text:
Grand slam bidding with high card points hand
What is my opening bid with a 24 high card point hand, so that I don't get 3 passes and end up short of slam?
AKQJx AKx Ax KQJ, I think. One year players. So rare to see this hand.
Partner had 11 HCP. I opened w 2NT, Part bid 3 something,I bid 3NT and then 3 passes.
She had 3rd A and we had 4 K. Made Gr slam. Bid 3 NT. What a waste of a great opportunity. Should part. know with her 11 and my 2NT open that we should not stop, go to Gerber?

Also note that 24 points in a single hand, without compensating distribution, is barely enough to struggle to 2NT with a couple of scattered jacks in partner's hand; Maybe 3NT if you are lucky. If partner cannot respond to an opening of 1 in a suit you are rarely making small slam, never mind a Grand Slam.,

It is also essential to know your general system approach, and what slam-bidding conventions you have agreed on with partner. With a casual partner bidding a Grand Slam is nearly always going to be a crap shoot, so I would in that case usually be happy to bid Small Slam when Grand makes. The opportunity cost for going one down in grand is just too high in a casual game.

Also, any commentary you can provide on your partner's capabilities will be useful. If partner is a timid declarer, I would rather play a sure small slam in my hand that a nerve-wracking grand by partner. If parent is a timid bidder I will need to plan a sequence of forcing bids, whereas with an over ambitious partner I might need to under bid by one or two points.

That's 27 HCP not 24. Yes, partner should be able to add 22 + 11 but you did rebid a non-forcing 3NT denying interest in her suit. If she was going through a "I have to learn to stop overbidding slam' phase, her pass might be understandable. As always, it depends so much on the specific hand.

If you want really good answers, ask really good questions - give the specific hands in as much detail as you can. In many cases even 8's and 9's may affect my bidding judgement, so don't blindly put in x's if you remember spots. I will interpret all x's as 2's, so whenever you know ther were bigger, say so.

@TomAu:  In general Grand Slam should not be bid on points, but on being able to count 13 tricks and 4 first round controls. The only exception is in auctions beginning with a bid or rebid of Notrump by opener to show a flat hand. In general the point-count guide line for Grand Slam, 37 HCP,  in that case deliberately overstate the points required to compensate for the weakness inherent in the flat distribution of both hands.

As explanation of why it is completely insufficient to ask "What is my opening bid with a 24 high card point hand ...?" consider these examples of hands with 24 HCP:
QJT9876 AK AK AK     Open 5S, asking partner to pass or raise to 6 or 7
                     with respectively 0, 1, or 2 controls in the Spade
                     suit. This is a useful asking bid because it is
                     pointless as an opening pre-empt - the only player
                     at the table you are pre-empting by opening 5 of a
                     major is partner.

AKQTx x AKQTx AQ     Open 1S in order to preserve room to show your strong
                     two suiter with a second round jump to 3D. Opening 2C
                     with strong two-suiters is a bad practice, because you
                     will either lose the second suit, or be forced to
                     introduce it at the 4 level where partner will mis-
                     read it as a control bid in support of his suit.

AKxx Kx AQJx AQJ     Open 2C planning to rebid 2NT.

K32 AK AK32 AK32     I lean towards opening 2C planning to rebid 2NT, but I
                     could forgive a partner who simply opened this 2NT.
                     Game is very unlikely if partner cannot move over 2NT,
                     because of the major suit shortness and the poor
                     texture in all suits.

AKQJTxx AKQ KQ 2     Open 4NT, Blackwood. The only information you require
                     from partner is how many Aces he has, and you may lose
                     the opportunity to ask if you let opponents into the
                     auction.

Update
Consider the following deal, consistent with OP's description. As the hand given by OP is actually 27 HCP, and an obvious 2S opener in consequence, let's amend to be an interesting question, dropping the SK to become:
S_AQJxx
H-AKx
D_Ax
C-KQJ

opposite something like
S-Kxx
H-JTxx
D-Kxx
C-Axx

Theoretical issues now aside, and with an actual hand to analyze, let's assume a casual partnership playing a Goren style bidding system - so no relevant conventions beyond Stayman; Strong 2C with a 2D waiting response and a second negative; straight Blackwood; and Gerber as an immediate jump over NT.
Opener has 24 HCP plus a strong 5-card Spade suit, counting 5.5 QT and 9 PT (playing tricks); this is well above the minimum for a strong 2C opener and, significantly, too strong for a 22-24 HCP Strong 2NY opener. Opener should open 2C (or 2S if that is a strong opener rather than a weak 2).
Over 2C responder will bid 2D (waiting) because she is too strong to bid a 2NT response.  Opener rebids 2S to show the strong 5 card suit; and responder rebids 3S (game forcing because a fit has been announced and a 3C second negative wasn't bid). Even if Responder errs and jumps to 4S, which should be a minimum distributional raise in Spades, the partnership should easily find the small slam in either Spades or Notrump.
Note that the grand, although possibly making on this hand, is a bad bet to bid because it requires responder to have either 4 clubs or for a beneficial break in hearts, or for a squeeze to come home.  This reflects the flaw in Opener's hand of no small diamond, wasting the DJ unless Responder has precisely Axxx or longer.
To directly answer the question in regards the actual bidding sequence at the table: once Opener underbids with an opening of 2NT and hides the strong Spade suit on the second round, Responder can be forgiven for passing 3NT. There is really nowhere for Responder to go with confidence.

It's worth adding a note that the Dallas Aces of the late 1970's, the first North American professional team, had a rule that you were only allowed to go down in Grand Slam once a year - twice in the same year and you were off the team. While perhaps a tad Draconian, this reflects the high odds you must have, in the long run, to profit by bidding Grand. You should have at least a 75% or 80% chance of making, which means no finesses, and being able to handle any 4-1 split in trumps. This usually amounts to being able to count 37 HCP or know where all 13 tricks are coming from.

Your hand is "too strong" for a "direct" of 2NT, which shows a balanced hand and 20-21 high card points.
The hand that you gave has 27 points, but three aces is one too many if your partner has the "third." I'm assuming that you have two aces, 2 KQJs, and a side king for 23.
With 22-23, the standard "forcing" bid is two clubs. Your partner MUST bid two diamonds (as a waiting bid) or better, (unless the opponent between you bids).
Let's say partner makes a bid of two diamonds (waiting) or two hearts (responsive). When you rebid 2 NT, partner now knows that you have a "strong" 2NT with 22-23 points.
Partner is now the "captain" of the team because she knows about your 22-23 NT hand, as well as the composition of her 11 point hand. She should do the math and come up with 33-34, and bid 6NT. The reason she might not have done this after your immediate 2NT is because she may have given you "credit" for 20-21, and come up with 31-32 for the combined hands.
Another poster hypothesized a bunch of possible hands for your "24" and came up with several hypothetical responses. That should not happen on this site. You should state the hand that you have, and ask about it, not about a generic "24" (23, actually) point hand.

You'd really force to game with AK32  AK32  AK  K32? Can I get two red cards in my bidding box please; I'd like to (re)double my opponent frequently.

Note that in a notrump auction, all I had to do to overbid you was give you more Aces and fewer Jacks. Opposite holds true in suit contracts.

@PieterGeerkens: Did you comment/downvote based on a misreading of my answer? Because I said that "The bidding cannot stop until a level is reached that is ONE SHORT of game," (not game itself). And my rebid of 2NT on AK32 AK32 AK K32 is similar to what you would do in your answer.

I'd still really like you to be more explicit about the hidden assumptions in your answer. OP gave you no reason in the question to assume that the hand had to be flat, so your statements that the bidding can be guided by the HCP alone is poor advice.

@PieterGeerkens: Bad question, bad answer. I finally answered a "revised" question.

Better; Remember that Goren, with it's 22-24 HCP opening of 2NT, is still played by some older players.


text:
If you knock, but actually have a gin hand, is it valid to change it after you've knocked?
I was playing a game of gin rummy when I knocked for a non-zero amount. As I laid out my cards, I noticed that I could have rearranged to cards and gone gin.
Now this isn't a question about whether or not changing my declaration of knock to gin was in the spirit of fairness, just whether or not it is allowed by the rules.
We consulted the wikipedia page on gin rummy, read the section on knocking, and found:

Once a player knocks or declares gin the round is over and scores are tallied, players cannot draw.

The purpose of this sentence could be interpreted as:

Saying that when either knocking or declaring gin, the had is over and a declaration cannot be changed
OR simply that the sentence is trying to point out that a draw is no longer possible at this point
OR both (the two are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive)

The knocking section does not seem to state clearly whether or not a knock hand can be changed to gin if the knocking player realizes their mistake.
And to add spice to this question, the interpretation of the rules is especially important, because the defending player, had I only knocked, would have been able to undercut me. So it wasn't just a question of whether I was going to receive X or Y points, it was a question of whether I would win the hand or be undercut.
Not looking for opinions, as we could create our own house rule out of this scenario going forward. Looking for any kind of official reference on the matter if one exists.

It is important to note that knocking and going gin are not mutually exclusive. From Pagat:

Knocking with no unmatched cards at all is called going gin [...]

And Wikipedia:

Knocking with 0 points of deadwood is known as going Gin or having a Gin hand [...]

If you announced a zero count, then you have gone gin.
If you announced a non-zero count, then you are stuck with the count that you announced and cannot take it back. Your opponent may proceed to lay off cards.
If you did not announce a count, but you have arranged your cards into matched and unmatched groups, then your count is the total of the unmatched cards, and it is too late to change your mind. If you are still in the process of arranging your cards, then your count is not finalized yet, and you can still change your mind.

Hm, that's interesting, but I think the issue was that I believed I had deadwood when I put my cards down (by separating what I believed to be the deadwood) and then tried to rearrange them later. Are you saying that the rearranging makes no difference?

@jefflunt I misread the question (I didn't realize that you specifically said that you had already arranged your cards). I edited the answer to clarify. Basically, the rules say to arrange your cards. They don't say that you can rearrange them once you are done, so you can't. But if you are still arranging, then of course you may continue to do so. Hopefully I captured that clearly in the answer.

The sequence of play should be:

You knock
You announce your count (or gin)

You can do this silently by laying down your cards organized with the extras clearly off to the side in an unmatched group.

Your opponent lays out there hand, laying off on your cards if you didn't gin.

The important questions are then -

Did you announce a count?
Did your opponent begin laying down their hand?

If you'd announced a count, you're stuck with it.
If you hadn't, and your opponent laid down their hand, they've jumped the gun a bit and you should be allowed to reorganize and formally announce your count.
The rules on RummyTalk don't address this directly, but the above is how I've played in tournaments (admittedly just local (<100 people) tournaments.  Obviously you'd want to bring in the official to get the ruling directly.

@Rainbolt - Thanks, but no thanks on the edit, nobody I ever played with would announce a count of 0.  One announces "GIN!"  The happy dance is optional, the triumphant tone is not.  The querant clearly stated that he did not initially announce gin, so requiring the count to be above 0 is clearly superfluous.

I understand if you think that it is superfluous. However, your answer actually misleads readers to believe that if you announce a zero count, then your opponent can begin laying off. That's wrong, and I'm sure not what you meant to imply.

@Rainbolt - we'll have to disagree, if the querant had announced a count of 0, he would have had gin which would lead directly to a logical inconsistency in his question.  Feel free to write your own answer (again) if you wish.

Hoyle says "the cards read themselves"

Welcome to B&CG.SE, and thanks for your answer! It looks like you have a great answer here complete with an authoritative source, but I think you could significantly improve it by making it clear what "Hoyle" refers to (perhaps by adding a link) and by saying a bit about what this quote means in practice.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
"Blocked or was Blocked By"
Time to Reflect says:

Exile target creature that blocked or was blocked by a Zombie this turn.

It's completely and utterly clear what the intention of this card is. That you can exile a target if that target blocked a Zombie, or if that target was blocked by a Zombie
However, what it says is that blocked or was blocked by a Zombie.
Magic is a rules-lawyer, literal-text-interpretation game, and that sentence (on its own) does not link that blocked to a Zombie.
If that sentence had been "return any creature that died or was blocked by a Zombie to hand, whatever zone it is currently in" then you would clearly allow it to target any creature that died for any reason whether or not it pertained to a Zombie.
A) Is there a specific ruling clarifying this anywhere (there's no card-ruling on The Gatherer)?
B) If not, then what would happen at an FNM or at a formal tournament if I tried to argue my case?

Your example with "died" is read as two separate things because you can't have a creature that "died by a Zombie", not because there's no link whatsoever. I'd try other examples before you try to base too much on "literal" reading in that vein, e.g. "Anyone who jogs or runs by the pool will be asked to leave."

@Jefromi On the other hand, "No drinking or eating messy foods during the show" requires the opposite interpretation. So it's not always one or the other. There might not be a better answer here than the required use of the most common-sense reading.

@GendoIkari That's pretty much my point: there is no literal reading that's always correct, and you have to use some amount of common sense to understand the language. So when the OP says it's clear what the intention is, well, that's how we know what it means, not the rules-lawyer stuff that follows.

Except that Magic is TOTALLY a rules lawyer game. It is a legitamate way to play the game to look for ways that the specific functionality of cards interacts with each other. See also Humility v Opalescence, the Chaos Orb legend, and the size of the rule book and the number of card rulings in general.

If the game was intended to be played on the basis of "what was obviously intended", none of that would be necessary.

Magic is a rules lawyer game, but the language used on cards and in the rules is not necessarily so. For example, there are cards with a certain name, and the card's text references itself with an abridged version of that name. Fictional example: A creature named Borat, Vanguard of Khasakhstan and with the card text "Whenever Borat attacks, you win the game". That ability of Borat, Vanguard of Khasakhstan is still functional, even though technically it references some other card or permanent with the full name "Borat".

Therefore, the 99.9% obvious-but-technically-possibly-not-quite-waterproof interpretation is the correct one, except that hasn't been spelled out in the CompRules.

"My opponent's textless Cryptic Command doesn't say it does anything, so technically it shouldn't do anything, right?"

Card name: Animar, Soul of Elements. Official Oracle card text, among others: "Creature spells you cast cost 1 less to cast for each +1/+1 counter on Animar."

Language is a tool for communicating, and Magic cards use it to communicate their functionality. Not all cards are written perfectly unambiguously, but every card can in fact be interpreted on the basis of "what was obviously intended" unless a rule specifically ascribes a different meaning to a word, phrase, or sentence structure on the card.

@Brondahl Yes, there are a lot of rules, and often a lot to be gained by thoroughly understanding them. That doesn't mean that absolutely everything in the entire game is specified solely by the rules without any reliance on understanding English. I wasn't saying that the entire game was played based on understanding intent, but rather that there are bits here and there which require some understanding beyond what's carefully spelled out by the rules.

fwiw, I'm not sure what the rules say, but if you start going rules-lawyer on me for something with such clear intent as this, I wouldn't enjoy playing with you.

The sentence on that card is to be read as "Exile target creature that (blocked or was blocked) by a Zombie this turn"; parentheses mine. Both "blocked" and "was blocked" are linked to "by a zombie". You can confirm that from the rulings at the bottom of the oracle page of Time to Reflect that you linked:

Time to Reflect only cares that the second creature was a Zombie at the moment it blocked or became blocked by the target creature. If that Zombie has become a non-Zombie creature or left the battlefield, Time to Reflect can still target the first creature.

The two other cards containing the phrase "blocked or was blocked" are Heat Stroke and Sea Troll. Heat Stroke in particular would not make sense if "blocked" and "was blocked" were not both connected to "this turn", because "blocked" would not have any limitation in time. Similar for Sea Troll and Time to Reflect; if "blocked" was meant to stand alone, it would still contain some sort of time limitation, even if was something like "this game".
As for your second question regarding Time to Reflect, it can only target creatures. A creature is any object on the battlefield whose card types includes "creature" and that has values for its power and toughness. A creature card in the graveyard or anywhere else but the battlefield is not a creature, therefore it's never a valid target for Time to Reflect. Whenever you read a combination of card types without additional qualifiers, such as "creature", "land", "artifact enchantment" and so on, that is always shorthand for a permanent of those types, i.e. "creature permanent", "land permanent", "artifact enchantment permanent", and so on. Objects are permanents if and only if they are on the battlefield.

110.1. A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. A permanent remains on the battlefield indefinitely. A card or token becomes a permanent as it enters the battlefield and it stops being a permanent as it’s moved to another zone by an effect or rule.
114.2. Only permanents are legal targets for spells and abilities, unless a spell or ability (a) specifies that it can target an object in another zone or a player, (b) targets an object that can’t exist on the battlefield, such as a spell or ability, or (c) targets a zone.

I'm confused where your last paragraph is coming from. Nothing in his question shows any confusion over what "creature" means, or asks a second question that you are answering by defining a permanent.

Maybe worth noting that Sea Troll's printed text is actually clearer on the meaning, and shows that both parts pertain to "blue creature".

@Hackworth What's all that "only target's creatures", this is the defn of a permanent stuff about? I haven't said anything about that? -1

So, your initial answer is just to state that  is the correct one. I already stated that I could see the obvious interpretation and could see that this was what was intended. My question is whether there is anything that anyone could cite to PROVE that this is the only acceptable interpretation. The ruling on that card, is a tenuous citation at best, since it doesn't directly address the point. And you cite Heat Wave ... but on what grounds are you asserting that Heat Wave only applies to creatures that blocked this turn? What ruling do you have that supports that?

I mentioned the part about targeting because OP seemed to be confused about it, since he mentioned targeting a creature card in the graveyard, one that died from combat with a zombie.

You've misread something... he used an example of a different but similar sentence, which involved a creature that had died, but he wasn't asking anything about if you can target creatures in the graveyard. I suppose he should have said "creature card" instead of "creature" in his hypothetical example, but it seems clear he didn't have any confusion over that point.

@Hackworth, the point there was entirely about the grammatical validity of my interpretation, and that it would be normal interpretation under some circumstances.

Let me just say that you are massively overthinking this issue. Card text has to be interpreted according to the rules of the English language. I don't know those rules well enough to argue authoritatively either way; we would have to get an English major involved for that. All I know is that the obvious interpretation is correct in this case, for which I've tried to give circumstantial evidence because there is no rules reference that directly answers your case. Any judge, whether at FNM or elsewhere, would tell you the same.

I do know enough about the English language to say that there are ways to make the opposite interpretation true. It could be worded e.g. as "by a creature that blocked this turn, or that was blocked by a Zombie this turn". But it wasn't worded like that or anything else that even hints at the possibility that you brought up, so I have no reason to believe that to be true.

And there are also very simple formulations that unambiguously make it the 'default' interpretation: Exile Target creation that blocked a Zombie this turn, or was blocked by a Zombie this turn or Exile Target creation that blocked, or was blocked by, a Zombie this turn (Note punctuation). :shrugs:

And I think if you could tell me that, with the benefit of much judging experience, you can confidently assert that there is definitely no rules reference to cite, either here or for other similar card. And similarly that you can, with good reason, assert that any judge would rule as such, then I'd consider that a sound answer to my question :)]

Both of your examples are less readable than the original. Card templating has to find a middle ground between readability and technical correctness, in order to let players focus on the game rather than deciphering card text.

"By" should be inside the parentheses, it is prepositional to the second use of "blocked" and makes no sense attached to the first use. "... that (...) a Zombie ..." should end up being the structure. I mean, if we're arguing about rule technicalities and all :)

You don't get to interpret the English on cards. Magic isn't a rules-lawyer game, it's a rules-programmer game, where every word and formatting structure has a VERY specific meaning. There is no rules reference that adds (parentheses) to "Exile target creature that (blocked or was blocked by) a Zombie this turn" to remove ambiguity in the way you want, but I can guarantee you that there is no certified judge who will support the interpretation that you want to push. Thinking of the text on cards in terms of English, with all its imperfections and ambiguities, is a mistake.
But if you insist, here are some other ideas for you to push;

Lightning Bolt can target an opponent who has Leyline of Sanctity, because it says "(target creature) or (player)".
Chainer's Edict's flashback reminder text says to cast it from graveyard, "Then exile it". Doesn't it just get exiled from the stack immediately?
Hero's Downfall targets planeswalkers. Aren't the players planeswalkers in this game?

Your reasoning is off. If a player is supposed to not interpret the English on cards, and there is no rules reference to answer the question, then what is there to go by? Hint: It's absolutely necessary to interpret cards and rules according to the rules of the English language, exactly because there is no machine-readable text on human-readable cards. For example, rule 608.2c, in part, reads: "Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases—read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.", emphasis mine.

@Hackworth The issue here is that English has an ambiguity, but Magic doesn't. There is one interpretation of that sentence which is correct, and quibbling about it doesn't change anything, which is why Magic is closer to "rules programming" than "rules lawyering".
If a ruling is needed, "no judge would ever let you do that" is sufficient. The writers of the CR didn't feel the need to explain reading, so there isn't much relevant literature there.

The fact is that Magic cards are written in English, and there are sometimes ambiguities in card text that require interpretation. Sometimes, even with Magic cards, you need a little common sense to determine which antecedent of a pronoun makes the most sense, or which interpretation of a sentence structure most likely matches the author's intention. This ambiguity is one of the reasons Magic cards have rulings and errata.

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

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


text:
Do I need mana in my mana pool to summon a creature card?
Is there a limit to how many creatures I can summon in a turn?

It would help explain how this stuff works if you add some detail about how you think it works. Specifically, what do you already know about how creatures are cast?

The questions in the title and body are totally different. I think it would help if you chose one and expanded on it. Provide some context. For example, what prompted the question? What made you think that there may be a limit on how many creatures you can summon per turn? Also, try reading over the Basic Rules. They address most of the situations you'll need to know about as a casual player.

Each spell that you cast has a mana cost associated with it. Whether creature, instant, planeswalker, or any other, they all have a mana cost. (Lands aren't spells, so they're treated different, but that's a topic for a different day.)
You must have mana in the necessary amount and type to cast the spell as indicated in the top right corner of the spell. If you want to cast a Runeclaw Bear you must have two mana, one of which must be green. Simple stuff.
You do not necessarily need the mana to be in your pool at the time you declare the spell. You may declare a spell, then activate mana abilities (like Forest or Mystic Druid, but notably not Arbor Elf who normally serves the same purpose) if you so choose. It's worth noting that since no one can respond to mana abilities, this is effectively the same if you declare then pay or if you pay then declare. If you read up on Magic's history, it was once a hot point of contention!!
You may encounter creatures or other spells that require 0 mana. Memnite comes to mind, along with Black Lotus. Clearly, you always have the appropriate mana to cast these spells. You may also encounter spells with no mana cost, like Evermind but you'll find these to be the exception, and you're unlikely to find them in most scenarios.
As for a limit, generally you're only limited by the amount of mana you have available. Some obscure spells like Rule of Law or Æther Storm will get in the way, but for most circumstances you're only limited by your mana. In fact, many strategies (particularly red decks) rely on getting 2 or even 3 creatures out a turn in an effort to swarm opponents before they can mount a viable defense.
Keep in mind that if you're unsure about these simple questions, while we're happy to help, you may want to find a knowledgeable IRL buddy to ask these to. This represents a fundamental uncertainty about core aspects of the game which will make playing it difficult and potentially un-fun. I highly recommend engaging your LGS about how to get practice with regular players so you don't learn wrong!

Heh, just in case you casually run into a Black Lotus...

Proxies... proxies everywhere!


text:
What is timing for Global Conflicts Variant in through the ages?
When playing the Global Conflicts Variant (in the Handbook) points are awarded at the end of Ages 1,2 and 3 for relative military strength.  However what is the timing of this.
Does this happen as soon as age ends or do we go through all the other stuff such as leaders dying which may affect military strength.

Where can one read about this "global war" variant? A quick scan through google and the rulebook turns up no references to it at all.

The game come with two rules books.  "Code of laws" and "Handbook - Your first game". You need the hand book.  On the very last page at the bottom are several suggest variants.

For ease I'll paste it here.  "When Age I, Age II, or Age III ends, a global conflict occurs.
Each civilization scores culture equal to the difference
between its strength and the strength of the weakest
civilization. Thus, the weakest civilization will score
nothing."     I find it works very well with the peaceful variant where all agression and war cards have been removed.   helps keep military relevant with out weaker players losing to much.

There is ambiguity, but I would do the Global Conflict culture award first, and then follow the usual start of a new age process as defined in the rulebook.

Discard antiquated cards
Remove antiquated leaders from play
Remove antiquated unfinished wonders.
Remove antiquated pacts
Lose 2 yellow tokens

This could be justified by noting the rulebook seems to list all those as something to do at the start of an age, while the culture award occurs at the end of an age.

i had a similar response on BGG.  in my head all those things happened at 'end of age'  rather than 'start of next age'  So the leader is alive for global conflict and may then die at start of next age.   When learning the game I made similar timing issues with card row being replenished at 'start of a players turn' and not 'end of previous player'.   I'll take this as correct answer then.


text:
Running out of cards in Exploding Kittens
In the Exploding Kittens game, the rules say

You won't ever run out of cards in the Draw Pile, so there is never any need for a reshuffle.

In every game I've played all the cards end up on the discard pile fairly quickly and there is nothing left in the draw pile, so we have to reuse them.
Is this meant to happen? Are we doing something wrong?

Yup.  Put the defused kittens back into the deck every time they're defused.  You eventually may end up with only kittens left in the draw pile, but then everybody dies except one player because you started with enough kittens for everyone except one player.  Also note that defuses cannot be 'noped',

@Lo-Tan Whoops, we'd been playing where you can nope defuses. TIL.

@Seiyria We definitely had that occur on our first few games, so that's why I mentioned it.  Figured maybe we weren't the only ones :)  Glad to help!

@Lo-Tan I actually feel like it adds an extra level to the game, so I probably won't say anything. It's mean, but that's how we roll I guess!

@Seiyria have fun exploding!

You are missing a critical step.  Every time an Exploding Kitten is drawn it needs to go back into the deck if it is defused.
From the rules:

Defuse:
If you drew an Exploding Kitten, you can play this card instead of dying. Place your Defuse card in the Discard Pile.
Then take the Exploding Kitten, and without reordering or viewing the other cards, secretly put it back in the Draw Pile anywhere you’d like.

As long as you do that, and you had the correct number of exploding kittens in your starting deck (1 less than the number of players) the deck will never run out.

Hmm we were putting them back in and yet somehow ran out of cards.
Yes the deck should eventually just be kittens... so it must end no matter how many defuses... Ok thanks, I'll have to play again!

You are likely misunderstanding a rule or two. However without more information I can only guess what that rule might be.
You start the game with N-1 exploding kitten cards in the deck (where N is the number of players).
Exploding kitten cards never get put in your hand. When you draw one if have a defuse you get to put back in the deck. If not you blow up and are out of the game.
There should be no way for you to go through the whole deck without all but one person exploding.

I guess we must have been putting the exploded kittens in the wrong pile or something.
Thanks! We'll try again :)

We played a game that ended with the last card being a kitten. The


text:
Arkham Horror Put a Clue Token on this card?
I can't seem to quite figure out how cards like Amanda Sharpe's Pass/Fail work where it states:

...put a Clue token on this Card

Do these clue tokens become usable as a bank of clue tokens, such as when sealing a gate?  Do you get to use them once the condition has passed or failed, and they are put into your normal clue token pool?  Or are these simply markers, unusable and lost when passed/failed?

They're just markers; effectively you have to draw three unique items to pass her story.
Rules-wise, there's nothing that explicitly says this, it's just that the tokens are on the card, not in your possession, and there's nothing that says you can ever gain them or use them. I wouldn't say they're "lost" when passed/failed; you never actually had them as clue tokens. They just go back to the supply once the card doesn't need them, their purpose served.
A lot of cards in Arkham Horror use tokens of various kinds as markers. Many of the rumors use clue tokens to keep track of "how bad is it" (for example The Great Ritual). When possible, they'll use an appropriate type of token for the function of the card, like the Golden Trumpet which prevents sanity loss and uses sanity tokens to track it. But most things don't have an obvious choice like that, so clue tokens are a nice generic choice that you're unlikely to be out of.

Agreed.  In the cases where the tokens types don't matter, you could use anything (number on the dice, coins, other game tokens).  I can't think of any examples where the token types do matter.  Even for the Golden Trumpet example if you used stamina tokens (example), it'd still prevent sanity loss.  There have definitely been cases where I've been out of the tokens requested so used something else.

Even when they don't actually matter in terms of rules/mechanics, they still matter in the sense that they help remind you what you're doing. If you used stamina tokens on Golden Trumpet you might be pretty prone to accidentally using it to prevent stamina loss.

nods I wasn't trying to say "confuse yourself", I was trying to say "If you're out of sanity tokens don't stress"=)  Sorry.


text:
Is studying tactics for Go useless?
There are plenty of chess tactics trainers online, to improve your chess skills, but I cannot find a single one for go. Is studying tactics useless for go?

See tsumego

On the contrary, studying tactics for go is essential. Books or online resources on Joseki, Tesuji,  and Life and Death situations are good places to start, followed by general opening strategy as you gain experience.
Playing games on 13x13 boards as well as the standard 19x19 will assist you in gaining experience in the balance between influence to the centre and territory along  the sides and corners.
However, programming go is considerably more complex than programming chess, leading to fewer good trainers available.

Less about the complexity of the programming, and more towards the increased number of possible moves. The limitation is computational power.

Go tactics are essential, as other answers have said. Two critical aspects of beginning Go play are fuseki (openings, similar in theory to chess; you want to position your first pieces to stake a claim and assert control over territory on the board that you will then defend) and joseki (tactical "battles" for a section of the board; various combinations of white and black stones can be played in a wide variety of ways that boil down to a lesser number of "best practices" that should be studied).
However, as with almost any pursuit, a good player knows the unwritten rules and how to follow them, but a true master knows which of those he can break, and when. You might make it to single-digit kyu just by studying joseki, but the mark of a true dan-rank Go player is an intuitive knowledge that he doesn't have to play the joseki exactly as he's memorized, if he sees an alternate play based on the surrounding stones that would create an advantage that doesn't exist in the smaller, more sterile joseki studies.
As far as joseki/fuseki resources, there are tons of online resources; Google those terms and you'll find websites/apps that teach you various aspects of these tactical battles.

I couldn't remember the term fuseki; thank you for reminding me. It's been far too long since I last played.

The best way to study Go tactics is to do lots of problems.  GoGrinder is a really good way to practice if you're using a computer or an Android phone.  I haven't kept the iPhone version up to date, so I can't really recommend that anymore.

In chess, there are a handful of maneuvers such as "pins, forks, hurdles, discovered checks, etc. that are grouped under "tactics."
In Go, there are whole subcategories of tactics such as "Life and Death," (self explanatory), "tesuji," (literally "sleight of hand"), endgame tactics, etc. Each of these subcategories has whole books devoted to them, and improving in even one category will substantially raise your overall strength.
So, unlike chess, you don't study "tactics" as a group, but rather individual categories of tactics.

Where do you get “muscles” from? Wikipedia gives “line of play”; I see no etymology on Sensei.

@PJTraill: I've studied Japanese and Chinese, so I go back to the orginal words, not to the go textbooks. "Te" ;literally means "hand," and "suji" the flesh attached to the hand.

Thanks; that helps. Actually I thought I remembered hearing that te meant a point, and suji skilful play in a more general sense – was that wrong?

@PJTraill: Your understanding was not wrong "in context" (Go books). I just went out of those books and back to the original language. Actually, a more relevant translation is "manoeuvre," from the French "hand work," or even "sleight of hand." I substituted the last definition for "muscles." It helps to be multilingual for these things.

Thanks, an interesting example of the difficulties of translation!


text:
Smash Up Question about Werewolves
LET THE DOG OUT

Destroy any number of minions at your minion's base whose total power is less than or equal to your minion's power.

Is this referring to the total power of all minions that are to be destroyed or is it referring to the total power of each individual minion to be destroyed?
If my minion is worth 6, does that mean I can destroy all minions who have power of 6 or less? Or am I only able to destroy a grand total of 6, such as a 4-minion plus a 2-minion?

The total power of a set of minions is the sum of their powers.
If your minion has a power of 6, you could destroy a minion of power 4 and a minion of power 2, but you could not destroy a minion of power 4 and a minion of power 3.
To get the other meaning, it would be phrased the same except for the removal of the word "total".

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


text:
Catan Pirates Starting Phase Question
When each player is placing their initial Harbor and settlement, does the first player place BOTH their Harbor and settlement immediately or does the first player place only their Harbor then it's the next player's turn to place one Harbor?

Using the turn order described in base Catan, each player places a harbor settlement first and a regular settlement second on the starting island (each without a road).  Your harbor settlement must be placed on one of the intersections marked with a circle (page 9). The regular settlement may be placed on any intersection, including those marked with a circle. You must of course observe the distance rule when building all harbor settlements and regular settlements.  Your starting resources are 1 card from each terrain hex adjacent to your starting settlement (not harbor settlement).
The last player to place a settlement is the first to place a road adjacent to that settlement.  That same player then places a settler ship (ship + settler) on one of the sea routes adjacent to his or her harbor settlement.  The other players follow clockwise.  Once everyone has placed their pieces the starting player begins the game by rolling the dice.

I read that first line to mean you play like the base game, you place your harbor and then everyone else does too.  Then the last person to place a harbor, places their settlement, with a road and then places a settler ship, back to the original player.


text:
Is it possible to have a full house and straight flush in same hand with only two players?
In Texas Holdem, Is it possible to have a full house and straight flush in same hand with only two players?

The number of players is irrelevant, unless you're playing by yourself.

Why would number of players matter, each player has 2 cards added to the 5 community cards. The only way number of players could matter is if there were more community cards based on number of players, or you were asking to make more combinations than the number of players (one player with a straight flush and full house)

Certainly.
Player 1 : 5♥ 6♥
Player 2 : 8♣ 9♣
Community cards: 7♥ 8♥ 9♥ 8♦ 9♦
Player one has 5♥ 6♥ 7♥ 8♥ 9♥
Player two has 8♣ 8♥ 9♣ 9♥ 9♦

You can also have Royal Flush and Quad Aces...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XunAlp2azhA

Yes. I've done it for real at the casino. Made a big score!

The final straight flush: K,Q,J,T,9, all one suit.
I had an Ace Ten off, the Ten made the straight flush.
Another player held pocket pair of Kings to make a K,K,K,J,J full house.

Board ends up K,J,J,Q,9 where 4 cards matched the suit of my 10.


text:
Does Germany ever start first?
The first time I ever played Axis and Allies, the player teaching me said that, for the first turn, play skips the USSR and begins with Germany, as a way to simulate the end of blitzkrieg.
The more I've played, the more questionable this seems, so I'm curious:
In any variant of Axis and Allies, is there a rule stating that the first turn skips the USSR?

I think you are referring to Classic edition of A&A, with a "no Soviet first-turn attack" rule.
In that variation, the Soviet Union  receives its income and gets to "build," but not to attack, before the Germans on the first turn. That simulates the (initial) Soviet neutrality that resulted from the Hitler-Stalin Pact (and assumes that the Soviets stayed neutral until the summer of 1942, which is to say after Pearl Harbor.)
So Germany gets the first "move" on the first round, and then plays after the Soviet Union thereafter. The reason this variation was proposed is that giving Germany the "first strike" (which it had in real life), cuts the allied advantage in half, making the game close to "even."

Axis and Allies 1940 has Germany always going before The Soviet Union
Rules

Order of Play
  1. Germany
  2. Soviet Union
  3. United States
  4. United Kingdom
  5. Italy
  6. France (controlled by an Allied player)

The rules you cite are for Axis & Allies Europe 1940 Second Edition. I suppose there is still the question of if any version of Axis & Allies allows the USSR to go first.


text:
Star Wars Imperial Assault tutorial questions

How do I decide who goes first and in what order players take their turns?
Do the rebel players start with any of the class cards specific to their character?

The players decide which hero goes first, and in what order they go.
The rebel players start with all class cards that cost 0xp.


text:
Can colonists be relocated during the Mayor phase?
I've been reading the rules, and while everything is very well explained, I can't seem to determine if the colonist is fixed to the building once placed. Say I put a colonist working on the small market, and it's now the mayor phase, and I got one new colonist from the ship.
I place him on a plantation (sugar, e.g.), but I also feel like the next player will pick the craftsmen card. Can I move the colonist from the hospice to the sugar mill (provided I, of course have room)?
Secondly, at the end of the mayor phase, the mayor should place the number of colonists on the ship equal to the number of free "work spaces", to a minimum of the number of players. Now, how exactly do you determine if the mayor "forgets" this. I mean, if you're a player who hopes he will forget it do you just wait out until the next role is drawn and then point out that the new colonists have been forgotten?

I think you should see it as a joint responsibility among all of the players to remember to perform tasks such as replacing colonists, putting coins on unused role cards, emptying the trading house etc. It's not really about whether the individual player forgets.

All your colonists can be moved each mayor phase, including ones acquired during earlier turns.
From the rules:

A player may place his new colonist(s), together with all the colonists he acquired from earlier rounds, on any empty circles on the tiles on his player board. Thus, a player may move a colonist placed on a circle or San Juan in an earlier round.

Since it is the last thing a player does during their turn, the first opportunity to remind them is after a new role card is selected or the Governor placard is moved (since otherwise it would still be during their turn.). It seems silly to place only the minimum number of colonists in the ship if "forgotten" at this point, and I can see how this could be exploited by players to not end the game as soon as it normally would. (Note: This rules seems is probably for later turns after a Builder phase has been selected and people cannot remember which new buildings have been built, and therefore how many colonists are supposed to be on the ship.)

As his last duty, the mayor puts new colonists on the colonist ship to be used in the next mayor phase. [...] - If a mayor forgets (players may remind him) to place new colonists on the colonist ship, players later place the minimum (number of players) on the colonist ship.

Yes, during every Mayor phase, you can reassign your colonists to new buildings or plantations.  The only thing you cannot do is voluntarily place your colonists in San Juan if there is an empty space (building or plantation) for them to occupy.
If your game strategy depends on cheating, then you should find a new hobby.

You totally misinterpreted what I wanted to say. I'm reading the rules, and there is a specific section which mentions:
"If a mayor forgets (players may remind him) to place new colonists on the colonist ship, players later place the minimum (number of players) on the colonist ship."
My question is: What's the point of this rule and how does it actually come into play?

The point of the rule is just for ease: to avoid having to remember what the "open spots on Buildings" state was at the end of the last Mayor phase. We often play that if we can all agree what the actual number should have been, we use that, otherwise, we just use the minimum.

My group will actually backtrack and ensure we have the right number.  But the number of times we forget is getting less and less.

I totally understand your frustration! What is difficult is that the rulebook speak about "player board", "the island", "the city", "player's tiles", "San Juan", "small city of San Juan" and so on... If you mix them up, then the rulebook doesn't make sense...
Remember that "San Juan" is not the same as "the island"! On "the island" there is 12 spaces, each for a plantation tile. In "the city" there is 12 spaces where you can place your buildings. Your "player board" consists of both "the island" and "the city". "San Juan" or "small city of San Juan" is an own place, situated on "the island" but not the same as "the island"! On "San Juan" you can store your colonists if you cannot place your colonists on your "player board". Thus: You have no empty circles on the buildings/plantations (the city) or plantation tiles (the island), but you still have a few colonists. What to do? You store them on "San Juan", or also called in the rulebook "small city of San Juan".
When you have this names sorted out, then the text is easy to understand:
"No player may chose to place colonists in San Juan if he has empty circles on his player board. All empty circles must be filled, if possible."


text:
Identical creatures entering the battlefield
If I have two cards called Sin Collector in hand and I play my first, Sin Collector (A). I use its triggered ability.
"When Sin Collector enters the battlefield, target opponent reveals his or her hand. You choose an instant or sorcery card from it and exile that card."
Now, I play Sin Collector (B), I use B's triggered ability.
But now my question. Does Sin Collector (A)'s ability trigger again as well? 'Sin Collector' entered the battlefield again, right?

Nope, nothing weird like that happens. When a card's rules text uses that card's name, it's referring to just that specific object, not anything else that happens to have the same name. Think of it as shorthand for "this particular Sin Collector", if you like. Here's the relevant comp rule:

201.4. Text that refers to the object it's on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

If a card is really referring to other cards with that name, it will use a phrase like "a card named X" or "all cards named X". This isn't necessary too often, but for example, Avarax says:

When Avarax enters the battlefield, you may search your library for a card named Avarax, reveal it, and put it into your hand. If you do, shuffle your library.

The first "Avarax" there is the card referring to itself; "card named Avarax" is of course another one.

No, rules text that refers to an object by its own name just means [this] object.

201.4. Text that refers to the object it's on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.


text:
Does a cafe card bonus apply to all players?
In the game Chez Geek cafe cards have a cost of 1 but a bonus that reads

While a Café card is in play, there is no cost to play further Café cards (though it still takes free time).

Does this bonus apply to all roommates in the game or only the person who played it?

We have always played it so that the Café bonus applied to all players.
I can find no direct rule citation on this however if they were meant to only apply to the person who played the card it would have specifically said, "While a Café card is in your room" much like many other cards do.


text:
Drawn through gate during an Arkham encounter
Two investigators were in the same location in Arkham. The first investigator drew an encounter 'A monster and gate appear!'. He resolved that encounter by fighting the monster and then getting drawn through the gate. The second investigator also got drawn through the gate before having an encounter.
We also said that the two investigators did not have an Other World encounter as they were 'delayed' as they were drawn in to the gate. This ended up with the second investigator not having any encounters on this particular turn.
Was that the correct ruling?

Delayed has no bearing on whether an investigator has an Other World encounter or not.
However the gate takes precedence.  Both investigators should have been drawn through the gate first, then the monster appears.
From the Dunwich Horror FAQ:

Q: When a location card says a gate and a monster appear, which appearance is resolved first?
A: The gate appears first, and any investigators at the location are drawn through the gate. Then the monster appears. Monsters that appear as a result of these encounters stay on the board, count against the monster limit, can go to the Outskirts, etc., as normal.

And from the errata section of the same document:

Arkham Encounters
(pages 8-9 in the first printing of the Arkham Horror rules)
If an investigator is drawn through a gate that appears as
a result of an encounter (such as “A gate appears!” or “A
gate and a monster appear!”), then he is delayed, just as if
he had been drawn through a gate in the Mythos Phase.

so potentially,  the investigators would have 3 other world encounters?

@link64 - yes, that's correct.


text:
Ancient one awakes and battle
When the ancient one awakes, what will happen with the another monsters? They stay in the board or just they're banished? And if they stay in the board, the player needs to evade that monster every time, or just one time or never?
The another question is about the dice success, every FAQ and fourum say the number of cumulative success of dies but, what happens when in one whole round is just one success? It accumulates to the next round or it's just lost.

Please ask one question per question - it makes it easier to get clear answers, and easier to mark things as duplicates if they actually are. Also, if you think your question might be a duplicate, please tell us what question you're comparing it to and explain how it's different; when you just say you hope it's not a duplicate you're basically forcing people to spend time going and finding the possible duplicate, and you're not actually making your question different.

During the final battle, the only thing that matters is the Ancient One and any Investigators who were not lost in time and space. Everything associated with the old board is irrelevant.
Take a look at the description of the turn structure on page 22 of the rules:

Combat with the Ancient One is divided into rounds. During a round, players first have an opportunity to adjust their investigators. Then each player attacks the Ancient One. Finally, the Ancient One attacks the investigators. Once these steps have been resolved, a new round begins.

Where in there would monsters attack? And Investigators may only make combat checks against the Ancient One.
Your second question is answered by another paragraph on page 22:

Instead, keep track of every success an investigator scores against the Ancient One (see "Skill Checks," page 13). These successes are cumulative, and each successive player adds to them with his own attack. When the players accumulate a total number of successes equal to the number of players (including any players that were eliminated from the game), remove one doom token from the Ancient One's doom track and reset their cumulative successes to zero.

And further clarified by the FAQ referenced in this question.

If the investigators get 9 successes in the first round of combat, they would remove 2 doom tokens, and 1 success would carry over to the next round of combat.

Yes, it clarifies the carry over, but not when the number of success is less than the number of players, that's my question

It accumulates to the next round. It doesn't get lost simply because the turn is ending.


text:
How does the help system work in munchkin?
The rules say to add your combat strength to theirs and in a separate section it says that your combat strength is your level plus weapons etc.
In our first few games this essentially meant that every monster was easily beaten so we were wondering if maybe it was just your level you add to them and any enhancement cards.

Remember, the helper doesn't get any levels for it, so helping someone gives him levels, but not you. At best, you can negotiate for items.

If it is too easy, the other players may add wandering monsters and one shot items to help the monsters.

Never help an opponent when there isn't anything in it for you. The only common situation where you would offer your help for free is when your race is Elf. And even then you might consider to a) still ask for items or b) point and laugh while bad stuff happens to your opponent.

In the early game, most monsters should be relatively easily beatable (or at least avoidable). Save your monster enhancers for the late game, where they actually matter (or use them tactically to get more treasure).

Yes, the rules do specifically say

Combat strength is the total of Level plus all modifiers - positive or negative - given by items and other cards.

So the helping player adds all their bonuses to yours. Remember also to count situational modifiers that are brought about by the new helper eg. a monster who is +4 against Elves would gain a +4 bonus if the person you brought in to help was an Elf but you weren't.
Just remember that Munchkin is a competitive game and it is up to you whether you assist or not (unless a specific card says otherwise). It isn't always in your (or your fellow player's) best interests to agree to help, thus forcing the player in the combat to fight alone or run away.

Your combat strength is your level plus any bonus from your equipment or any items you might use, which definitely will make some monsters much easier to defeat than otherwise.


text:
How does Phyrexian Dreadnought and Volrath's Shapeshifter interact?
If I have a Phyrexian Dreadnought on top of my graveyard, and I put a Volrath Shapeshifter onto the battlefield, will I have to sacrifice other creatures with the total power of 12 or not?
The same question goes for using the shapeshifters activated ability to discard a Phyrexian dreadnaught from my hand.

If I have a Phyrexian Dreadnought on top of my graveyard, and I put a Volrath Shapeshifter onto the battlefield, will I have to sacrifice other creatures with the total power of 12 or not?

Yes.
It's the VS's appearance on the battlefield that will determine if the ability triggers.

603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like.  [...]

Static abilities are always operational when the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone, so there is not a moment the VS is on the battlefield that it's not a PD, so its triggered ability will trigger.

The same question goes for using the shapeshifters activated ability to discard a Phyrexian dreadnaught from my hand.

No.
An object enters the battlefield when it is placed in the battlefield from another zone.

Enters the Battlefield: A nontoken permanent “enters the battlefield” when it’s moved onto the battlefield from another zone. A token “enters the battlefield” when it’s created. See rules 403.3, 603.6a, 603.6e, and 614.12.

The object in this case, the VS-become-PD, has not changed zones. All that happened is that its characteristics (name, type, text, etc) changed. As such, it has not entered the battlefield.
If changing characteristics was considered entering the battlefield, then using Giant Growth on a Phyrexian Dreadnought would trigger its ability, and I'm sure you realize it doesn't.

The rules for the VS + PD is just as I expected. So that means that if an opponent phases my VS out, it will return to the battlefield from another zone and therefore trigger the sacrifice of creatures?

@Jacob Lund, No. Phasing (like tapping) is a status change, not a zone change. 702.25d The phasing event doesn’t actually cause a permanent to change zones or control, even though it’s treated as though it’s not on the battlefield and not under its controller’s control while it’s phased out. Zone-change triggers don’t trigger when a permanent phases in or out. Counters remain on a permanent while it’s phased out. Effects that check a phased-in permanent’s history won’t treat the phasing event as having caused the permanent to leave or enter the battlefield or its controller’s control.

For the first question, yes, you will have to either sacrifice the Shapeshifter or Sacrifice other creatures. The Shapeshifter's static ability applies as it is entering the battlefield, so it is just like a Dreadnought is entering the battlefield.
For the second question, the answer is no. The rulings of the Volrath Shapeshifter say:

When it changes forms, any "enters the battlefield" abilities of the card it "copies" do not trigger.

The creature it becomes is not "entering the battlefield" because it is already on the battlefield.

Do you have any rules citation for the first part?

Tried to find it, I can't find anything clear. Only rules for cloning effects. I found several forums of people discussing this same question, though.


text:
Order of actions in Ascension
I recently had a problem in Ascension with the order of the actions. I had enough force, so I killed a Mephit that allows me, when killed, to banish a card from the centre row. I intended to banish another monster.

However, as explicitly said in an answer to this question - and thus in the FAQ -, the first thing to do when a card leaves the centre row is to replace that even before we chose to banish another card. Accordingly, we replace the card and reveal a "Change Events" card. The next event is Souls Unbound which makes the monsters in the centre row unbanishable.

My question is: the Mephit has been replaced by a "change events" card. Do we change events first (making the monsters unbanishable), or do we resolve the reward of the Mephit first? Depending on the order of the actions, it may permit to banish a monster before it is unbanishable.

Wouldn't you resolve a card before it leaves the center row??

@TheChaz2.0 The FAQ says that we need to replace Mephit in the centre row before resolving its reward, allowing us to banish the card that entered the centre row after Mephit's death. That's why I am kind of confused.

The Storm of Souls rulebook says:

When an Event card flips into the Center Row, immediately move it to the Event Zone on the board, and then replace it in the Center Row.
  [...]
  If a new Event flips, the old Event immediately goes to the Void and the new Event becomes the current event.

The keyword is immediately. Therefore, if Souls Unbound enters the Center Row right after you kill Mephit (or any banishing Monster), you can only banish Heroes and Constructs from the Center Row.
The iOS version of the game follows the same logic.


text:
Are solved games worth playing?
Many simple games, such as Nim or Connect 4 are solved meaning that there is an unbeatable strategy for the person who either starts, or plays second.
Despite knowing this - People still play these games, why?

And "solved" doesn't necessarily imply anything about what the game is like when you play it. Consider the game of Checkers. It is "solved" in the sense that computers have brute-forced through all possible board states, but it is not feasible for a human to implement that solution during a game and play at a reasonable pace.

"Why do people play solved games?" is a primarily opinion-based question. I play Connect 4 because I think it is fun, but I don't see the value of writing up an answer about why I personally find the game fun.

@Rainbolt Unless you find it fun because you just really like red and black circles, the reasons you personally find it fun are likely reasonably rational, and there isn't an endless list of such reasons, so it's useful to mention them (in the vein of user1108's answer, for example). The question isn't "what's the best reason they're fun" or anything; it's fine that there's a decent handful of possible reasons.


text:
What happens if I play Cloudshift during combat?
Would playing cards like Cloudshift end my combat phase? And if not could I attack then Cloudshift then attack again with the same card that was Cloudshifted? Also would cards like Amulet of Vigor allow me to untap a Cloudshifted card that has already attacked?

No, playing Cloudshift would not end your combat phase, but the creature it targeted will no longer be in combat. If this leaves you with no attackers, then the rest of combat is uninteresting and can usually be skipped.
When you Cloudshift a creature, it enters the battlefield as a new creature, and has no memory of its previous existence. This means that it loses all counters, enchantments, equipments, and status. This means that (unless it says otherwise), it will enter untapped, unflipped, face up, and phased in. The specific rule about status is 110.6. It will also have summoning sickness because it just entered the battlefield.
Combat follows specific steps: beginning, declare attackers, declare blockers, damage, and end of combat. So if you declare a creature as an attacker, and then you cloudshift it, you can't declare it as an attacker again because you're already done declaring attackers.


text:
Where can I find a chart or diagram explaining Magic's turn structure?
I'm looking for a turn structure diagram for Magic the Gathering to use for teaching new players.  There is a lot of information to keep track of in the turn: there is everything from the fact that the Upkeep Step comes before the Draw Step to when you can play abilities between the game actions of the Combat Phase.
For new players in particular, a graphical representation is particularly useful since I want them to gain an intuitive grasp of how the turn progresses as well as be able to reference particular details that become relevant.
I have seen charts that list the steps and phases in order but I need something more than that for teaching and reference.  Where can I find a chart that includes the order of steps/phases, when you can use various types of cards and abilities, and what game actions happen when?

I am voting to close this as too broad, as it's asking for a list of diagrams. Thank you for sharing your diagram with us, though this style of question is not appropriate for our format. (I am not sure what type would be.)

I would vote to reopen if this is closed. The fact that there is more than one possible diagram does not mean that it's asking for a list of them, any more than asking "what is the general structure of a turn?" is asking for a list of answers. (Most questions end up with multiple answers; it doesn't mean they're bad.) I think this is completely appropriate for our format.

@Jefromi I think this is less asking "what is the general structure of a turn?" and more "what is the best way to show the structure of a turn?" If anything, that seems very opinion based (I voted for "too broad", but I'd change it if I could).

@murgatroid99 I think you're worrying too much about the diagram part. All questions are looking for the best answer, and yes, the quality of an explanation is subjective, but that doesn't mean no one can ask for questions that invite explanation - we do that all the time. Asking for the explanation in visual form doesn't make it any more subjective.

@dopplegreener The question includes criteria for what a good diagram is.  I ended up making my own diagram because I couldn't find any that met my criteria in my internet searches.

@Zags I think possibly the word "good" in the title caused people to think this was more subjective than it really is, so I rephrased a bit. Beyond that, it's great that you explained specifically what you were looking for, so I'm not sure there's much to improve!

@Jefromi fine, you've convinced me. I retracted my close vote.

@Jefromi It's looking for a list. It is not a "practical, answerable question based on actual problems that you face" and does not have a possibility for a single objectively best solution, nor is this a subjective question where GSBS would apply. In this case "every answer is equally valid" and "there is no actual problem to be solved". There are criteria, but they're loose and don't set us up for a best answer: we just list whatever answer meets the criteria. It violates most of our questions to avoid asking, and doesn't fit our format.

What is the definition of a list question? offers a very shorthand test: list questions are "questions that are geared toward creating responses, not answers." Since this one is interested in gathering a bunch of diagrams, not so much solving a problem the asker is facing (e.g. "how does turn structure work!?") that counts as responses (and then "let me explain with words and not pictures" is also a good solution if they actually have that question).

@doppelgreener Let's discuss on meta: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/1227/409

I changed "charts" to "chart" in your title because there have been complaints e.g. that you are asking for "a bunch of diagrams", which you clearly aren't - a good answer to your question would be simply a single awesome diagram.

@doppelgreener I think I mostly addressed your comment on meta, but... It's a real problem, explaining to new players, or alternatively, he's asking the basic question on behalf of new players. And it's not too broad, since a single answer (a good diagram) can address it, rather than needing a whole set of answers in aggregate (i.e., it's not a bad list question).

Get on MTGO, it is a good tool to learn the turn structure.

@NeilMeyer I prefer a much more hands on teaching style.  Also, throwing someone onto MTGO doesn't solve the problem of wanting a chart as a reference resource, which is what I'm asking about here.

Here is one I made:

(click for full size - hosted on 27ld.com)

A minor correction: creatures deal damage in the second combat damage step depending on whether they had first strike at the beginning of the first combat damage step and whether they currently have double strike.

@murgatroid99 I am aware of the nuance surrounding this, but deemed it too specific to put on the turn order diagram (as never once in my 7 years of playing magic have I seen a creature gain/lose first strike or double strike after the Declare Blockers Step)

IMO, more important that the "Comat Damage Step" typo be fixed. :)

@Zags That's reasonable. Though, if you're focusing on situations that create to additional steps, you might want to mention that if anything triggers during the cleanup step, people get priority and there is an additional cleanup step.

You could maybe add a little bit of padding, so the text doesn't run up against the borders.

Along with Jefromi's suggestion, I would suggest changing the colors. I think it is potentially misleading that the actions available in the blue phases are a subset of the actions available available in the green phases. I think there might be some way to make that clearer.

I concur with Jefromi and murgatroid99 - you want to signify what main phase actions you can take when the stack is empty vs. the actions you can take when you have priority at any time.

You can fix the First strike imprecision by using the following text for the Combat Damage Step: "Creatures who didn't participate in the First Strike Combat Damage Step and those with Double Strike ..."

I think it's worth mentioning that "At the beginning of your _______ step" triggers are put on the stack after the turn-based actions associated with the step are performed (such as drawing a card or declaring attackers)

You could also probably kill two birds with one stone by coming up with short versions of the text to put in the diagram, and adding a key at the bottom - e.g. change the green things to "instants and activated abilities", and give the full version at the bottom just a single time.

Your chart is is not clear on the fact that you can only cast spells (such as instants) when you have priority. This chart makes it seem that the non-active player can cast instants at any time during the phases.

@Rik_S I think it's fine to gloss over that here - the idea here is to show which things are possible to do during which phases. And both players do get a chance to cast instants, for example, during your main phase. Priority is a sometimes-relevant detail about what order you'll get to do it in, but doesn't change that fact.

Is a link to an external site ever a good stack exchange answer? Even when the question requests an image?

I created a git hub page for this topic. Its a summary of the turn structure from official rules listed on wizard.com. it covers both: basic rules and comprehensive rules in an overview table.

[Beginning Phase]
 [[Untap Step] Untap & phase things - No Priority
 [[Upkeep Step] Upkeep triggers on the stack, then Priority
 [[Draw Step] Draw a card, the Priority
[First Main Phase] Priority (One of two places to play things that aren't abilities/instants)
[Combat Phase]
 [[Begining of Combat Step] Nothing special - Priority
 [[Declare Attackers Step] Attackers are declared, then Priority
 [[Declare Blockers Step] Blockers are declared, then Priority
 ?First Strike Damage Step] First Strike damage happens, then Priority - Skip this step if no creatures in combat have First/Double Strike
 [[Damage Step] Rest of damage happens, then Priority
 [[End of Combat Step] Rare triggers are placed on stack, then Priority
[Second Main Phase] Priority (One of two places to play things that aren't abilities/instants)
[End Phase]
 [[End of Turn Step] End of turn triggers on the stack, then Priority
 [[Clean Up Step] Until end of turn things end, active player discards down to 7 cards, state based effects are resolved. If anything has triggered: Priority and repeat this step.

I wanted a chart that is legible when printed, so I came up with the following:
Disclaimer: this chart is based on the old rules, and so the particulars are very incorrect. But If someone is interested in enumerating the issues, I will update the chart. Consider editing my answer with a list of errata at the bottom.
I found this chart that has a lot of detail - I copy-pasted it into excel and tweaked the formatting a bit because I wanted to print it. I also added the mana pool emptying to it, based on @Zaga's.

But, as pointed out in the comments, the rules here are out of date.

This chart is out of date. Combat damage assignment no longer uses the stack and can't be responded to. See http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Combat_damage_step

A few other issues: there are no "At beginning of turn" or "At beginning of untap step" abilities, as far as I can tell. You don't mention that you can play other non-land permanents and activate Planeswalker abilities during the main phase. Your Declare Attackers Step has the line "Go directly to the End of Combat step", but you don't describe the End of Combat step. Double strike is also relevant to how combat damage works. Mentioning state-based actions only in the cleanup step may be confusing, because they are checked all the time. You don't say that mana pools empty in the end step.

@murgatroid99 Yeah, these problems come from the source of his chart, which was based on old Magic the Gathering rules before turn structure and terminology was more developed. "At the beginning of turn" was changed to "At the beginning of upkeep" on cards like Barbed Sextant. Heck, the source of this chart still has "mana burn" on it. :)


text:
Who would win? Texas Holdem
Card Scenario
in Texas Holdem
Player 1 has... Q♥ and 4♠
Player 2 has... J♥ and 5♣
The community cards are ♠A, Q, 8, 7, 3
(I hope I explained it right) Can someone help?

In this case:

Player 1 has the higher hand with ♠AQ874 using the 4♠
in her hand
player 2 has ♠AQ873

Not sure why the 2 downvotes without comments, this answer appears correct.


text:
Is a player locked in to a poorly worded trade offer?
Is the following allowed?
Player A: holds up two woods and says "I will take any one resource for two woods"
Player B: Gives him a wood for his two woods.
Player A: tries to say he meant any resource besides wood since this trade is not allowed.

Does this answer your question? Giving cards away in Catan

Not only is it illegal, but Player A could have just rejected the trade. Just because you offer a trade suggestion doesn't mean you have to ultimately make the trade.

I think there are 2 separate things going on in this scenario, and only 1 of them is covered by the linked duplicate.

I don't see this as a duplicate, the questioner doesn't appear to be attempting to give away resources.

@PatLudwig, the (only) answer to "Giving cards away..." states the rule that like-for-like trades are not allowed. But if that's not enough, there's also Is it legal to trade 1 wood for 1 wood + 1 hay?  (Both are marked as a duplicates of the very same question.)

There are multiple issues with the way this played out.
First of all, trading 2 wood for 1 wood is not a legal trade, as outlined in the rulebook:

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

But aside from that, simply stating "I will take any (1) resource for (2) woods" is not actually making a trade, it is simply proposing a general offer. Once players respond to that offer, there can be negotiation and then eventually an actual trade is made.
In this case, Player B doesn't just "give him 1 wood", rather player B would say "ok, how about 1 wood?" at which point Player A can say "no, what else you got?"
It is important to distinguish between "proposing a trade" and "making a trade". I can say "I will give a sheep for a wood", but if the only player willing to do it is someone who has 9 points so I don't want to trade with them, I don't have to trade with them. I can always just say "sorry, not trading with you". Making statements about what sort of trade you want is not a binding agreement; the actual agreement comes when 2 different players say "ok" to a specific set of resources exchanging with other resources.


text:
Can you sell a house to cover cost of "street repairs"?
Last night, someone got the Community Chest "You are assessed for street repairs - $40 per house $115 per hotel"
He didn't have the money to pay. This led to a long argument.
Can he sell some of the houses to cover the cost of the repair?
And if he does, do the sold houses count in the calculation of $40 per house?

Sorry, yes, I meant 'sell' back the houses. Looks like someone kindly edited for me.

You can sell houses and hotels at any time, for any reason.
From the rules:

Houses and hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price
paid for them.

The amount of money you have to pay is based on the houses/hotels you had at the time you drew the card. Selling houses/hotels at this point would not reduce the amount you have to pay.
While this is not addressed directly in the rulebook, multiple sources confirm this in a FAQ.
http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/faq.htm

When assessed for street repairs, pay for all houses and hotels you own on the entire board at that time.

That mentions two times (when you are assessed and when you pay) and says "at that time" without specifying which time it's talking about. As I parse it, "When assessed for street repairs" is the triggering pre-condition and "pay for all the houses and hotels you own on the entire board at that time" is the result. That means you pay for those you own at the time you pay. Consider, "When married, buy your spouse the gifts appropriate at that time." It's much more natural to understand this to mean at the time you're buying gifts, not the time you got married.

@DavidSchwartz No, the only time mentioned is “when assessed”. I think the only reason the “when married” example is ambiguous is that “when married” can refer to a general long period of time, not to one specific event. If you had said “when you have your wedding”, you would see the difference. “When assessed” is one specific moment in time, not a general time frame during which a rule applied.

@DavidSchwartz You pay for the amount you have at the time you draw the card.

I have always interpreted the card as:

Amount to pay = (£$40 * [no. of houses]) + (£$115 * [no. of hotels]). This amount is fixed, regardless of any houses / hotels which may then need to be sold. Which is to say - you cannot reduce the amount you need to pay by selling off houses and hotels.
If the player can afford it, they pay the amount to the bank;
If the player has insufficient cash, then funds need to be raised through house / hotel sales and / or mortgaging / selling properties;
If funds still can't be raised - bad luck. You're bankrupt and out of the game.


text:
Calling "No Trump" as trump in Euchre
I come from a long line of Euchre players.  When all players have turned down ordering up trump and it goes to each player to name a suit, we have also included "No Trump" as an option. Meaning if you have, for example: A,K,Q of the same suit, or A,K, of one suit and A of another suit, or some other variation of high suit cards, you can name No Trump and be guaranteed taking 3 tricks.  We have played that way for a long time but I can't find any online information on it.  Does anyone else play this way too?

No Trump is not a valid bid in official Euchre.  But it is valid in some variants.
For example, the Pepper variant allows no trump bids.

Pepper is a variant of bid Euchre that is popular in Iowa and Southern Minnesota.

For official Euchre rules, see for example Pagat, Wikipedia, cardgames.io and worldofcardgames.


text:
Is it ever a good idea to research weapons development?
In Axis & Allies (2nd Edition Rules), is it every a smart move to spend IPCs to research weapons development?
I usually forego doing any weapons development, but I play with others who spend 5 IPC every turn or who will turn to researching weapons development when their cause looks close to hopeless.

Ok, so I asked a question over at math.stackexchange.com to get some advise on how to analyze the various weapon development options (see How to analyze risk vs. reward for spending on research and development work). Mike Spivey suggested using a decision tree, which I had some familiarity with from past classes in probability and statistics. In short, the decision tree calculates the expected value for spending 0 through 30 IPC on a turn for weapons development research.
To construct this decision tree (see below), I made some assumptions:

Heavy bombers are the only weapons development "worth" anything. In short, any money spent that resulted in discovering a tech other than heavy bombers was considered wasted.
Discovering the heavy bombers tech is worth some amount of IPCs. Because this value may differ per player (that is, I may be willing to pay, say, 50 IPC to get heavy bombers while someone else may be willing to pay 100), I created an Excel spreadsheet where this "worth" could be plugged in and the expected value would be computed for spending 0 to 30 IPC on a turn for rolling for techs.

Here is the decision tree I constructed to compute the expected values for spending 0 to 30 IPC in a turn, meaning paying for 0 to 6 rolls of the die.

The expected value of one of the rolls is computed by adding together the value (the amount in the bottommost boxes) times the probability of getting there for a particular branch in the tree.  I presume the player has a purse of 30 IPC at the start of their turn.
For instance, if you do zero rolls (the far left branch) then you have an expected outcome of 100% * 30, or 30 IPC. In other words, you'll always end up with a purse of 30 IPC after the rolls. However, if you decide to spend money to do one roll then you have a ~2.75%  chance of getting Heavy Bombers (1/36). Doing so yields a purse of 25 + X, where X is the "worth" of having heavy bombers. There is ~97.25% chance that you will not get heavy bombers, in which case you have a purse of 25 IPC. So the expected value of one roll is 2.75% * (25 + X) + 97.25% * 25. Of course, the actual hard number depends on X, which is what heavy bombers is worth to you.
I created a very simple Excel spreadsheet that calculated all seven expected values for a given value of X, where X was a number in a particular cell. Using this spreadsheet I could play with X to see at what point it actually makes sense to roll for weapons development.
The chart below shows how the expected value changes as the value of X grows. The X-axis shows the expected outcome for zero to six rolls. The series show how the expected value changes as the value of the heavy bombers tech (X) increases. Here I show the expected value for six different values: 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, and 270.

Note how at a "worth" of 180, heavy bombers have the same expected value regardless of how many times you roll the die. If the value is lower, however, it makes sense to abstain from weapons development altogether; if its higher to you, spend every last penny you have on development!
Personally, I think heavy bombers are not worth this much. 180 IPC is the combined budget of 5-10 turns. It is equivalent to purchasing 12 standard bombers. Forgoing any sort of unit procurement for that many turns, just to get heavy bombers, is a suicidal thought.
In closing, keep in mind that this is a very simple model. It presumes heavy bombers are the only worthwhile tech. It does not factor in that if you discover other technologies, that the odds of discovering heavy bombers actually increase since if you roll an initial 6 you get to keep rolling for your discovered tech until you discover a new one. Also, the analysis presumes the player is in a vacuum of sorts and does not factor in that he must spend certain amounts of IPCs to hold his territories from the enemy, not to mention the monies needed to go on the offensive.

Tech Development is a gamble with very bad odds. The only Tech that wins is Heavy Bombers. On average you will have to spent 21 dice (105 IPC) to get it. In statistical terms in fact you should use the median which is 19 dice (95 IPC) because the data is not normally distributed. For ease we go with average.
So on average even the US will need 4 turns to develop heavy bombers, and then you still have to buy bombers. Even if the Allies should generally win, against any reasonable opponent this much delay is going to loose you the game.
In my opinion no other nation can afford this kind of investment and be serious about winning. Lets assume we find it decisive if you develop Heavy Bombers within 2 turns (60 IPC, 12 dice). This has a 35% chance. Hence you throw away two/third of the games if you go for Tech.
I welcome a player who plays this way, but probably not for long because it is no contest. Keep in mind that this is an average, so it could be a lot more. In 50% of the cases you will need more than 105 IPC!
Of course, later in the game, when decisive advantage has been achieved it can quicken the win. But as an overall starting strategy....

Edit - The question was originally asked about the Revised edition, which is what this answer is based off of.  For 2nd Edition rules I agree with the above answers, in that it is not worth it. I'll leave this answer up in case anyone wants an opinion on the Revised edition.

Yes...but it is dependent on the situation. Speaking in terms of long range aircraft and heavy bombers(I haven't used the others before), I can think of several advantages to use them(non-tournament rules).

They provide an immediate benefit - Every purchase you make won't be of any benefit until your next turn.  If you have a particularly important battle, a successful research can provide immediate benefit.
For example, If you in the purchase phase while playing Germany and you plan on assaulting Moscow during the next turn, you may choose to purchase bombers since they are the only unit that would be able participate in the battle(assuming you have no additional Industrial Complexes).  For the next turn, you could then research Heavy Bombers to effectively double the bombers hitting power. The only purchase you could make to help you in that fight is weapons development.
Your opponent won't expect it - Your opponents pieces are to a large extent based off what they think are your capabilities.  Since most people think weapons development is useless, they likely won't anticipate it.  Your opponent may have a zone that they think is well fortified against attack but researching Heavy Bombers could move the odds to your side.  They may also have a lone bomber or transport in an out of reach(by you) zone. Researching Long Range Aircraft could allow you to make a cheap kill and probably throw off their plans.

Long Range Aircraft - Researching this means you need less planes to do the same amount. They could be used to attack Russia in one turn and then a fleet in the Atlantic in the next.  This is especially beneficial for America since this allows them to bring their planes into action much earlier after being built.
Heavy Bombers - In addition to the obvious benefit of bombers increased firepower, another benefit is that needing less planes for the same firepower means less chances of being shot down by anti-aircraft and thus saves IPCs.

Regarding the accepted answer(I don't have the rep to comment), the math you used is based off rules in the Classic edition.  In the Revised edition, the odds of getting your technology with a single dice is 1 in 6 and not 1 in 36.
Also, I think it is best not to expect a concrete answer on this.  The math on weapons development is never going to be very good because it is impossible to accurately gauge its benefit.
I should note that when I actually research a weapon, I always use 4-8 dice. You may get lucky with one or two but I research it only when I think it is necessary.
Anecdote of when I lost a major battle due to research:
I was playing Axis(2-person game) and Japan had its original territories plus a few in USSR.  It was the 5 or 6 turn and the Japan mainland only contained 6 bombers and a few fighters. America had a fairly large fleet off the Western U.S. coast whose purpose was to invade the Japanese mainland. I had a few carriers(with a couple planes) south of Japan but no other real naval force.  My plan was that since the American fleet would require two moves to launch the invasion, I would concentrate on attacking China until the U.S. made its move.  When that happens, I would throw 30 IPCs at Heavy Bombers(a calculated risk), then launch an air attack against the fleet(using the fighters as fodder and the carriers to land them on).  I don't remember the exact configuration of forces but I remember that I expected to destroy the fleet with at least 3 or 4 bombers left over.
What my opponent did was during the turn where the American fleet made the move, she successfully researched long range aircraft.  She then sent fighters from China and fighters from her carriers in the Pacific and attacked the Japanese mainland.  She easily destroyed the fighters and all 6 bombers while taking light losses. This was my entire air force(and my then my navy was mostly gone) so I didn't have much chance of repelling the next turn's invasion.
After she triumphantly ended her turn and started playing USSR, I pointed to my German transport off of the western coast of Algeria, the infantry in Algeria and the undefended Eastern U.S. As it turned out, the only ground units in North America were infantry in the Western U.S.(and Britain couldn't come to the rescue) thus making the U.S. unable to take back its capitol.  At this point my very peeved girlfriend conceded.

@juan2raid: The way I came up with the 1 in 36 (vs. 1 in 6) is because I presupposed that the only really worthwhile tech was heavy bombers. So you have a 1 in 6 chance of developing the weapon then a 1 in 6 chance of that development being heavy bombers, hence a 1 in 36 chance altogether. I still hold that weapons development is a risk that has a negative expected benefit. If you get lucky then great, but chances are you will be throwing money down the drain. It's like playing the lottery. Win and that $1 investment was worth it. But chances are you won't win and that was a dollar wasted.

@scott I am saying your interpretation of the rules is incorrect.  That is not how discoveries work in the Revised Edition.  You asked about the Revised Edition but the rules you stated are based on the Classic Edition.  In Revised, you choose which technology you want and if any of the dice match that technology then you get that tech.  For a single dice, that means your chances are 1 in 6.

You can view the rulebook for the revised edition at: http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis2004.pdf Page 9 contains the rules for developing weapons.

@juan2raid: Sorry, I mean to say the Axis & Allies 2nd Edition rules - http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis.pdf. I've updated my question accordingly.

@juan2raid +1 for the epic anecdote, and otherwise killer answer. Was that the beginning of the end for the relationship? :) When I first started playing A&A by email I had a streak where I lost 4 games in a row to heavy bombers. In all three games I was the allies. I was playing well and had some luck and at some point it was clear I was going to win all four. My opponents turned to tech as a last resort and all got heavy bombers on their first try. I spent over 60 IPCs in each game trying to match and couldn't. That was the game. Since then, I won't even play unless we ground rule out tech.

@adam Heh, no we're still together.  It was shortly after this game that we decided to not allow Heavy Bombers though the other technologies are still allowed.

Another tech development worth having is economic relief; one less IPC cost per unit. That's a 50% gain for infantry (only 4% for bombers, though).

Short answer - No.
I used to try research when I first learned the game, but now I see no point in it.  I have seen players who still insist on researching for the off-chance of getting long-range heavy bombers, and then going the whole game without getting it.  That seems like a complete waste to me.
If your cause looks close to hopeless, you're probably out of luck anyways.  I guess you could research weapons development as a way to speed up the game and get closer to finishing, instead of buying units, but I rather fight to the finish.
You can get an armor for 5 IPC every turn -- I would much prefer that.  Over a few turns, that significantly adds up.

I also sense that weapons development is a waste of money - a form of playing the lottery, so to speak. But what I am looking for a more concrete and objective answer.

I fixed my post on the "best country to play question. Have you seen the "fix"?

@Tom - I did, but it still doesn't address the question; it's just a list of house rules.

Back to the question and your answer: I just "quantified" the value of various techs. http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/3629/in-axis-and-allies-is-there-a-way-to-measure-the-benefits-of-various-techs-again Most of them have an "expected" IPC value of 6-10 per turn except supersubs. That makes them worth researching, if you can "afford" it.

The value of R&D varies with the country played.
R&D is most valuable to the U.S. player because it has the most IPCs to spare for a gamble, and because it (initially) has the least impact on the game. Two oceans on either side means that the U.S. is easy to defend, but has a hard time as an attacker.
Most tech has to do with airpower, which is to say, the best U.S. means of projecting power. Especially if players can't choose which tech to try for, the U.S. clearly benefits most from longer range aircraft, heavy bombers, rockets (from an anti-aircraft gun to be landed in Algeria), and jet fighters. Economic relief is also helpful, super subs, perhaps the least of all.
Britain might benefit from developing tech if she chooses not to buy factories on land and uses an airborne strategy instead. Most techs improve airpower.
Germany and Japan probably shouldn't invest in tech until e.g. a midgame stalemate. In most games, they will either win early or not at all. In that event, they should maximize military units for blitzing their enemies. They get only small benefits from long range aircraft, or jet fighters. The greatest benefits are from heavy bombers (I use a "lighter"version), and economic relief is worth more to them than the Allies. but that requires "boxcars" or 6-5, only two chances out of 36.
Russia shouldn't roll for tech early on, because she has few planes and little use for them (compared to infantry).

Personally, I find that a wise investment is in Rockets. Germany has 3 rocket launch sites that can really strangle the Russian and British economy. I only invest in rockets when I am Germany however, because Russia, Germany and Britain have very few launch sites. Other than that, I stay away from upgrades. Jet Fighters and Long Range Aircraft are investments that I am willing to make, but I avoid buying those. Combined Bombardment and Super Submarines are useless. Heavy Bombers I haven't really used much, but you all have valid points. I generally only use Rockets, and if I don't get the tech on the 2nd try, I give up considering it doesn't have too much influence on the outcome of the game. I am only willing to invest about 30 or so IPC's on tech, and I tend to get lucky with technology. That's just my opinion though.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/