text:
Bridge bidding response after rho overcalls at 2 level and you have stoppers and 14 pts
My partner bids 1H. Opponent says 2D.  I have stoppers in D and 14 points. What do I bid? Can I bid 2NT or must I make a suit bid?

What system are you playing What agreements are in place with your partner? Bridge is a partnership game, and there are many effective system variants; both slow arrival and fast arrival have quality adherents. Also, it is impossible to give advice on a partial description of the hand: How many Heart do you have? Do you have a singleton or void on the side? Do you have a 5-card suit on the side? How long are your diamonds? All of these actors influence one's choice of bid in this istuation, and you have given us none of the answers.

I tried to improve your question, but you need to give the actual hand for it to be answerable.

In preference order your options are:

If you have a singleton in Spades or Clubs with 4 or more hearts,
jump in that denomination to show your support, strength, and short
suit feature. This bid should be limited to 12-14 HCP, which your hand just fits into. Stronger hands with a singleton should probably take control with a cue bid.
If you have 4 or more hearts without a singleton or void the
priority is to show that support for partner; with this strength of
hand one would do that by first bidding 3D to create the game force.
The cue bid in this case could be looking for stoppers in partner's
hand rather than showing support, but is always one of the two and
you will clarify on the next round.
A (non-jump) new suit bid is absolutely forcing for one round and
promises 10+ points and either promises a 5+ card holding or is a
prepared bid to show support for partner. That would be your second
choice if you have a suitable hand.
If you have four Spades then your next choice is to show that with a
Negative Double. You will later either jump to game or cue bid the
opponents suit to show your game forcing values.
If you have 5 or more good Diamonds then you should probably pass,
allowing partner to reopen with a double that you can convert to
penalties. A good partner will always make such a reopening call
after a first or second seat opening as here.
Failing all of the above possibilities, jump to 3NT to show good
stoppers in diamonds, no singleton or void, at most three Spades, at
most 2 hearts, and lacking 5 or more strong Diamonds or Clubs, and
13-15 HCP; that pretty much leaves only hands with 3-2-4-4
distribution or 3-2-3-5 with bad Clubs.
And the last choice is to make the ambiguous cue bid of 3D [corrected from 3H] again,
showing your strength but denying the ability to make any of the
above calls.

In option 7, did you mean 3D?

Also, in step 5, do you think vulnerability matters? I would prefer 3NT with 5D at unfavorable, I think.

@ruds: 1) Thank you; corrected. 2) Yes, vulnerability matters, but I believe this is still the order in which to assess choices. Plus 800 beats the vulnerable game also, so if I have a good opening lead choice I might still consider this option; the breaks are bad both ways and LHO might find a raise to 3D.

You forgot the splinter bid of 4D, and many people play 3S and 4C either as weak jump shits or as fit showing jumps in competition.  Also, I'm in the camp that believes 3D should promise (at least 3 card) heart support, and hence the bid in option 7 is to make a negative double with only 3 spades.

@AlexanderWoo: All good agreements, but I tried to stick to bids that partner won't have to guess at the precise meaning of. Negative Doubles are ubiquitous today so I included them, but everything else I read as simply good standard bidding that one could confidently play in an Individual event.

@PieterGeerkens: You'd play splinters in an indy?  Players in your area must be a lot better than in mine.  Frankly, opposite most strangers the only bids I'd assume are forcing are double and a cue bid, and I wouldn't assume the cue bid for some strangers.

@AlexanderWoo: In an Indy I carry two convention cards and give my partners the choice of which one to play. One has Splinters and upside-down discards and RKC; the other has only Stayman, Blackwood and Jacoby Transfers, if you catch my drift.


text:
Do creatures with enchantments on them keep the enchantments if they return to the battlefield from the graveyard?
Do creatures with enchantments on them keep the enchantments if they return to the battlefield from the graveyard?
If a creature is sent to the graveyard from the battlefield, and has an enchantment aura on it when it does, if I were to play a card that allowed me to return a creature from the graveyard to the battlefield, would it return with the enchantments that it had on it when it went to the graveyard?

No, nothing like that happens. Once the creature is in the graveyard, it's no longer associated with the aura in any way.
When the creature dies, the aura is sent to the graveyard as a state-based action (i.e. the next time a player would gain priority):

704.5n If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player, or is not attached to an object or player, that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.

And the creature card and enchantment card in the graveyard don't know they were ever associated:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are eight exceptions to this rule:
[...exceptions that don't apply here...]

So if you return the creature to the battlefield, it's yet again an entirely new creature, nothing to do with the aura that was once attached to that creature card.

Same goes for sending that creature to any other game zone: back to your hand or (temporarily) exiled. The Aura is no longer attached and gets moved to the graveyard as a result. When the creature re-enters the battlefield (ie is no longer exiled, is re-cast from your hand, whatever be the case) the Aura remains in the graveyard.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can survivors with the jump skill jump into/off towers in Zombicide: Black Plague - Wulfsburg Expansion?
The Jump skill states that:

The Survivor can use this Skill once during each Activation. The Survivor spends one Action: He moves two Zones into a Zone to which he has Line of Sight. Movement related Skills (like +1 Zone per Move Action or Slippery) are ignored, but Movement penalties (like having Zombies in the starting
  Zone) apply. Ignore everything in the intervening Zone.

An interesting tactic is to be able to jump into/out of towers. Is this legal?

sounds legal to me. Would be interesting to hear from someone who has tried it

No, you can't use jump to move into/out of a tower, as the towers are surrounded by ramparts which specifically block movement.
From the Wulfsburg rules (page 5):

Tower tiles feature both building and street Zones, bordered
  by ramparts ....

Ramparts can’t be crossed but don’t block Lines of Sight.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Moonlight hunt with trample
If I play Moonlight Hunt, and my Werewolves have trample, does the excess damage from my creatures get applied to the player?

No, trample only works when dealing combat damage. The damage dealt by creatures because of Moonlight Hunt is non-combat damage.

702.19a Trample is a static ability that modifies the rules for assigning an attacking creature’s combat damage. The ability has no effect when a creature with trample is blocking or is dealing noncombat damage.


text:
Send Evil Troy back to the hell that he came from! Oh, wait it's gone already?
Sorry for the click bait title, but I have a rules query about Evil Troy as a necromancer. His card states:

When killed, put him back in his Spawn Zone and don't remove a Spawn Token, unless a Damage 3 (or more) Attack or Dragon Fire was used.

Emphasis is mine.
From the rule book, when you kill a necromancer, you can:

Killing a Necromancer slows the invasion . If you manage to kill it, choose a Spawn Zone (including its own Necromancer Spawn Zone) and remove it from the board . If the Necromancer Spawn token is still on the board after this removal, replace it with a standard one.

Suppose I have killed a necromancer other than Evil Troy and I decide to remove Evil Troy's spawn zone. What happens if I kill Evil Troy after his spawn zone is removed? What happens if I used a weapon with a damage of less than 3?

My interpretation of the rules is this:
When you select a Spawn Zone to remove you have 2 choices:

A regular Spawn Zone (not a Necromancer Spawn Zone)
The Necromancer Spawn Zone for the defeated Necromancer

In the first case the Necromancer Spawn Zone for the defeated Necromancer becomes a regular Spawn Zone.
This means you cannot choose the Necromancer Spawn Zone for any other Necromancer currently in play. Thus, when Evil Troy is killed, his Necromancer Spawn Zone should still be on the board.


text:
Blood Bowl: Would a Dwarf team of mostly blockers be feasible?
I'm planning on building a team of blockers and one runner in Blood Bowl. This is my team:

10 blockers (Block, Tackle, Thick Skull) @70k each = 700k
1 runner (Sure Hands, Thick Skull) @80k = 80k
5 re-rolls @40k each = 200k

My reasoning is:

Dwarf blockers start with lots of great skills and form a cage well
I only need 1 runner, as passing is hard for dwarves
The troll slayers and deathroller are too unreliable due to frenzy/being sent off at the end of a drive respectively
Blitzers don't have tackle

My question is, is this a competitive build?
PS. I'm new to Blood Bowl. I've played half a dozen games using Living Rulebook 5

This seems very subjective

@AndrewVandever - There is nothing wrong with subjective questions on this site as long as the answers can be backed up with "facts, references, or specific expertise"

@PatLudwig To make sure I understand, "Here is a list of tourneys won by such a build" would be an acceptable "yes" answer, while "i searched tournament winners and runners-up and found no such examples" would be an acceptable negative answer?

@AndrewVandever - I'd rather see answers from experienced Blood Bowl players giving their thoughts on the proposed team including how they've seen similar teams fare in the past.

If you get behind, by one touchdown, you will lose.  Otherwise, yes, feasible.

No, it's not a competitive build.
Longbeards are very slow. Only treemen and mummies are slower in the modern game. Their agility is also poor, requiring a 4+ to pick up, catch or dodge, even without any negative modifiers.
Frenzy is not a weakness on the Trollslayers - it's a strength. Dwarf cages can be relatively easy to stall as it's very difficult for them to break the pattern of pillars that are often used to slow a cage down, particularly near a sideline. With frenzy you threaten teams that pillar near a sideline, as to do so risks their players to being pushed into the crowd.
Taking only one player with enough agility to handle the ball reliably is also a risk. A thrown rock or a fortunate armour roll against av8 and you will be left without the ability to score, or move more than 4 spaces without GFIs. For this reason it's more typical to run with both blitzers and two runners (though not universal).
You likely won't need five rerolls as you get more used to risk management. And you should seek out a newer version of the rules, as the one you're using is out of date - try googling LRB6, CRP (Competition Rules Pack) or Icepelt.


text:
What is the actual name of this card game similar to Go Fish, but with teams and complications?
I'm looking for the name of a game that my friends call Fish (note: not Go Fish). I have reason to believe this isn't the real name of the game, because I can't find a game called Fish (that isn't Go Fish) anywhere, even on Pagat. (It may be actually possible, in this case, that this game is uniquely new, created where my friends play it, but I still find this unlikely.)
The game setup works as follows:

The cards are grouped into half-suits: one low, one high, of six cards each. Low is 2-7, high is 9-A. There is a ninth half suit: the eights, and two jokers.
An even number of players four or more sit around a table; every other person is on the same team.
The cards are dealt out to completion to each player.
Players may not communicate about the game.

The gameplay works as follows:

When any player thinks the players on their team collectively hold all the cards in a half suit, they may say so. Cards in that half-suits are revealed, and if they're right, the team scores a point. If they're wrong, the other team scores a point.
The player whose turn it is may ask an opposing player for a specific card - suit and number - under the following conditions:

They must have that half suit in their hand.
They must not have the card they ask about in their hand.
If the player guesses correctly, the opponent hands them the card, and the player guesses again.
If the player guesses incorrectly, their turn ends and the opponent they asked the incorrect question to takes the next turn.

Game ends when one team scores five points.

There are another couple smaller rules, but hopefully this is enough to figure it out. It's mostly complete.
What is the actual name of this game?

Your description seems to match the one of a card game called Literature which is apparently sometimes called Canadian Fish
I found references to it on Wikipedia and Pagat
Hope this helps...

Interestingly, I learned this about 30 years ago at Berkeley as 'fish'.

As correctly answered by beewee, what you are looking for is known as "literature" or more popularly just "lit".
If you are still interested in that game, see my multi-player literature gaming website here.

Welcome to [boardgames.se]! Your website has an invalid SSL certificate, you might want to fix that.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What is this die for?
I came across a strange green die. I'm wondering if anybody knew what it was from.
As you can see, the one on the die is replaced with an odd symbol.

What is on the other faces?

@Bebs: The OP seems to have only found one, so they have a die.

It's not uncommon for a company to have dice where the 1 (or less commonly, the 6) is replaced by some other symbol, often just the logo of the company or something similar. So there's a chance that this doesn't belong to any game.

@JoeW apparently, the other faces depict numbers 2-6; according to the OP, just the "one" has been replaced.

It looks like this die is from the Pokemon Card Game; part of the 'Roaring Skies Elite Trainer Dice Set' which is used to keep track of damage done to Pokemon in the card game.

The symbol on the dice in place of the number 1 is the Pokemon set symbol for the Roaring Skies set:

This seems like the exact image on OP's die. Do you have a source for this?

I was browsing Troll and Toad (who sell Pokemon and other card game supplies) and spotted it: http://www.trollandtoad.com/p1073454.html

Probably nothing.
It is very common for dice, especially six-diced dice, to have a varying symbol for the side where the "one" would normally go, while the remaining sides have the normal two through six.  Such dice do not serve any special purpose, and are merely a way of making a unique-looking product.  They are sold in game shops everywhere, and can depict anything from unicorns and dragons to advertisement logos.

Probably Nothing Important
You mention that it is the 1 replaced on that die, which leads me to believe the other sides are numbered as normal from 2 to 6. The die was probably made for something specific, as JonathanJ's answer shows that symbol is the symbol of a set from Roaring Skies in Pokemon, but based on the pictures in the image he posted, it's otherwise a standard six sided die.
It's not uncommon for dice to have a decorative face on the lowest or highest value on that die, in this case it is the 1 but on other 6 sided dice the 6 is replaced. In my experience it's the high number that is more commonly replaced, I used to have a large dice bag full of 6 sided dice that looked just like that, they were unfortunately lost, so I have less examples of that, but still have many of the 1 being replaced:

Magic the Gathering famously gives out 20 sided dice in a lot of their boxed sets. These dice are not standard, but instead spin-down, and should not be used for rolling, but they are useful for tracking life in that game down from the starting value of 20. On these dice almost always the 20 is replaced by the symbol for the set, the only exception I have seen was for the numbered editions, for example the X for tenth edition replaced the ten. This seems to be similar.


text:
Pokémon Trading cards, mix & match?
Can Pokémon xy starter decks be mixed with booster packs from other series or other starter decks? I know you can only play 60 cards but if I buy two differnt starter decks, can I build a "unique" deck from the two, using the various types of Pokémon, energy cards, trainer cards, etc?

Are you wanting to play in tournaments or are you just playing casually with friends?

My kids are playing casually against each other, may eventually take them to tournaments at our local shops.

If you are playing casually you can mix any cards you want to as long as you have exactly 60 cards in your deck and no more than 4 of a given card (other than basic energy).
For tournaments there are a couple different formats that determine what is legal. The primary constructed formats that are played at tournaments are Standard (formerly Modified), Expanded, and Unlimited. For any of these formats if a card is legal in the format you can use copies from previous sets. The cards that are legal in each of these formats as of 4/19/16 are as follows:
Standard

XY—Kalos Starter Set
XY
XY—Flashfire
XY—Furious Fists
XY: Trainer Kit
XY01 and higher
Other sets 3 weeks after their release in the United States

Expanded

Black & White
Black & White—Emerging Powers
Black & White—Noble Victories
Black & White—Next Destinies
Black & White—Dark Explorers
Black & White—Dragon Vault
Black & White—Dragons Exalted
Black & White—Boundaries Crossed
Black & White—Plasma Storm
Black & White—Plasma Freeze
Black & White—Plasma Blast
Black & White—Legendary Treasures
BW: Trainer Kit
XY—Kalos Starter Set
XY
XY—Flashfire
XY—Furious Fists
McDonald’s Collection 2011
McDonald’s Collection 2012
McDonald’s Collection 2014
XY: Trainer Kit
Black Star Promo Cards: BW01 and higher, XY01 and higher.
Additional expansions become legal three weeks after they are released in the United States.

The card Shiftry (Next Destinies 72/99) is banned in Expanded
Unlimited

All cards from all expansions (including promo cards) are legal in Unlimited
Additional expansions become legal three weeks after they are released in the United States.


text:
What is the  "this effect"  that doesn't remove White Ward?
White Ward is a white aura whose Oracle text is:

Enchant creature
Enchanted creature has protection from white. This effect doesn't remove white ward.

Is "this effect" the "protection from white" that the enchanted creature has or the "Enchanted creature has protection from white." that White Ward has?
This should matter if some other ability gives that creature protection from white.

It refers just to the protection granted by White Ward, not protection granted by other effects.
The easiest way to see this is just to look at another similar card, Spectra Ward:

Enchanted creature gets +2/+2 and has protection from all colors. This effect doesn't remove Auras.

That's the same language as White Ward, and it has a ruling in Gatherer:

The protection granted by Spectra Ward won’t cause any Aura to be put into its owner’s graveyard, including Spectra Ward itself. However, if the enchanted creature gains protection from white in another way, Spectra Ward will be put into its owner’s graveyard as a state-based action.

In general, when Magic uses the word "this", it refers to a specific instance, not a class of objects. So, "this creature" refers to a specific creature, not any creature with the same name. Similarly, "this effect" on White Ward refers to the specific instance of "Protection from White" that it grants to the creature. Even if it got another instance of Protection from White somehow, it would not come with the same caveat.

The way I see this, I assume you believe that with White Ward being White that the effect would grant it protection from the spell itself. This would render the card completely useless so to combat this the card also has an exception from the effect for the Enchantment itself.
The effect does not "effect" the card that grants the effect, if that makes sense.

I think what the question is asking is actually the other way around: he understands that White Ward does not remove himself. What he's asking is whether any other instances of "Protection from White" will have the same modifier to not remove White Ward.

Yeah... I think I get from the last sentence however it is not entirely clear.

First of all, "Enchanted creature has protection from white" is an ability, not an effect. This ability creates a continuous effect that grants the enchanted creature protection from white. This is the effect to which the card refers.
...Except it's not. That would be the case is White Ward was written correctly. The problem is that this effect isn't the one that would cause the White Ward to be removed. It's actually the effect created by the granted "Protection from White" ability that would cause the White Ward to be removed. So obviously, that's the effect to which the card actually refers.
Without neutering the Protection from White it grants, White Ward would protect the creature from being enchanted by White Ward, sending White Ward to the graveyard.
Of course, it only neuters the Protection from White it grants. If the creature has any other instance of Protection from White, those will still apply.


text:
What is an example of a perfectly played checkers game?
The board game American Checkers on an 8x8 board was weakly solved in 2007 and shown to be a draw (PDF link).  What is an example of a perfectly played game of checkers?

"Checkers was solved.." [citation needed]

@Nij We're not Wikipedia. Checkers being solved is "common knowledge" among anyone who follows this sort of thing and the reference is in the intro section of the Wikipedia article.

Draughts isn't solved, it's weakly solved, which is a major difference to anybody with a mathematics background.

Per Wikipedia a game is weakly solved if there is a known complete game where each played move is optimal.  This is what the question is asking for for Checkers.  Note the draw does no have to be prolonged as long as possible if that is not available.  What is more likely is that there is a known game where the side moving first can force a draw and it is known there is no winning strategy.  Is this game available now for the public, some 10 years after the game is solved?  And if so, where can it be viewed?  This is what the question is asking.  Sorry for any confusion.

Note that there may be more than one "optimal" move from a given configuration. In particular, this page lists several 3-move openings that were each proven to lead to a draw.

Checkers was weakly solved in 2007: it was proven that the Chinook algorithm could never lose a game. So to get a perfectly played game you could have Chinook play against itself, but I can't find the final version of Chinook online or a record of its later games. You can check out its earlier games against humans here - most of those are draws, though there's no guarantee they're "perfect" since it's a human and an earlier version of Chinook playing.

Chinook can definitely still lose a game. When the proof was announced in 2007, it was unbeatable in 28 of the 156 3-move ballots and, theoretically, beatable in the other 128. It still is. In fact, in a match of indefinite length against a genuine oracle it would definitely lose. Currently the KingsRow program (Ed Gilbert) is stronger than Chinook - it's phenomenal - though still far from perfect.
In a 40-game match between Chinook and the best 'version' of the late Dr Marion Tinsley, it would be a very close call - Marion could still win, although Chinook would be the favourite by a very tiny margin. Richard Pask Author of Complete Checkers and Checkers for the Novice

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why is the first tile inactive in Burgle Bros?
In the Burgle Bros FAQ, the first tile of the first floor you are burgling is inactive:

When entering a new floor for the first time, does the tile trigger when you move into it?
Yes, except for at the start of the game, entering the first floor.  Also you can peek before moving up.

This doesn't seem thematic to me at all. What if the first tile is deadbolt? It seems reasonable to me that a bank's big heavy door would try to prevent burglars from coming in whether it is the start of the game or not.
My question is, why did the designer make entering the first floor so easy?

The rule in question is actually spelled out precisely in the second printing's rulebook. Emphasis mine:

Break in, step 3: Choose any tile on the first floor for your team to enter the building [...] Starting on this tile does not trigger any effects, such as setting off an Alarm, but after your first action, you trigger the tile's effects normally.

The first tile's effects are ignored when you first arrive on floor 1 for a few reasons:

Pregame setup does NOT specifically involve any player performing normal turn actions. This means some room effects that would otherwise occur if a player ends their actions in them don't trigger. For all game rules, they are NOT considered as having moved into the tile, just being on the tile.
In the case of an Alarm (E.G. Thermo), having the alarm trigger on the first turn would put an alarm token on the starting point, possibly causing multiple players to lose stealth tokens before they even had a chance to react when they otherwise wouldn't be in danger (in a four-player game, if the alarm occurred during setup, in order for nobody to lose stealth tokens, either an event would need to occur to disable the alarm OR the guard would have to be 10 spaces away (in total path length) for all four players to avoid losing any stealth tokens, as opposed to the 7 spaces away if the tile they picked were just a normal patrol destination)
Deadbolt in itself doesn't block all movement, it just requires 3 actions to enter if there's nobody there (guards count as a person there). Certain special movement also ignores the action cost (e.g. Walkway directly above a Deadbolt), and the initial setup also ignores this restriction because it's a tile effect.

If anything, that rule exists to very slightly tip the balance in the favor of the players by way of ensuring they're not screwed over by the first tile being an alarm tile. It also mitigates the potential issue of the first player automatically getting a Tool item due to the first tile being a Laboratory without any other player getting a say.


text:
Has anyone published "swap maps" for the game Y?
I'm referring to the hex-grid triangular boards, not the commercial board.

Wikipedia has an article on the swap rule, and I'm wondering whether-or-not the correct

choices are published for small Y boards, like they are for not-too-large Hex boards.  [<9] [=9]
I just finished working them out by hand for up to 6 hexes per side

(which is 21 hexes total), but have not yet gone any further.

"Has anyone published X?" sounds to me like a game recommendation (or rather, a game supplement recommendation). I'm voting to close the question since those are off-topic.

To me it sounds more like looking for game resources


text:
How much of AlphaGo's success is due to novelty?
One of the running themes in the commentary I've read on AlphaGo's games is that, from time to time, the AI would make a sound play that was nonetheless completely unfamiliar to its opponent (and to the spectators). Consequently, the opponent was unable to fully appreciate the move and counter it effectively. (or were even thrown off their game entirely for a few moves)
This leaves me to wonder; how important is this effect to AlphaGo's success? Or put differently, when humans have learned from the new sorts of plays they've seen AlphaGo play, will AlphaGo still enjoy anywhere near its current level of success?

Aside: the ability to find new, sound tactics is still a great success for the AlphaGo team, even if it does turn out that its victories are more due to novelty than skill, and I do not mean to diminish that feat.

One of the things Ke Jie and Deep Mind mentioned after the second match at the future of Go summit was that it was the closest game anyone played against AlphaGo so far, for the first 100 moves. For the first 50 moves he played perfectly according to AlphaGo. Then Ke Jie mentions later that he got excited about how well he was playing and it might have lead him to make some mistakes or less than ideal moves...

...Long story short, it would've been interesting to see how well Ke Jie could've played on if he didn't get too excited in the second match at least according to AlphaGo :)

I would argue that AlphaGo's advantage cannot be significantly attributed to the novelty of its moves.
The original public AlphaGo games were those against Lee Sedol, the second ranked player in the world, in March 2016. At that time, as mentioned, several of AlphaGo's moves were novel, and surprising to Lee Sedol and observers.
Then, after players had had nine months to study AlphaGo's play style, in December 2016 it played 59 unofficial online games under the names "Magister" and "Master", including against several of the top ranked players. It won every game. I haven't seen much commentary of those games, but my understanding is that some of the players used moves that had first been observed in the original AlphaGo games. So, at this point I think they were less novel, because they were becoming parts of human players' strategies.
Finally, in May 2017, AlphaGo played a variety of games in the Wuzhen Future of Go Summit, including a match against Ke Jie, the top ranked player in the world. The commentary of those games did not indicate that AlphaGo made a significant number of surprising or difficult-to-answer moves, but rather that its sizeable advantage came from its ability to accurately determine the values of moves, trades, and territory, and its ability to play across the whole board instead of concentrating too much on the currently active area.

In the interests of improving this answer for future users, Michael Redmond and Chris Garlock do a lot of the reviews of the Master series here on AGA's youtube. Also those games were very quick so the ai gets a bit of an advantage there :) I agree though that the future of Go summit showed the strength of AlphaGo, and Michael and Chris have started another series reviewing some of the AlphaGo vs AlphaGo matches released after the summit.

Actually I don't think I meant improving as in this answer could be better, but rather here's a link if future users (or op) is interested in commentary on the master series. It's a good answer as is :)

AlphaGo plays moves that are "novel," and that is the key to, but not the reason for its success.
The reason that the moves are considered "novel," is that they have been examined and rejected by human players. So then the question is, does Alpha Go's follow up movies (and variations) prove that the moves are sound or not? The almost invariable answer is the Alpha Go's moves are sound, and that human players had missed the correct followups, some of which are counterintuitive. For instance, it was realized in retrospect that AlphaGo would break off sequences a move earlier or a move later than a human player would, thereby maximizing the sequences' value and beating out alternate lines used by human players. Put another way, AlphaGo could calculate more deeply than human players.
The program does seem to have a few glitches that occasionally make it play moves that are (slightly) unsound in hindsight. Humans have studied these glitches attempting to beat it, so far without success. The reason is, while these moves might be off by a point or two, AlphaGo wlll during the course of a game improve over human play by say, five points, on one or more occasions.


text:
Do I have to warn my opponent about abilities in Necromunda?
We are going to start a Necromunda (1st ed) campaign and I have chosen spyrers.
Spyrers are a quality-over-quantity gang and they have a lot of nasty abilities. For example, the Jakara has a mirror shield that can bounce back laser, plasma and melta attacks.
My question is, do I have to warn my opponent of my gang's abilities?
In the mirror shield example, I could either:

Not tell my opponent and bounce attacks back
Warn them before they shoot
Warn them before the game

N.B. I am not advocating hiding anything. My opponent will always have access to the rulebook and my roster.

I've got rules to Necromunda so I don't know if thats specific to that or not but the question can be applied more broadly to all game with variable abilities.  I tend to play where all players say what abilities they have to the table.  This keep public info public and is a more enjoyable experience.   If you enjoy having info on a table and think that the other player needs to ask then that sounds like a miserable experience to play with if a player is going to try and sneak and advantage that way.

In theory, case #1. In reality, this depends on the game environment.
In a casual game, where the focus is enjoyment and learning how the game works, it usually pays to be as open as possible. People generally don't get fun out of "Oh, you forgot rule X, so I'm going to immediately exploit that information" and it's not supposed to be a viable strategy either (unless a "hidden ruleset" is supposed to be one of the mechanics.) Warning the opponent of these things helps with the fun and learning factor (You're not going to learn how to play the gang well by people accidentally triggering your reflections. You're going to learn how to play them well by utilizing the threat of said reflection to it's fullest, and how other players might counter it.)
In a competitive environment, all that goes out the window. Your opponent is expected to know the rules and abilities within the game. You would be right to assume that if they're shooting at you, they're cognizant of the consequences.


text:
Do you still get experience for wounding an opponent who makes a successful armour save?
In many Necromunda (1st ed) scenarios, you gain experience for causing a wounding hit. But if that wounding hit doesn't cause a roll of the injury dice due to a successful armour save, does the gang fighter who rolled the wound dice still get the experience?

According to yaktribe's FAQ, which cites the 2000 living rule-book (LRB), the answer is no:

Q: Do I get experience awards for shots that I take that hit a target and then are saved by the targets armour since I did wound him?
A: [LRB] Per the Armour Rules on page 18 of the LRB 'If the dice roll is sufficiently high then the wounding shot has struck the armour and not hurt the wearer at all.' This means you do not get the experience award. This also holds true for all game mechanics that prevent a wound from being inflicted, like say event deck cards, wyrd powers, skills, etc.


text:
How does the elf level 2 magic ability work in Ultra Tiny Epic Kingdoms?
When elves reach the 2nd level of their magic book, they gain this ability:

If you pay for war only using [mana], -1 war cost.

However, mana always counts as 2 for war:

Win or lose, both players must pay their war cost. To pay your war cost, subtract any war cost abilities and then pay the remaining value with resources at the rate noted on the resource track: Mana is worth 2,...

I have 2 questions:

In multiplayer games, does this mean I have to choose an odd number war value to take advantage of this ability? I.e. odd -1 is even, then I can pay purely in mana
In solo play, the war cost is set to either the number of armies that the dummy player has, or this number times 2 (depending whether it is day or night). Does this mean the ability is only valid for odd numbered war values?

A similar post for the 1st edition rules is on boardgamegeek. The designer says:

Actually, it's not ... The "+1 War Power" is a resource discount (you can bid 7 but only pay 6). This is much clearer in 2nd edition.

This implies that you can dial an odd number and pay the even number cost.
For the solo play, this only useful if the war cost is odd.

Turns out 2nd edition has the exact same text for the ability. So much for being clearer.


text:
Does a Yeld spyrer's fly ability work just vertically, or on a hypotenuse?
From the Yeld wings entry to the Necromunda rulebook (1st ed):

The Yeld's wings allow its user to fly up to his normal Movement characteristic in a turn, or double that if he charges or runs (flaps). Since the Yeld's wings allow it to glide well rather than truly fly the Yeld must land at the end of his move. Flying upwards counts as 2" for every 1" moved; flying downwards counts as 1/2" for every 1" moved.

Now consider a Yeld on top of a building as in the diagram. He can either:

Fly vertically downwards, or
Fly along the hypotenuse

Clearly the distances are not the same.

My question is, which scenario is correct for the Yeld's movement?

The question is unclear. Are you asking which scenario is possible, or are you asking what's the effective distance in both scenarios?

@ikegami: I am asking which scenario is possible.

So your question boils down to: What's the maximum angle from the vertical at which you can sustain a glide? I've never played the game, but the answer appears to be: As large as your remaining movement permits. Like you said, the distances are clearly not the same, and you are required to land by the end of your move.

You measure from the base of your starting position to the base of where your movement ends. The movement must finish at an appropriate point (it cant be mid air for example). If that end point is higher than your starting point then its 2", if its lower its 1/2"
So for example, if you have movement 8, you have three options

Complete a move up to 4" ending above your starting position.
Complete a move up to 8" horizontally (normal move)
Complete a move up to 16" ending your movement below your starting position.

I don't know the game but that would be quite bizarre if you are right - you're saying that you can not move 15'' completely horizontally to the edge of a cliff, but you can move 15'' completely horizontally to the edge of a cliff as long as you proceed to then move one inch more to fall off the (very short) cliff.

No @BenjaminCosman only the movement while descending is halved. So you can go 8" towards the edge of the cliff one turn, then the remaining 7" the next turn, and a 2" glide forwards.

My comment wasn't "this is how it works", it was "this is how your answer says it works and that makes no sense". @Nick if you know how it actually works, please post a full answer of your own.


text:
Can a player lose their last army?
I know that a a region with a player's last army cannot be invaded.
However, I played a solo game and the dummy player kept starting wars with their last army. I consistently won those wars and played so that they retreat to the nearest empty region, whilst paying the relevant food cost.
My question is, was I playing this correctly and a player can never lose their last army (even if they suicidally throw it away)?

From the core rules:

You may never enter a region occupied by an opposing player’s last meeple
  (i.e., the only meeple they have in play), nor may you use your last meeple to
  enter a region occupied by an opponent.

From the solo rules:

If [the meeple] cannot move in the selected direction, continue clockwise until you find a region it can move into.

and

The dummy player may always collect resources if they are unable to fulfill the action, even if they are the active player.

So suicidally throwing away your last army is illegal for both real players and the dummy, and the dummy will choose a different place to move instead (or collect resources if there are no legal moves).


text:
Latest Collins Scrabble Words list in text file
Where can I find the latest Collins Scrabble Words list in a text file? Googling this seems surprisingly difficult to find. I can only find some sites where I can check if the word is in the list.

In official use from 1 July 2019:

Collins Scrabble Words (2019).txt (279,496 words, 3MB).
Collins Scrabble Words (2019) with definitions.txt (279,496 words, 17MB).

Old:

Collins Scrabble Words (2015).txt (276,643 words, 3MB).
Collins Scrabble Words (2015) with definitions.txt (276,643 words, 17MB).

If you find any errors, please leave a comment here.

Again the downvotes. Would the downvoters mind taking a moment to explain why they downvoted the Q and also the A? I think that would help newcomers like me understand this SE better and contribute more productively. Thanks.

I've downvoted the answer, because I believe you are linking to copyright-protected content. No idea about the q, though...

Note that CSW15 actually has 276,663 words, which is 20 more than in this list.  The difference appears to be words like "knickknack", which are unplayable in Scrabble because of the letter distribution.

@A.Rex: That's very helpful, thanks! I was aware that my lists seemed to have some missing words but wasn't sure why. Now I know.

@KennyLJ - I tried finding a place where I can purchase this list for commercial use, but I have been unsuccessful. Have you encountered any?

@KobusMyburgh: No.

Thank you, Kenny. I have since contacted Collins themselves, awaiting an answer.

@KobusMyburgh did you get a reply from Collins about commercial use?

@VajkHermecz - no, unfortunately not. I have not worked on the project since, as I do not want any legal trouble.

The Words List seems to be protected by copyright. I highly doubt downloading the entire list - especially in an easily accessible format - is strictly speaking legal.
I found this on the Collins website.

Collins is the only online Scrabble word finder to use the official tournament word list.

So, I googled official tournament word list, and found this site, of the North American Scrabble Players Association. There it's stated that the Word List can be bought in print or digital format. The digital copy also needs a certain program:

Electronic Editions
NASPA members may use the free word study and adjudication tool, NASPA Zyzzyva, to access a licensed electronic copy of this word list. OTCWL2016 is included beginning with NASPA Zyzzyva version 3.1.0.
NASPA Zyzzyva is available for download to Windows and Mac machines at the NASPA Zyzzyva download site, which includes download and installation instructions.

In my opinion downloading copyrighted material for noncommercial personal use is legal. Uploading it is a separate question. Apps for Windows/MacOS/Linux can be downloaded for free from http://www.scrabbleplayers.org/w/NASPA_Zyzzyva_Download. That is linked to from the page that @steenbergh linked. I easily extracted the British 2019 word list .txt file from the application file. In case it helps anyone, the Mac file path of that file is /Applications/NASPA Zyzzyva 3.3.0/Zyzzyva.app/Contents/MacOS/data/words/British/CSW19.txt. Lists for other years/regions are contained in the application.

These also stay up-to-date, unlike the pirated ones from @user21608 on Google Drive.


text:
Why is Whitby missing in Fury of Dracula (FFG, 3ed)?
Fury of Dracula mostly true to the book.
But one thing bugs me - Whitby is not on the board and is replaced by Manchester! Moreover, (real life) Manchester is in the west, not the east.

My question is, have the designers ever commented on why Manchester replaces Whitby?

Is there a particular reason you think Whitby is "missing"? Was it in previous editions?

@Thunderforge: Googling the images, it seems all eds have Manchester (none had Whitby), but the 1st had it in the West, above Liverpool. Might make sense as GW (1st ed) are UK based but FFG are US based?

So if none have Whitby, why do you think it should be there? Is it important in the source material or something? I mean, Fontainebleau isn't on the board either, but that doesn't really mean anything.

Re "it seems all eds have Manchester (none had Whitby)", It appears that you answered your own question?

As for Manchester being too far East, it's surely to place space between it and Liverpool. At that scale, they would literally be on top of each other without the additional space. As they say on subway maps: "Map isn't to scale!"

@Thunderforge: Yep, I'd say Whitby is important in the book. It's where a significant part of the plot occurs and is the reason why at least one of the board game characters is hunting Dracula. If you ever go to Whitby, then you'll see the inhabitants think their town plays an important role in the book too!

The lack of Whitby is consistent with earlier editions
First Edition

Second Edition

In all these editions, Manchester exists in the United Kingdom region, but not Whitby.
However, Manchester is more or less in its proper location in both of these versions. It would appear that Manchester's seaside location in the 3rd edition is an error, perhaps in an effort to create more space on the board between it and Liverpool.
Or they confused it with Manchester-by-the-Sea.
There does not appear to be any designer statements about this change
Given that the game first came out in 1987, not a lot of information about its design or release is available online. In fact, the only reference I could find to Whitby in the game were players of the 3rd Edition with similar concerns as yours.
The game designer for the first edition (who has credit in later editions) is Stephen Hand. I thought about reaching out to him and asking about this, but it doesn't look like he has a website, Twitter, or other way to publicly contact him, so we're out of luck there.
If I were take a guess, the game was designed with some recognizable cities in mind, rather than a strict adherence to the source material. Besides, the first edition was released in 1987 and the internet and electronic books were still in their most primitive forms. It's quite possible that it was simply an oversight, and then later editions just remained consistent with earlier ones rather than correcting it.


text:
Do you collect $200 in Monopoly if you don't ask for it?
If a player passes Go but doesn't ask for their money and the next player plays, does the first player still get their money if they ask only after the next round is played? I could not find this in the Monopoly rules.

To what end? The point of a game is to be fun, and the rules are there to facilitate that. How does this rule increase the enjoyability of the game, for anyone? The person who missed out on $200 is pissed off about losing $200, and everyone else's game experience is diminished by making the game unjustly easier for them.

Ahhh, "house rules". People have lost friends over less. You need to use a little philosophy here... There's worse things at steak than £200 of monopoly money. So agree to the house rules BUT maintain them rigidly when the house-rule-er breaks their own rules. Be consistent and balanced, then you've got a workable game.

If you don't ask for your direct deposit does your employer still pay you?

@AJFaraday Workable is not the same as fun.

@jpmc26 A game where any one player decides to dispute, and continue disputing, some minor point in the rules is never fun. Conversations where someone blames a minor point for losing a game are not fun. (Neither are ones where a player gloats continually). A good game may not be strictly correct, but will be amiable.

@AJFaraday If you are uncomfortable with the rules, you need not play the game. Choose a different game, or find something else to do. Starting a game with rules you don't want to play by is the first mistake there. You will be unhappy if they bite you, and your host will be unhappy if you spitefully turn the rule against them. Just say no to bad games. =)

@jpmc26 or, you know, play with people you actually like, and trust, and don't play for death or glory... I suppose this discussion belongs in the philosophy SE, really.

@Alexander-ReinstateMonica If you look at the history of the game monopoly, the point of the game actually WASN'T to be fun. This game was invented as a teaching tool to teach anti-monopolist ideas, to teach how dangerous monopolies were to society at large, and to that end only the person winning would have fun.

Yes, you still collect $200.
From the rulebook:

Each time a player’s token lands on or passes over GO,
  whether by throwing the dice or drawing a card, the Banker pays
  him/her a $200 salary.

No mention of the player "asking" for the money or anything. It says the Banker pays him, so the Banker pays him.

Monopoly suffers from many, many, house-rules – in other words, rules that people decide to use despite the fact they aren't the ones written down. I've heard of this being one such house rule. In my opinion, this house rule doesn't improve the game – it just allows people to be smug at other people's discomfort even more…

To be clear, this says that it is the Banker's responsibility to ensure that the player is paid. If the Banker is deliberately withholding money because the player didn't ask for it, they are the ones breaking the rules (unless the table has agreed to a house rule that says otherwise).

@BillMichell Suffers is the perfect word for it. "It's so lame without money in the middle. You run out so fast." Three hours later "Wow this game sucks it takes forever..."

The only time I'm aware of where a player is required to ask for the money is when demanding rent because another player lands on owned property.  The rules specifically state that the player does need to catch the opportunity before the potentially-owing player rolls the dice.  When I played, my parents enforced the rule that a player cannot just roll dice twice quickly (due to rolling doubles) without giving the property-owner a fair chance to notice and request the rent, but if all (remaining) other player(s) took a turn (including the property owner), that was plenty of opportunity.

@BillMichell nah it suffers from people that only wants to win even if it means to ruin the fun. "You forget to ask, I do not pay you", "I stole in the bank ? You didn't see me".

@TOOGAM I believe you are mistaken; the property owner has until the next player rolls the dice--it doesn't have to go all the way around, and doubles wouldn't matter as it's still the same person who owes the rent.  "The owner may not collect the rent if he/she fails to ask for it before
the second player following throws the dice."  https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf

@thumbtackthief : Indeed, it looks like that was a house rule that snuck into my understanding.  Thank you for keeping me on the straight and narrow.  As phrased, there's no reason that a person has to hurry to yell before the active player throws dice another time (due to doubles).

Yes, it's an "accounting" transaction.
Another poster pointed out that the "banker" is supposed to pay the player. Let's say the banker doesn't. (There are only two players, and they're using "honor system" for "banking" transactions.)
The player is "entitled" to his $200 for passing go, and the honor system permits him to take it. In "real life," people sometimes "forget" or delay in collecting their paychecks, but the pay is still real.
Another example: The rules say that there are 32 houses and 12 hotels. Some of them are missing from the set. You use coins or other tokens to make up the difference, so that the game plays fairly. On the other hand, if a 33rd house somehow got mixed in from another set, you should play without it.

thus is what Wikibooks says under “general play” rules for Monopoly...
If the player lands on or passes Go in the course of his or her turn, he or she receives $200 from the Bank. A player has until the beginning of his or her next turn to collect this money. ...There you go!

There is no mention of not getting it if you miss it after your next turn starts.

Hasbro, not Wikipedia, is the final arbiter on questions of rules...


text:
In Syme vs. UnSweet's second USTO 2016 Tak game, at what point should Syme have defended against a C-file threat?
In Syme vs. UnSweet's second USTO 2016 game (the commentator gets a few things wrong, worth noting), UnSweet won by tinuë on a C-file threat. This threat started to emerge very early in the game, and was identifiable even with the early Cc4 capstone move.
Obviously, at some point, Syme lost the white advantage by permitting falling into tak off the C-file threat. The question I'm wondering is, at what point should Syme have started to work against UnSweet's growing board advantage?
There are a few specific moves I'm wondering about:

On moves 6-7, the a2/b6 and c4/c6 response really seems like it lost Syme a lot of tempo. a2 does pin UnSweet's capstone, but also, UnSweet's capstone is in a great position for forming a tak threat anyway, so pinning it doesn't seem to do a whole lot. Then, trying to cut the C-file road with c4 seems like it leaves the flat stranded, where there are equally blocking moves that would persist in building a tak threat. Am I misreading these moves, or were these actual mistakes?
On the next move, where Syme plays d6 and UnSweet plays b4, would Syme b4 have been a better move? It would guarantee the the flats at c4, and partially guarantee b3, while rebuilding a tak threat - which seems to be exactly the threat that UnSweet then exploits. The other concern is that d6 can't adequately threaten c6, and therefore can't threaten a C-file tak threat. But leaving the 6-rank road to grow also seems like a poor idea, especially when d6 totally fortifies c6. So my secondary question is: would c5 have been a better move than d6?
Instead of placing on move 10, though, Syme then responds to this situation with b3+, which both breaks up their road and loses them a bit of tempo. Is this move an error? It starts towards rebuilding a road, but it doesn't seem to do it in a way that can't be easily counteracted by UnSweet, and really doesn't pose that much of a threat.

It seems like this section of moves (6-10) really messed Syme up. Is this roughly the region that I should be looking at when I dissect this game?


text:
How long do I have to collect rent in Monopoly?
Player A lands on my property, and I'm not paying attention.  The rule book states:

The owner may not collect the rent if he/she fails to ask for it before
the second player following throws the dice

I always interpreted that to mean once Player B rolled the dice I was out of luck (i.e., Player A--who owes me money--was the first player and Player B was the second).  But I can definitely see that being interpreted as giving me until Player C rolls the dice, being the second player to play after Player A.

I was trying to edit the existing answer to explain itself without getting bogged down in dictionaries, and realized I should double-check: can you explain how you read this as referring to player B? My guess is you read it as something like "the second player, i.e. the player following"?

@Jefromi Yes; I'm the first player, you are the second player, following me.    Granted my punctuation changes the meaning to be more what I intended.

second player following != second following player

@thumbtackthief: Please compare "Let's eat, Grandpa." and "Let's eat Grandpa.". One cannot add and remove commas at a whim, and retain meaning. Other examples here.

Suppose the players are Anne, Bill, Charlize, David, Elizabeth, and Fred.
Anne rolls the dice, moves her counter and lands on Fred's property. Fred fails to notice.
The players following Anne are Bill, Charlize, David, etc. Bill is the first player following Anne, and Charlize is the second. So Fred must notice and request rent before Charlize rolls.
A specific scenario:
The first following player, Bill, now rolls the dice and moves his counter. Any transactions are processed as necessary.
The second following player, Charlize, now reaches for the dice as Fred notices Anne's counter and request payment. As the second following player, Charlize, has not yet thrown the dice, the request by Fred is in order and must be honoured.

The question is now asked: "why the second following instead of first following player?"
Simply, to prevent a pair of players from sitting down and guaranteeing that the one in elder position wins. Under a "first following" rule, if Alfred and Betty sit down beside each other, with Alfred rolling first, then Betty simply must be very fast at rolling the dice to ensure that Alfred never pay rent.
Next game, Alfred and Betty switch places and  Betty is guaranteed to never pay rent.
And so on. This is called "The Bum's Rush".
There are also more subtle ways to play it, where the younger hand rolls very quickly only at strategic moments in the game. Same effect, with only a very slight reduction in effectiveness.

I'd also point out that linguistics aside, this is a terrible, confusing way to play.  "Hey five minutes ago you landed on my property, even though a complete turn has passed of other things happening, you owe me $500."

@thumbtackthief" Rules exist for a reason. You always have the option of declaring, and playing by, any house rules you and your friends agree to. But when two players start colluding to give the Bum's Rush to another player, your group may suddenly be one member short for a good game.  Good general advice is always to be sure you know the why of a rule before changing it.

Anne lands on Fred's property; she owes rent that will put her out of the game.  Fred doesn't notice.  Bill goes, and has to pay $1000 rent to Anne.  Now Fred notices, but now Anne has more than enough to pay.  What happens?  Be sure you know the why of a rule before changing it.

Transactions occur in their proper order. Bill now owes $1000 to Frederick, the current and proper owner of the property gained in Anne's bankruptcy proceedings.

@ForgetIWasEverHere I agreed with you up until "Bill now owes $1000 to Frederick" I don't see how the "proper order" is anything other than the order that rent money is requested. Allowing for undoing of transactions to correct for missed rent sounds like a really poor way of doing things and doesn't seem to be supported by the rules.

If you want this to be a good answer, I would strongly suggest just concisely explaining why the phrase means what it does, something along the lines of "if the players are A, B, C, D, ... and A should collect rent, then the players following A are B, C, D, ..., so B is the first player following, and C is the second player following." The organization and verbosity of your answer unfortunately make it less clear, and your attitude toward the OP's request for reference/explanation is, well, not what we do here.

Hey folks, this might be a good time to take a break from this thread, and if you want to come back to it, focus on improving the answer.

Like providing a source for "The Bum's Rush" which I could not find through any amount of Googling to have anything to do with dice-throwing or game-playing.

How does this work in a two player game though? If Alice and Bob are playing, and Alice lands on Bob's property, but Bob doesn't notice. Then Bob plays a full turn, and the dice go back to Alice. Bob can request rent from Alice before he throws the dice ... but can he request it after as well? As Alice is about to leave the spot she's due rent on?

If Player A lands on your property, you have until Player C rolls the dice to demand rent.
The 2009 Monopoly World Championship rules have an explicit example of this:

7. How long do I have to ask for rent?
In Championship Monopoly, you can ask for rent until the second player to your left throws the dice. This is to encourage good sportsmanship.
E.G. Player A lands on your property, Player B takes a turn. You can still ask for rent. As soon as the dice leave Player C’s hand, you have missed your chance.

Of note, this was not always the case.  Modern monopoly rules, such as this and this say:

The owner may not collect the rent if he/she fails to ask for it before the second player following throws the dice.

However, some older monopoly sets, such as this say:

If the owner fails to ask for rent before the next throw of the dice, no rent is collected.

The game likely changed to say "second player following" to prevent players from being able to move play artificially fast to skip rent payments, such as the process described by @ForgetIWasEverHere in this answer.

Note: The rulesets you label modern are from 2007 and 1997, respectively. The current rules (see link in my answer) are from 2017.

The ambiguous phrase only exists in some editions/versions.
The current rules use the unambiguous phrasing

If they don’t ask before the next player rolls the dice, you don’t have to pay!

(Current rules as per Hasbro)
Other editions have alternated between this unambiguous phrasing and the original phrasing. This is most likely due to oversight (or lack thereof), but a case could be made that this helps show which meaning is intended:
1972:

Note: If the owner fails to ask for his rent before the next throw of the dice no rent may be collected.

2005:

IF THE OWNER FAILS TO ASK FOR RENT BEFORE THE NEXT THROW OF THE DICE, NO RENT IS COLLECTED.


text:
Can I trade my own resources in exchange for another player's Settlement, City, or Road?
In Catan, can I trade my own resources to "take over" another player's Settlement, City, or Road?
For example, can I offer 5 Bricks and 3 Ore to another player to have them convert one of their already placed Road pieces from their (e.g. blue) piece to my (e.g. red) piece? i.e. They would no longer have the Road that they had played along the edge of a hex, I would have it instead.

Do you mean the actual game piece (which has their color), or just the resources to buy one yourself?

This really should be asked as 2 separate questions.

@AndyT how do they conflict with each other? The second one overrides the first one.

@steenbergh edited. Hope it's a bit more clear.

@AndyT convert one of their pieces. Sorry if it's not specific enough. I will edit again.

@SupremeGrandRuler - When people find your question unclear, and write specific words explaining the interpretations, you may find it useful to copy their explanation, not just one word, when you edit your question or clarity.

@AndyT How would you phrase the question then?

@SupremeGrandRuler - See my proposed edit to your question...

No, you may not trade game pieces.
The rules have this on trading:

Trade
  Afterwards you may trade freely (using either or both types of trades below) to gain needed Resource Cards:

a) Domestic Trade
On your turn, you can trade Resource Cards with any of the other players. You can announce which resources you need and what you are willing to trade for them. The other players can also make their own proposals and counter offers.
  Important: Players may only trade with the player whose turn it is. The other players may not trade among themselves.
b) Maritime Trade
You can also trade without the other players! 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. 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.
  Important: The 4:1 trade is always possible, even if you do not have a settlement on a harbor.

It is allowed to trade the resources for a road for some other resources, with this restriction: You are not allowed to trade the same goods. This means you cannot exchange brick for brick, or in this case 4 bricks for a brick and a wood. I believe handing over entire roads, settlements and/or cities worth of resources is tactically a dubious move for your opponents under most circumstances, but it is allowed.

You may not trade like resources (e.g., 2 wool for 1 wool).

Ah sorry, I meant the actual piece that has their color. So they have a blue Settlement. Can I offer to buy it from them for a number of Resource cards?

@SupremeGrandRuler Then the first part of my answer still stands: You can only trade resources, not development cards and definitely not game pieces.

Regarding trading future cards -
When you make a trade, both parties must give at least 1 resource card. You are not allowed to give a resource card and not receive one in return. A promise to get one later does not count as "a card", so you cannot do this if the promised card would be the only one traded.
However, people are allowed to say whatever they want as part of negotiating a trade. So there is nothing stopping a player from promising something in the future as part of a trade now; but there's 3 important factors:

The current trade still must involve both parties getting a card right now.
The promised thing must also involve both parties getting a card at the same time.
There is nothing in the rules that will force a player to follow through with what he promised. A player can simply go back on his word.

No, you can only trade in resource card with other players.
You also cannot promise future cards as part of a trade. You can only trade the cards you currently have.

Can you point me to where it states that you can't promise future cards? Because AFAIK it only states "resource cards" (which promised ones could be too) which is ambiguous (and thus badly written).

"Resource cards" absolutely cannot include promised ones too; there's no ambiguity here. If you read a game rule that states "It costs $5 to buy a new upgrade", do you wonder if you can buy the upgrade if you only have $2, if you promise to pay the other $3 later?

No, because "buying" and "trading" are two very different things. Trading includes negotiations, promises, deals, diplomacy, bargaining, bluffing, etc. while buying is an immediate change of goods vs. money.


text:
Does a hidden Yeld spyrer block line of sight?
A Yeld spyrer can hide in the open thanks to their chameleon wings. Does this block line of sight to models behind? What I want to do is place another spyrer behind the hiding Yeld so that they can't be targeted.
I play the 1st edition, but happy to see answers from LRB.


text:
How does this Imperial Assault character 'Shoot First'?
We played the final mission in our Imperial Assault campaign.
In this mission, you have to

 Kill Vader(!)

The Imperial Player applied the 'shoot first' card to activate the character at the start of the round. They also reasoned that the character receives 2 actions.
However, the scenario special rules for the character are that he does not activate normally, but takes an action after each rebel player.
My questions are:

Can the 'shoot first' card be applied to this character in the final mission?
How many actions does the character get if he does 'shoot first'?

The Shoot First card can be applied to any Imperial group, including villains, and that group will get a single activation through the use of the card, which translates to two actions.
Explanation:
Shoot First reads:

Keep this card secret. Play it during any mission at the start of a round. An Imperial group may interrupt to perform an activation. Then, discard this card.

The card doesn't care about any special rules about its target in a specific scenario. It just does as written unless explicitly prevented elsewhere by mission rules or by the cannot keyword, which is an exception to the Golden Rules. (Page 2, Rules Reference Guide)
Phrasing which contains a finale spoiler:

 Instead of activating as normal, Darth Vader performs 1 action after each hero's activation. (Page 41, Campaign Guide)

Even though the mission rules prevent the gain of activations every round as normal, it does not prevent other gains of activations.  It instead reads as a replacement effect for the core rules which govern figures gaining activations during the Activation Phase. (Page 3, Rules Reference Guide)
Therefore, the card can grant one activation.
Activation is defined as:

During a figure's activation, it performs up to two actions. (Page 3, Rules Reference Guide)

Thus, the group performs up to two actions.
Group is defined as:

All figures that correspond to a single Deployment card or Hero sheet are a group. (Page 13, Rules Reference Guide)

So this works on both regular deployment groups and villains.


text:
Can I build a strong knight with Deserter if the victim removes a mighty knight?
I already have all of my basic and mighty knights on the board. I played the Deserter Politics Progress Card to one of my opponents, and they chose to remove a mighty knight.
It only says in the Almanac,

If he chooses a knight that you do not have available (for example, if he removes a “strong” knight and both of your “strong” knights are already on the board), you may place a basic knight instead.

But I figured since the strong knights have a lower rank than the mighty ones (which is the type of knight my opponent removed), I can place it on the board.
Am I allowed to build the strong knight instead of a basic knight, because it is a lower rank than the knight removed?
Should I have promoted my basic knights first to have at least one on my supply, prior to using the Deserter card?

No. The rules say you may build a mighty knight, a basic knight if you have no mighty knights available, or nothing at all if you have neither mighty knights nor basic knights.


text:
Clarification of the typo in the Almanac's entry for Intrigue
I'm confused with the Intrigue Politics Progress Card. I've learnt it's easily the most useless Progress Card. It's fundamentally equal with the Deserter card, the sole difference is that instead of removing, the opponent only has to displace their knight (without using your own), but only if his/her knight is blocking your road to a common intersection (which is very rare, considering no one wants their road to be interrupted or left open, lest the Diplomat strikes).
If an opponent has displaced their knight from our common intersection to another, do I have to build a basic knight on the spot that their knight originally was, as with Deserter? Can I do that only if they had no choice but to remove said knight? The Almanac says

The displaced knight must be moved
  to an empty space. If he cannot, then remove him from the board (return it to its owner). After the knight is [sic] displaced, board), you may place a basic knight instead, following the normal rules.

Did the phrase "displaced, board" meant "removed from the board"? What's with the word "board"? Why wasn't the knight-hiring part specified in the card? If I don't have a basic knight to place, can I instead hire a knight of higher rank or, say, the same rank of knight my opponent removed?

Ignore ", board)". From a different print,

With this card you can displace an opponent’s knight without using a knight of your own. You can play this card even if you have no knights of your own. The displaced knight must be moved to an empty space. If he cannot, then remove him from the board (return it to its owner). After the knight is displaced, you can build there or move one of your own knights, following the normal rules.

It's just pointing out that now that the spot will become vacant, so you are able to build there. It's not allowing you play a knight for free.
The normal rules for placing a knight are:

If you wish to “hire” a knight, you must pay one wool and one ore to the bank. This allows you to take a basic knight (open helmet/one ring) and place it on the board. Newly placed knights are always placed with the inactive up. You may place your knight on any unoccupied intersection connected to your roads.

why the knight-hiring part wasn't specified in the card?

It's just pointing out a reason for which you might want to use the card. It's barely worth mentioning in the FAQ, much less on an already-full card.

Lastly, if I don't have a basic knight to place, can I instead hire a knight of higher rank or, say, the same rank of knight my opponent removed?

No. You can only buy a basic knight.

but only if his/her knight is blocking your road to a common intersection (which is very rare, considering no one wants their road to be interrupted or left open, lest the "Diplomat" strikes).

The knight actually protects its owner's roads in this example. That presents two additional uses for Intrigue:

Remove a Knight to leave a road vulnerable to the Diplomat.
Remove a Knight so you can place your own to protect your road from the Diplomat.


text:
Can I steal from a city with a city wall?
So I was playing the Cities & Knights scenario in the Catan app. On my turn, I rolled a seven. I moved the robber on the mountains hex where both of my opponents have a settlement and a city adjacent to it, as shown in the photo.

After I did that, the red player's settlement lights up, meaning I can steal from him. What I don't understand is, why did the green city not light up? I know that a city with a city wall adds 2 extra cards to your card limit, but I'm not quite sure that it also protects your cards when a player moves the robber on a hex adjacent to your walled city?

It is my understanding that walls have nothing to do with protection from being stolen from. The only reasons I can think of preventing stealing from a city/settlement adjacent to robber you placed is if the opponent has no cards to steal (doesn't appear that way in your screenshot) or house rules (e.g. can't block resource production of someone who hasn't yet scored).  You might check option settings to see if any such house rules are turned on.

Yes, you can steal from a player even if he has a city wall.
The rules make no mention of a city wall having any effect on stealing from a player when the robber is moved. As you said, the only thing that the walls do is increase your hand limit by 2 for how many cards you can safely hold when a 7 is rolled.
I can't say why the green city did not light up; you would probably have to check with the app's support about that. But do you have any particular reason for thinking that it has to do with the city wall? If it is a bug in the app, that bug could be any number of things, including possibly the app treating a city wall as protection from getting stolen from.

If your game has the "friendly robber" option selected, then you're not allowed to steal from anyone until they have more victory points than at the start of the game.


text:
Can any spell be played as a face-down 2/2 creature for 3 colourless mana?
According to rule 707.1:

707.1. Some cards allow spells and permanents to be face down.

Does this mean the fact that some cards allow this behaviour that any spell can be played in this way?
This theory is further reinforced by rule 707.7

707.7... Spells normally can’t be turned face up.

In addition, all morph spells I've seen have the same cost (3 waste) and they all come into play as 2/2 colourless creatures.
Finally, rule 707.11 starts:

707.11. If a face-down permanent would have an “As [this permanent] is turned face up . . .” ability...

Which suggests face-down permanents may not have such abilities...?
My thoughts are that this ability would help in cases where a player is struggling with mana flood, such that they have no other spells to cast, but could (for example) play a basic land face-down for 3 waste as a 2/2 colourless creature in a pinch.
There are other games that permit this kind of play.
However, I feel I am probably incorrect in my theory and perhaps the bit I'm misreading is rule 707.1, in so far as the "spells and permanents" mentioned are specifically those from cards that allow this ability.

No, you cannot generally cast any card as a face down spell. Rule 707.1 is saying that there are some cards with abilities that specifically allow you to cast face down spells or otherwise get face down cards on the battlefield. The Morph ability itself is what allows you to cast the card as a face down spell, and that only applies to the card it's printed on, not any other card. The keyword action Manifest on cards like Ethereal Ambush puts cards on the battlefield face down and the ability on the card Ixidron turns cards on the battlefield face down.
Rule 707.7 simply means that the rules themselves do not provide any way to turn face down spells face up while they are on the stack. There are also currently no cards that do that, but the wording of that rule leaves that possibility open for the future.
Rule 707.11 is just describing how to handle "As [this permanent] is turned face up..." abilities. Many morph creatures have those kinds of abilities, but many don't have them. Cards without Morph or Megamorph don't have abilities like that.

Incidentally, I believe that playing a card face down is the only action in Magic where an opponent cannot immediately verify that the action is legal.  As such, all remaining facedown cards are revealed at the end of the match, and if you are discovered to have played a card face down illegally, you automatically lose.  Of course, Ixadron and Manifest cards can leave you with face-down cards without morph or megamorph legally, so don't get your facedown cards mixed up.

@Arcanist Lupus Another reason why I wondered whether there was a general rule for it - such that it might be legal to play any card face down for {3}. But good to know for sure.


text:
What happens if I turn an animated Thespian's Stage into another land during combat?
I have Thespian's Stage in play copying Raging Ravine. I animate Thespian's Stage, give it vigilance in some way, and attack. My opponent flashes in Ambush Viper and blocks. I decide I don't want to trade. Can I activate Thespian's Stage to copy a non-animated land and get out of combat that way? What happens to the damage?
Gatherer doesn't say anything about this - only that I need to activate the animation costs after Thespian's Stage has copied a land.

No, you cannot turn it into another land to remove it from combat.  The issue is due to layers.
Layer 1 is copy effects (Thespian's Stage).
Layer 4 is type changing effects (Raging Ravine's ability).
Since it is still the same object, both layers are applied in order.  So, for layer 1 you have a Thespian's Stage that is copying a Raging Ravine that is copying a land (say, a Forest).  Then you apply the type changing effect in layer 4 that turns it into a 3/3 creature.
So, you'd end up with a 3/3 Creature Land - Forest (with a +1/+1 counter from attacking as Raging Ravine)

613.1a Layer 1: Copy effects are applied. See rule 706, “Copying Objects.”
613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.
613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”
613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.

Good answer, but you may want to pull in some CR references so that people can see how it is actually worded and dive a bit deeper if they wish too.

Wow, Magic is complicated. I don't understand your answer I'm afraid. Do you mean that Thespian's Stage turns into Raging Ravine first, then it turns into (say) a basic Forest that is still a 3/3 creature with a +1/+1 counter until end of turn?

@Allure Correct. Essentially, the "turn land into creature" is still affecting the Thespian Stage.

@Allure MtG is relatively straight-forward for 95% of the game if you know how phases, priority and the stack work. That last 5% is full of corner-cases and head-scratchers which is why the CR is massive and why layers are so spooky.

Note that this would work with Dryad Arbor; it fails in other cases because the ability makes the land a creature for some duration that doesn't end when transforming.


text:
Endless flickering with Naru Meha?
While looking at this Possibility Storm puzzle I wondered if it would be possible to do something along those lines:

Tap the mana dork for 1 colorless, making it 7 total mana.
Cast Supernatural Stamina on Naru Meha, Master Wizard.
Cast Illusionist's Stratagem on one Academy Journeymage and the Arcanist, and on top of it cast Vicious Offering, sacrificing Naru Meha as its kicker.
Naru Meha will return on the battlefield, its ETB will then copy Stratagem, the copy targeting Naru Meha again and the same Journeymage.
Journeymage's ETB bounces one of the opponent's creatures.
Repeat step 4 and 5, to end the loop use the same targets as in 3.
Attack with the unused 4/3 Journeymage.

Are these steps legal?
The puzzle, again:

What exactly is the question? Are you asking whether all of the steps you're describing are legal? Or whether that's the solution to the puzzle?

Whether this is legal, I'll clarify this in the question, sorry.

The steps are legal.  The only thing you need to remember is to let Supernatural Stamina resolve in step 2 before proceeding to step 3 (otherwise Naru Meha won't come back).  Also, when you get to step 6 and are repeating the loop, you need to go back to step 4 and use the targets there, not step 3.  Also note that in a tournament setting you would need to explicitly state where you are retaining priority to cast multiple things in a row.

Are you sure that steps 4 and 5 are loopable? I wouldve suspected that once Naru has returned the first time to copy the stratagem, the stratagem would resolve before bouncing her the second time and wouldn't be a valid target when she returned?

So your stack (bottom to top) Strat -> Viscious. Casting and kicking Viscious just puts it on the stack.  Then Stamina's trigger resolves, bringing back Naru.  Naru's ETB happens, copying Strategem. Stack now is Strat -> Viscious -> Strat (copy).  Let the top spell resolve.  Strategem flickers Naru and a Journeymage.  ETB triggers happen and you bounce an enemy creature and copy the bottom Strategem again.  Rinse repeat until the opponent is out of creatures.  Swing in with the untouched Journeymage for 4 damage for the win.

That is a crazy loop... almost game breaking essentially all you would need is Naru and stratagem for some cruel ETB triggers...

The trick is that Naru is getting flickered by the copy, the original spell stays on the stack for the whole loop without resolving once until you decide to stop.

@ThunderToes you need to find a way to flicker naru on the stack though, but I agree that it does look a bit too powerful for its cost

@ThunderToes I wouldn't say it's game-breaking. Sure it's an infinite loop, but that in itself is nothing new. This combo requires Naru and some ETB creature on the field, Stratagem and another instant flicker effect, so it's a 4-card combo really that also requires a lot of total mana and can be stopped anytime by instant creature control.

@Hackworth that makes more sense I thought it would just go infinite with Naru and Stratagem... I may still try and run this combo with say Temple of the Brood in commander.


text:
How do I deal with 'take backsies', particularly in Twilight Imperium?
I was playing twilight-imperium with an opponent who would often 'take back' or 'adjust' moves.
In general I'm OK with this if:

The player is new to the game
It is a minor tweak on a part of the board that doesn't effect me directly (e.g. changing your mind on what planets to exhaust to pay for units)

The problem is that this player doesn't satisfy either of my criteria, because:

The player actually owns the copy of twilight-imperium that we're playing
The 'take backs' involve changing how many units to commit to battle after that combat has been resolved

During the game I expressed my displeasure, which was heard by the table. It's the only time I've seen a player be eliminated from the game. Obviously the player didn't like this, so 2 of the 6 players didn't have a great time.
So, my question is how can I encourage a 'no take backsies' policy in the game?

You need, however annoying it may seem, to formalize a policy that deals not only with minor 'take back' adjustments, but with mistakes that were not noticed at the time. Before the next game, ask the group for a rule on which everyone can agree.
Some possibilities are:

No changes after the dice have been rolled (for any reason). This has the advantages that it is clear, and if you forgot to take an action before you rolled the dice, you have nobody to blame but yourself. It has the disadvantage that the sort of player you describe may well miscount the numbers in a combat (accidentally or otherwise), announce the wrong odds, and roll the dice before anyone has a chance to object; does the result stand?
To avoid this (and other results of haste), no changes after the next player has rolled the dice. Even this is vulnerable to cheats (see The Bum's Rush in Monopoly), but it gives a reasonable period for checking.
Any changes you like, any time during your turn. It sounds as if you would hate this; but if you put it forward as a possibility, saying "That's what we were playing last time", the player in question may realize that other people can do it to him, so perhaps it's not such a good idea.
Whatever other players suggest in your particular game, including extra leeway for new players. Since this is a house rule, there is no 'correct' solution; but apparently two of you were playing by different house rules, so the table needs to agree. I would strongly advise against "a reasonable time" since that will be open to interpretation, and both sides of the argument will think the other is trying to cheat. Even "Five minutes after the action" is unlikely to work except in one of those games with an eggtimer or chess clock running at all times.

Sadly, there is no perfect solution.
The previous answer addresses a specific attempt for the scenario of say combat.  But you really should have standing policies for your game group as a whole and always be willing to tweak it as necessary.  This may cause some issues within your gaming group, as has even caused some a member of mine to leave the group.  while this was upsetting at the time, the gaming experience going forward has been much improved.
TL;DR
In Conclusion,  have an agreed upon policy that the whole group agrees upon and stick to it.


text:
Flood Card Question
I’ve drawn 1 of my 2 flood cards. My first card changed the water level to 3. So do I now draw 1 flood card for a total of 2? Or do I draw 2 more for a total of 3?

You've either mixed decks together or you're drawing from the wrong one.

The Water Level changes when you draw a Waters Rise! Card from the treasure deck. Drawing from the flood deck never changes the Water Level. As the rules say:

If you draw a Waters Rise! card, you do not get a replacement card.

So when you draw your treasure cards, if one of them is a Waters Rise! card, then you get only one more card.


text:
Can you take 2 gems of the same kind for 2-3 players?
It says in the rule book that you can only take 2 gems of the same kind only if there'll be at least 4 chips left after you take the 2. Since you only have 4 chips for two players and 5 chips for three players, is the ability to take 2 gems of the same kind reserved for four players only?

Re "if there'll be at least 4 chips left after you take the 2", No, it says if there are at least 4 chips left when you take 2.

You are reading the rules incorrectly, they says when there are 4 chips at the start of your turn not after you take them. The rules don't care how many gems are in a stack after you have taken them just beforehand.
Rules

Collect Gem Chips – Either:Take 1 Gem from each of 3 different stacks (not gold)
  1: Take 2 Gems from one stack, as long as there are 4 or more chips in that stack

In a 4 player game there can be 3 chips missing at the start of your turn, 3 player 1 chip missing and 2 player no chips missing.
Testing on the iOs version of the game lets me draw two chips of the same color from a stack when there is exactly 4 chips on it in a two player game.

Oh, okay. I guess I just misunderstood the rules, since that rule was kind of ambiguously worded in the English version. So, for example, if 2 players were playing and the first player takes 2 diamonds from the original 4, the second player wouldn't be able to do the same feat and take the remaining 2 diamonds left. Is that correct?

@FenderOrcajo yep when reading the rules online (don't have my copy with me) it is a bit confusing how they did that section with two lines.

@FenderOrcajo I tested on the iOs version and it let me draw two chips from a stack in a 2 player game when there was 4 chips on the stack.


text:
How would the Imperial Player use the scouted card? (Imperial Assault: Jabba's Realm)
In the Jabba's Realm expansion to Imperial Assault, the Imperial player can get the Scouted upgrade:

Exhaust this card while a hero with a Bounty token is attacking to reroll 1 defense dice. If you do convert all [complete miss] results to [cancel surge] results.

Card image at BGG.
I don't see how this would be a benefit to substitute the best defense dice roll with an OK one. How can the Imperial Player use this card to their advantage?

I'm not certain (thus not an answer), but I think the intent is to allow a reroll for a defense die, but not allow the reroll to result in a [complete miss] result.

It lets the Imperial player re-roll a defense die. As a cost/balance for this benefit (in addition to the exhaust), if a Dodge is rolled, the player can't keep it. (It is changed into a weaker, but still okay, evade.)
So it let's you have a re-roll, but a little weaker one than usual—if it's a white die. If it's a black die the Imperial defensive player is re-rolling, this additional cost wouldn't come into play. (Just the exhaust cost in this second case.)
I think the confusion might be coming in if you think you have a choice on whether or not to apply the Dodge to Evade after the re-roll, which is incorrect. If you re-roll, you must apply the conversion to the result (when applicable).


text:
Is this the correct way to play the "Spoon" card?
Whenever we play the game with the "Spoon," we always follow these steps:

First, all players choose a card from their own hands. Then, before
  the cards are revealed, call out "spoon!" and announce the name of any
  card you would like. Starting from the player to your left, he checks
  to see if he has this card in his current hand (which of course excludes the card he was about to reveal). If not, the second player checks her current
  hand, and so on until a player announces they have the card. Take this
  card, and give the SPOON to the player whose card you took, and all
  players then reveal their cards simultaneously.

I always thought this was the proper way to play the "Spoon" card, because it prevents you from knowing if a player will or will not play a certain card, such as the "Miso Soup," unless of course if the card that you were asking was already chosen by the player and was about to reveal prior to playing the "Spoon" card.

Spoon and chopsticks are bonus action cards. From the rule book’s description:

To use a bonus action card, simply call out the name of the card as all players are revealing the cards during a turn. After all players have played their chosen cards as normal, the called out action then takes effect.

I'm not 100% certain what your asking, it seems you just want confirmation your interpretation is correct which I don't think it is.
Firstly the Spoon card is from Sushi Go Party, not Sushi Go.  Using the rules here as a reference it seems you've got the order a little wrong.
On page 7 it states :-

Chopsticks and spoon cards allow you to
  perform a bonus action on any turn after the
  turn in which the card is originally played.
  To use a bonus action card, simply call out the
  name of the card as all players are revealing
  the cards during a turn. After all players have
  played their chosen cards as normal, the called
  out action then takes effect.

This order is the reiterated on page 13.

When you want to use it, call out “spoon!” as all players are
  revealing their played cards. All players play their chosen cards
  as normal. Then announce the name of any card you would like.

So it's clear than a player can ask for what card they want AFTER all cards have been played and not before as you say in your example.
Finally on page of 11 for the "Miso soup" example you gave it states :-

• If a player plays a miso soup by using chopsticks, spoon, menu, or
  special order it counts as being played on that same turn.

So there is no reason why a spoon using player couldn't ask for Miso Soup to score point or deny points to another player.

This is how my friends and I play Chopsticks & Spoon: (1) We first place our first card face-down on the table, (2) Call out the action, (3) Do the action of the card, (4) Return the card to your/opponent's hand, and (5) Finally reveal the cards. I tend to oppose the rules because it gave me major confusion. And I also thought about the "Miso Soup" thing. If we're gonna follow the rules, what if you wanna play or get a "Miso Soup" but one of the players already revealed a "Miso Soup," then you can't choose it at all because it'll just be discarded (unless you wanna mess with your friends).

I think your questions was about if your reading of rules was.  If you like the rules or not is probably more an opinion based thing which wouldn't have a clear answer.


text:
Does the "Tea" card apply to a multiple set of cards from a single player?
If Chris has a "Tea" card and his largest set are 2 "Temaki," 2 "Edamame," and 2 "Pudding" cards, does he only score 2 points for the "Tea," or 6 points?

The Tea card can only count the cards in your single largest set of cards with the same background colour.
When you have multiple possible largest sets due to a tie, you can still only use it against the cards from a single set, so you have to pick one of them. So the Tea card is only worth 2 points in your example.
The rulebook (page 15) states:

TEA
End of the round: Count the number of cards in your largest (or tied
for largest) set of cards with the same background color. Tea is worth
1 point per card in that set.