S> As with any other solution that doesn't perfectly fit the cards present, repeat if you hit a number in excess of the choice of cards. <S> If you have less than 4 cards in hand you can skip the last step. <S> If you have more than 8 you can add another flip to cope with up to 16 cards etc etc. <S> I have no idea of a situation where you would be able to comfortably lay out magic cards but not roll a die, but if you find yourself in this particular magical Christmas land, then this gives you a legitimate way to resolve the decision randomly. <S> Having said all of this, if you can feasibly use a die, this is the best way to do it. <S> As for your rights: You can and should demand the decision be made based on die rolls, the cards should still be shuffled for this. <S> The rules demand that decisions like this be decided in a way that cannot under any circumstances be pre-determined . <S> That means that a method where it is possible - even if it relies on an opponent's ineptitude - to be pre-determined. <S> That is quite simply called an attempt to cheat , so don't do it.
|
To choose a target at random, all possible legal targets (including creatures and players) must have an equal chance of being chosen.
|
MTG: Mutavault - how does it work? How does this card work?How do you effectively play this card?What happens when it gets killed as a creature?What makes this card so expensive? http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=152724 <Q> The card works in much the same way as other "Manland" type cards. <S> You pay the activation cost, it becomes a 2/2 creature with all creature types, and for the rest of the turn it behaves exactly as if it was a 2/2 colourless Llanowar elves ( <S> NOTE : this includes summoning sickness . <S> As long as its just a land you can tap it for mana as you could a regular land. <S> If you turn it into a creature straight after playing it however, it has summoning sickness and you CANNOT tap it for mana). <S> The fact that it starts out and reverts to a land makes it safe from sorcery speed removal much of the time, the fact that it is all creature types makes it very potent in some tribal decks (legacy/modern merfolk), and the fact that it acts as a land until the point that you need it to be a creature makes your deck much more stable for casting expensive spells. <S> If it dies as a creature, it dies. <S> Note that spells that say "target non-land permanent" can't target it, it may be a creature, but its still a land. <S> It doesn't revert to being a land if it dies, it goes to the graveyard just like anything else. <S> The card is expensive because of it's proven track record, and it is a very powerful example of a man land due to its low activation cost and positive tribal interactions. <S> Merfolk decks will commonly activate this as a 4/4 or 5/5 creature. <A> To add to the "why is this card so expensive," because of the draft structure at the time and the small size of the Morningtide expansion, fewer packs were opened than, say, in a large set that was drafted more consistently. <S> (The format went from LOR-LOR-LOR to LOR-LOR-MOR and then to SHM-SHM-SHM.) <S> This scarcity helped to raise the price. <A> Say you have a magic deck. <S> In that deck you want to fit as many good spells as possible that takes you closer to winning <S> but you also need enough mana sources to be able to cast those spells. <S> Common numbers would be 37 spells, 23 lands. <S> What Mutavault does is that some of your lands now also, apart from giving you mana, takes you closer to winning the game. <S> So if you add 3 of those, you're suddenly up to 40 cards that help you win the game. <S> Mutavault does this at the reasonable cost of only being able to produce colorless mana. <S> Utility lands often rise in price because they can be included in so many different decks. <S> Mutavault is colorless which makes it even easier to include.
|
You effectively play this card by utilising its attacking abilities at the right times, it is essentially a "free creature" at the cost (which can be a benefit) of turning it into a creature for 1 mana per turn.
|
What are some strategies to beat Rise of the Dark Realms? How can Rise of the Dark Realms be beaten/avoided?Is it possible to deflect this card so that you end up consuming it? <Q> So, first off, it's important to understand why Rise of the Dark Realms isn't a very powerful card in competitive one-on-one Magic : you're paying nine mana for an effect of highly variable power (since you don't always have perfect control of what's in the graveyard, especially an opponent's). <S> It's a very slow spell that lacks most of the characteristics of a good " finisher ." <S> That said, not every game of Magic is the same as one-on-one Constructed. <S> So, what happens if you run into this in Commander, multiplayer, or even a "casual" duel? <S> Graveyards are fragile. <S> Since the graveyard is a great zone for both cheating on costs and card selection , there are a lot of cards printed that specifically counteract graveyard strategies. <S> Look at how cheaply you can get graveyard hate in the form of Rest in Peace or Grafdigger's Cage , for example. <S> Nearly every strategy relying on a single powerful spell is weak to countermagic. <S> Your opponents like to play big, powerful spells? <S> Counter them! <S> There are tons and tons of counterspells that can meet your needs, ranging from super-fast counters ( Force of Will , Spell Pierce ) to big value-generating counters (e.g. Cryptic Command , Draining Whelk ) to just plain old Negate . <S> There are lots of spells that just kill ALL of the creatures. <S> Magic has a lot of "sweeper" effects that can clear the whole board with one spell. <S> A simple Wrath of God (or Damnation , or Terminus , or Rout , or Supreme Verdict , ...) will reset the board for a very minor cost. <S> Someone stealing your stuff? <S> Steal it back. <S> Someone cast Rise of the Dark Realms? <S> Let them pass the turn and then cast that Insurrection <S> you've been holding! <S> Or just tap your Homeward Path and laugh. <A> There are lots of cards that can counter this. <S> Here are just a few categories. <S> Cards that say 'Counter target spell' - Counterspell or the many variants that are capable of targeting this card. <S> Don't let creatures build up in graveyards. <S> ( Tormod's Crypt , scavenge cards, play a deck heavy on token creatures, etc.) <S> Let it resolve, then destroy all creatures. <S> ( Wrath of God , Damnation , Day of Judgment , etc.) <S> Make sure you always have Phage <S> the Untouchable in your graveyard (or other cards they do not want like <S> Tempting Wurm or Eater of Days ). <A> This particular spell requires two pretty hefty things: 1. 9 mana (sure, not as difficult for black to gather as any other colour) 2. <S> Several creatures in the graveyard The best way to win in Magic is, and always has been, with speed. <S> If a game is going on to the point where your opponent can easily gather 7 mana and there are a dozen creatures in the graveyard, then the game has gone on too long. <S> End the game before it gets to that point, and suddenly this is a card in your opponents <S> hand that they can't use. <S> Which changes the card from "a game winner" for your opponent into a liability. <S> My advice therefore, is to ignore the cards in your opponent's deck and focus on your own. <A> Gather Specimens and Reins of Power are cards that do that. <S> Spelljack. <S> Fork and Wild Ricochet and other copy effects as well, since your copy would resolve first and the original copy would resolve after the graveyards are empty.
|
It's pretty easy to sneak graveyard hate into most decks, since many effective cards replace themselves (e.g. Relic of Progenitus ) or do more than just attack graveyards (e.g. Rakdos Charm , Scavenging Ooze ). Speed it up, make it more dangerous, end the game before this card can become a game-changer.
|
Does the Lab Challenge make Pandemic easier or harder? We've tried out the Lab Challenge (from the new In The Lab expansion), and I can't quite tell if it makes the game harder or not. All other things equal (#players, roles, # epidemics), is a game with Lab Challenge easier or harder than one without? <Q> As with the original game, the more you play the In the Lab expansion, the better you get at it. <S> When I started playing the original version with my friends, it was hard to win with 4 regular epidemics but, by the time we got the expansion pack, we were beating the game easily with 6 epidemics (or 5 virulent strain epidemics with the added mutation disease if you have the On the Brink expansion). <S> With the In the Lab expansion, we have almost never been able to win with 5 virulent strain epidemics and the mutation disease. <S> It seems like the more you add (such as virulent strain and mutation) <A> It won't make the game easier or harder per se, but it gives more freedom for the players to move since while on the original you have to get 5 cards of the same color <S> (what keeps leading players to meet with each other constantly in order to pass cards) when you add the <S> In the Lab mechanics instead of meeting the player the card you otherwise would pass can now be used on the lab spots. <S> While this is a bit more complicated than the original mechanic <S> it is way more thematic and let the players move more freely. <S> I don't think it makes the game easier or harder <S> but it does make the game better and more enjoyable, specially for experienced players due to the added complexity. <A> From what I've seen, it makes the game harder. <S> With on the brink expansion, we were sometimes winning with 6 virulent epidemics and the mutation challenge but now we can't even manage to win with 6 normal epidemics w/o any other challenge. <S> Takes more actions to find a cure for sure imo considering you have to collect a certain amount of cubes and then move them throughout the lab and sequence and characterize. <S> Anyway, it makes the game evenmore complicated and enjoyable still. <S> Peace and love
|
In the Lab is harder than the regular game, but it will all depend as time goes by.
|
What does "float mana" typically mean? Normally, whenever I take an action that involves paying for an effect that is any more complicated than tapping lands, I declare that I'm floating mana. For instance: When I tap Priest of Titania with 3 other elves on the battlefield (for a total mana cost of 4), than I will typically say "I float 4 mana" before I make any plays and use this mana. Even if I'm using Llanowar Elves to pay for a 1-drop, I declare how I'm floating mana. One time, I was accused of cheating because of this habit. I tapped my Llanowar Elves and said "I float 1 to play Quirion Ranger ", and I was accused of cheating, because I "didn't have 1 floating after that play". It would seem that the person I was playing against had taken "floating mana" to refer exclusively to mana that was left over after paying a mana cost. Have I been doing it wrong all along? Has my talk about "floating mana" before I pay costs been a miscommunication all this time? I'm asking this now because I recently came across this passage whilst reading the comp rules: 106.4a If a player passes priority (see rule 116) while there is mana in his or her mana pool, that player announces what mana is there. If any mana remains in a player’s mana pool after he or she spends mana to pay a cost, that player announces what mana is still there. Does that mean that talking about my "floating mana" communicates that I'm passing priority? <Q> mana floating is a slang mtg term and refers to mana left over after you play a spell. <S> Refers to mana added to a player's mana pool and not used immediately. <S> For example, a player might tap all of his or her lands for mana, then play Armageddon (destroying all land in play), then use the excess "floating" mana to play some other card. <S> http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Slang#Float <S> Talking about floating mana does not imply that you are about to pass priority. <S> This is because you can play multiple spells before you pass priority and you would potentially have mana left in your pool between such plays. <S> After casting each spell you need to make it clear how much and what type of mana you still have in your pool, so talking about how much and of what types of mana are still floating seems appropriate. <S> In a tournament, as long as your usage is clear and consistent there should be no problems. <A> As others have said, "float" generally means "produce mana <S> I'm not using right now", for example if you're tapping something that produces four mana and only using two of it on the current spell. <S> So interpreting your statements very literally, you were effectively claiming to have produced more mana than you actually did, which would be cheating. <S> But of course it was entirely obvious what you actually meant, so it seems more likely <S> your opponent was just annoyed at you for using "float" wrong and decided to call you out on it by saying you were cheating. <S> That said, this is generally a non-issue, since you can just tap permanents and cast spells. <S> You don't necessarily have to announce every mana you produce. <S> If you're just tapping things that produce one mana each it doesn't need much explanation. <S> I don't think anyone would bat an eye if you just tapped your Elves and said "I'll cast Quirion Ranger". <S> For bigger things, it can certainly be helpful to count up as you go, but it's not required and needn't be anything fancy; you can just tap some things, count "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" if you so desire, and then play your Thragtusk. <S> Similarly, noting how much mana your Priest of Titania produces is probably a polite, helpful thing (for both you and your opponent), but you can just say something like "tap this for four", and possibly count up your elves in the process if you think it's not immediately obvious. <A> I don't know how a judge would rule in this case (typically judges only care about things that are confusing, and any opponent paying attention would know what you meant), but yes, you are technically using the terminology wrong. <S> It doesn't empty until you end the step or phase. <S> Your opponent has the right to know whether it's conceivable that you could respond to their actions with an instant, and so must be able to reasonably work out how much mana you have available at any given time. <S> For mana put into your pool that you are using immediately it's uncommon to announce verbally.
|
Floating mana is mana that is in your mana pool as you pass priority.
|
Nivmagus Elemental interactions with nivix cyclops, guttersnipe, and young pyromancer if I exile a spell with Nivmagus Elemental , will the spell still cause the abilities of Nivix Cyclops , Guttersnipe and Young Pyromancer to trigger? <Q> Yes. <S> All of your examples trigger when you cast a spell. <S> They happen whether that spell resolves or not. <S> I have seen multiple EDH decks built specifically around cards such as those and Cipher, where the intent is to exile spells with Nivmagus whenever you don't really need them. <A> The question doesn't make any sense because the casting of the spell and therefore the triggering of Nivix Cyclops 's ability happens before you even have a chance to activate Nivmagus Elemental 's ability. <S> In fact, you can even let Nivix Cyclops's ability resolve before you activate Nivmagus Elemental's. <S> Nivmagus Elemental's ability won't rewrite history <S> so Nivix Cyclops never triggered, and it won't remove Nivix Cyclops's ability from the stack. <S> As such, it won't stop Nivix Cyclops's ability from resolving. <A> Yes, because you cannot exile the spell with Nivmagus Elemental until the triggered abilities have already been placed on the stack (and if you want, resolved). <S> From the comprehensive rules: As soon as you cast the spell (pay costs, select targets, place the spell on the stack) <S> the triggered abilities are placed on the stack. <S> 601.2h <S> Once the steps described in 601.2a <S> -g are completed, the spell becomes cast. <S> Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. <S> If the spell's controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority. <S> Steps 601.2a-g have been omitted and involve selecting legal targets and paying costs for the spell. <S> After the spell and triggered abilities are on the stack & you get priority back (either by already having it, or having your opponent pass it to you). <S> You can then activate Nivmagus Elemental's ability. <S> Because the triggered abilities are already on the stack they will resolve even though the spell that triggered them does not resolve.
|
Nivmagus Elemental's ability requires that the spell already exist on the stack, which means it requires that the spell must already have been created through casting or copying before it can be activated, which means Nivix Cyclops's ability would already have been triggered and would already have been placed on the stack by the time you can use Nivmagus Elemental's ability.
|
Can colonists be relocated during the Mayor phase? I've been reading the rules, and while everything is very well explained, I can't seem to determine if the colonist is fixed to the building once placed. Say I put a colonist working on the small market, and it's now the mayor phase, and I got one new colonist from the ship. I place him on a plantation (sugar, e.g.), but I also feel like the next player will pick the craftsmen card. Can I move the colonist from the hospice to the sugar mill (provided I, of course have room)? Secondly, at the end of the mayor phase, the mayor should place the number of colonists on the ship equal to the number of free "work spaces", to a minimum of the number of players. Now, how exactly do you determine if the mayor "forgets" this. I mean, if you're a player who hopes he will forget it do you just wait out until the next role is drawn and then point out that the new colonists have been forgotten? <Q> From the rules : A player may place his new colonist(s), together with all the colonists he acquired from earlier rounds, on any empty circles on the tiles on his player board. <S> Thus, a player may move a colonist placed on a circle or San Juan in an earlier round. <S> Since it is the last thing a player does during their turn, the first opportunity to remind them is after a new role card is selected or the Governor placard is moved (since otherwise it would still be during their turn.). <S> It seems silly to place only the minimum number of colonists in the ship if "forgotten" at this point, and I can see how this could be exploited by players to not end the game as soon as it normally would. <S> ( Note : This rules seems is probably for later turns after a Builder phase has been selected and people cannot remember which new buildings have been built, and therefore how many colonists are supposed to be on the ship.) <S> As his last duty, the mayor puts new colonists on the colonist ship to be used in the next mayor phase. <S> [...] <S> - If a mayor forgets (players may remind him) to place new colonists on the colonist ship, players later place the minimum (number of players) on the colonist ship. <A> Yes, during every Mayor phase, you can reassign your colonists to new buildings or plantations. <S> The only thing you cannot do is voluntarily place your colonists in San Juan if there is an empty space (building or plantation) for them to occupy. <S> If your game strategy depends on cheating, then you should find a new hobby. <A> I totally understand your frustration! <S> What is difficult is that the rulebook speak about "player board", "the island", "the city", "player's tiles", "San Juan", "small city of San Juan" and so on... <S> If you mix them up, then the rulebook doesn't make sense... <S> Remember that "San Juan" is not the same as "the island"! <S> On "the island" there is 12 spaces, each for a plantation tile. <S> In "the city" there is 12 spaces where you can place your buildings. <S> Your "player board" consists of both "the island" and "the city". " <S> San Juan" or "small city of San Juan" is an own place, situated on "the island" but not the same as "the island"! <S> Thus: You have no empty circles on the buildings/plantations (the city) or plantation tiles (the island), but you still have a few colonists. <S> What to do? <S> You store them on "San Juan", or also called in the rulebook "small city of San Juan". <S> When you have this names sorted out, then the text is easy to understand: "No player may chose to place colonists in San Juan if he has empty circles on his player board. <S> All empty circles must be filled, if possible."
|
On "San Juan" you can store your colonists if you cannot place your colonists on your "player board". All your colonists can be moved each mayor phase, including ones acquired during earlier turns.
|
Where online can I post my (free) rules and materials for games I've created? I'm looking for websites that specialize in providing rules and digital resources for card/board games online. Recently I've been creating lots of simple games for my design classes and I would like to post my work online for others to play (or ignore if they so choose). To be clear I'm not looking for a place to sell games nor am I looking to create an online computer version of the game. I simply want to post the rules and materials online where someone who is interested in indie games can find them. <Q> I'd say the first place that jumps to mind for me is boardgamegeek.com <S> You might consider setting up a tumblr or some other website you control and link the materials and information in the forum. <A> The Card and Board Game Designers Guild (on Facebook) is a great source of criticism and suggestions. <S> I'm not sure how well the idea of "hosting finished files" works with the stated purpose of the Guild, but it's good to know about regardless! <S> If you end up going with a blog of some sorts, you might consider posting at /r/tabletopgamedesign . <A> At the pagat.com Invented Card Games page, John enables contributions. <S> Some entries are whole web page descriptions of a game, while other entries are a link to a description elsewhere.
|
This forum seems like an appropriate place to post your rules and materials: http://boardgamegeek.com/forum/26/boardgamegeek/board-game-design
|
Yugioh: Sacrifice a field card to destroy target monster Is there a Yugioh card with the effect (activated on the field) that you can discard a card in your hand and/or one you control to target another card on the field and destroy it? This would, in theory, be nice to couple with Master Hyperion -- because you could then use Master Hyperion's effect to send the card recently put in the graveyard to the banished area to resolve Hyperion's effect. <Q> Snipe Hunter is your guy. <S> He can discard as many cards from your hand as you like to target any card on the field. <S> Then you roll a die and if it's 2, 3, 4 or 5, the card is destroyed. <S> A good once-per-turn option is Scrap Dragon. <S> He allows you to target one card on each side of the field which then get destroyed. <S> Spell and Trap wise, there's Raigeki Break, Phoenix Wing Wind Blast and Dark Core. <S> There might be more of them, see my advice below. <S> Other than that, there are mainly only specific cards which won't work with Hyperion, such as Exiled Force or Chiron the Mage. <S> That kind of card isn't that rare. <S> You might want to look for Cards that destroy cards on the field on the wikia. <S> Most of them have a drawback, which is often discarding or Tributing cards. <A> May I suggest the monster card effect called Exiled Force ? <S> You can Tribute this card to target 1 monster on the field; destroy that target . <S> This last one card matches with your requirement. <A> you can use this list to Send cards from your Deck to the Graveyard or this list to Send cards from your Deck to the Graveyard at a cost <S> there are also cards like Card Destruction or Graceful Charity might come in handy, while the first can wipe out your entire hand if you have a hand full of light type fairies, the second can allow you the chance in drawing 2 and sending them right into the grave yard. <S> Your best bet is to find cards which allow you to draw a new card at the same time as discarding, if they draw before discard then you have a chance in drawing a light type fairy your other option is to stock up on weaker ones and use them as fodder in Defense Mode, even if your opponent works out what your doing they have no choice but to wipe them out unless they have cards which can deal direct damage
|
Another option could be the trap card called Raigeki Break Discard 1 card, then target 1 card on the field; destroy it .
|
Is Pandemic harder with fewer players? I've played a couple of Pandemic games with 2, 3 and 4 players. From my point of view, the game should be harder with only 2 players since it will be more difficult to get a medic and both players will have to stay virtually close to each other most of the time in order to share knowledge, therefore cover less ground. On the other hand, with more players, obviously the deck will run out faster. From my experience our group WIN/LOSE ratio is very similar and does not depend that much on the player count. Is it really harder with fewer players? <Q> Actually, I've found that it's easier with fewer players. <S> My husband and I play two-player games with six epidemics and win about half our games, but when we play with two other (competent) players five epidemics gives us that win rate and six is hard. <S> While, with fewer players, you have fewer roles in the game, that's offset by not having so many other actions between your turns (that can completely change the board and thus your plans). <S> Some roles work better the more turns that role gets, e.g. dumpster-diving abilities and once-per-turn special actions. <S> You'll run through the deck at the same rate no matter how many players there are. <S> The medic is not necessary, and sometimes having that role in a two-player game is counter-productive. <S> Remember tha the goal is curing diseases; it's easy for the medic to get so pre-occupied with the board that he doesn't contribute enough to cures. <S> Medic as one of four roles is great; medic as one of two requires restraint. <S> In our games we deal two roles to each player and let the player choose one (consultation is allowed). <S> That hasn't hurt our two-player games even though the medic will only be an option about a third of the time. <A> the 5 cards you need for a cure will be distributed between 2 hands rather than 3 or 4, and if you have the right combination of roles/event cards you can transfer those cards in 1 or 2 player-turns (and hence only having to worry about the infector and epidemics twice) instead of needing to co-ordinate across 3, 4 or more turns. <A> The main thing you lose with fewer players is maximum hand size, so you cannot hold as many cards at once. <S> This can make it harder to get the cures if the right colours don't come up. <S> However, it is generally easier to avoid outbreaks, since you only have 2 people you will tend to have the right person's turn faster after an epidemic. <S> With 2 people you will need to choose your roles manually <S> I think, since some roles, EG Dispatcher, are pretty worthless with only 2 people and some EG Medic are practically mandatory. <S> You get the same number of player turns regardless of the number of players, since the starting cards is 2 for 4 players and 4 for 2 players. <S> Trading cards seems about the same difficulty with 2 people as you have less turns to wait at the trading location, but less options for meeting up. <S> Research stations make meeting up pretty easy as long as you can both build them near where you are. <S> Or a Charter flight out of a city you hold will let you meet up anywhere to swap that second card.
|
One of the biggest factors that makes it easier with fewer players is that you can organise the cards you need to get together much more quickly -
|
Sliver abilites and when they affect the Slivers Let's say I have two Muscle Sliver s, so they're both 3/3 creatures. Now if they attack at the same time, and I kill one Muscle Sliver, would the remaining Muscle Sliver continue to stay at 3/3 for the attack phase, or would it instantly become a 2/2? <Q> As soon as one of the Muscle Slivers leaves the battlefield, its ability disappears, leaving the other sliver smaller. <S> Static abilities on permanents create continuous effects, functioning as long as the permanent is on the battlefield, no longer and no shorter. <S> They are not activated; they simply are . <S> That's why they're written as statements of fact: " <S> All Sliver creatures get +1/+1." <S> So for example, your opponent could block one of your 3/3 Muscle Slivers with a 3/3, and one with a 2/3. <S> All the creatures deal damage to each other simultaneously. <S> State-based actions are then checked, and the two 3/3s <S> and the 2/3 have taken three damage and die. <S> The first Muscle Sliver is now gone, so the remaining one is now a 2/2. <S> State-based actions are checked again, and that sliver has two damage marked on it and now only has two toughness, so it dies as well. <S> Remember, this doesn't affect the amount of damage dealt, since all the damage was dealt at the same time, before anything died. <S> So when you ask "does it stay at 3/3 for the attack phase? <S> " <S> the answer is... <S> yes and no. <S> It's still a 3/3 when it deals damage, yes. <S> But it gets smaller immediately after. <A> The key to this one is timing and the flow of events from one game phase to the other. <S> During the Combat Phase, there are steps of Declare Attackers, Declare Blockers, and Combat Damage. <S> The slivers are 3/3 creatures for as long as both of them are in play. <S> However, damage counters remain until the Cleanup Phase at the end of the turn, after the Second Main Phase. <S> So, during the declare attackers/declare blockers phase, they are both 3/3 creatures. <S> Then, they are assigned the damage from their respective blockers. <S> If one takes 3 damage, and one takes 2 damage, it resolves like this:The sliver with 3 damage counters dies as a state-based action, resulting in the loss of its static +1/+1 global bonus to slivers. <S> This makes the other sliver a 2/2. <S> Since it still has 2 damage counters on it (and will, until the Cleanup Phase), it ALSO now dies as a state-based action. <S> All of this happens AFTER damage is assigned, following the Declare Attackers/Declare Blockers Phases. <S> So, yes. <S> For the attack phase, they are both 3/3 creatures, and each deal 3 damage, regardless of whether one or both of them would die as a result of that combat. <A>
|
It depends how you kill it, if it is through blocking, then they'll both still be 3/3 for the damage step, but if you cast an instant, like lightening axe in the declare blockers step, the muscle sliver dies, leaving a 2/2 muscle sliver.
|
Organizing a rule book Bit of Background I am currently trying to organize a comprehensive rule book for a board game I have been designing for some time now that is about to go into a testing phase. This being my first board game I've run into a wall. The Problem I don't know how best to structure the rule book. For instance, I'll be trying to explain how a piece moves in relation to the kind of tile it is on. Because in my game different pieces do different things depending on how they are positioned, this is quite complex. What ends up happening is I don't know whether to put the information under the type of piece, or under the type of tile, or under the specific situation in which the rules apply. I feel if put the information in one place or the other it will leave the players confused, and if I put it in multiple places the book could get kind of lengthy, and scare potential players away. The Potatoes What do you guys do when you make your comprehensive instruction booklets to avoid this problem? <Q> One issue is staring at this blank canvas of a rule book and not knowing where to start. <S> To find out where to start, first realize exactly what you're trying to accomplish: Tell someone how to play. <S> I might suggest you show the game to a few friends, preferably the most interactive ones. <S> If they ask questions, then when you explain it to another friend, you have the insight of what they may be thinking and the ability to answer just what's on their mind. <S> You will learn exactly what to write by sheer redundancy of explaining the rules over and over, and subconsciously you'll build a structure of your explanation that you could use while writing your rule book. <S> Hope <S> this helps you getting started. <A> I prefer BLUF (bottom line up front): first tell me the objective of the game (in one sentence). <S> Tell me how to win. <S> Tell me how / when the game ends. <S> From that tell me more about the turn sequence. <S> Describe what a turn looks like. <S> Describe my options. <S> Show me examples with pictures and special cases. <A> What are you trying to write? <S> Are you trying to write a comprehensive rule book? <S> Or are you trying to write a quick start guide? <S> If you're going to write a quick start guide, you should walk a player through a simple but representative session of your game. <S> At the very minimum, you need the following: Setting up the game <S> The first turn The first round (and/or regular triggers) Typical events that may occur on any given round Win conditions <S> Depending on how similar these are, they might be combined or incredibly short. <S> For example, the first round might be "each player does the same as first player, going clockwise. <S> " But it might also include "at the end of each round, roll the die to determine a new monster to attack the heroes" or some other thing. <S> By walking a player through a game, you clearly define the things that are in and out of the players' control. <S> Your objective with this guide is to get as close as you can to a video of an actual game. <S> If you're trying to write a rule book, this is a different beast. <S> A rule book is going to be very dry and uninviting, but will be very clear about everything it says. <S> Detailed turn structure <S> Legal (and illegal) actions allowed by the players <S> Legal (and illegal) interactions between each element Specific cases that came up during playtesting Glossary <S> At the very least, you need to be able to tell the reader exactly what the purpose of whatever document they're reading is. <S> Don't call something a rulebook if it's a quick start guide, and vice versa. <S> You might not even want to include a rulebook: just make the comprehensive rules available online - they're easier to update that way, and as long as people aren't forced to go online to play the game, you should be fine. <A> This video from my "How to Write Clear Rules" course might help: <S> Sequence of Play versus Reference Rules http://youtu.be/fEqtp0c540w <S> A few other videos from the course will appear on my Game Design YouTube channel along with this video, but most will not. <S> The course itself is at Courses. <S> PulsipherGames. <S> Com . <S> As far as I know the course is the most comprehensive discussion of writing game rules anywhere. <S> It's not a topic I discussed at length in my book "Game Design", which is first about video games. <S> Lew Pulsipher <A> A challenge we all face in writing rules is the extremely diverse intellect of the gamers that exists out there. <S> I encounter people during field testing of my game that show signs of fluency within the first game where others look clueless, generally my observations have been, a player can get my game in 2 to 4 games where others will take 10 to 15, that pretty well illustrates the opening statement and all this is irrelevant to how well the rules are written! <S> So when writing those rules keeping it simple is your best rule!
|
A rule book should contain Prologue about the game Definition of each game element
|
What's the most efficient way of determine individual card values for my collection? With an extremely large variety of Magic: The Gathering Cards that exist out there from so many sets and a loose definition of utility and value in the game, it's often hard to gauge a card's individual worth/price without checking it out online. Of course, the rarity is generally a good indicator, but there are plenty of expensive common and uncommon cards too. My question is What is the most efficient way of determining card value without individually loking up each Magic card? <Q> There are apps out there that can quickly scan cards as you flip through them, and provided estimated prices. <S> Delver Lens is a good one. <S> Not to mention it can keep track of your collection, or export to other collection tracking websites. <A> The most time efficient way to sort the wheat from the chaff is hard to gauge, there are a number of different ways that will work for different people. <S> One option is to take a buylist from your preferred website, which will give you prices for most cards that are valuable. <S> This lets you quickly look through a list of cards (often sorted in alphabetical order and set) all in one place, and check if its on the list. <S> This wont give you the ACTUAL value of your cards, but generally a buy list price indicates whether a card has much value. <S> many websites will also let you type in a list of cards and bring up their sale prices of each, which might be quicker depending on how quickly you can go through them. <S> a further option would potentially be a mobile app, many apps have collection trackers where you can enter your entire collection and then traverse the list in the app to get values for them. <S> whatever you choose, it will probably be pretty time consuming. <S> Rather than going through your cards and comparing them against the web or a list, it might be better to try and learn as many commons and uncommons worth <S> more than a specific threshold (e.g. $1) as possible, and then go through your collection looking for those specific cards, seperating out any rares and foils to check later. <S> While there are plenty of commons and uncommons that are worth money, there arent so many that you cant have a good idea of what most of them are. <S> having a threshold as low as $1 makes it significantly harder, but starting at $5 cuts out a huge number, and gets you most of the value in your collection quite quickly, before making further passes to pick out the rest, knowing you dont need to look for anything above $5. <A> If you didn't want to go online, you can go to a local gaming store and get them appraised. <A> If you know which sets you have, there is an excellent tool for doing this exact thing at http://mtg.dawnglare.com/?p=viz Simply select the set(s <S> ) you own and click submit. <S> You will get a picture of every card in those sets with the most expensive on the left & largest, with descending price towards the right. <S> Then you can simply leave that page up and flip through your collection looking for image matches. <S> Dawnglare pulls prices from TCGPlayer.com. <A> I found the online card manager Deckbox to be quite useful. <S> It allows me to add any card to my inventory with a single click and will display prices, has some nice search and filtering functions and even provides a platform for deck building and trading. <A> My preliminary sift through a collection is usually just looking through all the cards and looking for things that see a lot of competitive play. <S> This, of course, requires at least some knowledge of the competitive meta at the time of searching. <S> You can learn the meta quickly in 2 ways: looking up Star City Games on YouTube and watching their most recent open series events or (the faster way, but with less joy from watching play) looking on mtggoldfish.com 's "Metagame" tag. <S> If your cards are from very recent sets, the Standard format is what you're looking at. <S> Otherwise you're probably looking at Modern. <S> And a word from the wise <S> : look at land cards. <S> Other than basic Forest, Plains, Swamp , Mountain, and Island, there's a fair chance you have something of value in your pile of lands. <A> Click on Prices in the top left and choose either a format or a set and it will list all cards that are worth more than 50 cents (or 0.5 tix if you need online prices).
|
A good gaming store should be able to list out what each card is worth and what they are willing to buy it for. The site mtggoldfish.com is my source if I want to know if there are any valuable commons or uncommons in a set.
|
What can the dummy player do in Bridge? We're learning to play Bridge from Gramma, who played the game a lot ~40 years ago but doesn't really remember the rules (or, at least, the reasons behind some rules and conventions). One of the things she's adamant about is that the dummy sits the hand out completely, not to touch the cards at all once they're face up on the table. The rest of us newbies think this is kind of silly - while we know the dummy shouldn't be offering advice, we figure he could could at least handle the cards and play what the leader tells him to play, and (when there's no choice to be made, like when there's only 1 possible card to play), just do the mechanical stuff that requires no decision making. What are the limitations placed on the dummy player? Are there etiquette rules about what he can and cannot do? <Q> From Laws of Contract Bridge 2014 : <S> Law 42 – Dummy’s Rights Dummy is entitled to give information as to fact or Law but may not initiate the discussion, and provided hehas not forfeited his rights (see Law 43) <S> , he may also (a) ask declarer (but not a defender), when he has failed to follow suit,whether he has a card of the suit led. <S> (b) try to prevent anyirregularity <S> **by declarer. <S> (c) draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play is concluded. <S> ** <S> Note: <S> He may, for example, warn declarer against leading from the wrong hand. <S> Law 43 – <S> Dummy’s <S> If he does so, Law 16 may apply. <S> During play, dummy maynot call attention to an irregularity once it has occurred. <S> Dummy forfeits the rights provided in (a), (b) and (c) of Law 42 if heexchanges hands with declarer, leaves his seat to watch declarer playor, on his own initiative, looks at the face of a card in eitherdefender’s hand. <S> If, thereafter, (a) he is the first to drawattention to a defender’s irregularity, declarer may not enforce anypenalty for the offense. <S> (b) he warns declarer not to lead from thewrong hand, (penalty) either defender may choose the hand from whichdeclarer shall lead. <S> (c) <S> he is the first to ask declarer if a playfrom declarer’s hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute acorrect card if his play was a revoke, and (penalty) unless Law 64(d)applies, one trick is transferred to the defending side. <S> Contrary to the belief of many, rules are intended to keep friendly games friendly , by providing a common understanding of the game. <S> The above are the rules for non-Tournament bridge in regards to Dummy's rights and limitations. <S> It sounds like Gramma is a wise old woman, who has encountered cheats in her life and wishes that her grandchildren and other relatives are never accused of such or believed to be sharp at cards. <S> Follow her advice, and give her more credit for wisdom possibly beyond even her years. <A> The etiquette for rubber bridge is not that for duplicate bridge, and it has remained pretty much the same for many years. <S> It does specify that dummy should not touch the cards; when you table your hand, you should put them far enough down so that declarer can reach them without difficulty. <S> Other non-obvious points are that the cards should not be shuffled by dealer or his partner, and that, unless otherwise agreed, you should always cut for partners. <S> Of course, you don't need to worry about these points while you're learninmg, and particularly not within the family. <S> But you should be aware that the etiquette exists; you are expected to abide by it when playing with strangers (such as at a club), and particularly when you are playing for money. <A> Source - The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge (pdf) <S> LAW 42: <S> DUMMY’S RIGHTS A. Absolute Rights <S> Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director’s presence, as to fact or law. <S> He may keep count of tricks won and lost. <S> He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play). <S> B. Qualified Rights <S> Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations stated in Law 43: <S> Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led. <S> He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. <S> He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. <S> LAW 43: <S> DUMMY <S> ’S LIMITATIONS <S> Except as Law 42 allows: A. Limitations on Dummy (a) <S> Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play. <S> (b) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. <S> (c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. <S> (a) <S> Dummy may not exchange hands with declarer. <S> (b) Dummy may not leave his seat to watch declarer’s play of the hand. <S> (c) Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender’s hand. <A> The dummy can give information about what has happened when the director is called keep track of the tricks won or lost play his cards according to <S> what declarer says when declarer doesn't follow a suit, he can ask him whether he has no cards in that suit. <S> The dummy cannot call director communicate with the declarer <S> see opponent's or declarer's cards <A> The role of the dummy is to be "dumb" (Silent). <S> That's why s/ <S> he is called the "dummy." <S> Basically, the dummy is not supposed to speak or act unless "spoken to. <S> " <S> So dummy's powers are strictly limited, but include the following: Must lay down hand after the right hand opponent leads (but not before). <S> May not further touch those cards except as directed by declarer. <S> (Ideally, the dummy will have placed the cards in such a way that the declarer can reach them.) <S> This includes one card, "no brainer" situations. <S> May call attention to a declarer error in progress (leading from the wrong hand, not following suit). <S> May not initiate a conversation about anything else, including opponents' errors, but may respond to questions asked by a tournament director (TD). <S> (Dummy may not initiate the calling of the TD.) <S> May not leave his seat or walk around the room except in extreme emergency (fire alarm, and maybe bathroom breaks). <S> May not peek at declarer's or opponents' cards (until played).
|
Limitations Dummy may not participate in the play (except to play the cards of dummy’s hand as directed bydeclarer) or make any comment on the bidding, play or score of thecurrent deal.
|
How much time do I get to read a card before I counter it? My friend told me I only get 5 seconds to say if I'm going to counter a card in Magic the Gathering, even if I tell him to wait. Is that true? <Q> Your friend made that up. <S> There is nothing in the comprehensive rules about how long a player may retain priority. <S> Once you've got it, you keep it as long as you like until you play a spell/ability or pass. <S> If you're in an official tournament setting, your opponent can call a judge if he thinks you're intentionally playing slowly. <S> If you're playing at your friend's kitchen table, then anything goes. <S> Of course, the host can always decide to kick you out of his house, so try to play at a reasonable speed. <A> (Except maybe in tournament play when each session of rounds is timed) And regardless of rules, a friend should never rush a friend, especially if asked nicely to wait. <A> As per the other comments, what you are being told is wrong. <S> Time is only important during competitive events, where if you continously spend too much time reading cards, thinking about your play, deciding blockers or attackers (all within reason). <S> You can be warned for slow play on those circumstances but other than that there is really no 5 second rule. <S> What you need to be careful and it is covered in the rules (again, for competitive events) is communication. <S> If your opponent casts a spell and you look at it and say "ok", it doesn't matter if you meant "ok, I'll let it resolve" or "ok, let me think about this", you only said "ok". <S> Make sure you keep communication clear to ensure your opponent knows what you are doing and to avoid unnecessary judge calls.
|
Not only is your friend wrong - "time" actually is not relevant to any part of Magic The Gathering.
|
Why do the opposing sides of a D20 generally add up to 21 Most D20s I own (with the exception of poorly made foam ones or MTG spin-down dice) seem to have all opposing sides add up to 21 (20 + 1, 15 + 6, etc). Why is this? Who started this? <Q> Opposite sides add up to 21 on a d20 for the same reason that opposite sides add up to 7 on a d6: if there's a manufacturing or design defect, and the die ends up slightly flatter than intended, then the average result of the die will not change. <S> Consider a d6 that ends up a bit flat: two sides opposite each other will both have an increased chance of being landed on. <S> But since these two sides' numbers are "opposite" to each other, they will not affect the average of the die. <S> For example, a d6 might have a 1/3 chance of landing on a 1, a 1/3 chance of landing on a 6, and, and a 1/12 chance of landing on each of the other faces. <S> The average of this seriously-deformed die is: 1 <S> * 1/3 + 2 <S> * 1/12 + 3 <S> * 1/12 + 4 <S> * 1/12 + 5 <S> * 1/12 + 6 <S> * 1/3 = 3.5, the same as a normal die. <S> Of course, various other deformities (malformed corner, air bubble in the plastic, some enterprising fellow put a little lead in the die, etc.) <S> will still play merry hob with the probabilities in an unfair way, but a flattened die will be somewhat fair in that its biases favor both high and low numbers equally. <S> The layout for d8, d10, d12, and d20 dice were probably created from this same idea to make the dice somewhat fair if they're flattened. <A> I may be misinformed, however my understanding of the situation is that this is a result of trying to normalize the value of each region on the d20. <S> The best comparison is between an MTG spindown (where the numbers count down from 20-1 in sequence spiraling around the d20) and a regular d20. <S> A spindown has all the high values clustered at one end, and the low values clustered at the other. <S> with practice, you could easily learn to roll a spindown to get 10 or more the vast majority of the time, for a regular d20 this is impossible as the numbers are spread evenly, so high numbers are surrounded by lower numbers. <S> by laying out the numbers such that all sides add up to 21, you give a memorable way for users to navigate a d20, whilst also giving a reasonable (if not optimal) proportionality in value accross the areas of the d20. <S> as for who started it, I couldnt answer that, d20 themselves have been around since the Romans ( http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/06/what-version-of/ ), but I can find no information on who decided the numbering scheme. <A> Another reason might be that originally 6-sided dice used little holes to mark the numbers. <S> The material removed to create a 6 is more than that to create a 1. <S> As such, the different sides of a die had different weights. <S> To balance the weight across all three directions of the die, opposing numbers were chosen to balance out the different directions. <S> The material taken out of 6 and 1 would be the same weight as the material taken out of 5 and 2, and 4 and 3. <S> All three directions would lose material equal to 7 holes. <S> This, combined with distributing the numbers as far as possible from one another would lead to the current distribution of the numbers on a 6-sided die. <S> However, on dice with more than 6 sides, the sum rule would not be enough to guarantee that all numbers are as far as possible from each other. <S> Also, on 20-sided dice, numbers are not usually created by holes but using digits. <S> As such, the material argument doesn't hold anymore. <A> The tradition of numbering a d6 with 1 opposite 6, etc. goes back to the Ancient Greeks, if not before. <S> As far as I know, the original reasoning behind that numbering isn't really known. <S> It is, however, a way to improve fairness for a slightly flattened die, as noted above. <S> Other defects such as voids could cause a particular region of a die to preferentially land facing up. <S> In order to minimize the effect of such defects on fairness, dice would ideally have the faces surrounding a vertex (a point where three or more faces come together) summing to the same number. <S> Bob Bosch, Henry Segerman and I have just produced such a numerically-balanced d20 for the first time. <S> For more details, please visit http://thedicelab.com/BalancedStdPoly.html .
|
It is very hard (if not impossible) to roll a d20 for an exact individual side, so spacing them out in this way is the best way to "balance" the values, such that a practiced roll aiming for 20 has a high chance to land on much lower numbers that are adjacent, where a spindown would have other high numbers adjacent.
|
Do Ticket to Ride expansions work with the Europe set? I have and love Ticket to Ride: Europe, and would like to try out some of the new expansion packs (Switzerland, Asia, etc... Don't really care about 1910). I was just wondering if I would have to buy the original USA game first or if the new maps would work with the Europe set. Thanks! <Q> It doesn't matter which base game you own. <S> For example, the rules for Heart of Africa tell you: <S> This game is an expansion and requires that you use the following game parts from one of the previous versions of Ticket to Ride: <S> A reserve of 45 Trains per player and matching Scoring Markers taken from any of the following: Ticket to Ride / Ticket to Ride Europe 110 Train Car Cards taken from: Ticket to Ride / Ticket to Ride Europe / USA 1910 expansion <S> You can also confirm this yourself by looking at the Games of Wonder website descriptions for each map, for example Asia . <S> They all say the same thing: NOT A STAND-ALONE GAME! <S> Requires an original copy of Ticket to Ride® or Ticket to Ride <S> ® Europe to play. <A> Either of those big boxes is fine. <S> Märklin is not perfectly compatible, since the train car deck is a little bit off, and Nordic Countries only has enough trains for three players. <S> That's why those boxes are not quite compatible with the expansion maps. <A> Also don't forget that Ticket To Ride: <S> Alvin & Dexter is an expansion that can work with any of the base TTR games. <S> It expands the game in a different direction; adding a giant dinosaur and an alien who can create havoc for those trying to build to/from a certain location.
|
No, you only need one of the base games (Europe or USA) in order to access the train car cards, scoring markers and the player carriage pieces.
|
Does the "housing shortage" rule suggest that you should often refrain from buying hotels in monopoly? There are 32 houses in Monopoly. That's only enough to cover eight properties with four houses each, or two full (three property) monopolies, plus one two property monopoly, either Boardwalk-Park Place, or Mediterranean-Baltic. So if I own two full monopolies, and cover them with four houses each, there are only eight houses left, meaning that except for either Boardwalk-Park Place, or Mediterranean-Baltic, no third monopoly can go up to the crtical three house level on all three properties. Does this mean that I should keep four houses each on my two monopolies and NOT upgrade them to hotels? Or if someone wants houses, maybe I should at least force them to give me another Monopoly (or railroads or cash) in order to agree to free up houses by upgrading to a hotel? (This might come into play if another opponent and I both had four houses each on our respective monopolies.) I remember playing years ago with two house rules: if someone could cover all their properties with hotels outright they were allowed to do so without buying houses (if they could afford to do so) if someone had four houses on a property, you could force them to free up houses by paying for their upgrade to a hotel What I find puzzling is that there are 12 hotels, enough to cover all the properties from four full (three-property) monopolies. And taken together, the hotels and houses can cover six full monopolies, plus a seventh, either Boardwalk-Park Place, or Mediterranean-Baltic, with either a hotel or four houses. So was it the intent of the game designers that the board be covered this way? Or is a housing shortage just another "monopoly" that creates a further shortage over and above the physical building limits? <Q> From the Official Rules of Monopoly (my emphasis ): <S> The bank has a fixed supply of 32 houses and 12 hotels. <S> If more players decide to build more houses at the same time than there are houses in the bank, the houses are auctioned off one at a time to the highest bidder. <S> This rule favors the owners of expensive properties, for which the houses cost more in the first place, because the auction price of a house is not tied to the value of the property on which it will be placed. <S> It is not possible to buy more houses than there is available in the bank. <S> This could stop people buying hotels in the future! <S> and here : <S> When the Bank has no houses to sell, players wishing to build must wait for some player to return or sell their houses to the Bank before building. <S> If there are a limited number of houses and hotels available and two or more players wish to buy more than the Bank has, the houses or hotels must be sold at auction to the highest bidder. <S> Update : - Interpretation and application <S> I see the purchase of hotels in Monopoly as an endgame tactic, not a mid-game tactic. <S> Similar to a running-game double in backgammon by the leader, which is meant not to increase the stakes but to eliminate the opportunity for the opponent to get lucky and squeak out a win. <S> One then buys hotels because opponents do not actually have enough money to purchase the released assets. <S> By further increasing one's rents one can increase the pain of each landing on your property, and reduce the opponents' opportunity to rebuild a cash stock. <A> In the original version of the game hotels weren't even a thing. <S> That was added later by other people. <S> The main tactic in that version of the game was to deliberately create a housing shortage, because that's how capitalism works irl. <S> In fact, this game was created by a socialist woman for the sole purpose of showing how unjust unrestrained capitalism can be. <A> Yes. <S> It's a deliberate choice, and the rules are such that if there are no houses available you cannot upgrade to hotels - so that it is a perfectly valid tactic to buy 3-4 houses for all your properties and thus prevent opponents from getting hotels. <S> In fact, IIRC, 3 or 4 houses is about the point where you get maximum returns relative to money spent for most properties.
|
The purchase of hotels is properly done when one is already firmly in the lead, and thus that the housing shortage period of the game (a possible definition of the mid-game period actually) is already past.
|
Making a family card game playable online My family has a version of "Muggins" that has been handed down from generation to generation (at least 3 generations, maybe more). The rules that we play by are different than other versions that I've been able to find online or in rule books. I'd really like to be able to make this game playable online so that our family can log in and play it together over the internet. What is the best way to define the rules of a card game into a multi-player internet website? <Q> VASSAL was made for precisely this: it's a game engine/website where you can build games, and then play the games you built online. <S> There are a wide variety of existing games already built for VASSAL, but Muggins is not one of them. <S> This will not be simple: you're going to need to learn how to program the game using VASSAL's editor. <S> It'll take time and effort, but you will be able to re-create your family game of Muggins, house rules and all. <S> Once you've built the game (the site calls it a "module"), VASSAL will host the game, so your family can join; you don't need to worry about the details of building a website yourself. <S> VASSAL is free, though the site appreciates donations to keep it running. <A> You should definitely keep track of CardForest . <S> It is designed specifically for card games and it will let your create your version of 'Muggins' by simply specifying the rules in an online code editor. <S> (Disclaimer: I'm the founder) (working hard to launch by June, 2014) <A> You can just load a deck of cards into it and drag them around, and handle the rules yourselves. <S> Just a few dollars of investment, and no need to learn programming.
|
I know this is a very old question, but if the goal is just to play the game with your family (who already know the rules) then the easy way to make it happen is to just get a copy of Tabletop Simulator (or comparable software), which is just a virtual physics environment built for board/card game playing.
|
Underworld Connections: Tapping the Land for mana and ability? Let's say i enchant a land with Underworld Connections . Would i be able to tap said land for mana, and use the ability of Underworld Connections concurrently? <Q> No. <S> Tapping a land doesn't actually produce mana, activating its ability does. <S> Tapping is merely the paying of the cost to do so. <S> Unlike abilities that read "Whenever enchanted land is tapped" [1] , it's not actually tapping the land that causes Underworld Connections's effect. <S> Tapping is merely paying part of the cost to do so. <S> As part of activating either the abilities, you will need to tap the land, which will leave you unable to activate the other ability. <S> Like in real life, just because two abilities have the same cost doesn't mean you can pay the price just once for both. <S> An example of such an ability is Utopia Sprawl 's. <S> Tapping the enchanted Forest for mana produces {G} as normal and triggers Utopia Sprawl's ability to produce a second mana. <A> No, the following rule makes this pretty clear: 305.6. <S> The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. <S> If an object uses the words "basic land type," <S> it’s referring to one of these subtypes. <S> A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability "(tap): Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool," even if the text box doesn't actually contain that text or the object has no text box. <S> For Plains, [mana symbol] is (W); for Islands, (U); for Swamps, (B); for Mountains, (R); and for Forests, (G). <S> See rule 107.4a. <S> Also see rule 605, "Mana Abilities." <S> So then, if you play Underworld Connections on a Swamp, you now have the following Swamp Basic Land - Swamp <S> (Tap): <S> Add (B) to your mana pool <S> (Tap) <S> , Pay 1 life: <S> Draw a card. <S> Tapping is part of the cost of each ability, so you can tap the land to pay either cost, but not both at the same time <A> No. <S> You can't pay two separate tap costs with a single tap, just as how in real life you can't pay for two separate $1 charges with the same dollar.
|
To be precise, you can't even activate the abilities at the same time; you have to activate one first and pay its cost, and then afterwards the fact that the land is tapped will prevent you from paying the cost for the other ability.
|
Can Breath of Life Put a Discarded Creature into Play? Original versions of the white Sorcery Breath of Life read "Put target creature card from your graveyard into play." In later editions, they changed the text to read "Return target creature card from your graveyard to play." Was this a functional change that retroactively modified how Breath of Life works? Can I use new versions of Breath of Life to put a discarded creature card into play, or does it have to have been on the battlefield? <Q> Though I couldn't find an exact rule describing the word "return," there is this: 400.7. <S> An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. <S> So a card in your graveyard has no possible way of knowing if it used to be on the battlefield or not, so it must be treated the same whether it was or not. <S> Note also that cards may say "return target permanent to its owner's hand", and these can be used on permanents that were never in the owner's hand, such as a land that was fetched with a fetchland. <A> Breath of Life will work on any creature in your graveyard, regardless of whether it was previously in play. <S> "Return" is functionally synonymous with "put." <S> When you're wondering what a card actually does, it's best to start with its Oracle text. <S> This is the most authoritative take on "what the card says. <S> " You can look this up easily on Gatherer , which also has helpful rulings. <S> For example, Breath of Life reads: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield. <S> In Magic, "returning" a card to the battlefield doesn't require that the card have been on the battlefield previously. <S> As far as I can tell, this isn't explicitly spelled out in the comprehensive rules <S> ("return" and "put" aren't treated as specially defined terms, unlike "tap" or "discard") <S> , it's sorta just assumed. <S> This isn't a minor technicality, either. <S> It's the bedrock of an entire archetype known as Reanimator. <S> If you or your friends are truly skeptical, here's an account of a player using Unburial Rites (a card with identical wording to Breath of Life) in exactly this way during the deciding game of a major official tournament — in game 3, Mcclain puts a couple of cards into his graveyard on turn 3, then uses Unburial Rites to put a Thragtusk directly onto the battlefield on turn 4, before he has the 5 mana to cast it normally. <A> This was not a functional change. <S> It works on any creature in your graveyard, no matter how it got there. <S> I believe the use of the word "return" is more about flavor than anything else; the idea is that things in the graveyard died, so putting them onto the battlefield is bringing them back, returning them. <S> And tons and tons of cards say "return", not just Breath of Life. <S> For example, Mnemonic Wall and Whip of Erebos from Theros. <S> None of these cards are placing any restriction on how the card got in the graveyard. <S> (They can't - the card doesn't even remember where it came from after it moves zones!) <S> Finally, a side note: <S> 7th Edition was the only printing of Breath of Life outside Starter and Portal sets. <S> In addition to being a bit old (which can mean iffy rules text on cards sometimes), those cards were written for beginners. <S> That means the rules text was often more explicit, and also often just kind of weird. <S> " <S> Take any one creature card from your graveyard and put that creature into play. <S> Treat it as though you just played it from your hand." was merely simplified to "Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield." <S> More experienced players just don't need as much rules text to understand it.
|
It was not a functional change, you can return a creature card from your graveyard into play even if it was never in play to begin with.
|
Where to go to self publish a game? I found this question but I am interested in a commercial or bulk printing company to print my game. The GameCrafter seems like the only solution but its rather costly per game to print which means I wouldn't see any profit. I need a location where I can print the entirety of my game and have it assembled already when shipped. The only other places I can find that print cards are business card printing places or playing card printing places and neither of these will work since they only allow 1 design per order and I don't want to make 30 different orders since my game won't have the same amount of every card in them... I'm interested in US based companies, but location in the US doesn't matter. Does anyone have any suggestions? <Q> We're in touch with Cartemundi at the moment, their core business is card games but they do board games too. <S> For us they'll be doing cards, rules, box, sourcing and packing counters and completing the boxes (wrapping and all) ready to ship. <S> They do a minimum order size of 500 and they're prices get substantially better the more you print. <S> John is extremely helpful, and has helped ensure that our game is as cheap as possible to print, while retaining maximum quality. <S> http://www.cartamundi.com/en <S> In the US there's the company that print Fluxx (for the life of me <S> I can't find their name) <S> Or these chaps: http://360manufacturingservices.com/ <S> And as always, Google is your friend <A> No up front publishing investment, nothing gets printed until your players place an order. <S> (I used to work for this company) <A> I really like The Game Crafter . <S> They have a lot of parts in stock, they'll sell your game in their store if you'd like <S> or you can just use them for printing/publishing. <S> And their prices are very reasonable compared to the other sites I've looked in to. <A> I published 5 games, three of them made in professional quantities (3,000, 2,000 and 3,000). <S> For the first one I used Carta Mundi in the UK, but I was pretty unhappy with the customer service and the finished product quality. <S> The other two I used LudoFact in Germany ( http://www.ludofact.de/ ). <S> They were excellent, both in customer service, delivery schedule and finished product quality. <S> They are however, expensive. <S> A cheaper option would be to go Chinese, Panda Manufacturing ( http://pandagm.com/ ) are one example of that. <S> I have no experience with Chinese manufacturers however, so you would have to approach them and get your own feel for them as a partner. <A> One tip is not just to look for specialist 'game' printers but to look for fancy box manufacturers. <S> You may get a better range of prices/options depending on the nature of your game. <S> This doesn't fulfil your requirement to have the game made in one place, but, having worn the self-publisher T-shirt myself, I'd say sourcing the different parts from different places <S> can give you an edge on costs - and flexibility when one sub-component doesn't come out as expected. <A> Printer's Studio will do entirely custom-printed decks. <S> I haven't used them personally, but have heard good things from others.
|
http://www.drivethrucards.com/ sells card games as print-on-demand physical card decks (in addition to print-at-home PDFs).
|
Can I combine different races as a single army? Can I mix soldiers from totally different armies? I mean, can I have some, say, Necrons in among my Chaos Space Marines? I have a couple different armies, and I'd like to combine them. <Q> It is perfectly legal to use Necrons with Chaos Space maines so long as you obey all the necessary allies rules. <S> When you do this your select one army to be your primary detachment and the other one as the allied detachment. <S> Your primary detachment works as normal and you select your warlord from it as usual. <S> For the allied detachment you use a modified force organization chart: [1] HQ[0-1] Elites[1-2] Troops[0-1] <S> Fast Attack[0-1] <S> Heavy Support Allied detachments work with your army with varying amounts of efficiency. <S> You can see the full allies matrix below. <S> From the matrix you can see that Necrons and Chaos Marines are classified as Allies of Convienence. <S> In this instance, it means that troop units from both detachments are scoring, but characters cannot join units from the other detachments. <S> Also, army abilities will treat the units from the other detachments as enemy models <A> You have an army construction chart you have to agree on with your opponent. <S> If you want to mix armies, you would have to play high points and agree on the scenario with your opponent - see the rules for allies in the 6ed rulebook. <S> They would allow you to field 1 HQ, 0-1 Elites. <S> 1-2 Troops, 0-1 Fast Attack, and 0-1 Heavy Support options from the Dark Angels codex with a Space Wolves detachment, for example. <S> Thats because Space Wolves and Dark Angels are considered "Allies of Convenience". <S> I dont think Necrons get to be allies with Chaos too easily, bot i cant recall the exact table from the rulebook. <A> In addition to what K.L. said, you can ally just about any army. <S> You just have to have permission from the other player, and a good scenario to explain why certain armies would be allied (say the Eldar and the Necrons who hate each other). <S> The easiest way to "ally" is to play an Apocalypse game. <S> Those games are meant for large amounts of points and huge armies. <S> Alliances mean a little less because you could be playing each army as an independent or together depending again on your mission. <S> (and personally I think Apocalypse is what 40K is all about. <S> I've had more fun with those huge games than with small games where you agonize over what you can and cannot field within your point values.)
|
In standard games of 40K your can field allies with your army using the Allies Matrix.
|
Retreat in case of slide trap in Dungeon! In a game of Dungeon! there is Slide Trap in Level 3 which says: Gain 1 Treasure and move to any chamber on Level 4 What happens when I encounter a monster in the level 4 chamber, attack it insufficiently, the monster hits back, and I have to retreat a step? Where do I retreat? <Q> Now I do not know of an official ruling, but in this instance my group has always practiced that retreat is not the same as return . <S> That is to say the rules are telling you, that you are to no longer occupy the same chamber/room as the monster, not that you must go back the way you came. <S> I have not played Dungeon! <S> but I have played New Dungeon which was a precursor to that game. <S> We always played that retreat simply means you move out of the chamber/room you are in, in whatever direction you fancy. <S> To pretend for a moment: While you are fighting a monster you are moving all around. <S> Who is to say you are on the same side of the room as you started and near the same door you entered through? <A> Since the idea of the retreat system is to prevent you from passing a chamber by not killing a monster, we always play that you must go back the way you came. <S> In case a trap brought you to a chamber you probably had no intention to pass that chamber anyway, since you did not mean to go to that chamber. <S> So passing without killing a monster is not relevant in this case. <S> We allow the unlucky player who ended up in the trap and who didn't kill the monster in the chamber to choose the path of retreat. <S> It's not like it's that much of an advantage since the player never really intended to enter that chamber. <S> I don't know whether there is any official rule on this matter <S> but this approach seems logical to me. <A> We've encountered this as well. <S> This is probably to prevent players from "retreating" their way through a chamber past a particularly nasty monster to get to the treasure rooms beyond. <S> In the case of a forced entry into a chamber due to a trap sending you there, it doesn't make a lot of sense to retreat back up the slide that dumped you there. <S> We play that if you are forced to retreat because you entered a chamber due to trap, you retreat randomly down one of the passages into the chamber, chosen by die roll.
|
I remember reading that you are supposed to retreat the way you came in.
|
Can you attack again after I decide not to block? We are both new to MTG. He will attack me, and when I decide to take the hit and roll back my life, he then likes to attack me a second time. This doesn't feel right to me, is this allowed? Can he hit me twice after I've blocked or taken the hits? <Q> There are certain cards that give you a second attack, but normally, one attack per turn. <S> If you are new to Magic, you should have a look at the Basic Rulebook (pdf) on the Magic rules website . <S> It contains all the essential info to get you started. <S> If you encounter situations not quite covered there, you can always check back here, or try to figure it out yourself in the Comprehensive Rulebook (don't use that one to start out). <A> No, this is not correct. <S> You usually only have one combat phase <S> (There are exceptions using cards that give additional combat phases.) <S> Imagine <S> this is not the case and you don't have any blockers. <S> Then you could be dead on turn 2 by a 1/1 creature attacking as many times as you like. <A> As most have pointed out, there is only 1 attack phase. <S> The exception would be if a card explicitly states a second combat phase, e.g. Aurelia, <S> the Warleader : <S> Whenever Aurelia, the Warleader attacks for the first time each turn, untap all creatures you control. <S> After this phase, there is an additional combat phase.
|
No, you can only attack once per turn
|
Tactics to fight or deter Diplomatic races in 2 player games Last night I was playing a two player game and my opponent swapped to a Diplomatic race partway through the game. they managed to surround me, effectively hemming me in and limiting my score. In the end I lost by two points. What tactics can be used when facing an opponent with a diplomatic race? Are there any preparations I should make when playing knowing that a diplomatic race is in the available race selections, even if it's not yet selected? <Q> As @bwarner commented, I'd say abandon all regions and start invading from the maps borders From the rules (emphasis mine): <S> If the player chooses to abandon all the Regions he previously occupied, his next conquest must follow the same rules as its First Conquest (see First Conquest, p. 4). <A> It's a tough one. <S> I'd say that it's pretty hard to be completely surrounded, <S> so focussing on avoiding that is a good first step. <S> If you see the diplomatic option come out, you could consider spreading to increase your race's surface area as much as possible, making it difficult or impossible to surround. <S> Or take the diplomatic race first! <S> If the unfortunate happens, I'd say the best course of action is to immediately decline and next turn appear at the other side of the board. <A> My wife and I leave the Diplomatic badge in the box unless there are three or more players. <S> We find that if it's not in the game, it can't cause any problems.
|
If a player wishes to free up some more Race tokens, he may opt to entirely empty up some - or all - Regions, leaving no Tokens there; but in this case, these now abandoned Regions will no longer be considered his, nor bring him any Victory coins.
|
Evasion checks for investigator attacking a monster in a space with another monster If an investigator is in a space with two monsters (A, B) and attacks one (A) of them, does he have to make an evasion check for the one (B) which he is not attacking? The rules don't explicitly confirm nor deny this, and it seems sensible to play this way, but I would like to have the opinion of some more experienced keeper. <Q> No, you do not perform an evade test on either monster when performing an attack action. <S> The rules are explicit on this (page 14): <S> Evade Tests - An investigator must make an evade test against every monster in his space before moving or performing non-attack actions. <S> An evade test is an attribute test that is resolved immediately before the investigator attempts to move or take the action. <S> In order to evade a monster, the player makes a Dexterity test modified by the monster’s awareness (the white number at the top right corner of the monster’s token). <S> If the player passes this test, then the investigator suffers no ill effect. <S> If he fails this test, the keeper may have the monster damage the investigator (equal to the monster’s damage value – see page 23). <S> Regardless of whether he passes or fails, the investigator may then move or perform the intended action. <S> After having attempted to evade a monster, the investigator may freely move and take actions without having to try to evade the same monster that turn. <S> It specifically allows attacking on page 15: <S> This attack may be unarmed, with a weapon, or with an “attack” Spell card. <S> This attack does not need to target a monster in the investigator’s space. <S> or again on page 9 <S> : <S> Attacking a monster is the only action that an investigator can perform while a monster is in his space (unless he evades the monster, see “Evade Tests” on page 14). <A> My opinion is that he does not need to make an evasion check for the second monster. <S> Evasion checks are to be made when you try to move from or search in space where there is a monster. <A> Evasion checks are required when you are in a space with a monster and attempt to perform a non-attack action. <S> In your example, lets say you start in the room with two monsters so you can have two actions this turn. <S> If you spend your first action attacking one of the monsters, you do <S> not require an evade check against it. <S> If you spend your second action attacking either of the monsters, again you do <S> not require an evade check. <S> However, if you want to spend your second action searching/moving/ <S> doing anything but an attack action against either monster, you do need to do an evade check against <S> both monsters <S> (if you didn't kill the first during the attack action), since they are both still in the room. <S> On the other hand, if you spent your first action entering the room, and the second action attacking - then there is no reason to do an evade check since you are not doing any non-attack actions. <S> In most MoM scenarios, there are only ever a few monsters on the board, so this particular situation shouldn't come up too often, but yeah - multiple monsters in one room can spell bad things for the investigators!
|
Attacking a monster does not require making an evade test.
|
What defines "Isolation" in Third Reich? I may be blind, but I can't seem to find any definition of "isolation" in the Third Reich (2nd edition) rulebook. I don't remember seeing it in my first edition book either, but that was a long time ago. The are a couple places places where the term is mentioned in the rules, such as: 2.7 Fortress ... Can't be taken by Attrition or Isolation <Q> My rulebook index has "Isolation (out of supply units)" and a reference to the rule that units that both started and finished the turn unsupplied are eliminated. <S> So I would think isolated is a shorter way of saying out of supply . <A> But the rule on Fortresses (4.8) does say that units in them "can't be eliminated due to supply." <A> In my 1st Edition Rules, section 4.3 Supply from the middle of the first paragraph to the end of the second: <S> Any units which are not in supply, and remain so at their end of their turn, are eliminated and returned to their Force Pool. <S> .... <S> Supply has no effect on Combat but does affect Movement. <S> Ground units out of supply cannot move, regardless of the Option or Phase employed. <S> Naval and Air units are always considered supplied. <S> Airborne (4.7) units or armor units conducting Exploitation (4.5.3) are considered in supply during and one turn after they conduct their air drops or Exploitation. <S> Beneath that, in the caption of the diagram illustrating an Out-of-Supply situation on the Eastern Front, it says: <S> The Black player has just finished his move, leaving all the Red units isolated and out of supply except for the 10th infantry which .... <S> The 4th Edition Rules below agree, though in a somewhat more verbose and comprehensive fashion, so I am lead to believe that the rule has not changed over the editions: 27.43 <S> Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. <S> This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. <S> Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn; units are lost after unit construction, therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.
|
I can't find anywhere in the rules that defines "isolation".
|
Do Collectible Card Games without shuffling exist? All Collectible Card Games (like Magic the Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh!) I know require the players to shuffle their decks before the game begins. Also, the deck's card order is unbeknown to the players. For the game I'm currently designing I thought about letting the players arrange their decks beforehand (so they know exactly which card they draw when, assuming a perfect memory or a virtual match). However, to find out if this is a good idea, I'm looking for at least one CCG that incorporates this mechanic to study it's rules. Do you know any? <Q> Not sure how applicable it is, since it never had an actual physical card-based implementation (and ergo isn't strictly on-topic for this site), but Alteil was an online game based on CCG deck-building mechanics. <S> While the original Japanese game still appears to be in active development, this answer is based on the English localization of it that has been defunct since 2017. <S> Decks are built of thirty cards, limited only by a maximum of three copies of any given card. <S> One card can be played each round, and this card is freely chosen from all available cards so there is no shuffling or randomization involved; the player has full access to his own deck. <S> (Again, this doesn't strictly meet your requirements of "letting the players arrange their decks beforehand" as there's no actual drawing involved — the player's "hand" is effectively his entire deck throughout the game — but it arguably does meet " <S> so they know exactly which card they draw when" so I'll keep going...) <S> All the randomization that's not in the card selection is found in the actual card abilities themselves. <S> For example, whereas targetting is common in a typical CCG (at least the ones I've played), it's actually an exception in Alteil. <S> Most attacks — even the default attack action — only hit random units within range, but the player has no control over which units beyond ensuring the intended targets are "within range". <S> Targetted attacks do exist, but usually with a trade-off (e.g. higher cost or lower damage). <S> As such, gameplay itself is much more akin to a tactics game than most CCGs, with a higher emphasis on field layout and timing. <S> Detailed rules can still be found in the Wayback archive of Alteil's Rule Book ; the fundamentals of game phases and stack resolution and card-text-trumps-everything are clearly in-line with existing deck-building games, even if the whole game is probably too complex to (enjoyably) play as a physical CCG. <A> Zatch Bell <S> It also features deck as health and deck as resource. <A> Mage Wars is a living card game and not a CCS, but that is an irrelevant point once gameplay begins. <S> Unlike a CCG, a living card game sells packs open <S> so you always know what you are going to get. <S> I think the most popular idea of this is actually Warhammer 40k where players buy the exact units that they want for their armies. <S> In Mage Wars, players build spell-books by putting cards into a binder. <S> During play they page through their spell-book, pull out the card that they want to play, and play it. <S> No shuffling, no randomisation. <A> Anachronism is a CCG that has no shuffling. <S> On the other hand, that's because your "deck" is only five cards and you start with them all in your hand.
|
The Card Battle TCG ( http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/18287/zatch-bell ) is a TCG with no shuffling.
|
When to use card sleeves for a board game? Card sleeves are probably be a no-brainer for board game collectors who want to keep their games in pristine condition for as long as possible, or for CCGs where an individual card may be very difficulty to replace. For non-collectors playing games like Agricola, 7 Wonders, Mage Knight, Pandemic, etc, when does it make sense to use card sleeves and when doesn't it make sense? <Q> There are a few situations where you want to consider sleeving your cards <S> You want to prevent marking caused by uneven use (ever play Euchre with a normal deck of cards?) <S> You want to prevent marking caused by tears, folds, scratches and nicks (especially in games with a lot of shuffling or playing cards repeatedly) <S> You want to protect the value of the cards (for collectible card games, such as MtG ) <S> You want to protect the condition of the cards (because you want them to remain in a nice state) <S> The cards are difficult or expensive to replace <S> And a few reasons you might want to not sleeve your cards <S> They will not fit nicely into the original packaging you have with sleeves <S> The cards no longer stack nicely with sleeves <S> It doesn't have much impact (if any) on the game if cards become marked (resource cards in Settlers of Catan , for example) <S> There is information on both sides of the card that needs to remain visible (you can, however, buy transparent sleeves) <S> The cards are easily replaceable (such as a normal deck of playing cards) <S> And, of course, sleeves cost money <S> So, in short, it's really a matter of personal preference. <S> I sleeve my cards when playing MtG as some of the cards are valuable and marking can be an issue. <S> I don't sleeve my cards for Arkham Horror as (although they are very worn) it isn't very important to keep information secret. <S> The cards also come in various sizes and sleeving them all would be annoying. <S> For another game, Citadels , some information is very important to keep secret (roles) <S> so I sleeve these cards to prevent marking, but other cards (buildings) are not as important to keep secret <S> so I do not bother sleeving them. <S> The same idea applies with Battlestar Galactica . <A> Sleeves are good for games that have you shuffle a lot . <S> Roborally, for example, shuffles a single deck of cards many times every game, and my cards were significantly worn after a year or two of playing occasionally. <S> Similarly, if the cards just don't seem to be very durable, sleeves might be a good idea. <S> They're usually mostly pointless for games that don't shuffle much (once per game). <S> The cards shouldn't wear that fast, so unless you prefer shuffling with sleeves or are very protective, there's not really much need. <S> And sleeves are counterproductive for extremely large decks of cards (think Arkham Horror with expansions) where the stack of sleeved cards would be way too high to be stable. <A> As card sleeves are quite cheap, it's just a matter of personal preference. <S> Some people like sleeves (I do) <S> others don't (some of my friends). <S> One case I could argue for sleeves is when you have a card game and plan on maybe buying an expansion later. <S> The cards from the base set would be rugged from use, while the expansion would be pristine and shiny. <S> It will be visible. <S> In case of sleeves, you just put all the cards into new sleeves and voila, every card looks the same. <A> I think sleeves are only really needed for a game where the cards will be shuffled a lot, and you expect to play the game often. <S> (How often is ‘often’ depends on the amount of shuffling.) <S> (So, I should probably get sleeves for my Cosmic Encounter set, even though I don’t get to play very often.) <A> Another, not obvious reason when you want to sleeve your cards, is when you suspect your cards could be easily damaged. <S> It can happen, when you are going to play some multiplayer games like Dixit Odyssey on your lake holiday with a bit drunk friends, when everyone probably would have their hands dirty, not to mention a few times sleeves saved my cards when someone fall over candles, or some glasses with juice or coke. <S> Then, you are really happy that you bought sleeves.
|
If there are going to be expansions, or there are cards where a subset gets shuffled into the main deck, you might want to get sleeves just to prevent the cards from having different amounts of wear.
|
In Star Fluxx, have you needed to change how The Computer and The Unseen Force play? Star Fluxx has a number of cards that end up being quite powerful and can throw chaos into a game that seemed to be almost over. Most of these cards are either Actions or Surprises and can thus only be used once for each time they are drawn. However, the two Keepers, The Computer, and The Unseen Force seem to provide decisive long-term advantages. The Computer - If you have this card on the table, Draw and Play one extra card per turn. Also, you may exceed Hand and Keeper Limits by one. Unseen Force - *If you have this on the table, once per turn you can steal a card chosen randomly from another player's hand, and add that card to your own hand. I come from a long history of playing control decks in Magic: The Gathering and so I try and dig deep into the strategy of how to accrue small advantages and deal with random elements in card games. Star Fluxx has significant random components to the point that sometimes a player can win in a single turn when no one suspected that they were even close to victory. To me, this suggests that the best strategies will be those that rely on drawing more cards than your opponents and playing more cards than your opponents, rather than striving for any specific combination of cards or rules. I have a small sample size, but I have only lost 1 game where I controlled The Computer or The Unseen Force for more than 2 turns (I have won the other 5). Star Fluxx, though, is more about having fun through narrative and social interaction than min-maxing. The problem I am running into is that these cards seem to reduce the fun that the other players are having because they recognize that they're being slowly ground into a defeat. Have you had the same experience with these 2 Keepers? Have you instituted any house rules to modify these cards? <Q> I tend to think of Unseen Force as annoyance, whereas The Computer is probably the strongest card in the game. <S> Plus you can always steal keepers or play Brain Transference . <S> That said, if someone pulls out The Computer at the start of the game then it is really hard to keep up with them. <S> There are other strong cards in the game like Holographic Projection and <S> The Captain <S> so it doesn't feel like the game is broken to me. <S> Is it possible that you are a much better player than your opponents are and it is this that grinds them down? <A> I can see this being an issue in a competitive tournament, but you are right, Star Fluxx is about creating a narrative and having fun with friends. <S> I don't think that Star Fluxx could even be played in a competitive setting, <S> In most games that I've played the computer has indeed greatly increased the frequency of playing cards but the turnover rate for the computer has always been high. <S> When someone has the opportunity to take a card, the computer is always the first to go. <S> In the games that I've played, this has never been less frequent than once every five turns. <S> The way to get a high turnover of the computer and the unseen force is to simply play with more people. <S> I usually play Star Fluxx with 5 or 6 people, cards get played frequently and someone's always changing the rules, the same action or suprise card will re-appear over and over again. <S> In these larger games the winner is basically random, but it honestly feels to me like the game was designed to be played this way. <A> Our games of Star Fluxx with more than 2 players tend to go very quick once everyone has the cards understood. <S> It then becomes a game of seeing if anyone can get the time traveler and the time portal, just for kicks. <S> We do have two house rules to extend the game. <S> 1 <S> is we bring in zombie jamboree from zombie fluxx. <S> Shuffling and redistributing the keepers and creepers can give the game a lot more longevity. <S> 2 we bring in an extra creeper. <S> We use the evil rabbit from monty python fluxx. <S> We call this card the dick move card. <S> It is considered evil, for the purposes of star fluxx rules and goals, but it has an extra action of making every OTHER player have to completely turn in all the cards in their hand and on the table. <S> Even more than the zombie jamboree, this card can completely upset a game with 3 or more players, and extends the life of a game into 2 or 3 reshuffles of the discard pile. <S> This card restarts all players except the one who drew it.
|
There are various things you can do to try to dilute the power of an opponent's The Computer , raising the draw and play count rules and creating hand and keeper limits.
|
Can you use ports or markets after playing all action disks? In Archipelago, say you have already played all your action discs, but for an arbitrary reason you did not use your ports or markets. Does this means you cannot use them anymore in this action phase? <Q> You cannot use the ports or markets if you have no action disks left to play. <S> The easy way to think about this is: On your turn: <S> Place one of your action disks on the board and take that action (Before or After <S> you place your action disk) <S> Use one Evolution card (optional) <S> (Before or After you place your action disk) <S> Pay one coin to use a port or a market (optional) <S> you own once per round, and only one per turn. <S> So if you don't have any action markers, you won't be able to use a port/market. <A> It seems I might've misunderstood the rules . <S> The correct answer, I think, is you can't ! <S> In page 8, you read: [...] <S> each player plays one round by placing one of his action discs (AD) on the action wheel and performing the corresponding action. <S> Players continue playing rounds until all players have used up their action discs or cannot play anything; then they proceed to phase 6. <S> The concept of round is important here. <S> A player has a round "until all players have used up their action disks or cannot play anything". <S> In page 12, you read: <S> Each player can use one port or market during each of his rounds. <S> This means that you can only use market or ports once per round if you have a round. <S> Therefore, you can't use them after your action disks have finished. <S> Likewise, this is extensible to evolution cards (page 14): <S> Each player can use one evolution card during each of his rounds. <A> Ok, found the answer to that in the manual, page 8. <S> Players continue playing rounds until all players have used up their action discs or cannot play anything; then they proceed to phase 6. <S> So, yes, you can still use a market or port, if you're able to.
|
You can use each market or port
|
Is Mana Weaving ok if it's followed by a thorough shuffle? My friends and I are relatively new to MtG. At some point, one of them introduced us to the idea of mana weaving, and we'd do this to declump our decks prior to a very thorough shuffling. However, at the Theros pre-release, one of us was asked not to do this, and we learned it was frowned upon and ceased to do it. I just now came across Shuffling Do's & Don'ts , and it sounds like mana weaving's only bad if you use it to leave your deck in an even distribution, and it's OK if your deck is then thoroughly shuffled. In hindsight, the judge may have simply thought my friend wouldn't have shuffled afterwards, but at the time I came under the impression it was frowned upon even if you did shuffle afterwards. So: is mana weaving my deck OK, if I shuffle it very thoroughly afterwards? <Q> Look at it this way: If you properly randomize your deck, then its initial configuration is irrelevant. <S> So "mana weaving" is just wasting more productive time. <S> So, there's no upside. <S> "Mana weaving" doesn't actually accomplish anything, unless you're accidentally or purposefully cheating. <S> Judges routinely prohibit "mana weaving" because the down side of disrupting someone's pointless pre-game ritual is much smaller than the upside of guaranteeing a fairer game. <S> Some players "mana weave" to "break up clumps. <S> " <S> That's based on a mistaken assumption. <S> A truly randomized deck isn't one where the lands and spells are perfectly distributed; it's one where all the cards are in an arbitrary and unpredictable order. <S> That'll mean you sometimes get lucky and sometimes you won't. <S> Bad draws can be frustrating, but some amount of clumping — even the rare incident of really egregious clumping — is perfectly normal. <S> A player who never gets mana-flooded or mana-screwed isn't shuffling properly. <S> If you're constantly experiencing clumps, especially drawing cards in an order similar to how you played them last game, then it's a sign you're direly under-shuffling. <S> Spend more time shuffling (2-3 minutes before a game is pretty standard) and practice stronger techniques like riffle or mash shuffling. <A> The elephant in the room here is probably that it's kind of hard to really thoroughly shuffle a deck. <S> Around 12 riffle shuffles will do it for a 60-card deck, with a few more needed for bigger decks. <S> (The complicated expression given in the linked paper is pretty well approximated by 2·log 2 ( n ), so doubling the deck size requires two more riffles to achieve thorough randomization.) <S> With three minutes to shuffle the deck between games, that means up to 15 seconds per riffle, which is quite doable with a bit of practice. <S> But of course, riffle shuffles are kind of hard on cards, so maybe you don't want to subject your deck to a dozen of them before every game. <S> That means resorting to slower and/or less efficient shuffles like the mash (which is actually pretty close to a riffle), the wash (slow and messy, but OK if done well) or even the pile (slow and potentially cheaty) or overhand (just plain lousy) shuffles. <S> So the upshot of all this is that, unless you shuffle your deck very thoroughly (say, a dozen riffle / mash shuffles) before each game, some traces of the original non-random order are going to remain. <S> The question, then, is whether that non-randomness ends up helping you or harming you — and if you start with a mana-woven deck, it'll probably do more to help than to harm. <S> In general, as long as everyone starts with a similarly ordered deck and shuffles it equally well, it doesn't really matter if the shuffle is a tiny bit short of perfect, since any advantages or disadvantages due to the imperfect shuffling will be the same for everyone. <S> But if you start with a mana-woven deck and your opponent starts with a non-woven one, it <S> could give you an unfair advantage. <A> If we assume that when you say that you shuffle thoroughly, you mean that you completely randomize the order of your deck, then it should be fine. <S> If you put your deck in any particular order, and then completely randomize it, then the original order doesn't matter and your deck is properly shuffled. <S> If you put your deck in a certain order and then "shuffle" in a special way so that your deck ends up in the order you want, then you have stacked your deck, which is not allowed.
|
If you don't properly randomize your deck, then "mana weaving" is likely part of you cheating.
|
Good counter to Possession in Dominon: Alchemy It seems like Possession in Dominion: Alchemy is one of those cards that only very experienced players really know how to counter. Heck, I tend to see myself as an experienced Dominion player and I don't really see any ways to counter Possession at all, besides for the obvious way of trying to accumulate more Possessions than the other player(s).Does anyone have any idea as to a reasonable counter of Possession? Disclaimer: I do not own Alchemy, (but have played with it before), and have heard rumors from friends who have played with Possession before that it is an exceedingly powerful card and incredibly difficult, if not impossible to counter <Q> A good discussion with lots of tips to that exact same question is here: <S> http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10001.0 . <S> In general, more often than not you can just ignore Possession. <S> It's really expensive, and on many boards, you can just get enough points without it that your opponent who is going for it will be too far behind. <S> Remember that if you have $6 and a potion, then if that Potion had been a silver instead, you'd have $8 for a Province. <S> Attack cards are another good counter. <S> If your opponent wants to make the best out of the extra turn, he'll have to play cards that hurt his own deck. <S> Be careful to not build a super strong deck that can buy many Provinces each turn; but if your opponent can't do more than buy one Province or Duchy on the extra turn, then he's not getting a lot of use out of the Possession. <A> A Goons strategy counters perfectly. <S> Opponent only gains cards not VP tokens, so if you have a deck of nothing but +actions +cards and Goons, it is difficult to lose to possession. <A> Bear in mind that Possession is not an Attack. <S> Why? <S> Because all it (normally) does is burn through your hand and deck. <S> Your trashed cards come back. <S> Its purpose is to give the player an extra turn - it just does it with your cards. <S> That churn of cards can be very beneficial because the cards you most recently bought are usually better cards, so cycling your deck gets them into your hand faster than just you taking your turns. <S> So as mentioned, it is a very expensive card. <S> You could buy other expensive cards instead that could be useful much more quickly. <S> Consider you must 1) buy a Potion; 2) get that Potion and 6 coin in play in one turn to buy the Possession; 3) wait for it to appear and play it. <S> In the mean time I could have purchased (say) Silver and Gold, or even better cards. <S> Also be alert for cards that can make Possession much more powerful. <S> If your Possession victim has Ambassador and Province in hand, well it could be returned to the Supply for you to gain. <S> Remodel Province for Gold? <S> Very nice ( <S> but your victim does not lose the Province). <S> Masquerade a Gold to my opponent? <S> Excellent. <S> Those are times you want the Possession.
|
If the Kingdom makes it possible to have a deck that can play many Possessions per turn, then the best thing may be to get Possessions yourself and play as many as you can.
|
Does a Life Gain deck have any hope against a Stigma Lasher? Is there anything that can be done against a Stigma Lasher if you have a life gain deck? This card seems quite broken. 2 mana for a 2/2 wither is a good card. But to have it ruin any hope of lifegain for the rest of the game seems unfair. (The rulings say that you still cannot gain life even if you kill Stigma Lasher.) I was planning to build a life gain deck to counter my friends burn deck. But that seems pointless now. He can add a few of these and some cards like Soul's Fire or Power of Fire (letting a creature damage a player without a chance to block) and I will be done for the rest of the game. Is there any way to remove the effect of Stigma Lasher once it has done combat damage? <Q> Stigma Lasher's effect cannot be removed while the game is still going on — so, obviously, the only way around it is to abandon the current game and replace it with a new one by using Karn Liberated 's third ability, which gets rid of the effect and also everything you've accomplished so far. <A> There is no way to remove the effect , but you could play around it. <S> Transcendence prevents you from losing for having negative life, but instead you lose for having 20+ life (which you no longer have to worry about). <A> No. Effects that say "until the end of the game" are never removed or negated by any other effect. <S> More specifically, when Stigma Lasher deals damage to a player, the triggered ability creates a continuous effect . <S> This effect is not attached to any permanent or targetable game object, so there are no Magic cards that will enable you to gain life after that effect resolves. <A> While you can't stop the ability once it's happened, there are a few things that can be done to work around Stigma Lasher 's effect. <S> Start a new game - Karn <S> Liberated <S> lets you end the current game and start a new one with some special changes. <S> This new game won't still have Stigma Lasher's effect in place. <S> Just don't play it unless you're already below 20 or you lose instantly. <S> Prevent life loss also - Worship and Platinum Emperion will prevent you from losing due to life loss, Worship stops you from losing that last point of life if you have a creature, Emperion stops your life total from changing, up or down, for any reason. <S> Don't let the lasher hit you - Combat damage you can block, damage due to effects like Power of Fire or Soul's Fire <S> you can't stop that way, but you can prevent that from hitting you. <S> Leyline of Sanctity is one of the common ways to give a player hexproof, if they can't target you with the non combat damage, then power of fire on the Lasher just doesn't work. <S> Prevent yourself from losing - Platinum Angel <S> Stops a player from losing the game, if you can't lose you still have a chance there. <S> Since your opponent is playing burn, likely mono red, they can't deal with enchantments. <S> Leyline of Sanctity, Transcendence and Worship will both also be permanent effects once you get them out there. <S> These cards will turn a game you can't win into a game your opponent can't win with a mono red burn deck.
|
Change your loss conditions - Transcendence will actually make Stigma Lasher's effect work for you, not against you, if you can't gain life but lose when you have a high life total instead of life less than or equal to 0, you can't lose due to life totals.
|
Does the starting world dictate your strategy in Race for the Galaxy? Our board games club recently purchased Race for the Galaxy and we've played around a dozen games so far, plus some research using Keldon's AI (which is excellent). In the base set with one world, when you draw a starting planet that confers a specific bonus, eg +2 Military does that force you down the Military path? As for a Produce/Consume strategy you are behind a player who drew a Mining world for example. <Q> The short answer is that the start world is able to give you a jumpstart toward one or more specific strategies (the military world is probably the best example), but you can still play a very successful strategy that does not revolve around (get it?) <S> that world. <S> I often make the decision about whether to commit to the start world pretty early on. <S> A very common strategy, I'm sure you've noticed, is to play Explore on the first round. <S> Between my starting four cards and my first explore draw, I will try to find a strategy that will get me ~50% of the way through my tableau (not necessarily from the cards in hand, but from the powers and phase plays I expect to focus on). <S> If there's one that the start world helps, that's usually weighted pretty heavily. <S> If a strategy coalesces in my hand that the start world does little to help, I'll usually still go for it. <A> It's a common beginner's mistake to pick a strategy too soon, and to stick to it, come hell or high water. <S> Having New Sparta helps start a military strategy, but if playable military cards don't come your way early, you will have to take a different path. <S> It gives you a jump on one path, but you determine your strategy based on all the cards you see, not just your starting homeworld. <A> Yes, it is important to your strategy what start world you get, but it doesn't dictate it. <S> For example, if you get Old Earth, it makes it easier to start a Trade or Production strategy, but depending on what cards you get, you can do something that isn't connected to your start world at all.
|
So no, it doesn't determine your path.
|
Is it practical for the visually-impaired to play in casinos? When I play games (causally) that involve face-up cards across a table (hold 'em, blackjack, etc), I usually have to either ask that the cards be placed closer to the center (toward me), particualrly at larger tables, in order to see them. I can imagine that this would be an imposition, and perhaps even barred, in a casino setting. And I imagine that even if I could ask that cards be announced when dealt (I don't know if that's possible), that I wouldn't be able to take notes to record them so I'd have to memorize the table every hand. Are those impressions correct? If so, what affordances are available to visually-impaired players? Or is this just one of those cases of "sorry, don't try to do that"? (I ask this question out of curiosity, not out of an impending desire to jump into casinos, for which I'm not good enough.) <Q> If you play table games like blackjack, I don't think you'd have any trouble (although since only a card counter would want to know other people's cards, don't expect any help there. <S> ;)). <S> I suspect that in the worst case you could tell the floor that you can only play in the center seat, and see how well they can accommodate you. <S> If the room's even halfway decent they'll try to take care of you. <A> It's been generally true, but particularly since the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, that casinos will make "reasonable efforts" to accommodate the disabled. <S> This is perhaps more true in the East Coast, which had a strong civil rights tradition going back to the 1970s <S> (New Jersey casinos can't bar suspected "card counters" but they can shuffle up after them) than in the West (in Nevada, it's a felony to use a computer to play casino games). <S> "Reasonable efforts" may consist of giving you good seats (either next to, or across from the house dealer), rather than at the ends. <S> At the minimum, it would consist of the dealer announcing "your cards" (your two cards and his upcard in blackjack, the five "board" cards in holdem). <S> With some practice, you should be able to recall the three or five cards that have been "announced" to you in blackjack or holdem (have a practice session before each casino visit), and it will actually make you a better player. <S> What little I have read on this subject in books suggests that most disabled players are "above average" after they overcome their initial handicap, because they're more sensitive to what else is going on. <S> Also, opponents tend to underestimate them. <A> When dealing blackjack, a (legally mandated) rule required all scores to be announced, partly for this exact reason. <S> You would hear the current total for the current active hand, which the dealer would also be pointing to, and can ask for the dealer's card to be stated at any time. <S> A busy table might lead to impatience with constantly calling out all cards and you would be limited to the single statement of each one. <S> But on a slower table or when you're the only player, dealers are happy to help out in small ways as there is much more time available to do so. <S> When dealing poker, we would often reserve a seat for those players who have low eyesight directly across from the dealer, both in cash and in tournament, where it is the least distance to see the cards and where they are laid out directly in front of the player. <S> Anything that wouldn't be stated for another player won't be stated for you, but any bet or raise amounts can be given, cards can be read off the board, active players can be indicated. <S> Generally, a good casino will reduce barriers that stop you playing and spending your money - blind or not, your dollars are worth the same. <S> A great casino will go beyond legal requirements in small ways like the aforementioned seating or reading of cards, and will pay special attention to any issue you have, regardless of whether your disability is a factor in that issue - giving and being seen to give excellent service is the casino's best advertisement. <S> A bad casino won't care - you'll quickly figure out whether you're in one and can leave shortly afterward.
|
In Hold-'em poker, some seats are definitely better than others; the cards generally go right in front of the dealer, so if you can get the seat directly in front of the dealer you'd probably be fine, and you might be able to make do with the seats on either side of the dealer depending on how small the tables are.
|
Are there restrictions on pawn promotion if two pawns are on the same column? I was playing white and I had one pawn at a7 and the other at a6. My opponent didn't let me promote the pawn to a Queen stating that when two pawns are in the same column then the pawn doesn't get promoted. Is this correct? If so, then what happens to a pawn which reaches a8? Does that become useless? <Q> Your friend was wrong. <A> I am a chess arbiter and I can confirm that this rule does not exist whatsoever in the FIDE rules of chess. <S> The only restriction to promotion is if it's an illegal move. <A> Some players will do anything to try to prevent them losing... <S> From the position above, white promotes and black may as well resign. <S> White can make a 2nd queen and give one of them up if necessary to prevent black's attack with the d and e pawns. <S> You won't even need to do that though. <S> If black moves Ke4 his pawn on d5 is pinned, if he plays d5-d4 you go Qf3 <S> + <S> and if he plays Ke6 you just go Qc6+. <S> Anything else and you just capture on d5. <A> There is never any difference in restrictions when a pawn queens, regarding pawns in the same file behind it. <S> (Of course you can't overtake the pawn in front)[my rating: 1920]
|
There is no rule preventing a pawn from being promoted outside the normal move restriction rules (e.g. you can't leave your king in check).
|
Is Avalon worth getting if I already own The Resistance I have a copy of the resistance which my group of friends really enjoys. I noticed that there's a game called Avalon in my local games store and am not sure if it is the same game re-skinned, or if it brings something new. Is there any value in buying Avalon? <Q> There are several new mechanics brought in the game with Avalon. <S> The major ones play around two new characters Merlin and The Assassin. <S> Merlin allows the good side to have some knowledge of who is good/evil but on the flip side The Assassin allows for the evil side to turn a loss into a victory by figuring out who is Merlin. <S> In addition to those two there are some characters that add some other flair into the game such as a good character who knows who Merlin is with the flip side of an evil character to pretends to be Merlin and a evil character who is unknown to the rest of his team. <S> There are some other characters that where kick starter specific and not sure if you can still get them or not but are worth getting. <S> Overall <S> I think the changes to Avalon add a lot to the game and make it a little more interesting then the basic game of resistance. <A> I know it's a little late and the expansions may not have existed when you posted this, but there are two expansions to Resistance now that provide all of this and then some: Hostile Intent and Hidden Agenda (just with the Dystopian Universe feel as opposed to Arthurian Legend feel). <S> For anyone else that already has Resistance, I would recommend this route as you will pay a little more price-wise and will get more than what is described above in the way of optional mechanics to the game. <S> Also, in addition, you will have a use for your current game as opposed to purchasing Avalon which will leave your old Resistance sitting on a shelf indefinitely. <A> I own both, and we play The Resistance: <S> Avalon a lot more than we play The Resistance now. <S> There are so many more points of intrigue and styles of play with Merlin and the Assassin. <S> Merlin knows a LOT of information, but Merlin also has to be careful about how much information is revealed. <S> Otherwise the Assassin will just take out Merlin at the end and the spies <S> (it's a different name in Avalon but still the same thing) still win. <S> However, in addition to Merlin and the Assassin, there are additional characters cards such as Mordred - who is evil and unknown to Merlin. <S> There is Oberon, who is evil yet unknown to other spies/evil players. <S> There is Percival, who is good and also knows who Merlin is - yet does not know who the evil players are. <S> You could also use Morgana, who would appear as Merlin to Percival, so it makes it more difficult for Percival to figure out who is telling the truth. <S> I'm pretty sure all of these character cards are in the base game, although I own the Kickstarter edition that also comes with the Lancelot promotional cards where he can flip between good or evil depending on what cards are revealed in an event deck. <S> The thing I really enjoy with Avalon is that you can make it as simple or as complex as you want. <S> Just adding Merlin and the Assassin is great. <S> We love to mix in Mordred and Percival. <S> The only difficulty is making sure you go through the script properly to make sure the proper information is revealed between the players before the round starts. <S> Everything else with the game is still the same. <S> If you have the first edition of The Resistance with the little pocket size box, I do recommend picking up Avalon to get the better board components (the voting tiles do wear down quickly, so I still use sleeved cards for the yes/no votes). <A> Though I have not played it yet, I have been told it has a new mechanic. <S> Merlin is introduced and works in this way: He knows who the minions are and can introduce this knowledge into the game. <S> It is important that he is subtle because if the minions can discover who he is they can win. <S> Here is a really great review.
|
While I do recommend purchasing Avalon, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own character cards with the same Avalon abilities and replace the ones in The Resistance.
|
"Investing" in other players in Monopoly I once played a (somewhat crazy) game of Monopoly where there were too many players, so not enough properties to go around. I ended up with close to zero property but lots of cash. So I made an "investment" in another player. She had great properties (the dark greens) but very little cash; I gave her a couple thousand dollars to build with the agreement that I would get a certain percentage of all income from those properties (I believe it was a 50/50 split) and I would not need to pay if I landed on one of the properties in question. Is this a legal deal? We considered it a form of trading -- I gave her money and in return I would get money in the future. <Q> From the Official Monopoly Rules by Hasbro (my emphasis): <S> MISCELLANEOUS : <S> Money can be loaned to a player only by the Bank and then only by mortgaging property. <S> No player may borrow from or lend money to another player <S> One is always allowed to invent a new game based on an existing one, through the use of common agreement on house rules, but one cannot then meaningfully call it by the name Monopoly . <A> While you are technically allowed to make such a deal, due to the fact that trading allows you to give another player money; there is nothing in the rules that would enforce your opponent to keep her end of the deal. <S> If you later landed on the property in question, she would be fully within her rights within the rules to ask you to pay, and you would have to pay according to the rules. <S> Similarly, if she makes money from someone else on that property, there is no rule that requires her to give you part of that money. <S> So as long as you fully trust her to do what she says in the future, you would be allowed within the rules to do this. <A> This is part of the reason why board games have a limited set of tokens that goes along with the number of players on the box - the mechanics of many games break down when the number of players gets too high, and monopoly is no exception. <S> As you are already house-ruling to allow more players than intended into the game, it would be possible for you to house rule things like shared ownership in property (each player collects a portion of rent when anyone outside the group, and may own their partners a share of rent if they land on it) or other group strategies, but these would be house rules and would be against the rules of monopoly as written. <S> As written, the only ways for players to interact are: Collection of rents. <S> Trading of properties for other properties and/or cash. <S> Game held auctions when unowned properties are landed on but not bought by that player. <S> Any other kind of interaction between players is expressly forbidden by the game, which does not allow any kind of loans, and giving something now, in this case money, for something in the future is the definition of a loan. <S> The only kind of loan allowed by the strict rules of monopoly is a mortgage, a loan from the bank during which the mortgaged property collects no rent. <S> When talking about house rules, anything is legal, as long as it's agreed to by the players beforehand, when talking about printed rules, what you did is very much illegal in monopoly.
|
Any exchange of money for future considerations is a form of loan , so by the official monopoly rules your actions are illegal.
|
What happened with Chronicles? I often read on the internet people referring to Chronicles expansion as a disaster, the worst mistake ever made by Wizards, the biggest drop value in Magic's history.. but nobody explains what happened! I understood that Chronicles was the reprint of some cards the first four expansions (that went sold out in a really short amount of time) excluding some of the most powerful cards, but I miss how this has led to 70% drop in cards' value, sellers leaving their job, people not trusting Wizards anymore and finally to the Reserved List. Can anybody explain me what happened and what made Modern Masters different? <Q> The difference is that wizards printed a whole lot of chronicles, and they sold it cheaper than normal packs. <S> The result was a massive market flood of cards, some of which actually were somewhat valuable. <S> compare the prices of Nicol Bolas to other obscure legends that weren't printed in chronicles like Angus Mackenzie , to see how chronicles affected it. <S> The value of people's collections dropped drastically, and people don't like it when that happens. <S> Modern masters was different because wizards charged more for them and they purposefully printed a very limited run of it. <S> if you wanted to get modern masters for MSRP, you had to already know that it was coming. <S> Stores that sold them at MSRP sold out in less than a day. <A> The set was in-print from August 1995 to December 1996. <S> As can be seen with other individual cards, reprints drive the prices down, and the more copies of a card exist, the lower the price. <S> The difference between Chronicles and Modern Masters is quantity. <S> Chronicles was in-print for over a year, and printed in vast quantities ostensibly to meet demand. <S> I do not believe Modern Masters is out of print yet (although it's only been out for ~8 months), but it's a small print run. <A> From the horse's mouth : A glance at print run numbers available in the public domain shows that Chronicles likely increased the number of some cards in existence by a factor of ten or more! <S> Cards that were rare and highly collectible were suddenly ubiquitous. <S> The error was one of scale... <S> Read: <S> market prices for a lot of cards crashed out of nowhere and devauled a lot of people's collections. <S> The mistake wasn't so much financial as it was ticking off the fanbase. <S> Wizards then felt the need to create the Reserved List to placate those people (thus causing the card availability problems that plague Eternal formats to this day)
|
The biggest problem with Chronicles was overprinting.
|
When can an Ætherling use its blinking ability? If an Ætherling blocks something that could kill it, can it then use its blinking ability before it takes damage? I can't stop it with anything as it blocks and leaves with no damage. U: Exile Ætherling. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step. U: Ætherling can't be blocked this turn. 1: Ætherling gets +1/-1 until end of turn. 1: Ætherling gets -1/+1 until end of turn. <Q> 116.1b <S> A player may activate an activated ability any time he or she has priority <S> I suggest you read the relevant comprehensive rules, here , if you want to fully understand priority, but I'll provide two examples to make it easy. <S> Your opponent has priority. <S> He casts Doom Blade on your Ætherling . <S> You get priority. <S> You respond by using Ætherling's first ability. <S> Your opponent gets priority. <S> He does nothing. <S> You get priority. <S> You do nothing. <S> Ætherling's ability resolves and he goes into exile. <S> Your opponent gets priority. <S> He does nothing. <S> You get priority. <S> You do nothing. <S> Doom Blade goes to resolve and is countered by game rules for not having a legal target. <S> As you may have noticed, every time both you and your opponent "do nothing", the top of the stack resolves. <S> Let's looks at another example, in which you actually lose your Ætherling. <S> There is a Pithing Needle in play with Ætherling as the named card. <S> Your opponent has priority. <S> He casts Doom Blade on your Ætherling. <S> You get priority. <S> You want to activate Ætherling's first ability, but you can't because of Pithing Needle, so you do nothing. <S> Your opponent get's priority. <S> He does nothing. <S> Doom Blade resolves, and Ætherling is destroyed. <S> In order to avoid games that take hours, players generally do not step through these phases. <S> You are allowed to take shortcuts as long as your opponent agrees, but you are never obligated to do so. <S> You may always ask your opponent to step through the official phases, and you should when it matters. <S> Finally, it is worth mentioning that the Ætherling that comes back to the field is not the same Ætherling that went into exile. <S> It may be represented by the same card, but anytime an object changes zones, it becomes a new object. <S> Ætherling will lose all memory of who it was in a previous visit to the battlefield. <A> Yes, the Combat Phase is divided into 5 steps. <S> Ætherling will be assigned as a blocker during the third step, but combat damage will not be assigned until the fourth step. <S> Ætherling's controller can activate its Exile effect to prevent it from taking damage. <S> Ætherling says: {U}: <S> Exile Ætherling. <S> Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step. <S> From the Comprehensive Rules <S> 510.1c <S> A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. <S> If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. <A> When can an Ætherling use its blinking ability? <S> It's simple: <S> Any time the controller has priority.
|
As long as it is on the battlefield, Ætherling can use any of his abilities at any time when you have priority, unless another effect prohibits it.
|
How to make custom Cards Against Humanity Cards? Cards Against Humanity has a free download for a PDF to print custom cards (e.g. PDF for printing custom white cards ). However, it seems that these cards are not the same shape/size as the official cards which you get when you purchase the game. The reason for this, clearly, is that while the game is offered via a creative commons-type license, so you can print your own, they want to differentiate their own version. However, I want to print custom cards which can be used alongside the 'official' version which I own. For this to work, they need to look exactly like the other cards - at least in shape, color, card stock, and finish. That way, when such cards are mixed into the deck and we are playing, it isn't possible to tell when someone has a 'custom' card or an 'official' one. So my question is, how should I go about printing such customer cards? If I want to print custom cards which fit in with the regular cards which you can purchase, what card stock should I use to print them with the appropriate weight, glossy surface, etc? I have experience printing a magazine and would be happy to go to either a Kinkos or small-scale printer. <Q> A simple solution if you are willing and able to spend some money: Buy another copy of the game, a foam paint brush, and a small container of white paint. <S> Using the foam brush you can paint a nice, even, thin coat of white paint over the face of the cards and use a black permanent marker when they dry to write whatever your heart desires! <A> Crabs Adjust Humidity is a 3rd party expansion pack, they offer packs of just blank cards which are almost identical to the original cards if you don't have enough blank cards in the expansions to write your own cards on. <S> I have ordered about 8 of these now and just keep on expanding my own deck. <A> Could you not use a standard deck of cards, paste paper printouts on them, and then sleeve all the cards? <A> I created templates for printing on the 'Spare cards' that come with the expansion packs. <S> I then bought Avery Crystal Clear labels (L7784)and used a laser printer to print them out. <S> I cut them to size then applied them to the blanks <S> and they look and feel almost identical to the Originals. <A> Expansion packs 1-4 each include blank cards - 8 white cards and 4 black cards. <S> The Bigger Blacker Box expansion (and box) contains 50 blank cards (10 black and 40 white). <S> These blanks printed using the exact same process as all the other CAH cards, so they're virtually indistinguishable from the official cards. <S> With a blank card, you just write on it with a marker (Sharpie) <S> and you're done; just be sure to print nicely. <S> Also note that if you're going to "erase" cards for re-purposing, the expansions are quite a bit cheaper than the full game. <A> There's a website for making your own, generating a PDF, sharing, and printing your own cards. <S> Unaffiliated with CAH or Apples to Apples, but quite similar and easier than hand-writing or editing a PDF. <S> Snubs-n-dunk <A> A cheaper suggestion is this: buy a set of card sleeves with one opaque face , print your cards and sleeve both your set and the original set. <S> No one will know what they might draw. <S> There are many options being sold in Amazon.com <S> and in many other game stores. <S> You may want to know more about the quality of those sleeves prior to buying. <A> It would be virtually impossible to tell the difference unless you really disturb your cards
|
You could always buy a pack of blank cards and then use Moo.com to create custom stickers to stick on the blank side.
|
Does informed "experience" show "too many players" in a game of monopoly? The rules say that the game is for 2 to 8 players. But there are only eight monopolies on the board, meaning that in a game of eight players, there would only be an average of one monopoly for each player. Meaning that some players probably would have no monopolies. And it might be hard for any player to get a monopoly (except, possibly, by trading). Then you would have a great divide between the propertied, and non-propertied players. But as a commenter pointed out, six players is mandated in some versions of Tournament Monopoly . My own experience has been that the best games are between two or three people and that it can probably accommodate four or five. Are there accounts of interesting, enjoyable, challenging games with six to eight players? Or have most tallies gone the other way with "too many cooks spoiling the broth?" In the interest of keeping answers relatively objective, the best answers would address tournament experiences and results, or cite a book or study using an expert author's experiences (either first hand or computer simulated). If you want to answer this question based on personal experiences, please limit it to games that you have actually played, or at least observed, and demonstrate some level of expertise. <Q> Board Game Geek has some session reports for Monopoly . <S> The main problem with having more players is that starting order becomes increasingly important as you add more players. <S> If you're going 6th, 7th or 8th <S> then your chances of landing on an unowned property are very low. <S> You're pretty much screwed from the start. <A> There are two ways of playing Monopoly: I find them considerably more different than, say, Chess and Draughts. <S> The first is the commoner, a family game played to fill in the hours till bedtime. <S> Everybody knows that Emily will cry if she loses, so the Bank provides regular subsidies. <S> If there are no losers, there can be no winners, so the aim becomes 'to build up a pretty-looking property portfolio': if the supply of houses and hotels runs out, something else is used instead. <S> This is pretty much a game for the feebleminded, and with more than five players there are not enough properties for everybody. <S> The second is played among adults, with no house rules. <S> Being a simulation of unbridled capitalism, the aim is to bankrupt your competition. <S> So you don't trade another player the card to make up a monopoly unless a <S> ) you get a monopoly, or something equally valuable, in return or b) <S> you think the other player is overstretched: for example, if he has to pay rent before somebody pays him, he will have to mortgage the newly acquired monopoly, losing the right to build houses, and starting on a downward spiral. <S> This can certainly be played with eight players, though the tactics change drastically as the number of players goes up, and you will probably lose the first time you play an x-player game. <S> Forgoing any political comparisons, I remark only that it is strange that the players who object to Monopoly as a children's game that never finishes are usually the ones who insist on altering the rules to make it less painful, which means it lasts longer and your decisions are less important. <A> I recommend the following starting rule to make the start up more fair with more players:Each player (in turn order, before the first player moves) chooses one of the corners of the board as their starting location. <S> The first time you pass go, the amount to collect is prorated based on how far you traveled, e.g. collect $50 if you started at Goto Jail, $100 if you started at Free Parking, ... <S> This allows later players to start from locations with fewer opponents. <S> This is a quicker way to address the first roller advantage than the no buying on the first lap rule mentioned by <S> @Joe <S> Mc <S> Monopoly is already considered by many too long, even with the correct rules. <S> If players are reluctant to trade (and the above rule is used to even out property ownership), it is quite likely that no player gets a Monopoly. <S> In this case, the game could go on forever. <S> With more than four players, I would really recommend playing Mega Monopoly instead of the standard game. <S> Mega Monopoly is also listed as a game for 2 - 8 players, but has several rules that make it a better game for more players. <A> With less players, everyone gets a few monopolies, and then it's just the luck of who lands on the other's monopoly first. <S> With more players, it's about who can strike a deal, take risks, and strategize the best. <S> A good way to break the first rollers advantage is implementing the house rule that one must go around the board once before buying a property
|
Addressing the main question, more players generally makes the game longer.
|
Can a flashed creature block? If I summon a creature with the flash rule in my opponent's turn as a response to their attack is it able to block? Or is it suffering from summoning sickness and can't do anything? <Q> If you flash the creature in during the Declare Attackers step or earlier, you can block with that creature. <S> You can do it after attackers are declared, but it's too late once blockers have been declared. <S> "Summoning sickness" prevents three things: Declaring the sick creature as an attacker. <S> Activating abilities of a sick creature with the tap symbol (aka {T}) in their cost. <S> Activating abilities of a sick creature with the untap symbol (aka {Q}) in their cost. <S> Blocking is permitted. <A> It would have summoning sickness but that doesn't prevent being able to block. <S> Summonning sickness only deals with being able to use abilities with the (un)tap symbol and declaring as attackers. <S> So yes, you can block with it. <A> Summoning sickness means it can't be tapped. <S> Just remember to flash it in at the end of the declare attackers step!
|
You can still use it to block an attacking creature.
|
How well do Forbidden Desert and Forbidden Island play with two players? I introduced a colleague to Pandemic . He liked it and asked if I could recommend a similar game that: Plays well with two people, and Will be a bit more approachable for his partner, who's new to games (and might find Pandemic a bit fidgety or overwhelming to learn). The first thing that came to mind is Forbidden Island (which I own and like) or Forbidden Desert (which I've been been hearing great things about). Before I recommend it though, I've never played either with just two players. Does does (one or both) hold up well with two players? <Q> Desert's analog to the "Flood Meter" from Island has different tracks based on the number of players. <S> Also, unlike Island, Desert supports up to five players as designed. <A> Forbidden Desert does play well with two players, and is a bit less intimidating than Pandemic. <S> Just be warned that it is hard, even starting at the lowest difficulty level. <S> In comparison Forbidden Island is pretty much a cake walk as long as you know what you're doing. <A> Forbidden Island can be a bit tough with 2 players, mainly because of the hand limit restrictions. <S> I've had mostly close calls at normal difficulty level. <S> So if you're playing with 2 players, I advise to just play 2 characters each.
|
I would probably, between the two, suggest Forbidden Desert, as one thing it brings that Island lacks is specific balancing based on the number of players in the game.
|
Can I use a "Counter Target Spell" on Enchantments? Can I use a Counter Target Spell on enchantments? Enchantments are considered spells right? Thanks. <Q> Spells are anything that you cast from your hand and add to the stack. <S> Lands and abilities are not spells. <S> A spell is a card on the stack. <S> As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, "Casting Spells"), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone it was in, which is usually its owner's hand. <S> (See rule 405, "Stack.") <S> A spell remains on the stack as a spell until it resolves (see rule 608, "Resolving Spells and Abilities"), is countered (see rule 701.5) , or otherwise leaves the stack. <S> For more information, see section 6, "Spells, Abilities, and Effects." <S> So you can counter an enchantment as long as it is on the stack (not resolved). <S> Lands are not spells and are not put on the stack, so they cannot be countered. <S> Abilities however are put on the stack, but they can only be countered by spells which say they can counter abilities. <A> It's not clear what you're asking about. <S> No, if you really do mean Enchantments. <S> A spell is a card or copy of a card on the stack is a spell. <S> 111.1. <S> A spell is a card on the stack. <S> [...] <S> 111.1a <S> A copy of a spell is also a spell, [...] <S> The type of the card is of no consequence. <S> If there's an Enchantment card on the stack (e.g. because it's currently being cast), it's a spell, it can be targeted as a spell, and it can be countered. <S> But you asked about "Enchantments". <S> I'm not sure if you realize that "Enchantments" refers to "Enchantments cards or tokens on the battlefield". <S> This is also what many people are asking about when they ask about countering Enchantments. <S> Cards (or tokens) on the battlefield aren't on the stack, so they aren't spells. <S> They are permanents, and you would require Naturalize (for example) to get rid of one. <A> If it is being cast, yes. <S> If it is one the field already, no. <S> Pretty much everything is a spell before it becomes a permanent. <S> When you cast an enchantment, it is put on the stack as an enchantment spell. <S> When it resolves, it becomes an enchantment permanent on the field. <S> Same with Creatures. <S> The only type of card that can't be a spell is "land". <S> Also of note is that cards are only spells when they are cast. <S> If they are simply put onto the field, without being cast, they are never spells.
|
Yes, if you mean Enchantment cards being cast.
|
Looking for a horror boardgame I used to play back in 1999 or so Back when I was a kid (which would've been at least 15 years ago, so around 1999 or so) there was a game I used to play that I would like to find again. This "horror" game took place in an haunted mansion or castle divided in four big rooms and multiple floors. Players can choose from different characters (and if I remember correctly, one of them was a dog) and advance through an high number of tiles by spinning a wheel. Some tiles had special effects on gameplay written on them, as "stop for a turn" or "go to tile number ###" and so on. It was not "Ghost Castle" and not something about Scooby-Doo (the characters where anonymous). It was built in thick paper or cardboard (everything but the wheel was made in this material), and it wasn't a box but a book which become a 3D setting when opened. It was none of those listed below, because this are way to small: Which Witch Haunted House Haunted Mansion Ghost Castle Thanks! <Q> Found it! <S> by Brian Lee <S> and it's not a board game but a book, published for the first time in UK by Tango Books in 1998. <S> ISBN (for Italian edition) is 88-450-7851-5, and you can see it online at http://www.lafeltrinelli.it/products/9788845107351/Gioca_con_gli_acchiappafantasmi/Lee_Brian.html <A> It is called 'Horror House' I used to have it 3 dimensional board game with moving party and divided in to four large rooms, something used to roll down the stairs as I recall ad knock you over if you happened to be on that section. <A> TSR's "Nightmare House" by David marshal. <S> No spinner but a power wheel. <S> Haunted mansion & astral plane combat against an evil entity. <S> A great game! <S> See: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3535/nightmare-house
|
It's name is "Ghost Hunters!"
|
Nightveil Specter - Do I have to play the cards in order they were exiled? Nightveil Specter has the following ability: Whenever Nightveil Specter deals combat damage to a player, that player exiles the top card of his or her library. You may play cards exiled with Nightveil Specter. As I understand the rules text, I can play the card whenever it is legal to play, say a land: I can play one land in one of my main phase. But, can I play the exiled land form last turn? And what if in the meantime I exiled another card? Example: First I exile a Forest Then I exile a Scavenging Ooze Can I play the land first and then the ooze? <Q> See the rulings for this card on Gatherer: Gatherer: <S> Nightveil Specter <S> The card is exiled face up. <S> All players may look at it. <S> Playing a card exiled with Nightveil Specter follows all the normal rules for playing that card. <S> You must pay its costs, and you must follow all timing restrictions, for example. <S> Nightveil Specter’s last ability applies to cards exiled with that specific Nightveil Specter, not any other creature named Nightveil Specter. <S> You should keep cards exiled by different Nightveil Specters separate. <S> The cards are effectively put to one side, to be used as you see fit. <S> It's as if they are added to your hand. <S> You can play them when you choose, but you have to follow the usual rules for playing those cards, including costs and timings. <S> So you're still restricted to playing one land per turn. <S> The order of exile isn't relevant here, only the copy of the Specter that exiled the card. <S> So if it was exiled last turn <S> it’s still available to you. <S> This is because exile is effectively a place, the card has been removed from the game, and it stays that way until something changes its state… like you choosing to play it. <A> It simply means you can play them just like cards in your hand. <S> Think of it as a larger hand size, except they're not actually in your hand. <S> This means: Effects that inspect your hand, cards in your hand or your hand size will ignore them. <S> Effects that affect your hand, cards in your hand or your hand size will ignore them. <S> They can't be discarded. <S> They're visible to everyone. <S> Can I play the land first and then the ooze? <S> In this particular case, you can't play either until your second main phase comes around because they're not instants. <S> Then, you can play the land (if you haven't yet played one this turn) or cast the ooze in any order or not at all. <S> You also have the options of playing them at a later time, as long as Nightveil Specter hasn't left the battlefield (at all) since it exiled the cards. <A> Yes, you can play them in any order you want as long as you follow all timing restrictions. <S> 1/24/2013 <S> The card is exiled face up. <S> All players may look at it. <S> 1/24/2013 <S> You must pay its costs, and you must follow all timing restrictions, for example. <S> 1/24/2013 <S> Nightveil Specter's last ability applies to cards exiled with that specific Nightveil Specter, not any other creature named Nightveil Specter. <S> You should keep cards exiled by different Nightveil Specters separate.
|
Playing a card exiled with Nightveil Specter follows all the normal rules for playing that card.
|
Flash Point without the Deck Gun? I've played a dozen or so games of Flash Point so far and always find it necessary to have someone be the Driver/Operator, stay in the firetruck, and just use the Deck Gun all game. The right roll can put out five fires at once, the Driver/Operator can use the gun twice per turn, and there's the option to re-roll both attempts at no cost. In other words, it seems like the Driver/Operator is overpowering but essential to the game. What changes can I make to the rules or to my general strategy if I want to remove the Driver/Operator and still keep the building from collapsing? <Q> This is just off the top of my head, but if the issue you're having is that someone needs to be 'stuck' there, then how about giving everyone a special action to skip their whole turn to "radio the driver" to take the action. <S> This way, effectively, any player can be it without having to be in the truck, and people can take turns. <S> Try it out, and if it makes the game easier use the game's built in difficulty modification to re-adjust it harder. <A> I agree that this is a major flaw in the base game. <S> To counteract this (a little), my wife and I sometimes use 2 characters each, which is allowed in the official rules. <S> That isn't a complete solution to your problem, though. <S> I suggest adding the Dangerous Waters expansion to your game. <S> Neither of the two Dangerous Waters maps use the fire truck at all and they are very exciting. <S> I know the subway station in the Honor and Duty expansion doesn't use the fire truck either. <A> I agree that the fact the Driver/Operator can use the gun twice and reroll both attempts is a bit overpowered. <S> A very simple solution would be to discard the reroll modifier, resulting in the special ability of the Driver/Operator to use the water gun at half the cost. <S> If it's still too easy, change the rules so the Driver/Operator only has a bonus towards driving the vehicle, but using the gun still uses up a total of 4 action points.
|
You might have to part with the base game (and some of your money) to get rid of the problem completely.
|
If a creature planeswalker is dealt damage by a creature with infect, what happens? If a planeswalker than has been turned into a creature (not a planeswalker that turns itself into a creature with "prevent all damage" like Gideon) takes Infect damage, what happens? I know that Infect damage is applied as -1/-1 counters, and I know that the planeswalker will have both damaged marked on it, as well as have it's loyalty reduced, but what I'm unsure of is if the -1/-1 counters further reduce the loyalty or if they only impact the power / toughness. As a follow-on, do the -1/-1 counters stay on the planeswalker when it is no longer a creature? And if so, could this be used to prevent a Gideon from using it's "become a creature" ability (or at least kill it if it does)? <Q> Loyalty counters are different and separate from the -1/-1 counters produced by infect. <S> -1/-1 counters affect power and toughness only. <S> If an infected Planeswalker reverts to a non-creature, the -1/-1 counters will have no effect. <S> They will remain until otherwise removed, or until the permanent changes zones. <S> Non-creature Planeswalker vs Infect Damage <S> Lose loyalty equal to the infect damage per rule 119.3c . <S> Do not gain infect counters. <S> Rule 119.3d only applies to creatures. <S> Creature Planeswalker vs Infect Damage <S> Lose loyalty equal to the infect damage per rule 119.3c . <S> Gain -1/-1 counters equal to the infect damage per rule 119.3d . <S> Example <S> Gideon, Champion of Justice has five loyalty counters and five -1/-1 counters. <S> If he resolves his zero ability to become a creature, Gideon will die the next time state-based actions are checked. <S> Planeswalkers are not subject to the same state-based action where a player with ten poison counters automatically loses the game. <S> Planeswalkers cannot gain poison counters. <A> 119.3c <S> Damage dealt to a planeswalker causes that many loyalty counters to be removed from that planeswalker. <S> 119.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source with wither and/or infect causes that many -1/-1 counters to be put on that creature. <S> The removal of loyalty counters is not conditional. <S> As a follow-on, do the -1/-1 counters stay on the planeswalker when it is no longer a creature? <S> Yes. <S> Counters will cease to exist if the object changes zone [CR 121.2] . <S> Otherwise, they stay until something explicitly removes them. <S> And if so, could this be used to prevent a Gideon from using it's "become a creature" ability (or at least kill it if it does)? <S> Yes. <S> If he had -1/-1 counters equaling his toughness, he'd die virtually immediately after transforming into a creature. <S> Note that Gideon, Champion of Justice's indestructibility would not help, since the State-Based action in question kills rather than destroys <S> [CR 704.5f] . <S> Note that Gideon Jura's ability to prevent damage prevents the gain of -1/-1 counters from infect damage. <S> You'd have to turn him into a creature another way or give him the -1/-1 counters some other way. <A> While the planeswalker is a creature, it will have 3 relevant characteristics: power, toughness, and loyalty. <S> When that creature planeswalker takes infect damage, it will lose that many loyalty counters and it will gain that many -1/-1 counters. <S> The -1/-1 counters only affect power and toughness. <S> In general, permanents do not lose any counters when they change type. <S> This does mean that if a planeswalker becomes a creature, and it has enough -1/-1 counters that its toughness is 0, it will die. <A> -1/-1 counters reduce power/toughness (or remove +1/+1 counters if there are any present). <S> They do not affect loyalty counters. <S> Generally, any kind of counter can exist on any kind of permanent (or even a spell, such as with Lightning Storm ). <S> -1/-1 counters on a planeswalker simply don't do anything under normal circumstances -- that is, until the planeswalker becomes a creature.
|
If it's both a creature and a planeswalker, it would gain -1/-1 counters and lose loyalty counters.
|
How to expand Love Letter to accomodate more players? Love letter was a surprise hit in my group. Everybody enjoys the fast pace and player interaction. It's just a shame that it only allows up to 4 players, because it seems like it would be better for say six players. I would have no problem buying a second copy of the game to shuffle the two decks of cards together, but I'm wondering if it would work in theory. Has anybody got any suggestions as to how to try and increase the player limit? <Q> It might be a bit different from the Love Letter you're used to though as it comes with new characters like the Assassin (which eliminates an opponent if that opponent forces you to reveal it). <S> It's an official game though so I you can rest assured that it's been playtested and was intended to be played with more players. <S> I hope that helps :) <A> One way that I use lets you accommodate up to eight players. <S> You will need two decks of Love Letter cards, and two tokens distinctly different from the tokens of affection. <S> Remove one Princess, and give each player two tokens. <S> Play normally, but when someone would be out, have them discard their card and draw a new one. <S> Then they get rid of one of the tokens. <S> When they have no more tokens left, they are out. <A> If you read the design diary of Lost Legacy (a game designed to be in the same system, from a games mechanics perspective, as Love Letter) you'll note it's pretty similar. <S> It also has explicit rules on how to incorporate more players (because it's a series of games and there are more) <S> The Lost Legacy <S> "MegaMix Set" <S> This variant allows up to six players to play the game. <S> Use the following guidelines to create a set of 31 cards: <S> Use all the cards in this set ( 16 cards ) and one expansion set ( 16 cards again. <S> Expansions for Lost Legacy are essentialy stand alone games. <S> Each <S> it's own variation on the Love Letter formula ) <S> Remove one of the Lost Legacy cards <S> ( Princess would be the closest analogy ) <S> If players with, it's perfectly possible to play with a Megamix Set even with only 2-4 players. <S> Lost Legacy Rulesbook Page 10 <S> For Love Letter you could simply combine two decks and remove the extra princess and you should be able to fit six players comfortably. <S> If you enjoy Love Letter might I suggest the only SLIGHTLY more advanced Love Legacy series. <S> It takes the same mechanics of Love Letter and makes the game a little less repetitive <S> plus it also also expansions that add even more spice to the game beyond mere cosmetic changes as we see so often in Love Letter sets. <S> Love Letter is at the end of the day a micro game that probably shouldn't expand the player count because a lot of what makes the game works is the 4 player cap. <S> With more players the tension in target selection is changed. <S> The despiration to knock out a player can get replaced with the hopelessnes of knowing there are too many players to knock them out. <S> It's a very tight and very well designed microgame. <A> We've recently been playing with 5 and 6 players, first to 3 favours. <S> For a 5 player game, add a Guard, a Priest and a Baron just to pad the deck a bit. <S> This seemed to work seamlessly. <S> For a 6 player game, on top of the above, also add another Guard, a King and a Countess. <S> This worked well, but we found that the strategies started to change. <S> The Countess is more confusing because you discard it if you have one of 2 Princes, 2 Kings, the other Countess or the Princess. <S> We found that 7 and 8 players games became simultaneously more random and more deadly. <S> Strategies started to break down and the Baron became a liability. <A> Look in the Variant subforum on BGG, there are quite a few ideas. <S> For example: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1094976/2-8-players-queen-jester
|
If you're really up to it, you might want to buy the Love Letter Premium Edition which lets you play with up to eight players.
|
Effective way of shuffling small form cards My shuffling skills leave a lot to be desired, in particular when it comes to small form cards, such as those found in Arkham Horror and number of other Fantasy flight games. What are some effective techniques at shuffling these small cards without damaging/bending them? If I've sleeved the cards, I just push equal piles of them together and it seems to work, but not all my games have been sleeved. <Q> Video shows it on poker cards but it can be applied to smaller formats as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZByHu_NUJs <A> For the smaller stacks, any not-riffle shuffle like overhand shuffling works well. <S> But I find that many of the Arkham Horror decks get too big to shuffle easily with any normal method. <S> For the big decks, you can shuffle a little bit by hand (overhand shuffle or whatever you're familiar with), then spread them around in the box lid, shake them around, then shake them into the corner to help collect them. <S> It's not pretty, and to get them truly randomized <S> you do need the bit of hand shuffling to make sure what's on the bottom doesn't just stay on the bottom, but it works well enough, and Arkham Horror doesn't really need perfect randomization. <A> I use corner riffle on everything from the tiny item cards from Fantasy Flight games (Elder Sign, Relic) to larger tarot-sized cards. <S> It even works great if you have sleeves on your cards, since it avoids crunching the open end of the sleeve into another card. <S> Video here . <A> Pile shuffle. <S> Deal six, seven or eight (you'll figure out a preference, I always do 7) in front of you in a circle. <S> Move round clockwise putting the top card from your deck onto each pile one at a time and repeat until all the cards are dealt. <S> Gather them up in such a way that piles next to each other in the circle don't go back into the deck next to each other. <S> Cut the deck a couple of times and repeat if you want to be really thorough. <S> If you watch the start of a round in a Magic: The Gathering tournament you will see the majority of players going through this process.
|
I almost always use Overhand shuffling when dealing with board game cards.
|
In Blackjack, does the dealer reveal his hole card if you bust? I specifically like to know whether the dealer reveals his hole card when you bust in Atlantic City casinos (if the dealer doesn't have Blackjack). Or does the dealer just pull the card away without turning it over? <Q> I've never played in Atlantic City, but I have played in casinos in several other places, and I have never encountered a game where the dealer doesn't show the hole card every time, even if there are no player hands in play due to busts or blackjacks. <S> I'm pretty sure gaming laws or regulations require this in most places. <A> Typically, you are not the only player at the table. <S> So if ANYone stays, the blackjack dealer must reveal his hole card to that person/people. <S> But if everyone busts, that's a different story. <A> There isn't a casino anywhere that I've played where that isn't the rule of the house. <S> Not showing the hole card would open the pandora's box of the casino dealing a fair game- regardless of whether or not that would even be a realistic probability.
|
The dealer is required to show the hole card even if all players bust.
|
Risk - To secure a world domination win? I have been playing Risk with my four best friends and i have very rarely won. I have been wondering what is the best strategy to win at Risk? <Q> Usually securing a continent and ALWAYS being on the aggressive. <S> When you keep getting Territory cards and playing them at the right time (usually after your opponents have played them first so that the count will be higher), you should always have a formidable army (i.e. so that your opponents won't want to mess with you). <S> The other critical part to winning risk is being aggressive. <S> You should be getting a territory card each turn usually in a quest to prevent your opponents from ever owning entire continents. <S> This means you constantly annoy them by taking at least (and usually only) one territory of the continent they control on your turn. <S> This prevents them from getting massive bonuses. <S> Hope this helps. <A> The cards are the the key <S> always attack each turn to gain a card pay attention to how many cards everyone has. <S> You want to wipe out other players when they have cards you can then immediately turn in for additional sets and keep going do NOT attack other players if by doing so <S> you'll just set them up for someone else to wipe out and get their cards. <A> The key to Risk is "income" (in the form of armies). <S> Try to dominate a small continent early (most likely Australasia or South America, possibly Africa), so you get the extra "income" for a whole continent. <S> Except as related to the above, do not make too many attacks too early. <S> Just make one attack each turn, get a card, and trade them for "income" as soon as possible.
|
Make sure that you, or some "third" person maintains at least one territory on each continent, like a defensive stop in Monopoly so that no one else gets the income for a whole continent.
|
Open source programming toolkits for modeling table top games Are there any open source programming libraries, perhaps in Python or Lua for example, for modeling table top games to help with design and testing work? <Q> If you're interested in testing the aesthetics and flow of the game (rather than fully automated simulation for balance purposes), then I'd look at Tabletop Simulator . <S> From their site: Tabletop Simulator is the only simulator where you can let your aggression out by flipping the table! <S> There are no rules to follow: just you, a physics sandbox, and your friends. <S> Make your own games and play how YOU want! <S> Unlimited gaming possibilities! <A> Currently, there are none. <S> You might be looking for Monte Carlo simulation tools, but this might be a very, very broad description of tools for your purpose. <S> tools, in particular the BPM modeling and simulation tools. <S> They allow you to describe a turn as a processes (i.e., a series of steps that a player should take when he is called to act) and simulate many matches to collect and analyse critical indicators. <S> You should also take a look on business rules management systems (BRMS) that allow you to easily set rules that might help you emulate smart decision making. <S> A decent open source BPM tool is <S> jBPM <S> for BPM and Drools <S> as the BRMS. <S> There is also Activiti . <S> Sadly, both tools lack simulation capabilities. <S> If you use BPMN 2.0 to model your game as a process, you can try simulating with bpmn-simulator , but then you lose the BRMS integration that is important to simulate player decision making. <S> Anyway, I must emphasize that this is the best approach I could think of with today's open source software. <S> This does not means that this is a good approach. <S> In fact, I haven't tried it myself yet. <S> Still it makes sense to me to model a game as a very complex process filled with rules that could be simulated with adequate tools. <A> For what it's worth, this is actually a pretty difficult problem to solve. <S> You might have a look at General game playing on wikipedia, and the things linked from there. <S> For your purposes you don't need the AI to find optimal strategies, of course, but even just doing well enough to come close enough to human play to measure what you want to measure is tough - I'm not sure whether or not they'll be good enough. <S> I wouldn't count on much of anything existing beyond what you see there, and find searching for similar things. <S> There's a reason they're still holding contests! <A> You can model subsystems of a game for calculating probabilities using the Lea library for Python.
|
There are a few engines that people have built that you could look into. I've been thinking about the subject for a while now, and I've come to believe that the tools that are the best fit to the job are the business process management (BPM)
|
Best way to get into Pokemon? So I'd like to introduce my son to a basic card game like Pokemon since he loves the creatures, etc. When I go to a store and look at all the 'starter' decks, and packs, etc I'm a little confused. What's the best way to buy and start into the game with him? Just buy a basic starter kit at the store and go? I would need something with 'how-to-play' instructions as well as I've never played it before either. <Q> I want to give a more general answer that applies to all trading card games. <S> Find a local store that specializes in selling the cards and, even better, hosts tournaments. <S> The people running the shop: <S> Know exactly what you need. <S> Will teach you how to play. <S> * Will occasionally give new players free starter packs or cards (mine does). <S> Make far more money off of return customers than they ever will off of starter kits. <S> They want you to come back, and so they generally won't try to screw you. <S> The point is that they want you to get into the game, and you want their instructions, guidance, and merchandise. <S> Don't go to Walmart and leave wondering whether you bought the right thing for your kid. <S> *Unless a tournament is running (and if they are busy they will usually tell you when to come back and enjoy a quiet game) <A> It's as simple as opening it up, each of you taking a deck, and simply reading the rules and following along with them; it's pretty much a live tutorial. <S> Once you've got the hang of how to play the game, I'd highly recommend going with Rusher's advice in the answer above. <S> Usually, your FLGS (Friendly Local Game Store) or Comics & Cards shop will be more than happy to let you know what's the best premade deck to continue playing and what to look out for in booster packs, as well as advice on how to construct a deck of your own. <S> You might also get him interested in Magic: <S> the Gathering, as from what I've seen, the rules are only a little more complicated than Pokemon. <A> That is the definition of a starter kit, a kit used to start you playing the game. <S> So yes get a starter kit. <S> Get two. <S> This way you have a decent card base and can play with him. <S> Also be aware that every good CCG these days has a good community behind it. <S> Furthermore the Pokemon CCG has a great website with rules downloads and other errata. <A> Pooka, from the Pokemon fan site The Top Cut.net, has been running a series called "building on a budget". <S> He creates realistic, competitive decks that will not cost too much money. <S> Even better, he takes the time to explain in a video why each card was included, the synergy between cards, and then he plays a game with his deck using Pokemon Online. <S> http://thetopcut.net <S> The pokemon community is awesome.
|
The Pokemon Company did a great job with creating Starter Kits; you get two 30-card decks which are already arranged in an order to help explain how the game works and all the nuances of the rules you'll possibly need to know to start playing.
|
Would it be viable to play pandemic with an "eradicate all diseases" win condition? I have played several games of Pandemic, and have found it to be a really enjoyable game with a lot of challenge. I was wondering about the possibility of modifying the rules such that the game is played to eradicate all diseases, rather than merely cure them, as a means of varying the difficulty further, and adding extra depth to individual games. I was wondering if this win condition is achievable, as I suspect there may not physically be enough cards in the player deck to allow you to eradicate all the diseases. Has anyone else considered a variant like this? <Q> You can get a pretty good idea about the extra time needed just by looking at the board when you finish a normal game. <S> How many cities still have cubes in them? <S> How many cards are left in the player deck? <S> As an absolute lower bound, you'll need two actions per city (one to move, one to treat), or one for the medic. <S> If you've got three players and one is the medic, that's 8 cities cleared per six cards drawn. <S> But usually you'll have more than 8 cities, you'll need a lot more than one action per city to get to all of them, and the infection phase will be undoing half your work. <S> You'll also usually have 10 or fewer cards left in the player deck. <S> The odds of being able to clear the board are really, really low - and worse, if you can do it, it's probably just because you're lucky about infected cities being close together. <S> As others have said, simply adding an expansion and varying the difficulty using the existing means is probably a better bet. <A> However, it usually takes a good degree of luck to even be possible. <S> I think that eradication works best as a "challenge" win condition, so that if you ever have a game where you are easily winning, you try to eradicate, but if you're barely surviving, then just go for the regular win. <S> If you're keeping track of a win-loss record, you could count an eradicate win as worth more than a regular win, and the additional points would offset the additional risk required to attempt it. <S> But as the only win condition, no, I don't think that's a good idea. <S> Eradication is too rare. <A> It depends, I think, on the difficulty. <S> On Legendary (all 6 Epidemic cards), curing all four diseases is an achievement in and of itself. <S> Eradicating all four diseases after they are cured is simply a matter of time, something that is in short supply on every difficulty. <S> So yes, the win condition you're offering is definitely achievable, but slightly more difficult. <S> If you want a challenge, I'd highly suggest the <S> In the Lab expansion, which adds a cool layer to curing the diseases. <A> It would definitely increase the difficulty - namely, by both increasing the number of turns needed to win, and by increasing the temptation to clear cubes when you should be curing disease. <S> If I was to try it, I would go back to 4 Epidemics to start, and work up/down from there. <A> It's certainly possible - I've had a few games where three of the diseases were eradicated while we waited for the cards for the last 1/2 - but not easy. <S> In many cases it's not going to be possible - the cubes on the board will simply be too far apart and the cards you need will be at the bottom of the deck. <S> I wouldn't play that variant; I'm happy with just using both the virulent strain and the mutation to get the difficulty up to an acceptable level :-) <A> In our games, we actually thought we were supposed to eradicate them all :D <S> we played about six games (with 4 epidemic cards), all except one were doomed because of running out of cards. <S> In the last game, we were just 1 damn turn from eradicating them all. <S> It really requires a nasty load of luck in every part of the game. <A> I just got the game and thought that I did need to eradicate all to win (clean sweep of board). <S> I didn't realize that you just need to cure (cubes still remaining). <S> That said, by my 3rd solo / duo-hand play with the Scientist and Medic, we won a 4-epidemic game with eradication. <S> Luck of the draw and very strategic planning.
|
Eradication is definitely possible, and I used to play with a group that has done it multiple times on legendary difficulty (with the on the brink expansion).
|
How to make Settlers of Catan quicker? I'm looking for ideas on how to make Settlers of Catan quicker to play between friends. Whenever I play with friends they complain that you have to stop all the time to decide what are you going to do: trade, build, exchange at a port so the game doesn't flow as good as it should. This could be because my friends (and me) don't play board games very much. No one seems to be able to make key decisions quickly. Any ideas/suggestions on how to deal with this issue of slow decision-making? <Q> One way to speed up the game is to increase resource production. <S> There are two common approaches to this: During setup, each player's second placement is a city . <S> This gives a boost to everyone's economy/engine from the start. <S> Play a 3/4-player game with the map layout for 5/6 players. <S> There will be many more spots, more valuable spots, and less blocking throughout the game. <S> Obviously, neither of these addresses the issues with turn length and trading. <S> It sounds like your friends need to hurry up and make a decision! <A> The first to 7 or 8 wins. <A> I agree with ikegami's comment that (strategic) decisions can mostly be made before one's turn actually starts (i.e. during other players' turns). <S> There is some interaction that may influence one's decision (esp. <S> if one rolls into a massive resource influx on one's turn that suddenly enables many different actions that weren't previously considered), but there are very few game events that drastically change the board state (unlike some other games, e.g. Innovation). <A> If you really wanted to add another dimention of play to this you could always add a timer. <S> Like give each person 2 minutes or something for their turn. <S> Should the timer run out, their turn is over - effective immediately. <A> In terms of speeding up the game - you could opt to reduce the cost of trading by 1 card universally (i.e. 3-1 directly with bank, 2-1 with a general port or 1-1 for a dedicated port). <S> Settlers of Catan is one of those games where there exists an initial learning curve. <S> It is not a long learning curve but it does span 1-2 games to get a basic feel and a further 2-4 games to gain a degree of innate familiarity. <S> (It takes time to look blankly at a hand of resource cards, often looking towards the build card for your purchase/ build options - and not sure which options are going to give the best results) <S> As the innate familiarity sets in so too will the length of each player's turn become shorter - significantly improving the flow of the game. <S> Players will hope for the resource cards they need to fit a planned course of action before their turn even comes. <S> Of course things get more lengthly if you introduce a variant like Cities and Knights. <S> If you see that a variant is taking the fun out of the game by making it take too long then either play the variant less frequently or try any of the tricks already mentioned in the answers received. <A> You seem to have put your finger on the problem: "[We] don't play board and card games much." <S> The way to speed up decision-making is practice. <S> That said, you might be able to speed up your decision making in Catan just by learning to play OTHER games better.
|
You and your friends need to play the game more, get some experience, learn established patterns, etc., and your decision-making will speed up. One option would be to play for less points.
|
Mascarade - When must you swap your card? In the game of Mascarade there is an note on page 5 of the rule book that reads: WARNING ! If a player has revealed their card during the turn of the player immediately before them (by having called the character announcement of the player to their right, or by having been revealed by the Inquisitor), then the player cannot announce that they are their revealed character. The player will be forced to swap their card – or not – with that of another player. It seems fairly straight forward that you must swap your card with that of another if you just revealed your card in the previous turn. So in a 4 player scenario what happens when one player 'announces' they are the king and two others 'claim' to be the king? do both of the other players have to swap on their following turn or only the very next player? Here is a visual: the players are arraigned as such: 1 4 2 3 And player 1 announces they are the king. Players 2 and 3 claim to be the king as well. Now from the way I read the note on page 5, player 2, who's turn it is next, is required to swap their card. They can not 'announce' to be the card they just revealed. So where does that leave player 3? If player 2 does not swap with them, then player 3 knows what card they are and essentially gets to announce with perfect certainty. Is this the correct interpretation? <Q> There is always a responsibility of the players to swap with players who know their cards. <S> The reason that rule exists, is because there would be no one in place to run "defense" against player 2. <S> Player 3 does have someone to interfere; player 2. <S> So no one gets a free ride as long as player 2 plays correctly. <A> The short answer is <S> yes, this is the correct interpretation of the rule (as Andrey has already pointed out). <S> Player 2 can choose to switch with Player 3, or decide not to and accept that the consequence is a free use of their power. <S> Player 3 doesn't have to switch. <S> My gaming group decided that in a four person game, this was a little frustrating if you're Player 2, since in some cases you have to switch to prevent somebody from winning even though the card you'd be receiving isn't useful to you. <S> This leads to slightly longer games, but it seems to work well in making sure the game runs more smooth (paradoxically by insuring it is more complicated because of more switching). <S> However, this house rule doesn't tend to work as well in games with 6 or more people (and this game is meant to be played with up to 8). <S> It tends to just drag the game out. <S> Additionally, this rule doesn't work well with people who do not play a lot of board games, much for the same reason; it appears to add an unnecessary obstacle to the game, only causing games to take longer. <S> So there is a balance in using this house rule to ensure that the game is fun. <A> I will say that if the rule isn't that both players following player one have to switch their card, that utterly breaks the game in two player game. <S> It allows one player to win as soon as he gets a bit of a lead in gold, a turn and a bishop. <S> Let's say player 1 has a bishop as his protected card. <S> He can put a hand on his left hand card and say "I am a bishop". <S> The other person can allow this, which gives his opponent 4 differnece. <S> Alternatively he can put a hand on one of his cards and declare himself fool - which will cost both players 1 gold. <S> Then player two has to swap one of his cards. <S> Then if you go with the rules suggested by the other comments, the other player can just repeat "I am bishop" - and he can keep doing that until he wins. <S> If we say every one who had their card revealed needs to swap it in the next turn as part of a cost for calling others out, then player one will also have to use his turn to switch something leaving player two the next one with a chance to do something - and that kinda fixes the game.
|
For these smaller games, we've been playing with a house rule that if your card has been revealed since your last turn, you must switch cards.
|
How many players realistically possible in Pandemic Board Game 2nd edition I love playing Pandemic, but the one of the biggest holdups for me is how you can only play 4 players. However, in the box there are 7 roles! (Scientist, Researcher, Medic, Quarantine Specialist, Dispatcher, Operations expert, Contingency planner). Has anyone had experience or would like to hypothesize playing with 5, 6, or all 7 players at once? If so, what additional rules do you incorporate (if any) to keep the integrity of the game (i.e. starting cards, number of actions, etc.)? I'm aware that there are only so many city cards to use so 7 players would really make you be super sensitive in how you use the cards. And I'm sure there are other things to consider also. I'm just very curious to know what all of your experiences are! Thank you for your time. <Q> The On the Brink expansion does allow for five player games . <S> I believe the only rule change in On the Brink that would affect this is only shuffling two event cards per player into the deck. <S> I'm not sure if this would affect only playing with the base game (the expansion includes many more event cards which makes this necessary), I can't remember how many event cards there were with just the base game. <S> I've never tried altering the rules to better accommodate more players. <S> I can't remember where I saw it posted. <S> But I believe the creators of the game said that they limited the number of players to such a small number as playtesters didn't find it to be fun having to wait so long between turns. <S> If a player traveled to a city to treat diseases on their next turn. <S> A game with five other players meant that ten more infection cards would be played before they had a change to clear anything up. <A> I tend to play pandemic with 8 players, but then in teams of two. <S> Because it's a cooperative game, everyone always feels included, even if they have to share their turn :) <S> Like this, there are only 4 players in the game, but 8 people sharing their strategies, which makes for a lot of discussion! <S> (and fun) More than 4 players, while it can be done, will definitely increase difficulty! <A> I have played Pandemic with some friends countless times <S> and I think that attempting to play the game with more players (>4) without some serious game modifications would result in unwieldy gameplay which is kind of not the point of the game. <S> I have seriously thought about ways to allow for more players but they all entailed increasing deck sizes as well as decreasing the number of cards drawn per turn. <S> The key to any such modification would be to reduce the duration of each player's turn of play without crippling the game, no easy task.
|
The main issue you face with playing with more people is the game's built-in time limit (when you run out of city cards).
|
How to make a hexagonal board? Two of my friends and I are developing a board game based on moving around a hexagonal board. We're testing it on the map printed on 4x A4 sheets merged with adhesive tape. What I'm trying now is to make it on a cork board. Do you guys have any ideas of how to construct hexagonal grid on a cork board? I've already tried to draw it using a pair of compasses, but it isn't a good idea to do this on a cork board. And the board is pretty big (about three hundred hexagons) so it would take a lot of time to draw each hex separately. <Q> I think the easiest way to do this would be to use a stencil: <S> Most craft shops should stock something like this. <S> Paint the cork one colour, then use the stencil with a different colour / shade of paint (spray paint would probably be best). <A> If you can't get a stencil (which I agree is the best way to do it), you could draw an equilateral triangular grid with horizontal, 60° left and 60° right lines, then just ink the hexes on them. <S> 6 triangles = 1 hex, so be prepared to draw them small. <A> Instead of drawing a hexagonal board where you move between spaces, you could draw a triangular board where you move between vertices. <S> This map perfectly represents the adjacency graph of hexagonal spaces (you can visualize this as drawing a line between the centers of adjacent hexagons), and will be far easier to draw than the hexagonal grid, as it's just a series of parallel lines. <S> Here's an image of the hexagonal and triangular boards <S> overlaid: You might run into issues if you need the spaces to carry different visual representations, like if the spaces should be different colors or represent different resources - this will be a bit harder to represent on a vertex rather than a space. <S> But if all you need is the adjacency, a triangular grid might be the way to go. <A> Use that template to put small dots where you want all the intersections on the board to be, by shifting the template around and aligning it to earlier dots. <S> Then connect the dots. <S> I have not tried that, but I saved a link to a blog post that shows this method and to me it looks easier (or cheaper) than other methods I have seen suggested. <A> You can make hexagons with rectangular cards. <S> Many years ago I did a print a play game which did had a hexagonal board printed on playing cards. <S> Each card had 4 blue lines added around the corners. <S> When the cards were laid adjacent to each other the blue lines would form hexagon shapes across cards. <S> Depending on what you're trying to do this might be good enough for prototyping without having to cut out hexagons.
|
You can make a paper template by printing a hex grid, then make a hole in each intersection.
|
Is anyone aware of any score keeping apps (BB10 or Android) that can keep track of score (including extra meta-data)? I know there are lots of apps (eg: keepscore, scorekeeper, endless variations of those words) that can keep a simple tally for various players for generic games. I am looking for one that can: Keep track of current scores, for players and/or teams. I would like to be able to track bids for current rounds of many card games, eg: spades, bidwhist. BONUS: Keep histories of specific players, win records, stats, etc... Integrate a dice and or timer. Somewhere to track custom meta-data. For example bidwhist, has a rotating trump suit. I can jot down, Round 1=Spades, 2=H,3=C,4=D, 5=NoTrump, etc... I had an IOS app that did some of this, but have yet to find an Android, or BB10 app. Does anyone know of or use one? I hate having to dig up a notepad. <Q> My friends and I use rankade , which has an app both for iOS and Android (but I prefer the webapp, personally, as it has the graphs). <S> You can use it for every game, and the thing I like the most is the fact that it gives you the whole history (and rankings) for both the group (collective matches) and for each single boardgame. <S> I don't think it can track every single metadata you're asking, though. <A> I use two different apps that give you a majority of what you are looking for. <S> I have an Android device, and I use Gamekeeper (free version) and <S> Gamekeeper allows me to keep track of scores, add dice (of any size and quantity with modifiers), and it also has a timer. <S> You could potentially add additional rows to the scores area to track some meta data such as bids (anything that is a numeric quantity). <S> With the Board Game Geek app, it's a lot more than just logging plays. <S> It allows you track your collection, log plays, track players who played, date played, who won, final scores, how long it took to play, etc. <S> You do have to go to boardgamegeek.com to manage your collection. <S> Right now you still can't add new games to your collection directly within the app. <S> However, outside of that the app is still a phenomenal thing to use, and it's a great way to track your historical plays. <A> I never found on that I really loved, so I wrote my own and published it. <S> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/keep-score-game-keeper/id1140300229?mt=8
|
the Board Game Geek app.
|
Are There Any Good Tools For Developing CCG Or Other Card Games? I've been brainstorming a new card game idea for a while, something that could be described as "Cards Against Humanity" meets "Munchkin" but while I mostly have the rules and everything together I have been at a loss to find something to rapidly prototype, print, change, and make the cards? I would like something that could read from a database, Excel spreadsheet, or something similar and then be able to produce Word document files or PDFs that I could then easily print to be able to beta-test the game with friends. Ideally you would be able to define the basic components/formats of each card and then just fill in the fields for each. Anyone know of tools to assist in rapid prototyping and printing of CCG style cards? <Q> NanDeck will do this: http://www.nand.it/nandeck/ <S> Lets you script out card sets, fairly simple to change card sizes, etc. <S> The website Oil <S> And Rope has a very slick prototyping tool called Paperize: http://paperize.io/beta <S> which lets you upload graphics, use spreadsheet linking, etc. <S> - super cool. <S> Still in beta, but tons of folks love it. <A> I was going to suggest Strange Eons http://cgjennings.ca/eons/ <S> Whilst not specifically for card games, it can come in handy. <S> The question linked by @shujaa above also has some good links <A> While it sounds game-specific, Magic Set Editor is a good tool for this. <S> http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/ <S> I often just use one of the magic card frames, though. <S> It has a big community of users <S> so there should be plenty of help on how to use it if you need it. <A> I recently found https://dulst.com <S> which bills itself as a platform to create card games. <A> I made a free extension for Inkscape to create counters or cards from spreadsheets (CSV files) combined with templates drawn in Inkscape (or imported from other applications). <S> Recent versions have built-in PDF export. <S> https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/299033/inkscape-extensions-boardgame-development <S> https://github.com/lifelike/countersheetsextension
|
If you don't like any of the magic card frames (or Yugi-Oh or the couple of others it has) you can create your own - it just takes a little digging around to find out how to do so.
|
If the Warlord destroys a player's eighth district, does the game still end? In Citadels , if the Warlord destroys a player's eighth district, assuming no other players have eight districts, does the game still end at the end of the round? If so, does that player still get the "first to build eight districts" bonus points? What if on the last round, Alfred finishes eight districts, Betty finishes eight districts, and Charlie Warlords one of Alfred's districts. Who gets what bonus points here? Alfred was the first to build eight districts, but does not have eight districts at the end. <Q> I believe the Warlord is not allowed to destroy a building if that person already has 8 built. <A> Warlord is not authorised to attack a finished city. <S> Nevertheless, the rules says that we finish the turn and end the game once someone reach 8 buildings (as opposed to "game is finished if, at the end of turn, someone has 8 buildings"), so if you use this card (I don't remember the name) who can be sacrificed to destroy a building, my thought is that the game still end at the end of the turn. <S> Same thing if you use the card that reduce the number of buildings to finish by one (note that a 7-building city will be considered as finished and the warlord can't attack it). <S> The bonus is granted to the first one, so in your example (if we use the card to destroy a building, not the warlord) Alfred got the bonus for having finished first, he doesn't get the 5-color bonus if he had it before his 8th building was destroyed and not after that. <A> This trigger cannot be undone. <S> The rules do also state that the warlord may not destroy a building of the player who triggered this event.
|
Once somebody builds eight districts, it triggers end end of game to finish the current round.
|
Double after a pre-empt? A bridge player opens with a pre-emptive bid of 3 or 4 of a suit and the opponent doubles. Is this bid assumed to be for take out? <Q> You can't make any assumptions without agreements. <S> Standard American Yellow Card specifies that doubles of partscores are for takeout. <A> Of course there are both advantages and disadvantages of whether a dbl is penalty or take-out. <S> Because of bridge's nature, the thing you always have to consider when you play a convention (takeout dbl is a conventional bid too), is to make the choice that is going to "win" most of the times. <S> In my country most of people (myself included) play negative/takeout doubles up to 4h. <S> (ie 4h X is takeout, while 4S X is penalty) <S> I think that this is a logical upper limit, since when opponents preempt 4h you should be able to play spades with a 4-4 or 4-5 fit. <S> While on the other hand it's more risky to try and find a fit on the 5th level (if 4S was the opening). <S> For further analysis, if someone wants to use a takeout call after 4S opening, he usually uses the (conventional) bid 4NT. <A> Unlike a low level bid, where the double is always for takeout, the meaning of a double after a pre-empt is a matter for partnership agreement. <S> There are two alternatives, and which you use is less important than the fact that the partners are on the same page. <S> One alternative is to double for penalty. <S> A double like that suggests that the doubler has about 16 hcps, two or three trumps with "nuisance" value (possibly Kx or Kxx), and can pretty much defeat the contract by himself. <S> Responder can pass, except with an above-average hand (more than eight of the remaining 24 points), or a very "shapely" hand, with say, a void in the opposing suit, and a six card suit of one's own. <S> The second alternative is to double for takeout. <S> That implies 12 hcps and shortness in the opponents' suit, and is similar to a normal takeout double. <S> The second kind of double is more common (it's easier for someone to have 12 than 16 hcps), and more flexible. <S> It means, <S> "I've got enough to give the opponents trouble, but can't defeat them alone, and can go different ways depending on what you, the responder, have". <S> If you have 5 or so hcps and several of the opponent's "trumps," you can pass for penalties (basically with "two kings" less than a one level takeout double). <S> If you have a five card major suit, you and the doubler should either be able to make game, or keep the opponents out of game, using that suit as trump. <S> Source: <S> Larry Cohen, "To Bid or Not to Bid, the Law of Total Tricks."
|
In North America, the most common agreement I've seen is that doubles are takeout oriented for bids through at least 4D; I've seen 4D, 4H, 4S, 6D, and 6H as upper bounds on the takeout double range.
|
The Proper use of Stations in Ticket to Ride Europe I played a game of Ticket to Ride Europe recently, I don't own it but am vaguely familiar with the rules. When we started playing however there was some confusion about the placement of stations and I was out-voted 3:1. What the rules specifically say: A Train Station allows its owner to use one, and only one, of the routes belonging to another player, into (or out of) that city to help him connect the cities on his Destination Tickets. My interpretation is that this allows you to do what it says, use a single route owned by another player. The next bit toward the end of the section however states: If a player uses the same Station to help connect cities on several different Tickets, he must use the same route into the city with the Station for all of those Tickets. The Train Station owner does not need to decide which route he will use until the end of the game. At this point the same route into the city statement was picked up really strongly. The group believed that this means several routes going out of a city could be used, as long as the same route into the city was used. In the end this meant that during the scoring they believed in the following diagram (red routes): A continuous path from Frankfurt->Madrid exists. No continuous path from Brest->Madrid exists because it didn't use the same route into Paris as the Frankfurt route, and therefore couldn't share the blue link. Can someone confirm if I'm correct, in that you can only use 1 link, and in this scenario both destination tickets are completed at the end of the game. If so can you think of any convincing arguments I can put forward to the group? <Q> There's no concept of direction of travel in Ticket to Ride. <S> If, by the end of the game, a player has created a continuous path of his color plastic trains between the two cities named on a Destination Ticket he holds, he scores the additional points indicated by the Point Value on the Ticket. <S> If he has failed to complete a continuous path between those cities, he deducts the Point Value on the Ticket from his total score. <S> A path between cities must be created. <S> Nothing about traveling from one of the cities to the other city. <S> As such, the Brest-Madrid path exists because it did use the same route into Paris as the Frankfurt-Madrid path, the Pamplona-Paris route. <S> Ticket to Ride is a simple game with straightforward rules. <S> It's obvious to me that the purpose of the second rule you quoted is to prevent the station from being used to borrow two different routes. <S> In fact, this is stated explicitly earlier in the rules (quoted below). <S> It's a botched attempt to clarify this rule (which was already plenty clear). <S> A Train Station allows its owner to use one, and only one , of the routes belonging to another player, into (or out of) that city to help him connect the cities on his Destination Tickets. <S> This means your group is clearly wrong when they believe that several routes going out of a city could be borrowed. <S> My proposed rewording of the second rule you quoted is the following: <S> This means that a player can't have a station grant him the use of two routes for two different tickets, but any number of tickets can use the chosen route. <S> The Train Station owner does not need to decide which route he will use until the end of the game. <A> I've looked up my rules and your quote is correct <S> but I believe you are right and that the second 'rule' is just poorly written. <S> It makes sense that there is something in the rules to stop the player moving the station from one line to another between Tickets. <S> So, if you were the blue player you could use a blue station on the Paris end of Paris-Frankfurt for Pavlona-Frankfurt, but the rules need to prevent you from moving it to the Paris-Brest line for a second trip from Pavlona. <S> I think this is what the text was trying to convey, but failed to do so. <S> Rephrasing it as the following might help: If a player uses the same Station to help connect cities on several tickets he must use the same city route (the one with the station) for all of those Tickets. <S> This fits with the spirit of the application of a Station being to 'convert' one line to your colour. <S> No other part of the rules has anything like as asymmetrical a mechanism as the rest of your group seems to be suggesting. <S> It seems extremely unlikely that Alan Moon (whose rules typically have a natural flow) meant this unnatural oddity, and far more likely that this is a small error in transcription somewhere. <A> If you are the red player and you placed your station in Pamplona, you are entitled to both the Madrid to Brest and Madrid to Frankfurt tickets. <S> You used one route out of Pamplona which became your route when you added the station. <S> The same holds true if you had placed the station in Paris as your "one route in (or out of) <S> " Paris would still be between Pamplona and Paris. <S> What you could not do is use a station in Pamplona to place trains from Pamplona to both Paris AND Brest. <A> The way I look at it, you have one path in and out. <S> When you go from Frankfurt to Brest, you travel East/West through Paris. <S> To travel to Madrid would require a South exit, so is not allowed. <S> Brest to Madrid would have you coming into Paris but on another route and not from Frankfurt, so that is not a valid scoring route. <S> Your logic is wrong. <S> However, you did say you required a way to convince others <S> that it is valid, <S> so... <S> The fact is, you don't need a train station to get from Frankfurt to Brest. <S> It is a complete route. <S> You are only "invoking" the train station to achieve the Brest to Madrid route. <S> One route = one way in and out, QED. <S> ;)
|
Only one route is ever chosen per station.
|
The Resistance doesn't work when resistance members don't care about losing Was playing a game of The Resistance with some people who haven't played it before. What I found, is that of the five games we played, the Resistance only won one of them. I think the reason for this, was a social dynamic of people not wanting to argue, and 'let's just get on with the game' so vote for the mission to go ahead, even though there's a good chance there's a spy on the mission. Are there any good strategies for getting people more vested in the outcome of the mission, or is this simply a matter of 'playing with the right people'? <Q> All games require people to be at least somewhat invested in playing properly, otherwise what's the point in playing in the first place? <S> I think the issue is made clear in your line about how there "was a social dynamic of people not wanting to argue, and 'let's just get on with the game'" - sorry, but arguing in The Resistance IS the game. <S> Without the discussion, it's just a game of voting. <S> It's already a short game (20-30 minutes), what is to be gained by rushing through it? <S> Sounds to me like the group <S> weren't that up for playing. <S> It is a game that requires the right group of people as you say. <S> Although I will add the caveat that lots of people I didn't think would be into it will often surprise you with how invested they get. <S> Some people will take at least one game to establish properly how it works and what opportunities are available (and yes, you may need to artificially inflate the drama a little by throwing some accusations around perhaps more than you normally would). <S> Some people however simply will not get it and won't get invested (my brother for example, couldn't understand why the spies would bother lying - which makes no sense, but whatever). <A> This problem doesn't seem specific to the game at hand, though of course, you'll probably find it easier to convince people you know to play a game seriously, or choose a game that they will enjoy and/or make the game enjoyable for others. <S> There are a number of reasons why people don't play games just to win: http://onigame.livejournal.com/34424.html <A> It is so small it could be considered a casual game, but it's complex enough it can be considered more advanced (not for beginner-boardgamers). <S> I personally find no interest in it - <S> and I love most board games - light or heavy. <S> I also run into the issue where I just don't really care who wins or not. <S> This is likely due to my preferences in gaming; this game just doesn't spark interest for me. <S> I love similar games to this - such as Battlestar Galactica - and I take that game very seriously. <S> I would think that the same is true for your other players; you have to find a game that everyone likes. <S> Even if friends say they like a game - you can tell if people are really having fun or not by how much they care about the win TL;DR: <S> Find a game everyone likes. <S> If people don't care about winning/losing, chances are they're not having fun with the game.
|
The problem with The Resistance is it really requires the right group of people to play with, and the right mindset.
|
New Bridge Partner and Etiquette I joined a duplicate bridge group and was matched with a partner; we are doing pretty well when it comes to points. Question: My partner sometimes criticizes not only me but also opponents, sometimes offers unsolicited advice, and is sometimes catty about other people playing in the room. What is correct way to address this? It is not constant an often subtle. Am I being overly sensitive or is this something that should be addressed by me or by the director? <Q> It's tough for the Type A personalities so often attracted to competitive games like Bridge, but all criticisms of partner should be reserved until after the match. <S> I suggest noting to your partner "Make a note of that hand, and we'll discuss it after the game. <S> " One or two violations per game, that accept such a comment with a positive attitude, can be tolerated in a partner - any more than two you should be looking for a new partner, as the problem will get worse not better. <S> If you partner persists in this behaviour during the game look for another partner, and report offenses to the director as they happen by calling him/her to the table. <S> Otherwise you are liable to get branded by other club members as a cohort of like mind. <A> This behaviour isn't acceptable, but it's not really your responsibility, particularly if you're relatively new to the club. <S> If you're feeling brave, you could mention it directly (and privately) to your partner, perhaps over a cup of coffee. <S> It may be that he or she has gradually fallen into bad habits, and genuinely doesn't see anything unusual, in which case a newcomer's viewpoint would be welcome. <S> It may be that simply saying "that makes me feel uncomfortable, so I can't concentrate on the cards" offers a way for both of you to save face. <S> If you don't feel like doing that <S> (and I reiterate that as a newcomer you should not appear to tell others what to do) speak to the director, or a committee member, privately. <S> Again, a cup of coffee before or after the session is the best time. <S> It may be (though unlikely) that this sort of behaviour is tolerated, in which case you either adjust or find another club; but at least you will know. <S> More likely, a quiet word from somebody your partner respects (old friend or doyen of the club) will be in order. <S> Even if it doesn't work, you have made it clear that you object to bad behaviour, and won't be tarred with the same brush if you wish to find a new partner. <S> For what it's worth, this has come up at my club more than once. <S> One person was grateful for a warning: one was too set in his ways to change, and now only plays with an understanding partner and is restrained by the director from criticising those who will take it badly: and one decided that (for that among other reasons) she would give up playing duplicate. <S> Make of that what you will. <A> It's basically "out of bounds" to criticize anyone in public at bridge. <S> This applies particularly to your opponents. <S> Nor would anyone reasonably want to do so (other than for ego purposes) because it helps the opponents play better. <S> Any criticism is best reserved for "in private. <S> " <S> A partner has the right to express "reservations" about your play (or vice-versa) when the two of you are alone. <S> That helps the two of you play better. <S> There is one situation where you need to "call out" your opponents, that is not "criticism. <S> " If you honestly believe that they are improperly "signaling" each other with voice intonations, body language, etc., or otherwise cheating, the person to bring it up with is the tournament director (the host in an informal "home" game), and let the "authority" warn or discipline the opponents. <S> As about what to do about a partner that criticizes people in public, give partner one or two warnings (in private), and then speak with the tournament director if this doesn't work. <S> Basically you want to stop, or disassociate yourself from this behavior.
|
All criticisms of anybody else in the room are out of bounds - give your partner one warning and then have a word with the director.
|
Chess: Efficient training for recreational players What is an efficient way to train one's self at Chess? I really enjoy playing, perhaps 1-2 times per week. I used to play on an electronic board once per day and at one point I could start to beat it on a regular basis. However, I find it extremely hard to improve myself, and the literature is vast . If I would like to get to the next level, what is a reasonable approach? Just continue playing, or is there a more systematic approach? Starting to memorize openings? Maybe that's overkill and there could be other things I might do first. I've just glimpsed into Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess, looks like reasonably leveled book. Any other suggestions? <Q> Chess.com has a tactical trainer which I've found very good. <S> It's available through their iPhone app as well as their website, although with a free subscription you're limited to 3 puzzles per day. <S> http://www.chess.com/tactics/ <S> Each puzzle and player has an Elo rating, and if you solve the puzzle then both the puzzle's and your own rating are adjusted, and you're given another puzzle of similar rating. <S> Aside from this, record your games and go back through and have your opponent point out errors. <S> When you're playing a game casually <S> and it's clear you're down in material and position position, just concede and start another game. <S> At that point you're just playing to hope your opponent slips up, which isn't a very good strategy. <A> This will: point out your errors, obviously, so you don't repeat them, over time, give a clear picture of where your consistent errors are, so that you can work on them with outside materials like books, and just as importantly, give you positive feedback when you play well! <S> In games involving chance this is even more helpful, to avoid the trap of doing what happened to work in the past (which may have been wrong, but which happened to result in good consequences). <S> Even in chess there is some degree of chance, in the sense that a blunder may go unpunished by a fallible opponent. <S> There simply isn't time to read every book, so you need to isolate the parts of your game that need a book most. <A> I don't know your level, but after learning basic tactics etc <S> so you don't blunder away material, and improving your experience in that area <S> , it starts being a matter of understanding positional advantages and disadvantages and strategies. <S> With regards to openings, always a thorn in the side for me. <S> So I would adopt certain favourite openings as black <S> I could use that I would know well enough what to do against the likely white moves, and what the continuation strategy would be. <S> Of course in friendly games I would practise different ones, in tournaments I would stick to the tried and tested. <S> As black the main aim in a tournament is usually not to lose rather than to win. <S> With white in a tournament, you have the advantage of going first, but what move do you play first? <S> If you start 1 e4 you let your opponent pick the response. <S> They'll probably choose Sicilian more often than not so know it, and also some of the other likely ones. <S> If you start 1 d4 there are fewer "variations". <S> As white, your usual aim is more to hope to win rather than avoid losing but it is important not to lose. <S> Of course if you study grandmaster games you'll know what openings have been commonly played and some of the positions it led to.
|
Continuing to play is good in that you get plenty of practice, but one thing I have found in other games is that is far more effective coupled with recording your games and then running them back through some form of automated analysis.
|
Single player variant of pandemic? Is it possible play the base version of Pandemic with one person? One thing I've consider is you could just play for four players with open hands. <Q> I'd probably play as four, as you said, since I think the game is pretty good with four, but you could certainly try it with three or two if you prefer. <S> I don't think the open hands are really a big deal. <S> You can already tell everyone all the cards in your hand all the time in the normal game, so it's not really a big leap to just play with open hands. <S> A lot of people just play with open hands despite the rules, because they want to just play the game, not waste time constantly asking everyone what's in their hands. <S> If you find that it makes it a little easier, just add an epidemic card. <S> If you have the In the Lab expansion, there's also an actual solo version of the game, using a single role and the CDC (which has its own special actions), which can be combined with whichever other variants you like (except the bio-terrorist, of course). <S> Up to you whether you prefer that or playing as multiple roles, but if you're looking at only the base game, you don't have much choice. <A> The iOS version of Pandemic is an excellent solo game. <S> The basic version plays identically to the standard 2013 board game, I believe: you play each of the four investigators in turn, each being able see everyone's cards. <S> There's an in-app purchase to get the option of playing with the On The Brink expansion. <S> In some ways it's a bit smoother to play than the physical board game edition: <S> setup is automatic, the interface is well designed, you can see the number of cards/cubes left at a glance, unavailable actions are greyed out, etc. <A> Pandemic is essentially a one-person game. <S> From a game theory perspective, the participation of multiple people is superfluous window dressing that doesn't change the essential nature of the game. <S> The difference between solo and multiple players is the social aspect and more people to bounce ideas off of. <A> A little late to the party, <S> but I've had good fun with " Infection Express ", which is a 1-2 player print-and-play game heavily inspired by Pandemic. <S> There are multiple versions, the first two being a little more random since they are based on dice, while version 3 is based on a standard 52-card deck.
|
Yes, for basically any no-hidden-information co-op game, including Pandemic, you can play by yourself, acting as the appropriate number of players.
|
Do you replace tokens moved to the Trade Route mat? With Trade Route in play, do you replace the coins on the victory cards after the first card is purchased? Example: I buy a Duchy and move the coin to the Trade Route mat. Do I put another coin token on the remaining stack of Duchies? Or is four the maximum number of coins on the Trade Route mat? <Q> You do not replace the coin tokens. <S> Remember that there potentially are other victory cards among the kingdom cards in the game, though, depending on what expansions you're playing with - like Gardens from the base game, and many others. <S> Why? <S> Because the card doesn't say to. <S> If you're ever having trouble with Dominion rules, just read the card carefully, and do exactly what it says in the order it says. <A> You do not replace them, but four is not the maximum number of coins: the kingdom may include victory cards like Harem, Gardens, or Feodum. <A> They're either on the Victory cards or on the Trade Route mat. <S> Remember that if you gain a card, you also transfer the token over to the mat. <S> Last <S> but not least, each Victory card, whether it's a starter card ( <S> e.g. Estate, Duchy, Province, Colony) or Kingdom card (e.g. Garden, Fairground, etc.) starts off with a token on it.
|
Trade Route tokens are never replaced. So with Colonies in the game, and no other extra victory cards, yes, four is the maximum number of coins on the mat.
|
Are +1/+1 counters different from +1/+1 effects? Is a +1/+1 counter I get from, say Unleash or Undying different than +1/+1 from something like Spear of Heliod or Master of Waves ? <Q> Yes, effects that grant +1+/1 are very different than +1/+1 counters. <S> For Spear of Heliod, you have a static ability with a continuous effect that grants +1/+1. <S> For Undying, you have a triggered ability with a one-shot effect that grants a counter that grants +1/+1. <S> Notice the difference between what grants the +1/+1. <S> It's the effect granting the +1/+1 in one case, and it's the counter in the other case. <S> This matters because the +1/+1 will only be granted as long as the granter exists. <S> The +1/+1 from the continuous effect will last as long as the continuous effect exists. <S> In the case of the effects from static abilities, that's as long as the card with the static ability is on the battlefield. <S> In the case of effects created by the resolution of a spell or ability, that's as long as stated (e.g. "until end of turn"), or indefinitely if a duration isn't stated. <S> The +1/+1 granted by the counter will last as long as the counter exists. <S> These normally go away when the permanent on which they reside ceases to exist, although there are cards that can manipulate counters (e.g. Clockspinning ), and granting a -1/-1 counter will cause both the +1/+1 and the -1/-1 counter to be removed. <S> Another difference is that counters are represented by physical objects (e.g. glass beads or dice used as counters), but effects aren't represented physically. <A> Counters are physical markers that can be added, removed, or moved around. <S> Effects that give +1/+1 are separate from the creature, and go away when the effect runs out or the permanent causing the effect leaves the battlefield. <S> The important difference here is the difference between one-shot effects and continuous effects . <S> A one-shot effect happens all at once, and then finishes. <S> Damage, card draw, life gain, and adding counters are all one-shot effects. <S> The important thing here is that the outcome stays around after the effect ends (well, damage gets cleared at the end of turns, but that's a separate rule). <S> This means that once a creature gets a counter, the counter stays on it until it dies or something else does something to the counter. <S> A continuous ability, on the other hand, usually has either a limited timespan or is tied to a permanent. <S> Spear of Heliod's first ability is a static ability creating a continuous effect. <S> Giant Growth also creates a continuous effect that lasts until the end of the turn. <S> In those cases, your creatures only get the +1/+1 (or the +3/+3) until Spear of Heliod leaves the battlefield, or until your turn ends in Giant Growth's case. <A> Yes, they are completely different. <S> A counter is a physical object that you place on your creature card to show that some effect is being applied. <S> In your example, both would have the result of increasing your creature's strength and toughness by 1, but counters have all sorts of things that interact with them.
|
Yes, +1/+1 counters are different from effects that give +1/+1.
|
Pandemic's difficulty seems to rest on the placement of the first epidemic card in the deck It's impossible to get an outbreak until the first epidemic has occurred. As such the placement of the first epidemic in the player deck has a large effect on the game. If near the bottom, it allows the players to go through several turns before the game starts become risky. At that point they may have already cleaned up most of the disease cubes and largely mitigated the risk. Now of course, having more epidemic cards in the deck increases the chance that one will be near the top. Also - if one isn't near the top, then it means that there's a higher concentration of later on. However this does still seem like quite an unkiltering dynamic of the game, where a large amount of how the game goes is down to luck. The question is - does this dynamic have a significant effect on the game, and how can it be mitigated? One option I've considered, is that you might shuffle all except one card into the player deck, and then take the top 10 cards off, and without looking, shuffle the last one in. So there's guaranteed to be an epidemic in the first 11 cards. <Q> According to the official instructions (page 3), the player deck is prepared by first splitting it into multiple piles of roughly-equal size (one pile per Epidemic card) and shuffling exactly one Epidemic card into each pile. <S> These piles are then stacked on top of each other. <S> So even in an easy 4-Epidemic game, there will guaranteed <S> be one Epidemic card in the top quarter of the deck (which, being a 59-card 57-card <S> 49-card <S> 48-card reasonably-sized deck, would be within the first 15 12 cards or so); this could be on the bottom of the top quarter, yes, but it's impossible for it to be anywhere near the bottom of the deck . <S> And even if it is on the bottom of the top quarter, it wouldn't affect the concentration of the remaining three at all, since they're shuffled independently into the second, third and fourth quarters of the deck respectively. <S> So far as concentration is concerned, the absolute worst case scenario is that you'll get two Epidemic cards in a row; one from the very bottom of its quarter, and the second from the very top of the next quarter. <A> It seems that you are not shuffling the location deck correctly. <S> You are supposed to split the deck as evenly as possible into piles, one for each epidemic, and ensure that there is one epidemic card in each of those four decks. <S> Shuffle these decks separately and then put them on top of each other to create the main deck from which you draw. <A> While an early Epidemic card can really heat things up and deprive you of the reprieve the group needs, the # of Epidemic cards and # of players are just as important. <S> In fact, playing with only 2p is roughly the equivalent of one difficulty level easier vs. 4p games. <S> For example, a 4p game with 4 Epidemic cards (Easy mode IIRC) is roughly the same as a 2p game with 5 Epidemic cards. <S> And make sure you shuffle the cards in piles, with each pile containing only 1 Epidemic card! <S> If some of the piles are a bit uneven, the rulebook tells you to arrange the smaller piles at the bottom of the deck, in your favor.
|
So while yes, exactly where the first Epidemic occurs in the deck could have a significant effect on how the rest of the game plays out, it's not near as problematic as you've presented as long as the deck is prepared properly.
|
Will Eidolon of Rhetoric also prevent Cipher from working in the same turn as another spell? Say Eidolon of Rhetoric is on the battlefield and an opponent has a Cipher card ( Hidden Strings for example) encoded on one of their creatures. If that player casts a spell and then deals damage with that creature in the same turn, would they be able to cast Hidden strings? Would it work because the Ciphered card turns additional casts into an ability or would it not work because the cipher ability says "cast"? <Q> Rule 101.2 says When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the "can't" effect takes precedence. <S> The cipher ability allows the player to cast a spell, and Eidolon of Rhetoric says that they can't cast any spells after their first each turn. <S> So, Eidolon prevents them from casting the spell. <S> From the Cipher rules, as long as the card is encoded on a creature, that creature has an ability that says Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, you may copy this card and you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost. <S> So, when the creature deals damage to a player, the player can make a copy of the spell, and then they can cast the spell just like they would cast any other spell except that when they pay the cost, they don't have to pay the mana cost. <S> This spell is affected by Eidolon of Rhetoric, just like any other spell <A> It doesn't matter whether the instruction to cast comes from an ability or from having priority. <S> They can't cast a second spell since they've already cast a spell. <S> As the saying goes, "can't trumps can" [1] . <S> This means Eidolon of Rhetoric's ability to forbid him to cast more than one spell per turn overrides any instruction to do so CR 101.2 . <S> The triggered ability granted by Cipher is as follows CR 702.98a : <S> Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, you may copy the encoded card and you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost. <S> You cannot obey the instruction to cast the copy. <S> When faced with an effect with a mandatory instruction that cannot be obeyed, you perform as much as the effect as possible CR 101.2 . <S> However, the instruction to cast is optional in the case of Cipher ("you may"). <S> As such, you are forbidden to chose to take the forbidden action CR 608.2d . <S> So all that happens is that a copy of the card is made if you so desire. <S> The copy ceases to exist immediately after CR 704.5e . <S> Doing things in the opposite order wouldn't help. <S> If he started his turn by attacking, he'd be able cast the copy of Hidden Strings, but he wouldn't be able to cast anything else in his second main phase for all of the same reasons. <S> "Can't trumps do" is more accurate, but not as poetic. <S> 101.2. <S> When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence. <S> 609.3. <S> If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible. <S> 608.2d <S> [...] <S> The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 120.3). <S> [...] <S> 702.98a <S> [...] “Cipher” means [...] <S> and “For as long as this card is encoded on that creature, that creature has ‘Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, you may copy the encoded card <S> and you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.’” <S> 704.5. <S> The state-based actions are as follows: 704.5e [...] <S> If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist. <A> Something that the other answers haven't really emphasized, but might be the key to your confusion: you said Would it work because the Ciphered card turns additional casts into an ability or would it not work because the cipher ability says "cast"? <S> Cipher does not "turn additional casts into an ability. <S> " What happens is that when the creature deals damage to the defending player, the cipher ability triggers, and then resolves, and while resolving it gives you the opportunity to copy the exiled card and cast that copy. <S> But you are still casting something. <S> In almost all respects this is just like any other instance of casting a spell: you pick targets, pay costs, and put it on the stack as normal, and anything that affects your ability to cast spells also affects this. <S> There are only two differences: (1) <S> the thing you're casting is a copy, so is not represented by a card, and <S> (2) it's being cast from exile, not from your hand. <S> Neither of those two things make a difference to Eidolon of Rhetoric, though. <S> (Hypothetically, if the Eidolon said "Each player can't cast more than one spell from his or her hand each turn," then it would make a difference, and the spell cast via cipher wouldn't count toward that limit of one.)
|
They cannot cast the ciphered spell because they've already cast a spell.
|
Why is this type of hesitation considered unethical? In two previous questions, it was clearly agreed that hesitating before playing a singleton specifically, and hesitating during play as a bluff generally constitute "wrongful/unethical hesitation." As an advanced beginner, I don't understand this rule at all. I know that at the highest level, the best way to play and not give away any information about your holding to the opponents is to play each card at a nice even tempo. I am not a world class player; I am not even an advanced player (if I endplay you, I promise it wasn't intentional). As such, I frequently need to pause and calculate what to play, even in situations where the correct play should be obvious. Knowing that I will inevitably need to pause and consider a play and that that pause will provide my opponents with the information that I had a potentially difficult decision to make, why is it considered unethical for me to occasionally insert a similar pause before a routine play? It isn't as if I could use such a pause to reliably signal something to my partner. In fact, this strategy removes the temptation for partner to draw unauthorized inferences from my pauses. <Q> If you routinely take 2-3 seconds before each play of the cards, that is ethical. <S> If, on the other hand, you usually play cards more quickly, take a pause when you have a problem, and sometimes take a pause when you don't have a problem to throw declarer off, this is unethical. <S> Even though your partner is not entitled to know when you have a problem, declarer is entitled to know. <S> Pausing in order to mislead declarer is called "coffee-housing. <S> " It is unethical because in bridge only your actual plays should mislead declarer. <S> It is related to the idea that you and your partner may not have secret bidding agreements. <S> Bridge is not poker; you are not trying to bluff your opponents based on your demeanor. <A> Bridge players derive pleasure from using their brains, be it a technical play, or some nice logic to read the cards perfectly, which includes inferences from opponents hesitations. <S> Allowing coffee-housing like invalid hesitations just destroys that pleasure, as now there is garbage thrown into the pool of inferences available. <S> That said, beginning players usually hesitate for no valid bridge reason, and many better players indeed try to take that into account. <S> Note that is very different from deceptive plays in bridge, where you deceive the opponents purely using the card you play (and not in the manner you play it), are completely ethical and quite a useful weapon. <A> It's related to the 'secret agreements' with partner in this way - Dummy has KJ. <S> Declarer leads toward it, and has a the AQ guess. <S> If you hesitate as if thinking of hopping up with the ACE, declarer will be fooled ( what else could you be thinking of?) <S> but your partner won't , he's looking at the ACE !! <S> Similarly, if dummy J43 of trumps and declarer, holding AK1076, leads the J and his right hand opponent hesitates as if he was thinking of covering with the Queen <S> ( what else could he be thinking of?) <S> then declare will be fooled but your partner can't be - <S> he's looking at the Queen!. <S> You were never at risk for fooling your partner.
|
If you usually play cards more quickly, but take a pause when you have a problem, that is ethical.
|
settlers of catan expansion: Can I trade with the bank during the special building phase? Can I trade four of a kind to the bank on my special building phase? <Q> If that rule did not exist, it would be very unlikely to have more than 7 cards in your hand. <S> Taken from the rules ( http://www.catan.com/files/downloads/settlers_5-6_rv_rules_100107.pdf ): <S> • <S> Special Building Phase <S> – Your opponents may build as outlined below. <S> The Special Building Phase occurs just after the end of your turn (i.e., between player turns). <S> All the other players may participate in the Special Building Phase. <S> Each player then takes his turn clockwise around the table, and is allowed to build anything he can create with his resources. <S> 3 Note that no player is allowed to play Development Cards during the Special Building Phase. <S> Also note that players are not allowed to do any trading with other players—nor are they allowed to use Maritime Trade—during this phase. <S> They may only use the resources they have in their hands. <S> For this reason, players are advised to trade as much, and as advantageously, as possible with the current player during his trading phase. <S> They will then have the resources they need to build during the Special Building Phase. <S> The Special Building Phase is an opportunity for all the other players (who are not currently taking their turn) to build roads, settlements, and cities, and/or to buy Development Cards. <S> This phase allows each player to influence the game, even though it is not his turn! <A> No, you can only trade with the bank in your own trading phase. <S> The special building phase is just for building! <A> No, you may not trade 4:1 with the bank during the special building phase. <S> As per the 5-6 player rule book : <S> Also note that players are not allowed to do any trading with other players—nor are they allowed to use Maritime Trade — <S> during this phase The 4:1 trade is defined under Maritime Trade in the base game rulebook : b) <S> Maritime Trade <S> You can also trade without the other players! <S> During your turn, you can always trade at 4:1 by putting 4 identical Resource Cards back in their stack and taking any 1 Resource Card of your choice for it. <S> If you have a settlement or city on a harbor, you can trade with the bank more favorably: at either a 3:1 ratio or in special harbors (trading the resource type shown) at 2:1. <S> Note that no trading with other players and no maritime trade means that no trading of any kind can take place during the special building phase. <A> I'm not certain there is a definitive answer to this based on the rule book quoted above. <S> The clause highlighted in the previous answer specifically prohibits "trading with other players," and does not specifically prohibit trading with the bank, as in a 4:1 trade. <S> Had the game manufacturers intended to prohibit "all trading <S> " then they would not have been so specific to prohibit just inter-player and maritime trade. <S> Furthermore, it could be argued that since you can "buy" DCs from the bank then the 4:1 transaction is also a "buy" rather than a trade since it's between the player and bank and not between two players. <S> Perhaps this is just an unintentionally ambiguous translation from the original German (I think) rules or it's just poorly written.
|
No, trading with the bank even with your ports (2:1, 3:1) is not allowed.
|
What happens if 2 separate abilities require you to sacrifice a creature? If i have two cards that force opponents to sacrifice every upkeep like for example Mogis God of Slaughter "At the beginning of each opponent’s upkeep, Mogis deals 2 damage to that player unless he or she sacrifices a creature." And Indulgent tormentor "At the beginning of your upkeep, draw a card unless target opponent sacrifices a creature or pays 3 life." Does the oppenent have to sacrifice twice? Or if they sacrifice Mogis's ability have they not allowed me to draw from indulgent tormentor? <Q> Note, however, that in your particular example, Mogis triggers only on your opponents' upkeeps and Indulgent Tormentor triggers only on your upkeep. <S> However, if we consider the case where you control two Indulgent Tormentors, it's still basically the same question. <S> And in that case, your opponent will have to sacrifice two creatures to stop you from drawing any cards. <S> More specifically, here's the order of actions: <S> As your upkeep begins, you choose who to target with each Tormentor trigger. <S> In the interesting case, they both target the same player. <S> Assuming nobody does anything else in between, the first triggered ability resolves. <S> Your opponent chooses whether or not to sacrifice a creature. <S> If they don't, you draw a card. <S> The second triggered ability resolves. <S> Your opponent again chooses whether or not to sacrifice a creature. <S> If they don't, you draw a card, independent of what happened in step 2. <A> They will have to sacrifice 1 creature for each ability that triggers. <S> So in this case, he would need to sacrifice 2 creatures to not lose life or let you draw a card. <S> When an event (such as the beginning of upkeep) causes multiple triggered abilities to trigger; those abilities are dealt with completely independently of each other. <S> As was pointed out in a comment; this is not relevant for your specific example, because in your example, each creature triggers at a different time; during different upkeeps. <S> But if you had 2 Mogis, God of Slaughters on the battlefield, your opponent would have to sacrifice 2 creatures at the beginning of his upkeep to not take damage. <S> Notice <S> that similarly, if you have a Mogg Fanatic , you cannot sacrifice it both to pay for its ability and at the same time count that as sacrificing a creature to prevent the damage or card draw. <A> Alice the Bully comes to you and says "I'll clobber you unless you give your lunch money. <S> " You give her your money to avoid the beating. <S> A few minutes later, Bob the Bully comes to you and says "I'll clobber you unless you give your lunch money. <S> " <S> Do you think telling him that you already gave it to Alice will help at all? <S> No. <S> Let's say you have two <S> Indulgent Tormentor on the battlefield, <S> and it's the beginning of your upkeep. <S> Each Tormentor's ability goes on the stack. <S> One of them resolves. <S> draw a card unless target opponent sacrifices a creature or pays 3 life. <S> The opponent you targeted now chooses to sacrifice a creature, to pay 3 life, or to do neither. <S> Then he either sacrifices a creature, loses 3 life or you draw a card. <S> It doesn't matter what other creatures he might have sacrificed or what other life he payed earlier in the game. <S> Then the other ability resolves. <S> draw a card unless target opponent sacrifices a creature or pays 3 life. <S> The opponent you targeted now chooses to sacrifice a creature, to pay 3 life, or to do neither. <S> Then he either sacrifices a creature, loses 3 life or you draw a card. <S> It doesn't matter what other creatures he might have sacrificed or what other life he payed earlier in the game.
|
Your opponent has to sacrifice a different creature to each effect to stop that effect from happening.
|
What do I say when an opponent asks if I'm "tapped out", especially if I still have a means of casting a spell? When my opponent asks if I am "tapped out" is it reasonable to assume they are referring to land only? Say for example my opponent goes to declare attackers and asks if I am "tapped out". I have no land available but 3 untapped white creatures on the field and and Devouring Light in my hand. I might mention them as blockers, but if they could not block his creatures for some reason I might just say yes. Would that be considered dishonest? What is the best way to answer this question? <Q> First, let me tell you about your obligations with regards to providing information. <S> There are three categories of information: free, derived and private. <S> Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents. <S> If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation. <S> Free information includes: [...] <S> The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object. <S> [...] <S> Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. <S> Derived information includes: [...] <S> Private information is information to which players have access only if they are able to determine it from the current visual game state or their own record of previous game actions. <S> [...] <S> Also, At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free. <S> If he's seeking to know which of your permanents are tapped, you are obligated to answer. <S> If he's seeking for more than that, you are only obligated to answer when Regular Rule Enforcement Level is in effect. <S> (This is the REL used at events such as FNM.) <S> Determining which of your permanents are lands or which of them have mana abilities is derived information. <S> Whether you are obligated to answer or not, all answers must be truthful and without omission. <S> On to your question. <S> Given that he didn't mention lands or mana, I see three alternatives. <S> You can could ask what he means. <S> You could overload him with information. <S> For example, "I have many untapped permanents. <S> J, K, L and M are untapped. <S> " For all you know, he's asking if you have any potential blockers. <S> If not, "Oh, you just wanted to know about land? <S> Dully noted. <S> " <S> You could misdirect while being fully truthful. <S> For example, "only non-lands aren't tapped". <A> " Then you can let them probe further if that's not what they meant. <A> Personally, the way I would respond to this question depends on what type of event I'm playing in (if any) and who I'm playing against. <S> I'd always interpret "tapped out" as referring to land. <S> At the kitchen table with friends, you might err on the side of providing ample information with a response such as "Yes, all my lands are tapped and I can't produce any mana." <S> Of course, you shouldn't say anything that indicates you can't cast any spells because that would be misinformation. <S> You're also not obligated to provide any information that indicates you can cast any spells, if your opponent wants to call your bluff he or she should do so in-game. <S> At a competitive event, your opponent may be asking this question because they can't tell whether or not your lands are tapped. <S> A truly sporting player probably isn't asking this question to trick you into revealing your hand, but rather to deduce what cards you may be representing by your board state. <S> In a competitive setting, "yes" is an ethical and honest response to the question.
|
In situations like this, it's probably best to just respond more specifically, and see if they ask anything else. They are likely asking about available mana, so you could say "I have no untapped lands" or "I can't tap anything for mana.
|
Does Phytotitan return to the battlefield when it first died and then was exiled? I have a question regarding Phytotitan , it's a 7/2 creature wich states: When Phytotitan dies, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control tapped at the beginning of his or her next upkeep. If Phytotitan dies and afterwards is exiled from the graveyard, does it still return to the battlefield? <Q> No, it won't return. <S> When Phytotitan dies, its ability triggers, and then when that ability resolves, it sets up a separate, delayed triggered ability that will automatically go off at the beginning of the owner's next upkeep. <S> That delayed triggered ability is "watching" the Phytotitan card in the graveyard. <S> If the card changes zones (such as by getting exiled), then the delayed triggered ability loses track of it, so when the delayed ability resolves, it won't find the Phytotitan and thus won't return it. <S> This applies even if Phytotitan is removed from the graveyard and then put back, by the way. <S> The delayed triggered ability only tracks the card as long as it stays put in the graveyard, and if the card is moved elsewhere, the ability stops tracking. <S> 603.7c. <S> A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. <S> However, if that object is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won’t affect it. <S> (Note that if that object left that zone and then returned, it’s a new object and thus won’t be affected. <S> See rule 400.7.) <A> No. <S> Every time a card or token changes zone, it becomes a new object [CR 400.7] . <S> There's an exception allowing the triggered ability to see the newly formed object in the graveyard [CR 400.7d] . <S> That's the only object the triggered ability can fetch back. <S> If the object ceases to exist because the card leaves the graveyard (even if it comes back), the triggered ability can't find it. <S> 400.7. <S> An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. <S> There are seven exceptions to this rule: <S> 400.7d <S> Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone. <S> This is summarized by CR 603.7c. <S> 603.7c. <S> A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. <S> However, if that object is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won’t affect it. <S> (Note that if that object left that zone and then returned, it’s a new object and thus won’t be affected. <S> See rule 400.7.) <A> When it enters the graveyard, the "return it to the battlefield under its owner's control tapped at the beginning of his or her next upkeep" goes on the stack. <S> If you react to it by exiling it from the graveyard, that resolves first, so it won't come back to the battlefield. <S> Same thing is true for example with creatures with undying or persist. <S> /edit <S> : When the ability resolves successfully, and it is exiled after that. <S> (I'm not 100% sure about this, about 99,9% sure)
|
It shouldn't matter if the card is still in the graveyard, since the card doesn't state it returns from the graveyard.
|
Do +1/+1 counters accumulate? This might be quite basic. I am just a beginner and searched through the web and the rule book and couldn't find the answer. For instance, Ajani's Pridemate lets you, Whenever you gain life, you may put a +1/+1 counter on Ajani's Pridemate. (For example, if an effect causes you to gain 3 life, you may put one +1/+1 counter on this creature.) Then does that counter(s) last across turns and accumulate making Ajani's Pridemate much stronger creature as the game progresses until it dies? Say, you have a staff that lets you Whenever you cast a black spell or a Swamp enters the battlefield under your control, you gain 1 life. Every turn you put down a Swamp you gain 1 life and hence Ajani's Pridemate gets another +1/+1 counter. It can even become like 2/2 + 1000*(+1/+1 counter) making it 1002/1002. Am I right? <Q> Yes it can. <S> Every instance if lifegain grants another +1/+1 counter. <S> So if you play 10 Swamps, you have 10 instances of lifegain, which grants 10 +1/+1 counters. <S> If you have a creature with lifelink which deals damage, you gain life, so Ajani's Pridemate gets a +1/+1 counter. <S> There is no limit to the amount of +1/+1 counters it can get. <A> In Magic things stay where they are unless instructed to move/remove them. <S> This why effects that grant temporary effects are worded with "until end of turn". <S> 611.2a <S> A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). <S> If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game. <S> (thanks ikegami for the rule <S> #) <S> Here's a specific rule dealing with your question: 118.9. <S> Some triggered abilities are written, "Whenever [a player] gains life, . . . . <S> " <S> Such abilities are treated as though they are written, "Whenever a source causes [a player] to gain life, . . . . <S> " If a player gains 0 life, no life gain event has occurred, and these abilities won't trigger. <S> Example: A player controls Ajani's Pridemate , which reads "Whenever you gain life, you may put a +1/+1 counter on Ajani's Pridemate," and two creatures with lifelink. <S> The creatures with lifelink deal combat damage simultaneously. <S> Ajani's Pridemate's ability triggers twice. <S> Note that the card doesn't even have to continue to be affected by the counters in order for them to stay: <S> See Raging Ravine <S> They'll have no effect until it becomes a creature again. <A> Yes. <S> It keeps them because nothing in your scenario removes them. <S> You didn't mention any abilities removing counters, so the only possible thing that could be removing counters are the rules. <S> There are only three instances when counters are removed from objects by the rules, and none of them are relevant to the current situation. <S> Dealing damage to a Planeswalker removes loyalty counters. <S> SBAs cancel out +1/+1 and -1/-1 counter pairs by removing them. <S> That's it. <S> Counters are never removed from objects except in those circumstances or by abilities that instruct you to move or remove them [1] . <S> Under normal circumstances, a counter are never removed from the object on which it is paced; it stays on the object until the object ceases to exist (at which point they cease to exist too). <S> 121.2. <S> Counters on an object are not retained if that object moves from one zone to another. <S> The counters are not “removed”; they simply cease to exist. <S> See rule 400.7. <S> This includes three keyword abilities that remove counters: Fading (fade counter) Suspend (time counter) <S> Vanishing (time counter)
|
Any +1/+1 counters put on Raging Ravine remain on it even after it stops being a creature. SBAs remove extra counters when a permanent has a limit to how many of a given kind of counters it can have.
|
Do strong Go players play simuls, like in chess? Do they ever play blindfolded? Strong chess players will often play a "simul," walking from board to board and making a move on each, taking virtually no time to select their moves, and forcing themselves to keep track of many games at once, while giving their opponents plenty of time while the strong player is moving on other boards. Strong players will also sometimes play "blindfold" games in which they are told where their opponent has moved but cannot look at a board to see where all the pieces are should they forget. Blindfold simuls are not unheard of. Do analogous exhibitions ever happen in Go? <Q> As Gregor explained, simultaneous games (sometimes abbreviated "simuls") are quite common at Go tournaments or exhibitions at which pros (or very strong amateurs) are present ( example ). <S> The teacher is often booked specifically for lessons and simuls, with prices typically ranging (very roughly) in the lower 3 digits (this is often one of the main cash sources for strong players living in the West). <S> The rules specific to simuls are, as far as I know, very similar to chess: <S> Pro walks from board to board, players have to move when (or possibly before) he arrives. <S> Blind Go in the sense of "no board in use" is virtually never practiced. <S> It is tough in chess, and almost impossible in Go: Even the strongest players cannot precisely remember the large (19x19) board, a notable exception being the Asian 6 dan amateur Bao Yun , who is said to compete almost as well in blind Go as with full vision. <S> There are many variations of "blind", though, for instance "Go for the visually impaired", which has eyes closed, but players are allowed to touch the board and feel the stones ( special boards and stones are used for this purpose, black and white have a different surface). <S> This is at times used in exhibitions (for instance I've seen it between a Japanese pro and a visually impaired Western amateur during the EGC 2011 in France, of which I sadly could not find the video), but very rare and not in conjunction with simuls. <S> More well known, however, is one color Go, in which both players use only stones of one color to play; they have to remember which stone belongs to which player. <S> This is incomparably easier than fully blind Go, most dan players should be able to do it at least on small boards. <S> If you're used to it, it's not difficult even in full-length <S> 19x19 (I, as a low dan amateur, often play this for fun). <S> Still, in simultaneous games, even one color Go is practically unheard of. <A> I know a 6-dan amateur who enjoyed bragging that he once beat a 6-p in an even game-- <S> but then he would qualify that the pro had been playing between 9 and 12 other games at the same time. <S> I haven't really heard of blind go. <S> I think the much bigger board would make this very difficult as compared to chess. <S> However, a variant that's similar in spirit is one-color Go , where both players will use the same stones and must remember whose stones are whose. <S> Sensei's Library has a list of other common variants. <S> (Note: I've linked to Sensei's library, but it seems the site is currently down for maintenance, expected to be back up tomorrow.) <A> While it existed, the New York City Go club would sponsor simultaneous games for its players with travelling pros from Japan. <S> When playing six or eight boards, the pros would typically give the amateurs one fewer stone of handicap than they would playing the same amateurs one on one. <S> The pros would always play solidly and professionally, taking advantage of amateur mistakes, but they had less time to devise "special tactics" to beat an amateur that was doing well than they might have in a one-one situation. <S> As far as I know, none of these games ever had the pro blindfolded. <S> It's much harder to keep track of 361 points on the board than of 64 squares. <A> Blindfolded go <S> games are rare as the board is much bigger than chess, but some do try it for fun: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjA2MzkxNTI=.html <S> it's performed by Bao Yun, a Chinese amateur player.
|
Professional Go players will often play simultaneous games with amateurs at events.
|
How should I determine whether a deck is legal in a particular format? I have a list of cards for a deck I want to build or buy. What should I do to check whether that deck is legal in a particular format (Standard, for example)? <Q> When checking whether a decklist is legal in a particular format, you should follow these steps: <S> Check that every card in your deck has a non-silver border or no structured border, rounded corners, and a normal card back, and that they are sleeved if you can tell any of them apart from the back. <S> Check that your deck follows the deck construction rules for your particular format. <S> Most formats follow the general deck-building rules laid out in the Comprehensive Rules 100.2-100.5 . <S> Some formats have additional constraints though. <S> Highlander , for example, requires that each deck have at least 100 cards (as opposed to the usual 60), and that you have only one of each card that's not a basic land. <S> Determine what sets are legal in your format , and <S> make sure that each card has been printed in a legal set. <S> The version of the card that you use doesn't have to be from one of those sets, as long as it was once printed in that set. <S> Standard, for example, only allows cards from the last couple of years (with some exclusions), but if one of those sets contains a card originally printed in Beta, you can play the Beta version. <S> Check <S> the ban list for your format and make sure that none of those cards are in your deck. <S> Check the restricted list (found on the same page as the ban list) for your format and make sure that your deck has no more than one of each of those cards. <S> Note that currently, only Vintage has a restricted list. <S> Websites exist that will help you determine your deck's legality automatically. <S> A few popular examples are: deckstats.net deckbox.org tappedout.net <A> On DeckStats.net: On Deckbox.org: <A> To add to Fueled's answer , you can also upload your decklist to tappedout.net , which will display the legality like this: <S> Note: <S> I added this as a separate answer instead of a comment since I don't (yet) have sufficient reputation to comment; I realise this is a rather brief answer.
|
You can upload your deck list to websites such as DeckStats.net or Deckbox.org and the deck's legality will be displayed.
|
Is there a site to play Go online against a computer? There are many go servers but all of them seem to be for player-player games. I want to play online against a computer. I found some but it is not an actual go. I was not able to find a real go brain online. Are there any at all? PS: In the end, I registered to KGS and later at WBaduk (but liked KGS much more) and I ended up playing against human players only. I found it much more fun than playing against a computer and since I tried it for the first time (online) I never went back to playing against the computer. <Q> On KGS, for example, they are marked with a computer icon, and there is a setting in the "automatch" for finding games with bots. <S> More details are available here: http://www.gokgs.com/help/faq/bots.html <A> Check out Cosumi , it plays around 8kyu in my opinion. <S> After the page loads just click on the HTML5 button, don't get scared by the Japanese symbols.. <S> If you browse their page a bit you can even find different modes regarding sizes or rules (for example one color go). <A> Online-go.com has two bots to play and you don't need an account. <S> The levels of the bots are 26 kyu and 13 kyu. <S> Also the bots are always available to play To challenge a bot: <S> Go to online-go.com click game lobby and chat on the sidebar. <S> Click new game which is located by the bottom left of the chat box <S> A popup will appear on your screen, click in the top left on the icon of the globe. <S> A dropdown menu will appear click on the option that says computer <S> You can then specify the game settings. <S> Click on Challenge and enjoy!
|
Some Go servers allow computers to "log in" and play just like regular users.
|
International Checkers - winning strategy for 3 [4] kings vs 1 king Is there any winning strategy in International Checkers for 3 or more kings vs 1 king? I've reached a draw because the opponent was moving his single king on the diagonal from one end to another, and I could find no way to stop him doing so and made a trap for the king. <Q> The answer by @RemcoGerlich is essentially correct. <S> Some extra info below. <S> For further reference see the Dutch book Drie tegen een is gemeen , that contains a mathematical proof that 3 vs. 1 kings is a draw (which predates the age of perfect knowledge endgame databases by almost a decade!). <S> The answer depends crucially on both the board geometry and the king movement. <S> For short-ranged kings ( American checkers and Italian draughts ) 2 kings can force a win against 1 king. <S> The same applies for orthogonally capturing kings ( Frisian draughts ) and kings that need to end a jump immediately behind the last jumped piece ( Thai draughts ). <S> For long-ranged kings, on square boards larger than 8x8 ( <S> 10x10 <S> International and 12x12 Canadian draughts ), 3 kings against 1 king is a draw but 4 kings can always force a win. <S> On an 8x8 board (e.g. American pool checkers and Russian draughts ), it is a win if the majority side occupies the long diagonal, and a draw otherwise. <S> The key position is called Petrov's triangle (in Russian, use a browser translator): <S> On rectangular boards of dimensions N <S> x <S> (N ± 1) , N <S> x (N ± 2) and N <S> x (2 N - 1) , there are two single corner diagonals that allow special tactics to enable a 3 vs. 1 forced win. <S> In International draughts, the 3 vs 1 drawn engame is seen as the main culprit for the >90% drawing percentage at grandmaster level matchplay. <S> Many game tweaks have been proposed. <A> 3 kings vs 1 king is usually not enough for force a win, because (as you discovered), you can't catch a king that can safely stay on the main diagonal. <S> A game is also a draw if only king moves are played for 25 consecutive turns. <S> With four kings against a single king, there are various ways to trap the king on the long diagonal; this page shows a few (the bottom four diagrams). <S> I must admit I don't understand the last one <S> , I don't really play this game... <A> "Killer draughts" solves this problem. <S> It is a variant of International Draughts. <S> The only difference is the following: if the last captured piece is a Dame, the captor must stop at the immediate next cell after the last jumped piece. <S> This serves to reduce the drawishness of the game, since it means that two Dames will win against a lone Dame. <S> http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/killerdraughts.htm <S> See also this link. <S> The same rule can be implemented in Pool checkers, etc. <S> http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/checkersvariants.htm <S> M. Winther
|
The rules say that 1 king vs 1 king (where neither king is immediately lost) is an immediate draw; 2 kings (or a king and a piece) vs 1 king is a draw if no captures occur within five moves, three kings (or two kings and a piece, or one king and two pieces) vs 1 king is a draw if no captures occur within 15 moves.
|
Is it always better to play a knight immediately? I'm fairly new to Settlers. I was playing online last night and drew a Knight card. The robber was already on a tile that had two of the game leader's cities attached. I had few resource cards at the time, so I wasn't close to being able to get something I needed, so I saved it for a few turns. When I finally played it, the other player went off on me for not playing the knight sooner. Also, no, I did not already have two other knights, so it would not have gotten me the largest Army token. So my question is this: Is it always better to play the knight immediately, or can it make more strategic sense to play save it? <Q> Simple answer is no, it is not always in your best interest to immediately play a knight when you get one. <S> In all truth I would say that it is better to hold onto it for a while unless the robber is currently in a position that is hurting you. <S> By holding onto it you accomplish two things, first you keep protection for yourself allowing you to move the robber if it moves to a bad place for you. <S> Second it allows you some time to make sure you optimize use of the card. <A> Its almost always better to save the knight and NOT play it immediately. <S> You can play the knight when the robber is blocking one of your settlements to unblock it. <S> You can even do this before you roll the dice on your turn. <S> Having an unplayed knight as a threat can convince a player who rolled a 7 to place the robber elsewhere rather than somewhere that blocks your settlement, as if he blocks your settlement, you'll play the knight to move the robber to block his settlement. <S> There are only a couple of times you want to play it immediately when doing so will prevent another player from winning by denying them the largest army when you already have other unplayed cards, as you can only play one card per turn. <A> The best time to play a knight is NOT necessarily immediately. <S> One example was the one you cited, that you should wait for more knights to get the largest army, if that was your ticket to victory. <S> Another case is where the robber is on a hex that hurts you a "little," and hurts your leading opponent "more." <S> In that case, your best interests are served by "hurting your opponent more" and not playing the knight. <S> Sure, if the robber is on a hex that costs you, and no one else, critical resources, then you might want to play the knight immediately. <S> Catan is something of a "curved" game where how much you advance is no more, or less important, than preventing other people from advancing. <S> The person that complained about your not playing the knight at once either didn't understand that, or perhaps was trying to distract you from playing according to that understanding.
|
And lastly if the robber is in a place that hurts your opponents and not you that is great reason to not play the knight.
|
How do I deal with or avoid a full map? I played a game of power grid with 6 players using the map of Italy, with one zone removed. In step 2, I had power plants to produce electricity for 11 (6-4-1) houses with cheap resources, and built 13 houses, preparing to end the game (14 houses) once a suitable plant is in the market. However, one of the players had plants to power 15 houses, so I didn't buy a 4-house plant in the market, fearing that once I bought it, he would build up to 15 houses immediately to win the game (he had 11 houses at that time), and waited for better plants. Afterwards, step 3 was entered. My player order was 2 at that time. I bought a 6-house plant, replacing the 1-house plant, preparing to end the game with 16 houses, fully powered. However, the other players had filled in all the cities in the map immediately, with no more space left, making me unable to build the 3 additional houses to win the game. Is this a rare scenario? Can this happen when everyone plays the game normally? Should I instead try to end the game earlier when I already had 13 houses? <Q> If all the cities on the map have been filled in (35 cities in 5 regions), then SOMEONE will have built 14 cities and so the game ends -- 13 cities each for 6 players is only 78 of the 105 available places. <S> Its not necessary for a player to be able to power all 14 cities -- they just have to build them to trigger the end of the game. <S> The player who powers the most cities at the end of that turn (even if it is less than 14) wins. <A> This is a real possibility, especially for 6-player games. <S> This happens because there are the same number of cities on most maps in a 5-player game and a 6-player game. <S> This crunch is somewhat mitigated by only having to build to 14 to end the game. <S> If you are the only one in lots of different cities during step 2, you should try to get into other places so this doesn't happen, particularly if you are near the front in turn order, even if it might be a bit more expensive. <S> I would say, however, that this scenario is uncommon. <S> I've seen it happen only once or twice in all my plays of Power Grid. <A> The game is designed such that it will end if all city slots are bought. <S> Additionally, it's just about who can power the most cities, not who has built in the most cities, or even who can power more cities than the end-game threshold. <S> If the map filling up is something you are concerned about, buy cities in advance. <S> Doing so means you have less money (bad for opportunity cost) and are earlier in turn order (bad for a number of reasons), but guarantees you will get the cities you want at favorable prices. <S> Buying more cities than you can power can be a strategic move for a number of reasons, including you can buy them cheaply enough now to make it worth it. <S> For example, let's say that on the one of side of you are a set of cities developed by players A and B and on the other side are cities developed by a mix of players C, D, and E. <S> In this case, you probably want to buy a more expensive city that has been developed by C+D rather than a cheaper city developed by A+B because you are actively competing with E for the C+D city, where you can come back to the A+B cities later.
|
Another possibility is to buy cities that are more expensive but leave you more expansion options.
|
Do creatures who come into play tapped have summoning sickness? If I play Leviathan (and we know he comes into play tapped) and have a Puppeteer or something out to untap him, am I prevented from sacrificing the two islands and attacking the turn he came into play? In other words, if a creature comes into play tapped and you untap it, does it still have summoning sickness preventing it from attacking? <Q> Yes, it has summoning sickness like every other creature. <S> If you want to attack with your Leviathan the turn it enters the battlefield you'll also need to give it haste. <A> Even if you untap your creature it will still have summoning sickness. <S> According to Comprehensive Rules: <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. <S> That means that your creature has 'summoning sickness' from the first turn you control that creature until your next turn. <S> EDIT: <S> I misunderstood this rule a bit, I thought that a creature summoned during opponent's turn (creature with Flash ability for example) would have summoning sickness until their controller's subsequent turn, but summoning sickness is gone as soon as creature is on the battlefield at his controller's upkeep. <A> Yes, it will be unable to attack. <S> Summoning sickness is an informal term describing the restrictions imposed by 302.6. <S> It doesn't matter how the player gained control of the permanent. <S> It could have been placed on the battlefield as the result of casting it. <S> It could have been placed on the battlefield as instructed by a spell or ability. <S> A continuous effect could have given control of an existing permanent to you. <S> It could have reverted to your control by the end of a continuous effect giving control of an existing permanent to someone else. <S> Nothing else matters. <S> Specifically, untapping doesn't end or suppress summoning sickness. <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. <S> 702.10b <S> If a creature has haste, it can attack even if it hasn’t been controlled by its controller continuously since his or her most recent turn began. <S> 702.10c <S> If a creature has haste, its controller can activate its activated abilities whose cost includes the tap symbol or the untap symbol even if that creature hasn’t been controlled by that player continuously since his or her most recent turn began.
|
A complete definition of summoning sickness is: Whenever a player gains control of a permanent, it will be affected by summoning sickness whenever the permanent is a creature without haste, until the player loses control of the permanent, or until the player's next turn (whichever comes first).
|
Did this player need to draw? We've just played a game of Fluxx, where the following occurred. There was a Draw3 and a Poor Bonus in play, so this player got to draw 4 cards. He then removed the Poor Bonus and changed the Draw3 to Draw4. Option A: Since he raised the number of drawn cards, he needed to draw an extra. Option B: Since the resulting rules require 4 drawn cards and he already had drawn that many he did not need to draw another. So which one is it? <Q> Option A, the player should draw an extra card. <S> Here's why: The Poor Bonus happens at the start of a player's turn. <S> Since the player already drew for Poor Bonus, and removed the Poor Bonus after the draw, that card is fully resolved. <S> But the Draw X cards always say to draw extra cards during a turn, so the player would need to draw one more card to meet that rule change. <A> I would say option A. <S> The card drawn from poor bonus is described as an "extra card", so I don't think you would think of it as "poor bonus is in play, so for me, draw 4 is really draw 5. <S> " <S> Rather, it's "draw 4, then draw an extra card". <S> However, I do not believe this is something that is specifically addressed in the rules, so you would either need to email Looney Labs for an official answer, or decide what makes the most sense for you when playing. <A> Poor Bonus would not affect this. <S> Poor Bonus gives him an extra card, not affecting the normal Draw amount.
|
Draw 3 was changed to Draw 4 during his turn, therefore, he should draw an extra card.
|
What's a fair handicap? I really enjoy the Game-Of-Thrones board game. (We only own the first edition, so no ports or siege engines etc.). My wife and friends tend to enjoy it also, well they used to. The problem is that currently, every time we play the game I always win. I've tried playing whomever I think is the weakest army but that doesn't seem to help much. And by always win, what I mean is that a turn ends, and generally, I take the last castle, or they look at the board as the turn starts and see that no matter what they do, I'll get the last castle. They are normally only 1 or 2 castles behind me. Is there some handicap I can give myself which will still make the game enjoyable but also even the odds a bit? <Q> Take away a single unstarred order token from your set. <S> Which one depends on how much handicap you think is needed. <S> A huge handicap would be to remove a march token. <S> A big handicap is to remove a support token or a defense token. <S> If you find those handicaps too hard on you, you can also try playing without an order token for a few turns (say, 3-5 turns) and then getting them back. <S> Or, maybe, play the first 3 turns without a march token, then 1 turn without each one of the remaining tokens, then with all of them. <S> This will make the game much harder to you, but then you'll not need to feel bad about doing your best against your opponents. <S> Something I do when I'm teaching the game is, for the first 3 rounds, play my orders facing up and explain the strategy. <S> This shows players some possibilities they did not understand they could do and open their minds to new tactics. <S> You can't do that for too long though, specially in games with more than 4 players. <A> Though we haven't tried it, it would seem the power tokens would be the way to go. <S> Try some generous amount and see if the game starts swinging : it certainly should, once the player they are given to takes all the positions on the tracks, as longs as the player understands the rules and is not attacked ruthlessly in the beginning by the others. <S> Another tactic to be considered, employed by go-players where a strong player playing a significantly weaker opponent, is for the better player to attempt to win by as small a margin as possible. <S> Making intentionally some mistakes and suboptimal moves, and gauging the situation to allow the weaker players more 'life'. <S> AGOT is a pretty complex game and so much depends on how the others are playing, like if you get stuck fighting your neighbour and nobody pays attention to the guy peacefully expanding his power, and so forth, that one more tack might be to allow for more diplomacy, perhaps even encourage somebody to team up with the weaker player to start with, or to play an 'open game' where tactics are discussed as the game progresses. <A> The best way to get a good handicap going is to attack ruthless and try and make the other players ban together to stop you. <S> ( this works best with lanister since no one like them in the first place) <S> this can give you a huge handicap if you are playing with a 4-6 player game <S> and I can assure you that if your fighting 5 players by yourself, then your going to lose.
|
A significant handicap would be to remove a consolidate power or raid token.
|
Can you trump the first trick in Spades? I just played a game of Spades with some family. The Ace of clubs was led on the first trick, and I was out of clubs. Needing quite a few tricks, I chose to trump. My fellow players instantly responded with complaints about a rule that the first trick cannot be trumped. Obviously, house rules can always be in play. My question is whether this is a common rule to play by, or if this is relatively unheard of. I've been unable to find any sources online that indicate forbidding this action. Is this a common rule to play by? Mainly I'm looking for grounds for opening the next game with stating explicitly, "Trumping the first trick is legal, as long as you meet the normal requirements," hopefully adding, "That is the way almost everyone plays," to avoid this sort of dispute again. <Q> It's hard to say exactly how common it is; for what it's worth I think most people I've played spades with used it. <S> But I haven't found it listed as an actual rule in any of the versions of the rules I've found. <S> So sure, you could call it "just" a house rule, but at the same time, there are obviously people out there successfully playing spades with it. <S> So can you? <S> Depends who you play with. <S> And honestly, even if we could take a quick representative poll, it doesn't matter that much what most people do. <S> It matters how you and your family want to play. <S> If you want to try to talk them into your version, go for it. <S> Or you can just play their way; it's not going to drastically warp the game. <S> The real problem you had this game was that different people had different versions of the rules in their head, and you didn't find out until you were actually playing, not necessarily that anyone's version was clearly right or wrong. <S> You can avoid the dispute simply by settling on a rule before you play; no need to get into a big argument about what the correct rules are, or annoy anyone by flat-out stating that your rules are the rules. <A> No trumping the first trick is an unpopular and bad house rule . <S> A strong indication that this rule is not popular can be found in the big online Spades sites that do not offer this house rule: Spades Royale , Spades plus and Spades free . <S> (and they do offer tons of variants to choose from such as: Jokers, Nils, Boston, Break spades, bags penalty) <S> The rule make sense in Hearts, there without this rule some one can receive the spades queen and "lose the round" on the first trick. <S> however in Spades at most someone will lose a trick that she counted on. <S> Using this rule will add a luck factor: if you are void in a single suit you wouldn't know if you have 3 possible ruffs or only 2 because this suit will be played on the first trick. <A> I have never heard of the "No trump on first trick" rule. <S> I've heard that you can't lead with spades until they've been broken (trumping someone else's trick). <S> Can you? <S> Have to agree with Jefromi's response on this one. <S> But your idea going forward would help alleviate any stress mid-hand. <S> You could also announce all other house rules (if any) before dealing the first hand. <S> I usually deal the first hand, and while I'm shuffling I go through the rundown, even with people I have played with before. " <S> First hand bids itself, Joker-Joker-Deuce-Ace for high spades, blind 6 after you're down 100 points" and so on. <A> Typically, both in Spades and Hearts, I've seen the "no trump on first trick" rule used if and only if the "must lead Clubs on first trick" rule is in place. <S> This keeps wisacres from setting up a forced situation. <S> Personally, I prefer to allow the opposite rule pair, i.e. no restrictions on (non-trump) suit leads for the first trick, and trump/dumping allowed on the first trick as well. <S> But the overarching rule is: make the rules clear before the first deal. <S> Otherwise gunfire may result (Han shot first :-) )
|
No trumping the first trick is definitely a house rule, insofar as rules for the game actually exist (there are no official ones).
|
What's the most intuitive way to use a die for a pass/fail test? I'm working on a board game for general, non-gamer audiences. (Think people who have played Monopoly and Uno , but not Risk or Settlers of Catan .) Sometimes the player faces a test with only two outcomes: pass or fail (with some consequence). Success and failure are both equally likely. What's the most intuitive, non-gamer—friendly way to use 6-sided dice for a pass/fail test? There are a number of possibilities that result in a 50% chance of success, such as: Roll a die. Even: pass. Odd: fail. Roll a die. 1/2/3: pass. 4/5/6: fail. Roll a die. 1/2/3: fail. 4/5/6: pass. Roll a black die and a white one. Black>white: pass. White>black: fail. Black=white: roll again. So far, I've been quite surprised to see how easily non-gamers can be confused by simple board game mechanics, so I'm trying to come up with something as non-surprising as possible. (Replacing the die/dice with another object, such as a deck of cards or a spinner, would be too expensive for this particular game.) <Q> Whatever non-expert game you play (Monopoly, snakes and ladders, etc.), rolling a 6 is good, rolling a 1 is bad. <S> So I'd say "You win if you roll a 4 or more" is the most intuitive way to speak to a non-gamer. <A> Succeed on a roll of 4+. <S> Unequivocal and plain English. <A> If you have an eye toward a professional-quality build of the game eventually, you might want to look into laser-etched dice.. <S> but this doesn't necessarily help you in the prototyping phase. <S> Take a look at Zombie Dice, for instance. <S> Each face is either pass, fail, or neutral; and there are three different colored dice, each with different probability distributions. <S> If you want the most intuitive design, having each face be either a green checkmark or a red X would be your best bet, I think. <S> But... If it truly is always a 50/50 chance of success, maybe you're starting with the wrong assumption. <S> Why does it have to be a die roll? <S> In this case, why not flip a coin? <S> The downside here is that if you boil things down to literally a coin toss, players may become aware of how big a luck swing they are being subjected to. <S> If they have no way to mitigate a 50/50 chance, and the game is made up of a series of 50/50 chances, they probably aren't going to like the game very much. <S> Make sure your design has sufficient choice outside of those chance encounters.
|
Heads - good, tails - bad is perhaps the most intuitive interface for a 50/50 chance.
|
Can you play a new player game of Carcassonne w/o farms? I've taught Carcassonne to a number of new players (it's a great "gateway game")! However, the problem that I keep having is with the farmers. Players are able to quickly grasp the idea of putting meeple thieves on roads, soldiers in cities, and monks on monasteries. But the farmers and their farms confuse the heck out of them during their first game. Generally they are confused about the mechanics of how they work or they don't see their utility. Thus any experienced players surge ahead because the new players just don't understand farms. If I get to play a second game with these new players, they have a better grasp on how farms work and can usually use them effectively, but this is a pain point of the first game. A friend of mine suggested possibly playing the first game with no farms (giving these new players time to focus on the other mechanics and preventing experienced players from taking advantage of their confusion over farms), then adding in farms for a second game. What sort of issues might appear if we removed farms in the first game? Would it still be playable? And would this be an effective way of alleviating the trouble we have had with teaching how to use farms? <Q> You could do, the game would work perfectly well without farmers. <S> I would argue against it because this still leaves the new players in a position where they don't see farms being used and don't see how they can score highly if placed well despite the long-term sacrifice of a piece. <S> In my experience with teaching Carcassonne, players tend to go very quickly from not understanding how they work, to playing too many farmers too early, then getting a good grasp within a few games. <S> Just be patient. <A> A couple points of advice here - 1) <S> One easy way to teach the farm mechanic is to run through a sample game of perhaps 5 turns. <S> Make sure to drop a farmer or two during this sample and at the end go through the scoring process. <S> This will get you to the "aha" moment that people have about farmers much more quickly. <S> 2) the game can certainly work without farmers, although it makes the game less interesting for veterans. <S> If you are not going to use farmers, I would remove two meeples from each player's supply, since you will no longer be committing meeples to the board permanently. <S> This will maintain some of the scarcity decisions that have to be made regarding occupying card features. <S> One of the more interesting tradeoffs in the game is deciding how many farmers to commit to the fields at the cost of being able to place more often into short term gains. <A> Just to add my 2 cents, I taught the game to my kids (when they were 9). <S> Everything was easy, except how to explain to them the concept of farms. <S> After a few games without any farms, I let them put some meeples inside a field after the game was finished so they could understand how farms work. <S> Now they are playing with farms, but they are not very good with them... <S> The game is not really unbalanced without farms, it's just a little more about luck. <A> When I play Carcassone with new players, I give them a two meeple advantage, usually by having the experienced players (which is often just me) play without two of my meeples. <S> This helps take away the big advantage experienced players have in knowing how farms work because they can't farm as aggressively (or else they will have no meeples left for cities/monasteries). <S> This handicap is big enough that a new player can often win with proper rules explanation, which is good in my book. <S> People tend want to play a game more if they feel they did well in their first game of it. <S> These options can also be combined. <S> You could play without farms, giving new players 5 meeples and experienced players 3. <A> Of course it would still be playable! <S> It would have a different balance, but it may even be better for newer players: experienced players would have to re-evaluate their strategies, which may put everyone on a slightly more even setting. <S> Why not just try it? <S> I mean, what's the worst that would happen? <A> When I learned, I think someone forgot to tell us about farms (or maybe omitted it intentionally). <S> The game seemed to go fine without them. <A> I consider the first game a learning game. <S> Not teaching/playing the farms merely postpones it. <S> I think the only way to really understand them is to use them and show. <S> I also spend a lot of time giving advice to new players (depending on how fast they seem to be picking it up). <S> The hardest part I've found is try trying teach them where they can play farmers because of the connected fields or if it is unlikely to ever touch even a single city. <S> If you just want everyone to feel they are doing well, then go ahead and skip them. <S> However I would consider asking everyone about the house rule before going ahead with it.
|
If you wanted to play without farms, I would suggest having everyone play with two fewer meeples, so that new players learn how to work around through a constrained of meeple situation.
|
Do you need more to "pre-empt" with a major, than a minor suit? When I pre-empt at say, the three level, I am doing so with a "lopsided" hand that has relatively few points and is long in one suit (and short in two or three others). Under the circumstances, if the remaining high card points and "lengths" are distributed evenly between my partner and two opponents, I expect that my opponents will be able to make ten tricks in their longest suit. If I pre-empt with a minor suit, there are two chances out of three that my opponents' "longest" suit will be a major, for which ten tricks represents game. If I pre-empt with a major, the chances are only one out of three that my opponents have a major suit game. If my partner has the three to four defensive tricks needed to defeat a ten-trick contract, I'll (probably) make my bid. If partner has "no defense," the opponents may make a slam. So I don't mind going down one trick, or even two doubled, (except when vulnerable versus not), if my opponents' ten tricks represent game most of the time. But I do, if those ten tricks represent game only a minority of the time. Are there any systems or experts that say that you need "more" (either tricks or points) to preempt with a major than a minor suit, because you need to go down "less?" <Q> This fit doesn't have to be their longest suit, and the hand will often play for more tricks if it isn't. <S> As a matter of systemic agreement the opponents will often choose to play in an eight-card major fit regardless of other hand features, unless a running side suit with stoppers has been identified. <S> So no, no-one suggests that you need more to pre-empt in a major than in a minor (at the three level). <S> That 3-level <S> pre-empts in a major may typically be made on stronger hands than in a minor is because the top=end of minor preempts tend to open a Gambling 3NT instead. <A> No, not really. <S> When you preempt, you're trying to make it more difficult for your opponents to make a decision. <S> Opponents have game in a suit less frequently when your suit is a major instead of a minor, but eg when you bid 3S, one of the opponents is going to have to make an immediate decision about the viability of 3NT <S> (what do you do in second seat holding a 14-count with Axx in spades?). <S> Major-suit preempts take away more bidding room, so even as opponents will have fewer games, they'll have a harder time diagnosing the fact. <A> There is something to be said for demanding a better quality suit for pre-empting in a minor in front of partner, only so that, with a good hand, partner is better judged to place the contract in 3NT. <S> With a major partner is more likely to place the contract in 4 of your major. <S> If partner has, say, Kx in your minor and enough outside, he might be able to rely on running your minor for tricks. <S> So this actually goes against your theory of needing less. <S> In particular, if you have a "weak 2" in a minor you cannot open at a level of 2 you might open it at a level of 3 non-vulnerable 3rd in hand and hope to get away with it.
|
If you are pre-empting in 3rd seat there is a case for being a lot more flexible, regardless of what your suit is. Your statistical analysis is completely wrong: As a preempter, your shortness in unbid major(s) increases the likelihood of opponents having an eight-card major fit.
|
Putting cards into your hand while the top of library is revealed Anthony has Courser of Kruphix on the field. He begins resolving Dig Through Time . While Dig Through Time is resolving, must the top card be kept separate from the other six? I'm thinking that Anthony's opponent should know what happens to the top card because it is revealed. What I don't understand is how a judge could enforce this. Anthony could easily shuffle the cards around in his hand before choosing two of them (and in practice, most people who I've seen cast Dig Through Time do mix up the cards before finally settling on two of them). What I think the rules allow for ( emphasis on the part I made up ): Anthony leaves the top card revealed and separate while browsing through the other six, which remain hidden. He chooses two out of the seven and puts them into his hand. If Anthony chooses the top card, his opponent will know because it was kept revealed and separate. I'm playing this deck at an invitational in two weeks and I need to know how to do this properly so that I can give the least amount of information to my opponents while not cheating. <Q> Actually, I would argue that Anthony's opponent should not know where the revealed card ends up. <S> When you manipulate cards in a hidden zone, what happens is not free or derived information. <S> See rule 400.2 (emphasis mine) 400.2. <S> Public zones are zones in which all players can see the cards' faces, except for those cards that some rule or effect specifically allow to be face down. <S> Graveyard, battlefield, stack, exile, ante, and command are public zones. <S> Hidden zones are zones in which not all players can be expected to see the cards' faces. <S> Library and hand are hidden zones, even if all the cards in one such zone happen to be revealed. <S> So I would think while resolving Dig Through Time , and supposing <S> X is on top of the library, the steps are: <S> (1) Look at the top seven cards of your library. <S> [X is revealed at this point] <S> (2) Put two of them into hand and the rest on the bottom of the library in any order. <S> [flip X over, perform this action, then reveal the new top card of the library] Since the choices made for (2) above do not fall under the categories of free or derived info (library is still a hidden zone, see 400.2 above), I don't see why Anthony's opponent should know what happened to X. <A> Moving a card is an action that affects the game state. <S> You can't say "I moved the card, but I'm not telling you to where" because "details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state" are free information. <S> Initially, Dig <S> Through Time has you look at seven cards, not <S> draw them. <S> As such, they don't leave your library at this time. <S> Later, you move them to your hand or to the bottom of your library. <S> This is when the cards are revealed. <S> As such, the opponent knows where the card ended up. <A> You do not have to set the revealed card aside or reveal whether it goes to your hand or your graveyard. <S> The MTG Tournament rules lists the following as free information: <S> Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state. <S> The name of any visible object. <S> The type of any counter in a public zone. <S> The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object. <S> Player life totals, poison counter totals, and the game score of the current match. <S> The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active <S> And it additionally lists the following as derived information (which is free in Regular REL) <S> : <S> The number of any type of objects present in any game zone. <S> All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information. <S> Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. <S> Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them. <S> and, the most important rule here <S> Any information that is not free or derived is automatically private information <S> This means that free and derived information together are everything your opponent is entitled to know. <S> Once you have finished resolving the spell, your opponent has to know what card ends up on top of the library. <S> But the most important point here is that you are not required to show your opponent the actual card while you are resolving the spell.
|
While you are resolving the spell, you must tell your opponent the name of the card that is currently on top of your library (since you are only looking at the cards, it is the card that was revealed before you started resolving it).
|
Must a player disclose what deck they are using before play? Our family is just learning this game. We were wondering if each player typically announces which deck they are using beforehand. If yes, in how much detail? I could not find anything in the rules about this but wondered if there's standard etiquette around this in casual play. In our starter games, one player sometimes feels surprised and annoyed the other player made changes to their deck without announcing it. <Q> Mostly no, but it depends. <S> First, here's a relevant quote from the tournament rules (section 2.7): <S> Generally, decklists are not public information and are not shared with other players during a tournament. <S> At constructed-format, Professional REL tournaments (Pro Tour, World Magic Cup, Magic: The Gathering World Championship, and Grand Prix), copies of opponents’ decklists will be provided to players in the single-elimination playoffs. <S> Now for some personal experience: In draft events I have played, it is not normal (although it happens occasionally) to give information about your deck before playing. <S> Many times someone will finish the first game (best of 3) without revealing one of their win conditions, and will keep it a secret until it actually comes out in play in the 2nd or 3rd game of the match. <S> Thirdly, some reasoning <S> : In casual play I think it makes even more sense to change and keep a secret the content of your deck. <S> I play more Android: Netrunner than Magic, so this reasoning draws on my experience there as well, but in general my goal in constructing a deck is to make one that will be resilient to surprises, and have a chance at winning against a variety of deck strategies. <S> To that end, knowing the contents of my opponent's deck is a hindrance. <S> I would rather we constantly surprise each other to try and polish off the rough edges of each other's decks. <S> That said, this way of thinking works very well among confident, competitive people, but might be harder to swallow for somebody still learning the mechanics of the game. <S> Especially at the beginning, you might choose to help somebody along by explaining the changes you're making ahead of time, and why you think they'll make your deck better. <S> Well, we've taken a turn into the highly subjective world of interpersonal relationships, so I'd better sign off before I get myself in trouble. <A> There are no rules that require players to share with each other what cards are in their decks. <S> Even in tournaments, where players are required to register a list of every card in their deck with tournament officials, that information is generally not shared with other players. <A> There is as far as I am aware of no standard ruling or custom for casual play. <S> So I'll talk from what I've seen in live groups. <S> More often among friends, people call deck changes between games, mostly in the form of "I'm using the Red/blue combo deck" or "I'm using the elf one". <S> This is not a hard and fast rule but more courtesy to allow people to adjust before the game is underway, as a 4 men game can last for a long time. <S> If you keep playing with the same people, they will eventually figure out the deck's strategy and win condition, so that just calling the colors is enough information. <S> I've also seen many people directly explain how the deck can break apart, most of the time to break the illusion that a deck might be invincible or widely above the others. <S> That being said, I've found it is part of the fun to keep the secondary win condition untold. <S> As it sometimes make for interesting reversal when they get into play. <S> Remember that for groups of friend, the point is to have fun. <S> So rules will be decided by the group, probably naturally to make everyone happy. <S> That goes from house rules (as much as there are house rules in Magic) to mood. <S> When details can be kept secret <S> Some times where details are kept secret :As the level rises or when I'm playing with more-or-less-strangers, some people will sometime keep the deck secret for the opening game and not give info. <S> Keep in mind that those are casual games in that they are not tournament worthy and loosely regulated, but the game is played competitively in this case. <S> If you're playing with your family as you mention, it might not be your case. <S> When a deck has just been modified or is brand new, I'll see peopleplaying a game or two to show it off before really explaining it. <S> I've also seen new decks who played the obfuscation game until someone could figure out how the deck work. <A> With most of the people I have played, both casual and competative, it is common to at least give your opponent what color you are playing. <S> However, it's not a rule. <S> For instance, when i play with a group who knows my decks well, I usually don't tell them till they have also chosen a deck so that they can't choose a fitting counter deck.
|
In my own experience with casual play, we knew what decks everyone was using by the color of the sleeves, and we didn't consider it a requirement to inform each other about deck changes.
|
How much mana does Radiant Fountain provide when tapped? Radiant Fountain reads "{T}: Add {1} to your mana pool." Does this card alone produce a total of {1} or {2}? Basic Land cards produce mana when tapped. So, either All land cards produce mana when tapped, and Radiant Fountain adds another due to the {T} description, resulting in {2}. The {T} description is the only result, there is no implicit mana from a land card, resulting in {1}. <Q> {1}. <S> Lands do NOT have an automatic built-in ability, only lands with one of the basic land subtypes do. <S> Radiant Fountain does not have one of these subtypes (Mountain, Forest, Plains, Island, or Swamp). <S> Even if it did have one of these subtypes, you would still not be able to tap it for 2 mana. <S> Say you have a Radiant Fountain and a Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth in play. <S> Radiant Fountain now has 2 abilities: {T}: Add {1} to your mana pool {T}: Add {B} to your mana pool <S> In this case, you have these 2 separate Tap abilities, but you can not tap once to get both mana. <S> You would have to choose which ability you wanted to activate by tapping the card, and you would get just 1 mana whichever one you chose. <A> Mana provided by default: no such thing. <S> There's no such thing as lands producing mana by default. <S> They only produce mana according to the abilities given to them. <S> It's entirely possible to have lands which generate no mana at all: consider Dark Depths , for example. <S> You're probably now thinking "how do Islands work then? <S> They have no abilities at all." <S> However, basic lands — Islands, Mountains, Plains, Swamps and Forests — all implicitly, because of having that basic land type, have an ability of the form: <S> {T}: Add {color} to your mana pool. <S> Where {color} is blue, red, white, black or green depending on the type of land. <S> So if a land is a Forest, being a forest implicitly means it has the ability: {T}: Add {G} to your mana pool. <S> Lands of more than one basic land type, such as Steam Vents which is an Island Mountain, implicitly have this ability for each of their types, but you can only activate one. <S> Hence the reminder text at the top of the card's description: ({T}: Add {U} or {R} to your mana pool.) <S> It really has these two abilities implicitly: <S> {T}: Add {U} to your mana pool. <S> {T}: Add {R} to your mana pool. <S> But tapping a card doesn't mean activating all tap abilities on it. <S> You pick an ability (just one), and tap it to pay the cost of that ability. <S> When a card like this has two tap abilities, that limits you to only being able to activate one at a time. <S> (Unless you can untap it somehow, such as with Kiora's Follower .) <S> Radiant fountain has no basic land types (it's not an Island, Forest, Plains, Swamp or Mountain). <S> It has exactly one mana ability, which adds 1 colorless mana to your mana pool. <S> That is the only mana it produces. <A> When tapped, Radiant Fountain will add only one colorless mana to your mana pool. <S> A player only has one mana pool which holds all mana produced for that player, whether from a land or an ability on a different card type. <S> This effect is the same as the intrinsic ability of basic lands which add mana of a specific color to a player's mana pool. <S> Tapping Radiant Fountain and a Forest would give you {1} and {G} mana in your mana pool giving you enough mana to play a Runeclaw Bear for example.
|
You will only get one colorless mana added to your mana pool when you tap Radiant Fountain .
|
Duration cards in Dominion - Seaside - Are they your 1st action of your next turn? When playing a Duration Card in Dominion-Seaside, is that Duration Card your 1st action of your next turn or can you play a card from your hand 1st and then play the Duration Card? <Q> Note that the cards say "at the start of your next turn". <S> So you must obey the text literally; you do what it says "at the start", which means before you do anything else. <S> If you played multiple Duration cards last turn, so that you have multiple "at the start of your next turn" things to do, you choose the order in which to do them, though there are not any Duration cards for which that order would matter. <S> However, this could matter with the promo card Prince. <S> A couple other things to clarify: You don't need to use up your 1 action per turn for the next-turn Duration benefit. <S> You can still play your normal action after resolving the Duration. <S> It will not count towards the number of cards played that turn, which can matter for Conspirator (from Intrigue). <S> It will, however, count towards the number of action cards in play, which can matter for Peddler (from Prosperity). <A> The effects of duration cards happen first. <S> Only after resolving these effects can you begin to take actions. <A> No, it is not the first Action of your next turn. <S> You are not playing the Duration card a second time. <S> You played it last turn. <S> From the rules : Duration cards are orange and have effects that continue past the end of the turn in which they were played. <S> Additionally, if you check out the Duration play example in the <S> rulebook (pages 5-6), it shows getting the effect from a Duration card you played last turn, followed by playing another card as the first Action. <A> All effects that say "At the start of your [next] turn" trigger before anything else you do. <S> This includes Duration cards, Horse Traders (if revealed in reaction to an Attack) and Prince. <S> However, if you have multiple of these effects triggering, you choose what order they take effect. <S> Duration cards do not count as an action played that turn (which is important for Conspirator), but they do count as an Action card in play (which is important for Peddler).
|
The Duration card is NOT played on your next turn.
|
Forbidden Desert: Valid Navigator and Climber combo to save two buried players for one action? In the game Forbidden Desert, players can be buried when there are too many sand counters on their location. Tiles with more than one sand counter on them are considered blocked. The Navigator can move any other player up to three spaces during his turn by spending one of his actions. The Climber can move through blocked tiles, and can bring one player with her as she moves. Players on the same tile as the Climber, including the Climber, are never buried. Let's say that the Climber is on the same spot as two other players, the tile they're on has a gazillion sand tokens, the Navigator is on another spot in the board, and it's the Navigator's turn. Example: Each matching pair of square brackets represents a tile, and the players on the tile are listed inside. The letter in parentheses indicates the name of the tile (used only for naming purposes). The number of "SAND" words in curly brackets indicates the number of sand tokens. [(A) Navigator] [(B) ] [(C) Climber, Archaeologist, Meteorologist {SAND, SAND, SAND}] ... Can the following combo be achieved for one action point from the Navigator? Navigator uses up one action point to move another player, and chooses to move the Climber for up to three unblocked spaces. For the first space, Navigator moves Climber from (C) to (B) (Right to left, i.e. <<==). Climber brings the Archaeologist with her. For the second space, Navigator moves Cliimber from (B) to (C) (Left to right, i.e. ==>>). Climber leaves the Archaelogist on tile (B). For the third space, Navigator moves Climber from (C) to (B) (Right to left, i.e. <<==). Climber brings the Meteorologist with her. For one action, Navigator has rescued all the people from the blocked tile using the Climber's person-carrying abilities. Is this combo legal? <Q> My understanding is that the Climber can take someone with him, but that someone would have to go with him for his entire move (on that particular action). <S> So he would not be able to pick up another player in the middle of his movement. <S> If the Climber were using his own actions, each tile is a new action so he can pick up or drop off as he chooses. <S> but if using a single action given by the Navigator, I think all three tiles would have to include the same set of player tokens. <S> This is the way I have played. <S> I'll have to double check my rules to see if there is any clarification. <S> (And I assume this is your question on boardgamegeek). <A> The rules specifically state that the Climber "may" take 1 other player with her when she "moves," which I take to mean that it's the Climber's prerogative whether or not she takes anyone "when she moves," so I would say, "Yes," the combination is valid. <S> The Navigator moved another player (the Climber) up to 3 unblocked (for the Climber anyway) <S> tiles per Navigator's action. <S> The Climber took 1 other player with her when she moved. <S> (The spirit of the Climber seems to be an ability to tether a non-Climber to the Climber -- possibly with a quick-release D-ring. <S> I can see how the Climber simply untethered (no action) the Archaeologist, went back for the Meteorologist, quickly tethered (no action), and delivered the Meteorologist to safety. <S> Very clever indeed! <A> Climber: <S> He may also take one other player with him whenever he moves. <S> Navigator: <S> The Navigator may move another player up to 3 unblocked tiles per action, including tunnels. <S> The Navigators power is to move a player. <S> This may be up to three spaces. <S> If the word move is to mean a single journey then I would say no, the two are not saved. <S> If on the other hand it is a series of steps then it is OK to do so. <S> The rules do not cover this usage well enough to be clear about it. <S> My guess is no. <S> With this kind of usage the Navigators power can also be used throughout the turn in 1-3 tile steps. <S> Ex: <S> Act 1a: <S> Via the Navigators power) Move Climber to Well one tile. <S> Act 2: <S> Navigator meets climber (1 move). <S> Act 3: <S> Navigator reveals well. <S> Act 1b: <S> Move Climber and Navigator to Tunnel (second Climber tile move). <S> Act 4: Navigator clears one sand. <S> 1c <S> : Move Climber to another tunnel. <S> In my mind the rule: <S> Climber: <S> He may also take one other player with him whenever he moves. <S> Is a point A to point B reference like the jet pack, which should not allow for the complete redistribution of the players. <A> According to "Three questions i ask Matt Leacock(Game Designer)" ( https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1412989/three-questions-i-ask-matt-leacockgame-designer ), this is allowed: <S> So lets say there are two people on a blocked tile [a] and climber on unblocked tile [b] and <S> the navigator is on [c] also unblocked. <S> On the Navigators turn, he can move the climber 3 spaces for 1 action. <S> So can he move the climber to the blocked tile [a] pick up a guy, move back to [b] drop off that guy and then move back to [a] essentially making both of those players now on unblocked tiles? <S> all in 1 action of the navigator? <S> Yes. <S> That's fine -- nothing prevents it. <S> Emphasis added
|
I don't have my game/rules with me, but I don't think that is a legal combination.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.