text:
Good Euchre bidding strategy guide?
Is there a good Euchre bidding strategy guide?
I like the game, but find my bidding to be very hit or miss. And I've been unable to find a strategy guide for Euchre bidding patterns.
Either a good strategy or a link to a good preextant guide would answer my question.

An Alternative Method
Most players will learn when to bid by feel, but for those who are not yet at that point or prefer something more concrete, you can assign a score to your hand, in order to determine whether you should bid.
Some players use a 3-2-1 point system, with the bowers worth 3 points each, face trumps worth 2 points each, and low trumps or off-suit aces worth 1 point each. In this system, any hand of 7 points or above is worth bidding.
Another system is simply scoring your hand by tricks. A right bower is worth a full trick. A Left bower is worth 3/4 of a trick. Ace, King, or Queen of trump is worth 1/2 a trick. And low trump is worth 1/4 of a trick. Each trump card in your hand beyond the second gets a 1/4 trick bonus. Meanwhile, off-suit aces are worth 3/4 of a trick, but lose 1/4 of a trick for every other card you have in that suit. And finally, every suit in which you are void is worth 1/4 trick, if you have more than one trump card. Using this method, you can bid whenever your average hand value is at least 2.5 tricks.

A euchre scientist! I didn't know such existed.

@David Would love to know your source for these strategies, I haven't seen them elsewhere. Can you give me any references?

The website http://OhioEuchre.Com/ has much information on bidding strategies. Euchre is a game of chance where aggression pays off. The more you play the better you will get. Take chances! Even when you are getting euchred you're learning more about the game.
The person that said there is little strategy to euchre is incorrect. Just play in any tournament. You'll see that the same people seem to win most of the time. I don't think they're just luckly. I think they took the time to learn the different strategies of the game

Conservatively, the idea would be to have at least 3 trump with one of the top 3 being in that group though I have played lots of times where I'd have 2 trump with one of the top 3 and an off-suit Ace.
Some people will play a much more aggressive style though there are a few variations to keep in mind as some people will play a stick the dealer rule and there can be variations when ordering up one's partner as to whether or not that triggers a lone hand.

Just play the game a lot and you'll learn when to bid and when not to.  I find euchre to have a fairly small amount of strategy to it.
In general  If you have 3 trump and one of them is A or better, then you can feel free to bid. If you have some off-trump Aces, than that's a good sign and you should bid.
You also have to consider what card you might be giving to the dealer, you don't want to be giving an opponent the right unless you believe that you will win 3 out of the 4 other tricks.

Going alone is all about game control.  When deciding about whether or not to go alone, You have to consider how much control that you'll have over the game, and you have to consider what can take your control away.
for instance, if you get to go first and you have
right Ace King of trump and two off-aces, than you can try to draw the left out with your right, and if you do, than nothing can stop you from winning all the tricks.

Small compared to Bridge; large when compared to Go Fish. Size is relative.

First, I had no idea that Euchre had a point system (with regard to the value of each card in the deck).  I played in college and I found that, more important than a strict strategy on how to play a certain hand, is to learn the habits of your opponents.  I realize this is not novel considering card games.  But with Euchre it becomes even more important, because there are only five cards in a hand, and winning a hand has a small margin for error.
That being said, I'd like to pass along what has worked for me:

It is a position of power to be the dealer, no doubt.  Equally as powerful is to be to the immediate left of the dealer.  You have the first option to either order it up, or to call your own suit when it goes around.
When it is your turn to decide whether you want to name the suit (or order it up to the other team), consider the saying "You can always count on your partner for 1 trick".  This is not always the case.  But, if your opponents are close to going out, you should be prepared to call it up and play as if you do expect your partner to get one.  This includes leading into him, and letting his non-bower trumps ride.
In general, it is bad practice to call it up if you don't have at least one bower.  My wildcard nature has me taking chances where, for example, I am 2- or 3-suited, and I have at least 3-4 trump (no bowers), or 3 trump including the left.  Decisions like these become easier to make when the opponents turned over a jack.
More "Wildcard-Nature-Bad Advice": if I find myself seated to the left of the dealer, and IF THEY have been "screwed by the deal", I consider it permissible to lead low trump.  It doesn't always work, but sometimes it bleeds the non-dealer opponent.  It could also bleed your partner.  Use with caution.
More obvious tips which I'm sure most players employ: if you have a plurality of trump, and these cards are consecutive trump, and if you are being bled of trump, always play the highest consecutive trump.  ( if you also have a 9, but it is not part of your consecutive run, play that instead )  This instills a false sense of security in your opponents, and they may feel it is safe to lead their aces.
If Stealing The Deal is a gambit available to you, I personally prefer to not, as per the power position of being to the left of the dealer

TO improve at Euchre, play a game that makes even greater demands on your strategic thinking, and play technique. Playing Bridge I have seen my Euchre level rise as my capability at Bridge increased, but playing any of 9-5-2, Whist, Hearts, Pinochle and many others (along with Euchre as well, naturally) will improve your play.
As one example, learning when to lose a trick that you don't have to, such as leading out a low trump instead of a high one, can be worth nearly a half a point a game.

1) Any three Trump are worth bidding. Even if you have the three lowest Trump are three suited and have no Aces or Jacks. You won't stop anything with a hand like that. If you pass your opponent will either call it and likely make their point,  as you can't help your partner euchre them. Conversely, your partner can call it and their likelihood of getting euchred is higher, as you can't help them in making their point.  Remember, that with 3 trump, there are only four trump left between your opponents, your partner and the kitty. You can always get a great surprise on a hand like this. Your partner could have the right, two trump or help with aces. I have also seen 2-3 trump buried in the kitty before.
2) Be careful when ordering up trump to your opponent . Whenever you order trump you are likely putting a second trump in their hand. Not only that, you are allowing them to void a suit. Even that low trump you gave them will frequently take a trick. Even with three Trump be careful!
3) Never order the right bower to your opponent. Remember it will likely be their second trump,  plus you let them void a suit. Most people won't pass on the right bower anyway unless they are extremely conservative, which will give you a chance for a euchre. If you have four trump or left-ace-king, you should order it up though.
4) Always pick up the right bower unless you have a complete junk hand. Even one other Trump is enough to call on.
5) order up your partner with a lighter than normal hand. You are given them hopefully a second trump and allowing them to void a suit. Remember that the dealer position is the best at the table.
5) don't call four suited
6) don't call on two trump unless one is the right or you have two offsuit aces.
7) Do not be afraid to get euchered. All good players get euchered. If you don't call it your opponent will likely call it and make their point. Getting euchred really only costs you one point.

This site has point system. It seems well thought out.
Not only does it give, points for the bower, but also the up-card, which is very important when bidding.
Euchre Point System

"When to Bid" http://www.euchreinfo.webs.com/Bidding.pdf is a handy reference sheet for bidding.
More info can be found on the website, "Euchre Info" http://www.euchreinfo.webs.com

Obviously, you count any guaranteed as 1.
Left Bower = 1 (unless it is your only trump, then it is .5)
AK of trump = .5 if protected
A of offsuit = .5 (maybe 1 if you are strong in trump and it is your only card of that suit)
Add them up, round down(or up if you are feeling lucky/desperate), and that is your bid.
Disclaimer: it's been a while since I played.

I would only consider A of a suite 1 if I do not have a lot of that suit (A +1 max) otherwise, there is a good chance one of my opponents will not have any of that suit and be able to trump. I guess it also depends on which trick # I think I will be able to play the A.

You don't bid a number in Euchre, so the sentence before your disclaimer doesn't make much sense.

@bwarner Guess I should change me disclaimer to "It's been a REALLY LONG while since I played"


text:
Does a book of 3's in Hand and Foot work?
My wife and I play Hand and Foot from time to time. We have toyed with the idea of allowing a book of 3's to count positive, with the caveat that they are only positive if the book is closed and clean. If the book is not closed and clean then each of the 3's has their usual negative score.
We have not found this particularly effective because if a player attempts it then the state of that book determines the winner of the game.
My question is if anyone else has tried a book of 3's in Hand and Foot and if they have found a way to make it work.

Assuming you're playing with the Red (100) Black (5) variation (there are not official rules for hand and foot), then the purpose of the 3's is to add a bit of randomness to the game to offset player ability.  If your goal is to remove this randomness, then you can simply treat all 3's as normal cards and the game will 'work' just fine.   I have played that particular variation.
I'm not sure by which rules you're playing, but if you're allowing threes to hit the table singly, and also allowing the bonus for making a book of them, it's a bit of an unfair advantage to that random chance.
Pagat - Rules to Hand and Foot

We are playing with all 3's worth negative 500. Seems like when we learned it originally they were worth different amounts though. Is 100 and 5 the most common values?

I'd suggest trying the rules in that link and seeing if it works for you.  I haven't played with all 3's worth -500, but that seems awfully steep, and, as you say, would seem to cause a big enough point swing to make other parts of the game less relevant.

I've played a variant where you are allowed to go out if in your foot by laying down 4 or more black 3's without a discard.  This counts as 400 extra points.
You wouldn't be able to use them while in your hand, so you'd still have to discard them to get to your foot first.
In our games, typically the first person to reach the foot wants to pick up the pile as soon as possible and usually has a bunch of black 3's.  We play simple requirements where you can pick up the whole pile if you can use the top card anywhere, which is usually always.  If the partnership makes the book requirements quickly, before this player has discarded them all, then it's an extra bonus.

We play a version where black threes can be melded under certain conditions. Everyone needs to play all their cards in their hand before they can pick up their foot. Because you cannot meld black threes, you must discard the black threes in your hand one at a time before you can pick up your foot. Because of this difficulty in getting rid of black threes, it becomes very dangerous to pick up the discard pile (it may have black threes in it). This problem of getting rid of your black threes needs to remain as a part of the game.  However, if you can meld your black threes in the process of going out, it relieves some of the problems. It must be understood that only the person going out can meld black threes. If someone else goes out, the black threes still in your hand count against you.
Because there are so many variations, it may be necessary to play variants where the problem has already been worked out. I have written down the rules we use and posted it here: http://gameofhandandfoot.blogspot.com

You can lay down a book or Canasta of 3s if you have seven cards to lay down. This is worth 2000 points.

A quote from a ruleset (with a link to that set if it's online) would help improve this answer.

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
Multi-Game Deck Building Tool
I play Magic: The Gathering, one of my son's plays Pokemon, and the other plays Yu-Gi-Oh!
I got a deck building tool for my iPad to build Magic decks, but I am curious if there is an app for building decks for all three card games. Ideally one that knows the rules about different styles of decks and card games too.
The ideal tool would sync the decks between my iPad, Mac and Windows computers, but that may be asking to much.

OCTGN
I'll expand on this one because it's the only tool I'm familiar with. Just to be specific, the software on that site is also known as OCTGN 2. It is the redesign of a previous application with the same name.
Anyway. OCTGN is much more than just a deck builder, you can play any game that has a module build for OCTGN. As such the focus of development rests heavily on the "playing games" aspect of the software and the deck builder is somewhat simplistic.
Still I recommend you try it, maybe it'll be enough for your needs. It will probably take quite some downloading until you have all the sets you need. They can be quite big when they include high quality pictures. I know for a fact that MtG is available for it and I think the other two games are too...

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


text:
Official Rules for Hand and Foot?
Some friends of ours taught us "Hand and Foot" but I have never seen any official rules for it. What I have seen varies from site to site quite a bit. I am curious if someone could tell me the history of Hand and Foot and if there are some official rules, or at least a recommended set of rules.

I'll be interested to see if anyone has answers for you.  My family converted from Canasta to Hand and Foot about 10 years ago, but even they play a couple different versions.  Me?  I still prefer Canasta :(

Try http://www.hand8foot.com/rulesandscoring/  , might be helpful for you

those rules are not the ones I've encountered... any of the three variants... which said, boil down to number of needed canastas (always 5; v1 2clean 2 dirty; v2: 3 clean 2 dirty; v3 2 clean 3 dirty), and always black 3's are worthless, and red ones cost a clean canasta each if caught in hand; you can never pick up a black three from the discard, nor any thing below it, and you draw 3 cards, not two, total from discards and deck, and declare which before drawing.

Hand and foot, being subject mostly to oral transmission in a predominantly written culture, has suffered memory errors galore. Since it's origin is clouded by oral transmission, an "official" set of rules is a practical impossibility.
The basic idea is that it's "Tripled deck Canasta", and that you have the hand and the foot, you play from the hand until it's out, then play your foot until it's out.  Where the original rules are, I've not seen. I know I've encountered three very similar versions, and Raja's post lead to a fourth, significantly different, version.
The important element is only to be clear in your play group what the rules are when you as a group play.


text:
Where can I find a good source for  standard decks in Magic: The Gathering?
I am just getting back into Magic: The Gathering, and I see a lot of people talking about specific decks, like CawBlade. So my question is two fold, is there someplace that lists what cards make up these specific decks, and are these specific decks always the same (does every CawBlade deck have the same cards) or are they just similar decks with the same theme?
Maybe this is two questions . . .
Thanks!

The best idea is to check out a few sites that are dedicated to the game. Most of them have a collections of Pro players that write for the sites, which gives a lot of insight if you are into reading about the game.
Some other sites provide a resource for viewing decks, seeing what decks work, and also seeing the decklists for decks that have done well at big tournaments.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/
http://starcitygames.com/
http://www.channelfireball.com/
There are plenty more, but check out these three to start.

All the sites abovementioned are very good - but you could also go straight to the official site:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/decklists
Wizards of the Coast's coverage of its own products is not always the most unbiased, but you can't really go wrong with all these successful decklists from events around the world...


text:
Effectiveness of 1000 BWC in practice
To anyone that has played 1000bwc, or seen it played:

Does it really work in practice?
Does it only work for fun, or can you get a semi-serious competative game out of it?
Does anyone actually play this game or is it a random novelty?

It really works in practice. I've been part of an annual game of 1KBWC for many years, and it's still fun.
It only works for fun. Any competitive elements present are pastiches of elements of other games.
I actually play this game. That does not prevent it from being a random novelty, but it answers the first part of the question handily.

It being a random novelty, you probably don't want to play it too often or it'll lose its magic a bit. We played a huge game once a couple years ago, and still talk about it now and then; it was awesome! If we played it more often I suspect it'd be less awesome.

Yup. Don't play it for any actual gameplay. Play it because it's hilarious, go with whatever themes and silliness evolve, and you'll talk about it later.

Right, now I just need to get a game together! Thanks to @Jadasc for your answer, and to others for comments. :)

I've played it a few times. So much fun. Enjoying pulling out the old cards and remembering the craziness.

A lot of the fun you get from a game of 1000BWC comes from the people you choose to play it with.  There are lots of people I'd never play it with, just 'cause they're not going to "get" it.  That said, it's a fun, game-like surrealist exercise.

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


text:
What is a good Pokemon deck ratio?
My son really likes Pokémon, and owns a lot of cards. He mostly plays the video games and reads the books, but wants to build a Pokemon deck to play as well. We understand the basic rules. I know decks can only have four of each type of card (except basic energy) and must have exactly 60 cards total.
What I would like to know is if there is a recommendation for how many cards of each type to have in a deck. I've played Magic: The Gathering, but applying the same logic used there doesn't seem to work because energy behaves differently than mana. I've read some web sites that have recommendations, but when we play with those ratios it seems like I never draw enough basic Pokémon.
We have been trying to adjust things, but I thought I would see if there were some recommendations from people who are currently playing Pokémon.

@Repecmps: Yeah, that is what I read.

This heavily depends on the Trainer cards you have available. If you can play a bunch of card that get you new cards or even let you search your deck for Pokémon, you need less Basic Pokemon. If you rely on your one card per turn, you will need many more Basic Pokémon if you want to have them available when you need them.

I play regularly with my kids.  The energy card count depends heavily on the pokemon you use.  I have gone as low a 8 in a deck where all the pokemon had effective attacks at 1 energy and a retreat cost of 0 or 1.  I have gone as high as 28 or 30 when the deck was based on pokemon that discarded energy to attack and/or took 3 or 4 energy to have an effective attack.
When building a new deck we usually start at 16-18 energy adjusting up or down by a few as outlined above.   Then we tweak after some playing games.  My kids, who have more time than I do, will often build a deck then "goldfish" it.  ie play out a game solo to see if the needed energy arrive as fast as they can be played.

The ratio purely depends on the deck you're trying to run, theme decks tend to have more Pokémon, closely followed by energy and less trainers; they also usually revolve around 2 colors (plus colorless) of Pokémon.
For example, the Lunala theme deck contains 24 Pokémon, 20 basic energy and 16 trainers (the colors used are psychic and fire). These types of decks are specifically built to help new players learn the basic rules and that's fine (in fact the Clanging Thunder (Kommo-o) theme deck is so good right now it's even viable against some competitive decks).
The difference between this and competitive decks used in tournaments is that theme decks are slower to get set up and get momentum, so faster decks can get rid of your main threats before you even get set up (e.g The Lunala theme deck's main source of damage against competitive decks would be Beware and Lunala; both require evolution - Lunala has to evolve twice, although if you replace some of the less useful cards with copies of rare candy you don't even need Cosmoem), beware requires 3 colorless energy and its main use is to take out basic Pokémon (which are useful in TCG as there are less cards required to get set up), its attack does 60 to evolved Pokémon and 120 to basics, 3 energy for 60 is pretty bad but 3 energy for 120 is ok. It's also used for its ability that allows you to draw 3 cards when you evolve Stufle into Beware. 3 energy takes a long time to set up so I switched one of my fire energies for a double colorless.
Depending on one Pokémon only really works well if you have the trainers and abilities to be able to search the deck for the cards you want.
Most competitive decks I've seen contain a small number of Pokémon (like less than 12 total) even fewer energies (usually special energies) and a ton of trainers.
E.g a Gyrados deck I'm planning on building has 11 Pokémon, 4 energies, and 45 trainers. As stated before, the reason the trainers are there is to give me the ability to get the cards I want when I need them.
One thing to note though is that competitive decks are an expensive investment (the deck I'm planning on building is £117.41 approx and it's a budget deck, some cards are so high in demand they cost more, this deck contains Tapu-Lele GX which allows you to search your deck for a supporter - which is really good for a deck that contains a lot of supporters) so one copy costs nearly £40.
Points

Theme decks tend to have more Pokémon and energies than trainers but are fairly even

Theme decks are great for beginners

Theme decks are slower to set up when played against competitive decks

Usually competitive decks are mostly trainers, with a small number of energies

Competitive decks with this ratio are a lot faster

Competitive decks are usually expensive due to many of the really good cards costing a lot of money for 1 copy

Competitive decks can contain other ratios if the strategy is vastly different to most of the others

Cards that allow you to search your deck or draw cards are really good for fast competitive decks when your main strategy is to do as much damage as possible (like the Gyrados which can do 240 easily once set up)

The recommendations provided in the other answers are good guidelines for casual play, these are the sorts of ratios that would be found in theme decks.
It is also important to note that for competitive play, there is an emphasis on speed and reliability, therefore the ratios change quite drastically.
The ratios depend on the type of deck and the pokemon within, however rough guidelines for more competitive play would be around:
8 - 16 pokemon
8 - 12 energy
Remaining are trainers; predominantly card drawing trainers (with emphasis on larger draws such as discard and draw 7)
The pokemon in these decks tend to be of one energy type, or utilising colourless attacks.
There is nothing wrong with casual play (it is actually the best and most fun way to learn the game), however these slower, less reliable decks, would likely struggle if they were played in a local pokemon league / event

30 pokemon (includes evolutions)
12 trainer cards
18 energy

Try to focus on two types of pokemon good type sets are water-fire, fire-psychic, and water fighting. You can also have a few normal type pokemon and still be efficient.

If you are just getting into the game another Ratio, which is similar to another of the earlier ones is this.
20 Pokemon - including evolutions
18 trainer/item
22 energy
Also for those just getting into the game you can make a decent single type deck of the cards you have the most pokemon/energy for until you get some better cards to split into the dual type decks mentioned in another of the answers above.  I Play the Pokemon TCG online game as i don't have money to buy the physical cards, or the time to play in actual competitions due to my two jobs.
Good luck and have fun.

When I build a deck, I usually have around 16-20 Pokemon, 26-30 trainers, and 16-18 energys. Always try to only have one or two Pokemon types in a deck at a time.

When it comes to Pokemon, you should try to have 4 basics, 4 stage-one, and four stage-two. There are exceptions, say you don't have enough stage-ones for how many stage-twos you have, you can replace them with rare candies, which let you skip the middle evolution in battle. Or, EXs, that don't need the previous evolutions to get out.
When it comes to Trainers, I like having tools, that you attach to Pokemon to give them new abilities, or raise their attack. Supporters are good, like the draw-threes, or Pokemon Center Lady, because she heals your Pokemon. good items to use usually are Prof. Letter, to search your deck for energys, or energy retrieval, to get energys from your discard pile. Also, the different poke-balls, to get out Pokemon from your deck.
And when it comes to energys, double colorless are always good, and other special energys that match up with you Pokemon's type to give them abilities. The rest are just basic energys.
My main deck has the following Pokemon: Charizard GX x3, x3 charmander, Salazzle GX x1, Salazzle x1, Salandit x2, Turtonator GX x1, Bewear GX x1, Bewear x1, Stufful x2, Tauros GX x1. Most of them are heavy hitters. (16 total)
My main deck has the following Trainers: Professor Kukui x2, Pokemon Center Lady x2, Hau x2, Hala x1, Olivia x1, Blacksmith x1, Fighting Fury Belt x2, Hard Charm x1, Muscle Band x1, Rare Candy x3, Professor's Letter x2, Energy Retreaval x2, Nest Ball x2, Timer Ball x2, Switch x2. They mostly help me get out pokemon and energies. (28 total)
My main deck has the following Energys: Burning Energy x4, Double Colorless x4, Fire Energy x8. Not very many, but enough for my deck. (16 Total)

I hope this helps someone in need!

A good ratio for strong decks is as follows
12-16 Pokemon
8-12 Energy
32-40 Trainers
The trainers should be composed of the following (Note: These are only general guidelines. It is often necessary to change them depending on the deck you play)
*5-10 Draw supporters (cards that allow you to draw other cards) Examples of these include: Cynthia, Lillie, Tate and Liza, Sophocles, and Sightseer. All of these cards are currently legal and are some of the best draw supporters available.
*4-6 pokemon search cards (cards that allow you to find your pokemon) Examples of this include: Ultra Ball, Nest Ball, Timer Ball, Professor Elm's Lecture, and Pokemon fan club. These cards allow to create and maintain a game state in which your best pokemon are in play. Ultra Ball especially is extremely useful in this regard.
? Deck-specific cards (cards that are specifically used in your deck in order to advance your strategy) The number and type of cards varies based on the deck you play. One example of a commonly used deck-specific card is rare candy, which allows you to evolve a basic pokemon directly into a stage 2. This should ALWAYS be used on place of an evolving stage 1 whenever possible.
2+ Disruption cards (cards that negatively affect your opponent's game state) Examples of disruption cards include: Guzma, Crushing/Enhanced Hammers, Team skull Grunt, and Plumeria. Only Guzma is commonly used, the others are only placed in decks specifically designed for disruption.
Other trainers should be added as needed.

I like fast decks so I go for 1 set of 4 set up pokemon then 1 full evolution line leading up to a gx(8 or 12 cards total), 1 set of 4 basic gx with good synergy with your deck, 12 energy is enough then rest trainers ( at least 1 set of 4 switches).


text:
Can someone explain the Damage on the Stack rule change?
I played Magic: The Gathering when Unlimited first came out, and quit shortly after Antiquities were released. About a month ago I started playing again.
I was trying to find what the biggest changes are, and saw someone say the biggest difference was the elimination of Damage on the Stack. I've read the new rules and noticed a few differences, but am not sure what "Damage on the Stack" refers to as being different. Could someone explain what it was, and how it has been eliminated?

Formerly, in combat, it would go something like this:
Declare Blockers -> (Players can do stuff) -> Stack Damage -> (Players can do stuff) -> Damage resolves
This allowed players to do various combat "tricks." Some examples:
You attack with a 2/2, and I block with my Mogg Fanatic. After damage was stacked, I could use Mogg Fanatic's activated ability, sacrificing him and dealing an additional 1 damage to your 2/2. This 1 damage, coupled with the 1 combat damage on the stack, would kill your 2/2.
Under the new rules, this is not possible (and thus Mogg Fanatic has been significantly weakened). I could either deal the 1 combat damage to your 2/2, OR sacrifice him to deal 1 damage to any target. By sacrificing him, he no longer is alive to deal the combat damage; and I can't sacrifice him after damage because he would already be dead. From a "common sense" perspective, this seems more intuitive, and I think that's why they changed the rules. (Personally I liked Damage on the Stack better; it added more possibilities).
Here's another example, just to be perfectly clear:
Suppose you attack with a 2/2 and I block with a 2/2. Formerly, I could stack the combat damage, and then use a "bounce" card such as Unsummon or Boomerang to return my guy to my hand. The damage would then resolve; your guy would die, and mine would safely be in my hand.
With the new rules, I can block your guy (preventing damage to me) and still bounce my guy to save him from death, but I do not get to also kill your guy. Thus, bounce effects have also been weakened.

Great, that makes sense. If the creature is removed from combat then so is its damage. Thanks!

Incidentally, you can use cards like Goblin Arsonist or Festering Goblin to achieve a similar effect. This is because their abilities are death-triggered instead of sacrifice-activated, and by the time the creature dies it has already done its 1 point of combat damage.

I think it would be really useful to be explicit with dates or sets with regards to when the rules changes happened. "formerly" and "now" are a bit unclear.

@StuartCook, But boomerang deck still doesn't work any more since they wouldn't be considered death-triggered right?

If you haven't played since Antiquities, you're probably unfamiliar with the Stack in general -- it's a pretty important part of how Magic works now, and you should familiarize yourself with it. Basically it's a Last-In, First-Out stack that spells and abilities go into before they resolve. Once both players pass priority in succession without adding anything to the stack, the top effect happens and the active player gets priority again. (The concepts of priority and the active player are also pretty important -- it's what allows you to do things like use one of your Planeswalker's abilities before they have a chance to Bolt it or whatever).
Damage on the stack was never a "phase" as LittleBobbyTables said; it was something that happened during the combat damage step of the Combat Phase. Creature damage was treated like ever other ability, used the stack, and could be responded to. With the rules overhaul that happened around M10's release, this was changed, as it led to too many unpleasant situations of new players getting taken advantage of by more experienced players, and because combat without it is actually more tactically interesting -- you now have to choose between your creature's power and his sac ability, rather than always getting both. It does unfortunately render a lot of older cards terrible, but they have definitely started pushing the power level of sac effects on newer cards to compensate.
Mana burn was also eliminated in that rules update, so be aware of that too.

I saw the stack (nice improvement) and the Mana burn elimination.

I guess since Damage on the Stack was added after the Stack was introduced, and that happened after I left that explains why I had never heard of it.

"Damage on the stack" was a phase after damage had been assigned, but before actually applied, where you could do fast effects and all sorts of fun stuff.
For example, you could block a Grizzly Bears with a Prodigal Sorcerer, then with "damage on the stack", tap the Prodigal Sorcerer to do a point of damage to the Grizzly Bears.
The Grizzly Bears would now have a point of damage on them, and then when damage resolves, the second point of damage (from the Prodigal Sorcerer's 1 point of power) would kill it.
Basically, you could either attack or block, then use a creature's effects for added bonus.  Mogg Fanatic and Nantuko Husk were fun for this, but there were plenty of other creatures that abused or took full advantage of "damage on the stack".

You can still do the Prodigal Sorcerer trick to kill a 2/2 by activating its ability after declaring it as a blocker. Tapped blockers have been dealing damage for years. You can't do the Mogg Fanatic trick anymore, though.

You'll also want to know that once an ability goes on the stack, it still resolves (unless the ability is countered) even if the source is no longer around. For example, the old question was if a Prodigal Sorcerer taps to deal one damage to a Royal Assassin, then the Royal Assassin responds to kill the now tapped Prodigal Sorcerer, which creature dies? It used to be the Prodigal Sorcerer would die, because it was no longer around to deal the damage, but now they would kill each other.

I had the Royal Assassin kill my Prodigal Sorcerer so many times before they fixed that rule.

It was never the case that the Royal Assassin wouldn't die - 'Removing the source of an effect doesn't remove the effect' has been the law of the land since the game was released.

The Original Rulebook: ”…the player whose turn it is announces their spells and effects first. Then, the other player can respond to each one with one or more fast effects (instants, artifacts in play, enchantments in play, or creature special abilities). These reactions can be reacted to, and so forth, and nothing happens until both players have finished taking actions. At this point, all spells take effect simultaneously.”


text:
How can Munchkin Quest be played quicker?
I love Munchkin Quest, but if you have more than 3 players you tend to get longer games.  I know one way to make games quicker is to reduce everyone's starting moves to 2.  That works ok, but I want to know if there are other ways of reducing the timeframe for playing with more people.

I'm hoping for something more along the lines discussed in this meta question. The focus of the question is good - specifically mentioning a problem - but I think, as written, it's a question type to avoid: "Asking for recommendations of house rules to solve a problem."

I've had this problem in the past as well, and the best solution that me and my friends have come up with is to play the game less like the rules say, and more like Betrayal At the House on the Hill.
Which is to say, when moving, you only get to explore until you have an encounter.  This could be fighting a monster or a trap or some such, but once you've had to resolve anything that isn't just drawing a card, you stop and the next person's turn begins. The downside is that your dungeon doesn't grow as fast, but the upside is you don't end up with each person having to go through the combat scenario 3 times each turn, and you'd be amazed how much that speeds things up (because you don't have as many people trying to play modifier cards).


text:
How does a Loyal Cathar react to Undying Evil?
Loyal Cathar states:

When Loyal Cathar dies, return it to the battlefield transformed under
your control at the beginning of the next end step.

Undying Evil states:

Target creature gains undying until end of turn. (When it dies, if it
had no +1/+1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its
owner's control with a +1/+1 counter on it.)

If I cast Undying Evil on Loyal Cathar and it dies, would it come back as a Loyal Cathar with a +1/+1, come back as its transformed self, come back transformed AND with the +1/+1, or some other combination that I'm not seeing?

Fun Limited trick: Loyal Cathar + Mikaeus the Unhallowed. After the Cathar dies, he will come back as a Zombie at the beginning of the end step. Mikaeus gives the Zombie side (only) Undying. When the zombie Cathar dies, Undying will cause the card to come back to the battlefield as a Loyal Cathar with a +1/+1 counter on it. Rinse and repeat (slowly, since the Cathar's built-in resurrection is only for the end step).

It would come back as Loyal Cathar with a +1/+1 counter on it.
Undying Evil's triggered ability returns Loyal Cathar to the battlefield upon dying, Loyal Cathar's triggered ability sets up a delayed triggered ability that returns the card "at the beginning of the next end step".
Loyal Cathar's normal return-to-battlefield trigger won't find the card in the graveyard when it resolves, so will fail to do anything.

603.7c A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. However, if that object is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won’t affect it. (Note that if that object left that zone and then returned, it’s a new object and thus won’t be affected. See rule 400.7.)

Aren't you allowed to stack the triggers anyway you want them? If you stack the normal trigger after the undying isn't it the other way around?

If I remember correctly, the active player has the choice to what order is used in such a case.

@Eregrith the player controlling the simultaneous effects can choose, not the active player. Otherwise yes, it can be chosen.

I want to retract my downvote, I overlooked the "at end of turn" part of the Cathar's ability. Yes you can choose the order in which way they resolve, but in any case, Undying returns the Cathar immediately, whereas the cathar's ability ability only does something at end of turn. By this time, the Cathar has long left the graveyard due to Undying and therefore can not do anything. Unless, of course, the Cathar dies again the same turn and triggers another instance of his ability. Please expand your answer accordingly and I will upvote instead of down :)

@rahzark You are, but undying returns it immediately, the Cathar ability returns it at the next end step, the end of this turn, or if it dies during the end step the end of the next turn. By the time the delayed trigger's conditions are met it was already returned to the battlefield by undying and the delayed trigger fails to resolve.


text:
When should I build the Crane card?
In San Juan, is the Crane card useless?
I haven't found it useful at all.  My conclusions about it are:
Pros

Allows you to build a high cost building for less cards.

Cons

Lose abilities of over-built building
Lose points of over-built building
Lose pace with others, slower to reach 12

Is the Crane card ever a useful build?

In my experience the only card that matters in San Juan is the Silver Mines. If you build those, you win. From that perspective, the Crane doesn't matter. Haven't played in awhile, though.

The crane can be very useful when you don't want to finish the game.
Remember: the one who builds his/her 12th building isn't the winner. This action only ends the game. If you have 11 houses and are not in a position of wining, it could be useful to build one more without finishing the game.

EDIT
Also, using a crane can help you building a big house in two steps, no need to have seven cards in the hand at one time.
An interresting effect linked to the use of the crane is that you can use the builder's privilege twice on the same card. Let's say you want to build something that is worth 6. You are the builder. Build some building that's worth 3, pay it 2. Next turn, choose the builder, expand your 3-building to your 6-building, pay 2 instead of 3. The total cost of the building was 4 instead of 6. Add to that some additionnal cards that reduce the price, you can even have a free 6-cards!!!

Have you ever used this to win?

Not personnaly, but I saw someone using it (not at the end of the game, this guy was good at anticipation). I first thought he didn't know how to play. Then I lost...

While I do realize that Crane is not useless in theory for the obvious reasons (Oltarus mentions them), I do believe that it is totally useless in practice because:
The game ends at 12 buildings, and you can only build one at most each turn. Furthermore, each time you build your opponent(s) will also have the chance to do the same. This means that if you are not gaining the same amount of VPs (on average) as your opponents each time anyone plays the Builder, you are falling behind. Given that almost all the big VP producers (including the overpowered Guild Hall) totally depend or at least work better when you have a large number of buildings, it follows that Crane is not the best for your VP total.
Also, since Builder will be selected almost in every turn, players not using Crane will be constantly moving towards ending the game (and improving their board while they do so). Using Crane requires you to sacrifice one building opportunity (for the Crane itself) and play with less buildings than your opponents (an additional 1 building less each time you opt to use the Crane), which means that you get less building abilities to work with. But you do want to use the Crane (why build it otherwise), resulting in what is a death spiral to my eyes.
I have never even considered using Crane when playing against seasoned gamers -- it was obvious to me that they would end the game with many more VPs than me while I would still be at 9-10 buildings at most. I have used Crane successfully against much weaker opponents, but that doesn't mean the card is good (I would have won using anything, really).

The crane is intended to be a building upgrade in addition to your normal build. Sure, if you mistake the crane's upgrade power for your regular build then you never see it played by the winning player in a review of 300,000+ online games but if you use it like the building phase version of trading post, aqueduct, prefecture, or gold mine, it can occasionally be useful. It still costs you a card out of your hand to use if you overbuild a building with a same cost building or you have to pay the difference if it is a higher cost building. It is about 80% as effective as the chapel for converting cards into VPs but it lets you get a different building power if the old building wasn't working out for you.
The crane, like most 2 cost cards, works best when used in combination with other cards, namely the smithy, quarry or carpenter. You can then upgrade your building one level for no cost and with the quarry and carpenter together you can come out 1 card ahead. Its harder than using the well or market stand to get an extra card but its doable. What the crane is best for, and the only way it can help you win, is late in the game to replace old buildings with monuments or a value 6 building. You can squeeze out a slightly higher vp/card ratio and lets you burn extra cards in your hand that you would be stuck holding at the end of the game. Again, the chapel is a better card overall but the crane can be situationally better if you have the right cards in your hand later and you were forced to play something lackluster earlier in the game like the gold mine, black market or sugar mill. Its better to throw down something than nothing if you don't have anything good to play because you can hope to fix it later with the crane. A lost build is something you almost never make up.

Pretty useless, yes.  I don't think I've ever seen someone build it and win and I don't think I've ever built it.  Just as an experiment, I tried building it a couple times in the Android implementation of San Juan (Condado) and lost both games.  It's somewhat rare for me to lose to that implementation, so yes, useless.

I think that Crane is a very situational card. I don't use it much, but there are few places where it can be useful:

Like Oltarus said, you can use it to pay for a high-cost building (like Guild Hall) in two steps. (And if you have Carpenter, you got a draw to use on your building on next turn ;)
If for some reason during a game you play a Guild Hall but don't have a lot of building productions, you can start replacing some of violet building with production ones for a discounted price.
And last, suppose a turn where some opponent built his 12th building, so the game will end now and he is just a few points ahead you (maybe 1 or 2?), then you can place some monument or some other high VP card, and then be able to get ahead again (or at least tie and hope to win on tie-breakers).

It's not a card that you will use a lot (I don't use it very often too), but I think that it can help you in some spots.


text:
When should I send my current civilization into decline?
In Vinci, you play a civilization for some period of time and then declare it to be "in decline", meaning you sit out a turn and then start a new one.  If you go into decline too quickly you're signing up for unneeded churn, but if you wait too long your rate of gaining points drops and you fall behind.  What's a good strategy for deciding when to make this change?
Factors that seem to be relevant: the queue of upcoming civiliations (though there will be some turnover before your next turn), how "far along" the other civilizations are toward decline, score you're currently earning and its rate of change, board position (how hard will it be to enter the board with a new civilization), and...what else?  Which of those are the most important?

@Pat Could you explain why you don't think this particular question and its answers apply to Small World as well?

@bwarner - I've played both, they have different elements. A great answer would include some elements particular to a certain game.  By tagging it with both you implicitly discourage those answers.

Well, there is no perfect answer to this question, or else the game wouldn't be fun at all for anyone. But…
1) If you guess that the next turn, you won't make more points than this turn, no need to move, then it is preferable to use this turn to decline.
2) If you spot a "perfect civilization" (for the given situation) in the queue and need to take it before anyone gets the same idea, go for it!
I have some trouble answering your question with a straight answer for one reason: this aspect of the game is purely second guessing; whatever you do depends of what the others will do and vice-versa. Having a neighbour that wants to destroy your civilization or being the border line between two enemies is very different (I am not speaking about pure strategy here but about the more or less logical desires of the players).
This is to say: no, there is no perfect strategy, but points 1) and 2) may be good hints.


text:
What are good strategies for booster drafts?
I know that doing a booster draft can be somewhat complicated, because to really be good you need to know a lot about the set you're drafting (or be really good at evaluating cards quickly) and to pay attention to signal cards.
Besides going into the whole complicated strategies of knowing the set and paying attention to signal cards, what are some relatively simple/basic guidelines for drafting?

If you don't already, go watch some drafts on channelfireball.com.  LSV in particular is one of the best Limited players in the world, and his draft videos are usually brilliant examples of how it should be done.  Free, too!

"BREAD" is key, but there is another technique that helps a lot in most Limited formats:
Draft archetypes, not colors.
The theory behind "drafting archetypes" is that a great Limited deck, like a great Constructed deck, is defined by the power, consistency, and efficiency of all its cards working together rather than any individual piece by itself.
In a not-just-for-"hardcore"-players environment like FNM, many of the players will be rather busy just trying their best to follow the "BREAD" rules and color-signal to their neighbors. They'll often be drafting cards based on individual perceived value, leading to a field full of "good stuff" decks (individually strong cards with little synergy between them). "Good stuff" decks tend to suck; a reasonably focused deck -- almost independent of the specific focus -- can trounce them. That's what you're trying to draft: not just a color combo with a few bombs but a full concept like "infect aggro", "blue/white flyers", or "reanimator".
Pick a game plan early. Pay close attention to your mana curve. Choose colors based on what has the cards you need and don't be afraid to switch if the well runs dry. Rare-draft a nice mythic if you really want to (you'll likely have more than enough depth in your colors to make up for it), but don't get caught up taking cards just because they're "powerful" individually.
Homing in on cards that complement each other lets you get enormous value out of what would otherwise be middling cards or last-pick trash. Even if you don't see a single powerhouse red bomb or choice red removal card, a steady trickle of aggressive red 1-drops and 2-drops is a solid basis for an aggro deck.
Drafting archetypes still involves signals. Watch especially for enablers. Some of the most obvious examples are tribal "lords" like Rakish Heir and Lord of Illusions. Others are build-a-deck-around-me combo-ish cards like Gutter Grime and Past in Flames. Conventional wisdom is that these cards are all rather weak because it's hard to get enough cards to make them work, but consider that you're likely to see hundreds of cards as the packs make their way around, and many of the cards that complete your deck are likely to be passed as "dregs". Being able to pass a card that you know will win games for you and have it come all the way around back to you is an amazingly rewarding feeling.

The trade-off is that it's hard to really be good at drafting archetypes without spending time learning a particular Limited card pool. Unlike the easier fundamentals, your Zendikar-block archetype drafting skills won't necessarily translate into Innistrad-block archetype drafting skills. Still, it doesn't take an inordinate amount of time to learn the basics -- it's mostly stuff you're already aware of if you're making constructed decks or following new set previews -- and the benefits are sizable.
Basic aggro decks are the easiest archetypes to draft. You can often do well in a draft just by making a deck that's faster than most players'. High-synergy aggro and aggro-control are the next step up in difficulty, because you really do have to know the specific card pool well to hit the critical mass of key cards for your deck. Straight-up control decks are trickier just because the cards you want most are the much-desired "Bombs" and "Removal", but most sets have lots of chronically undervalued control cards like Geistflame and Steel Sabotage.

Evan Erwin has an interesting article about learning to draft on Star City Games.
He uses an acronym BREAD to remember the order you should be picking.

Look for Bombs
Look for Removal
Look for Efficient spells.
Look for Aggro (1-3 mana creatures to get in the early damage)
Take the Dregs.

I'd modify his acronym and make E also stand for Evasion. It's good to find creatures with flying, or "cannot be blocked" abilities… even if it's Trample, to get through creature stalemates.

Pay attention to your mana curve. You generally don't want to end up with a deck of 4+ mana cost spells and no low mana spells or a bunch of aggro creatures with no finisher.
The 4th - 5th pick is likely the best pack to see what colours seem under-picked. If there's a card you're surprised to see still in the pack, you may want to go that way.

what's the generals of bombs and efficient spells?

A bomb is something like: Wurmcoil engine, Garruk, Sword of fire and ice or Phyrexian Rebirth.
Efficient spells could be: Sky eel school, Darkslick Drake and the likes.

This is a great starting point, but be aware that some creature-light formats would probably change this to BARED ;-)

@DForck42 Bomb is an overused term (people have called a 2/2 flyer for 3 a bomb before), but the "pure" definition is a card that both demands an immediate answer and can swing a game where you're "losing" to one where you're "winning". Actual bombs are debatable. I would consider Swords merely conditional bombs (on the grounds that if you're out of creatures they don't do anything but if you have a 1/1 they're obscene), while Wurmcoil Engine is a pure bomb, in that it asks nothing but that you survive a turn (and can help with that aim) and it can win the game on the spot if unanswered.

E is not as commonly used for efficient and more for "evasion" instead.

You asked ghoppe for "the generals of bombs and efficient spells".  I'll try to add my 2p worth, taking that as a starting point for the answer.
The thing to remember about all Limited formats is that decks aren't going to end up anywhere near as finely tuned as constructed decks.  This goes doubly so for Sealed Deck, where you just have to reduce the clunkiness of your pool to manageable levels, but even in Draft you generally aren't going to end up with anything incredibly synergetic or finely tuned: four turn kills are pretty rare!
As such, you're just aiming to produce a deck that's a pretty good Magic deck.  That's where the BREAD mnemonic comes in.  What are the fundamentals of a pretty good deck?  (i) Cards that take over and win the game very quickly if left unanswered - those are the BOMBS.  (ii) Cards that stop the opponent's bombs from taking over and winning the game.  That's the REMOVAL.  Those are the two pillars.  Beyond that, you want cards that are going to slowly chip away at the opponent even when you're in a bit of a stalemate situation.  Those are the cards with EVASION, that can't be blocked, and any EFFICIENT cards that can net you card advantage over the course of the game, and win wars of attrition that way.  No one would say that Divination was "a bomb", but if you and your opponent have nothing much else going on, Divination is exactly the sort of card that you need to maximise your chances of winning a top deck war.
Modern Magic is, alas, way more bomb-centric than it used to be, because Wizards likes to boost sales by having slightly overpowered Planeswalkers and monsters in the rare and mythic slots.  As an example, look at the way that every modern Magic set has a dragon which basically reads "if you untap and attack with this, it's pretty much impossible for you to lose the game".  Obviously you don't want to pass cards like these if you open them, if at all possible, but equally don't underestimate the value of cards that deal with them.  The likes of Pacifism and Doom Blade may not be as flashy as your rare Angels, Demons and Dragons, but they still deal with them on a one-for-one basis, and are essential for your game plan.
Apart from all that basic how-to-win-Limited-games stuff, the key to good drafting is just to understand how passing to the left, then to the right, then to the left again works.  In the first pack, you need to be taking care to notice what your right-hand-opponent (RHO) is passing to you, and what you're feeding to your LHO.  If you first pick the aforementioned rare red dragon, but never get passed another red card, you have to take that as a signal, and not get obsessed with fighting for red.  Likewise, it's often an excellent first pick, if the best, third best and fourth best cards in a pack are, let's say, white, and the second best card is black, to take the second best card.  The players downstream will be fighting over white, while you stand a good chance of cutting off any good black that would otherwise pique the interest of your LHO for the whole of the pack.  This will almost certainly result in you getting fed much better black cards in pack two, as your LHO will hopefully have settled on different colours for his deck.
If you can cooperate with your neighbours' signals, you should be able to produce a good or excellent Magic deck, and hopefully go on to win the draft by dint of your play skills.  If you fight with your neighbours, your job will be much harder!  It's always funny to watch draft videos where a stream of amazing cards in one colour go past the drafter, and they can't pick them up because they've committed to another direction.  If your stubborn pride and/or sheer inability to pick up on the signal that a colour is open until it's too late mean you're feeding your neighbours a deck that is much more broken than the one you're drafting... you're making your life much harder than is ideal!  Try not to fall into such a trap.

I've done really well in events with just a low curve and a card like Thalia or Galvanic Juggernaut as my best "bomb," so they're definitely not required. I think the real value of bombs is that they compensate for a lot of sloppy deckbuilding. With Jace, 2x Hypersonic Dragon, and Mizzium Mortars in my RTR sealed pool, I could stuff the rest of the deck with all kinds of random durdle cards -- cards that were mainly weaker than my opponents', but good enough to get me to my bombs -- and still win a whole bunch of games.

Marshall Sutcliffe has an interesting article about CABS Theory on magic.wizards.com. This post is a short extract of the original article. The original article offers much more ; go read it.
He uses an acronym CABS, which is short for "Cards (that) Affect the Board State", to remember what you should be picking.
Most people don't factor in whether a card affects the board or not when they evaluate a card. The questions are usually centered around outright power level, "rate" (basically The Vanilla Test, but for all cards. Think "efficiency"), overall mana cost, etc. And this makes some sense, too. After all, many very strong cards don't directly affect the board state at all.
Let's stop here and define what I mean when I say "affects the board state."
There are three types of cards that affect the board state, and they are:

Creatures—Creatures are easily the most important card type in Limited. It's not close, either. 99% of Limited games are won with creatures. Creatures give you a way to stay alive, they are a way to come from behind, and they are the way you win. They are recurring sources of damage, and they can function as virtual removal spells while blocking. They are the most proactive things you can do in Limited.
Removal—Removal spells are the scarcest of the three resources here, and they are important because they kill the most important thing (creatures). Being a scarce commodity means that they will often get picked ahead of creatures in Draft.
Combat Tricks—Combat tricks affect the board directly, assuming you have at least one creature. They are riskier, and the least important of the three categories, but they do have their place. Ideally they function similar to removal, as they help you win combat by making your creature big enough to kill the opposing blocker.

Here are your CABS Commandments:

You will NOT splash extra colors. You will play two colors, no more. There is no such thing as a free splash.
You will have a good mana curve. This will prioritize the two- and three-mana slots for creatures. You will avoid seven-drops.
You will have fifteen to eighteen creatures in your deck.
You will avoid card-draw spells, build-around-me enchantments, counterspells, life gain spells, and the like.
Every card in your deck will have a low setup cost. Your cards stand on their own; they don't require any gymnastics to be good.
You will have a simple, clear game plan of beating down your opponent. No milling or combos—just beats.
You will prioritize "solid doubles" over "strikeout/home run" cards. This means that you want cards that are consistently good rather than cards that are sometimes very good but sometimes very bad.

This is good, but could you edit it down to just the essential summary of CABS with a link (maybe the commandments?) Copying the entire article seems questionable from an IP practice and from how useful it is as an answer.


text:
Interactions of multiple Parallel Lives
If I have two Parallel Lives, and I have a Doomed Traveler that just died, how many Spirit tokens would I put into play?

Four.
For each instance of Parallel Lives (or Doubling Season) in play, double each instance of a token that would enter play.
Parallel Lives' effect is a replacement effect. It replaces "Put X creature tokens into play under your control" with "Put 2X creature tokens into play under your control."
Thus, two Parallel Lives' would quadruple tokens, three would be eight times, and four would be sixteen.  Effectively, for each token placement, replace every token with two tokens for each instance of Parallel Lives.
Appropriate comp rules:

614.5. A replacement effect doesn't invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace it.
Example: A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads "If a creature you control would deal damage to a creature or player, it deals double that damage to that creature or player instead." A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage -- not just 4, and not an infinite amount.

EDIT: Relevant Oracle text mentioned by @AlexP:

9/22/2011 - If you control two Parallel Lives, then the number of tokens created is four times the original number. If you control three, then the number of tokens created is eight times the original number, and so on.

so we're really looking at ((2^y)*x), x being tokens and y being the number of parallel lives.

In case the comp rules seem confusing, this is supported by the Oracle rulings for Parallel Lives as well.

MTGO also behaves this way, which is usually a pretty definitive indication of the intended behavior. I once played Timely Reinforcements with two Parallel Lives in play, setting down TWELVE tokens with one card. That was fun.

"If an [EFFECT] would put one or more tokens onto the battlefield [INSTEAD]"
This wording seems confusing. The act of doubling is an effect of the enchantment, therefore to the wording, two Parallel Lives on the field would seem to loop as one would trigger the other into infinite creatures:
The initial spell/effect has you put a creature onto the field.
Parallel Lives (A) has you put an additional token onto the field.
Parallel Lives (B) triggers the same time as (A) resulting in four.

Going by the text, it seems that it shouldn't end there.

Assuming Parallel Lives (A) would react to (B) having placed tokens
Assuming Parallel Lives (B) would react to (A) having placed a token
"Whenever" vs "If" would have made this card infinite with just the two, as that word is what typically is used to denote potential for an infinite cycle to occur.
If you need proof of the concept go buy two mirrors and put them edge to edge at a 90 degree angle and place an object at the center or place them exactly facing each other with an item in the center. This denotes "Whenever an item appears, create a duplicate of that item," but two mirrors would also catch the appearance of the mirrored appearance.
This is to say the wording didn't covey the comprehensive ruling in simple enough vocabulary/structure, so that is what most player would potentially default to in lack of comprehensive rules to refer to -going on the card text alone. It is understandable to mistake it as a continuous engine.

the way it works is that all of the parallel lives trigger at the same time and go on the stack. since they are replacement effects, each instance resolves and only one number is changed.

@DForck42, trigger isn't the right word here. It gives the impression that this is a triggered ability, it isn't (it is a replacement effect). [CR 614.5] tells you that each replacement effect gets one chance to replace an event. So, what happens here is "put X tokens on the battlefield" gets replaced with "put (X * 2) tokens on the battlefield" from the first Parallel Lives, then the 2nd replaces it with, "put ((X * 2) * 2) tokens on the battlefield", which indeed quadruples it.

How does this answer the question? This answer only talks about a tangential topic. Replacement effects don't trigger. Replacement effects are never the source of an effect, they just modify what the original event would do. So technically, the second Parallel Lives replacement effect is still applied to the original source (Doomed traveler's ability), not to the first Parallel Lives. This is not really a good place to have a discussion, but we can discuss this in the chat if you want.

@Pablo I disagree: I think it's user5415's legitimate attempt at answering the question, (s)he simply misunderstands the exact mechanics involved. So it's an incorrect answer, not an invalid answer, if you follow my line of thought and (probably poorly chosen) terminology. That is to say, it's downvote material, but not delete material.

@corsiKa Perhaps I misunderstood, but he tried to explain why the wording of the cards (or perhaps the wording of the ruling) was confusing. That's why I said that this was not actually an answer, because I think that "why the wording is confusig" is a tangential topic, not the real topic of the question.


text:
Can you link up twice in one turn in Age of Steam?
During the Move Goods phase you have the option to either:

Move a good
Increase your Engine Links

Then each other player goes and you then get a second chance to move a good.  Can you choose the Increase Engine Link option for both goods?

I have the game, and dug out the rules to clarify.
Under section 5, Move Goods, it states the following:

In ONE of the two opportunities to Move Goods, the player may instead
  opt to move their disk on the Engine Track up one link. The maximum
  number of links is still 6 links.

Therefore, you may not use the Increase Engine Link option twice, and move no goods.

I've played Steam rather than Age of Steam, but I think it's similar?  In any case, I found this clarification on an online Age of Steam FAQ:

Q4. As mentioned in the section titled "Moving Goods", a player may
  forego shipment during a round in order to "increment" his engine link
  level. It does not specify in the rules by how many links a player may
  increment his engine, only that the maximum is 6 links. Can a player
  increment his links by more than one per round? In other words, can I
  go straight from a 2 link engine directly to a 6 link?
A4. You can only move your engine level up by 1 for foregoing 1 cube
  shipment. You are only allowed to do this once per goods movement
  phase. Note that the word "increment" means "To increase the amount of
  ONE unit". Also be aware that if you get the Engineer you can still
  forego a shipment in order to get a maximum upgrade of +2 on the turn
  as a whole.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this ruling, but it does tally with what I seem to remember from playing Steam, that you couldn't just increase your Engine madly early on, it was a slow, gradual process.  So I'd say once per goods movement phase sounds like a pretty safe bet.


text:
Can Dismember kill my Gloryscale Viashino after I cast Armadillo Cloak?
I have a Gloryscale Viashino creature on the board. I cast the spell Armadillo Cloak to enchant this creature. My opponent responds playing Dismember.
His intention is to kill my creature before it gets the bonus from the enchantment and before it gets +3/+3 (Armadillo cloak is a multicolored spell). Here is the rules text from Gloryscale Viashino:
Whenever you cast a multicolored spell, Gloryscale Viashino gets +3/+3 until end of turn.
I think that he cannot kill my creature, because he already got the +3/+3 from its ability when I cast the spell, not when it resolves. This means that my Gloryscale Viashino should be 6/6 before Dismember resolves. What is the correct ruling here?

Your opponent can kill your creature, because he can respond to the trigger that gives it +3/+3 until end of turn. Here's the sequence of actions:

You cast Armadillo Cloak, putting it on the stack. Then the triggered ability from Gloryscale Viashino goes on the stack.

Stack:

triggered ability
Armadillo Cloak

Gloryscale Viashino is a 3/3.

Your opponent casts Dismember.

Stack:

Dismember
triggered ability
Armadillo Cloak

Gloryscale Viashino is a 3/3.

Both players yield priority (decline to cast anything), so the top item on the stack resolves.

Stack:

triggered ability
Armadillo Cloak

Gloryscale Viashino is a -2/-2. It gets put in the graveyard for having 0 or less toughness.

Both players again yield priority, so the top item on the stack resolves. That's the triggered ability, but it doesn't do anything because Gloryscale Viashino is no longer in play.

Stack:

Armadillo Cloak

Both players again yield priority, so the top item on the stack resolves - or would resolve, except that it's a spell with an illegal target, so instead Armadillo Cloak gets countered.

For educational purposes, here's what could happen if your opponent cast Dismember at the wrong time (for him):

You cast Armadillo Cloak, putting it on the stack. Then the triggered ability from Gloryscale Viashino goes on the stack.

Stack:

triggered ability
Armadillo Cloak

Gloryscale Viashino is a 3/3.

Both players yield priority, so the top item on the stack resolves. This is the triggered ability which pumps the Viashino.

Stack:

Armadillo Cloak

Gloryscale Viashino is a 6/6.

Your opponent casts Dismember.

Stack:

Dismember
Armadillo Cloak

Gloryscale Viashino is a 6/6.

Both players yield priority, so the top item on the stack resolves.

Stack:

Armadillo Cloak

Gloryscale Viashino is a 1/1.

Both players again yield priority, so the top item on the stack resolves. This time, the target of Armadillo Cloak is still legal, so it resolves as normal.

Ah, your answer is pretty nice, going step by step showing the stack contents. I will keep mine for the rules references, though :) +1!

Thanks for the explanation. I totally missed that triggered abilities also use the stack. This means I lost the game though.

Does this mean that if the Armadilo Cloak was countered, the +3/+3 would still take effect? I suppose if the trigger was "successfully cast" or "resolves" then a counter would prevent the effect?

@Nick The triggered ability is not linked in any way to the spell. So if Armadillo Cloak is countered, that doesn't automatically have any effect on the triggered ability.

Let's go step by step. First of all, what does it mean to cast a spell?
(emphasis mine)

701.4a To cast a spell is to take it from the zone it’s in (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. A player may cast a spell if he or she has priority. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."

So, as soon as you put your spell on the stack, even before it resolves, it is already being cast. The ability on the Viashino triggers:

603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with
the word "when," "whenever," or "at." They can also be expressed as
"[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]."
603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability's trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The
ability doesn't do anything at this point.
(...)
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that's not a card the next time a player would
receive priority. See rule 116, "Timing and Priority." The ability
becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the
ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on
the stack until it's countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be
removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

So, the ability is put on the stack above the enchantment, so in a normal scenario the creature would get the +3/+3 even before the enchantment resolves!
Even so, the triggered ability is still an ability. It goes on the stack and can be responded to like most abilities and spells. Unless your opponent lets the triggered ability resolve before putting his Dismember on the stack, Dismember would kill your creature.

Yes. Spells and abilities do not resolve immediately. Each player has the opportunity to respond to the Gloryscale Viashino's +3/+3 triggered ability. We know that the Gloryscale Viashino's ability is a triggered ability, because it starts with "Whenever." Only the top spell or ability resolves, so for your opponent to kill your Gloryscale Viashino, they need to respond to it's +3/+3 triggered ability. When they do this, Dismember is added to the top of the stack, and it will be the first spell or ability to resolve. The stack will look like this:

Dismember - Gloryscale Viashino gets -5/-5 until end of turn.
GV triggered ability - Gloryscale Viashino gets +3/+3 until end of turn.
Armadillo Cloak - Enchanted Creature gets +2/+2, trample, and gain life triggered ability.

If both players pass at this point, the Gloryscale Viashino will get -5/-5 until the end of the turn before anything else on the stack resolves. Because it's toughness is 0 or less, it will killed ("die") and will be placed in its owner's graveyard. The remaining spells/abilities on the stack will fail to do anything, since the Gloryscale Viashino will no longer be on the battlefield (assuming that Armadillo Cloak was targeting the Gloryscale Viashino). Basic Rulebook quoted below:

RESOLVE - When you cast a spell or activate an activated ability, or when a triggered ability triggers, nothing happens right away. It just goes on the stack. After each player gets a chance to respond to it, it will resolve and its effect will happen. If another spell or ability counters it, or if none of its targets are legal when it tries to resolve, it won’t resolve at all (and if it’s a spell, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard).

RESPONDING TO A SPELL - The spell doesn’t resolve (have its effect) right away—it has to wait on the stack. Each player, including you, now gets a chance to cast an instant or activate an activated ability in response. If a player does, that instant or ability goes on the stack on top of what was already waiting there. When all players decline to do anything, the top spell or ability on the stack will resolve.

TRIGGERED ABILITIES - A triggered ability is text that happens when a specific event occurs in the game. ... Each triggered ability starts with the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” You don’t activate a triggered ability. It automatically triggers whenever the first part of the ability happens. The ability goes on the stack just like a spell, and resolves just like a spell.


text:
What happens when I sacrifice a blocking creature?
In Magic:The Gathering it is possible to trigger abilities of creatures at the same time you can play instants?
I play it that I can block with a creature and sacrifice it at the same time. The attacking creature blocked this ways does not deal damage because the blocking creature is gone - and I get the bonus for the sacrifice (e.g. Blood Pet gives me an extra B-Mana).
In a recent discussion the topic came up again. It seems like the rulings even allow for the blocking player to wait until the damage is put on the stack. Once the damage is on the stack, I can sacrifice my creature, gain the benefits from the sacrifice ability AND deal damage to the attacking create. In my Blood Pet example I would be able to kill an attacking creature with toughness 1 and get 1 B-Mana.
Is this correct? Where can I find the official ruling that clarifies that?

Protecting this on account of repeatedly attracting non-answers from 1-rep users. (It'll probably get auto-protected after the current one's removed anyway.)

@Pureferret, To which change are you referring? I've just checked the accepted answer against the latest rules, and I don't see any error. If the only problem is the dead links in the accepted answer, the proper course of action is to edit the answer rather than create a bounty.

@ikegami I don't know the latest rules or where to source a new link (otherwise I'd edit). If the original answerer wants to edit in new info they're still eligible for the bounty.

@Pureferret, Re "I don't know the latest rules", So why do you claim there's been a rule change that invalidates the existing answers?

@ikegami I made no such claim. I said they may have been a rules change. Do you want me to scout through ~3 years of rules changes to see if I should put a bounty on a question?

@Pureferret, No, you said "The current answer(s) are out-of-date and require revision given recent changes". That's clearly false. If you suspect a rule has changed, why don't you Ask a Question rather than creating baseless bounties!! On a protected post no less. That's suppose to be a signal to think twice!!

There was a fairly long period of time ending with Magic 2010 when you could put damage on the stack, and then play instants and abilities before the damage resolved.  Those days are over!
Nowadays, you declare blockers, and then both players have a chance to play spells and abilities.  Once everyone is finished doing this, we move onto the combat damage phase, and only then do creatures even start thinking about dealing damage to each other.  If you sacrificed your creature after declaring it as a blocker, then it never gets an opportunity to deal damage, I'm afraid!
One corner case: if your creature has First Strike and also a sacrifice ability, you can have it deal its first strike damage and then sacrifice it in the window of opportunity both players have to play spells and effects before normal combat damage.  Try this page for a handy breakdown of when players have a chance to do things in the course of a Magic game.
Also have a look at Magic 2010 Rule Change, explaining some of the latest changes made to the game rules, particularly section 5, about combat damage not using the stack.  Much more readable than the Comprehensive Rulebook, I think you'll find...

+1: Thanks for the quick response. I especially like the turn structure table. This will help me a lot in the future.

Though, actually, looking at that turn structure table, it's not QUITE right - because it's still checking for mana burn at the end of phases, and mana burn no longer happens!  So I guess it's a bit out of date.  It seems mostly okay though, so probably still useful for better visualising the steps of a turn.

One clarification on this otherwise excellent answer: while a sacrificed creature cannot deal combat damage, it does still act as a blocker if it is sacrificed after blocking creatures are assigned. Sacrificing the blocker does not cause the attacking creature to become "unblocked" and deal its damage to the player (Exception: if the attacker has Trample, then when there is no blocker it deals all of its damage to the player, just as if it were blocked by a 0/0 creature.)

@JS: yes, that's a useful clarification.  A sacrificed blocking creature may not get to kill attackers, but it does usually save you some damage, so it is still doing double duty in a way!

@thesunneversets - they got rid of mana burn?!?! That's ridiculous.

@Charles: Yeah, they decided that the value it added to the game wasn't worth the extra complexity it added to the rules.  So now your mana pool empties at the end of each step as normal, but no life is lost.  Something has certainly been lost, but it does open some interesting new design space as well, probably...

@thesunneversets - I guess it shouldn't really surprise me. They've dumbed down the game quite a bit since I quit playing. I couldn't believe it when they got rid of banding because "people didn't understand it".

@Charles Boyung I don't really agree with the assessment that by removing little-used edge-case rules like "mana burn" and confusing combat steps like "assign damage, deal damage assigned" that the game is "dumbed down". The streamlining of the rules is a process that has always been happening and keeps the game accessible and the rules interactions manageable. New mechanics/keywords/card interactions is what keeps the game "complex", not bizarre, arbitrary, and obscure rules.

@Charles Boyung as for Banding, it's not really removed so much as "deprecated" -- not used in new cards. What makes the ability confusing is that it really should be two abilities and that it gives "banded" creatures without Banding the benefits. Which is confusing and a bit weird.

That turn structure table link is also out of date because it includes "damage on the stack" which is no longer part of the rules. Here is a more up-to-date turn structure from the MTG Wiki: http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Category:Turn_structure

@ghoppe: Good call, I've edited my answer to reflect a truly up-to-date description of the turn.  Sadly the original document was more aesthetically pleasing, but accuracy is key!

If you sacrifice an attacking or blocking creature during the declare blockers step, it won't deal combat damage. If you wait until the combat damage step, but the creature you wish to sacrifice is dealt lethal damage, it'll be destroyed before you get a chance to sacrifice it.

Under today's rules, the relevant part of the turn looks like this:

Declare Blockers Step

The defending player chooses which creatures block.
Players may cast instants and activate abilities.

Combat Damage Step

Players assign combat damage.
Combat damage is dealt.
Players may cast instants and activate abilities.

Combat damage no longer uses the stack, so by the time you are able to cast instants and activate abilities in the Combat Damage Step, combat damage has already been dealt and any creatures dealt lethal damage have died.
Also, note that each time we reach a "Players may cast instants" part of the turn, the "active" player (the person whose turn it is) always goes first. So if you want to block and then sacrifice, there will be a chance between the block and the sacrifice for your opponent to activate something, though thanks to the stack they probably can't stop you since you can use your sacrifice ability in response to whatever they do.
Finally, you are correct that in general a blocked creature whose blocker has disappeared will deal no combat damage. As always in Magic, there are tons of abilities that can mess with everything I've said, including First Strike (which will add an extra Combat Damage Step into the sequence) and Trample (which can allow a blocked creature whose blocker is gone to still deal damage to your face).

With old magic rules, you could, as it went

play effects
combat damage goes on the stack
play more effects (including a sacrifice)
combat damage resolves

Since Magic 2010, the order now goes

play effects
combat damage goes on the stack is determined by the players
play more effects (including a sacrifice)
combat damage resolves

As you can no longer play spells or abilities before damage resolves, it is not possible to sacrifice a creature after dealing damage. **
(** anymore)

Combat damage doesn't go on the stack at all.

When you sacrifice a blocking creature, it does not deal combat damage, but the attacking creature it is blocking is still considered "blocked" and won't deal combat damage to you unless it has trample.  You essentially get to chose whether to have your creature deal damage or whether to sacrifice it.  The relevant rules are as follows

510.2. all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it's dealt.
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature.
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage.
702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.

Exception 1: if the blocking creature has sufficient toughness, indestructible, regeneration, etc, it can both deal damage and be sacrificed but that is a result of it surviving combat, not of anything in how combat damage works.
Exception 2: if the blocking creature has first strike or double strike and the attacking creature does not, the blocking creature can both deal damage and be sacrificed for an effect by sacrificing it during the first strike combat damage step (after first strike damage has been dealt but before regular combat damage has been dealt).
Historic note: before 2010, combat damage went on the stack and you could both have a creature deal combat damage and sacrifice it for an ability.

The "simple" way I see this is kinda silly, but it works. Look at the cards during combat like a somewhat real battlefield:

Opponent declares attack, monster now run towards YOU (monsters always go towards you or planeswalker, unless something say otherwise).
You declare you do not want to be hurt, so you order your minions to block.
Attacking and blocking creature now meet, both ready for impact, attacker lift axe to strike, blocker raise shield to block.
Attacker swings to deal damage, attacker blocks to soak the damage. Nothing can really be done now.
Regeneration effects are now in play. Creatures that are not regenerated and has taken fatal damage will be dead after this step.
Any "when creature dies" effect can now execute.

This "list" is basically the whole attack pace broken down to show how it more or less works. A great way to explain how the stack works for new players during attack pace. The same idea can also be adapted to explain how the whole stack idea works out throughout the game as a whole. While I admit it likely has its flaws, it at least provides a general idea.
In the end the attack pace is two parted, declare attack and declare block, everything else goes between or after those two steps (usually). You can for example not declare to block an attacking creature, then snipe it with a card that say to destroy attacking creature.


text:
How to deal with damaged cards from a MTG booster pack?
I bought a Magic the Gathering display box today with cards from the new edition Innistrad. Unfortunately one of the cards in a booster pack was damaged. It is not just a simple scratch - one corner is bent and a small part of the card is missing. According to different trading platforms this card would be worth about 6 Dollars minimum in mint condition. So it is not really expensive but also not totally worthless.
What can I do about this? Can I obtain a replacement card from the producer (WotC) or from the store I bought it from? How can I prove that the card was damaged when I opened the booster pack? I am sure I am not the first person who got a damaged card from a booster pack. How are such issues usually handled?

Wizards of the Coast has a process you can follow for the replacement of defective products purchased, described in detail on their website:

If you purchase a product and find that only one or several cards are damaged, defective, or missing when you open it, please return any damaged cards (if not missing), and follow the shipping guidelines provided above.  We'll replace the exact cards for you.


text:
Can Dawnguard Scyir get 4 damage dice on a charge?
Dawnguard Scyir has the ability Flank[Faction Warjack]. If a warjack was in melee with a given enemy model and the Scyir charged into combat with that model, would he get four dice on the damage roll?
The same question would then apply to Sword Knights, which have the same Flank ability.

For people who stumble onto this old question, most of the models have been tweaked in a lot of ways in the last 8 years. While Sword Knights still have Flank[Faction Warjack], the Dawnguard Scyir lost Flank entirely and picked up Weapon Master on his sword. But for the purposes of how Flank works in general, that hasn't changed.

With the proviso that I'm not personally a player of Warmachine, I found this link to the Privateer Press forums where the truly knowledgeable people hang out:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?19636-Dawnguard-Scyir
Quite close to the top of this thread, a chap who seems to know what he's doing says:

Now the Scyir isn't a weapon master
  but has flank, so in order to get the
  three dice on damage (4 if you charge)
  you need to have a jack be in melee
  range. So the jack has to get in melee
  before the Scyir activates. But if the
  Jack activates before the Scyir it's
  drive is useless as it will not need
  to re-roll nothing.

I think that "three dice on damage (4 if you charge)" answers your question - a charging flank attack does indeed deal 4 dice damage!
As far as I can make out, multiple instances of flank don't stack, but there's no problem getting a bonus both from flanking and charging...

The reason you can get both bonuses, is because a charge Boosts the damage roll, while the flanking adds an extra die.  A die roll (damage or attack) can only be boosted once, no matter the source, but can have extra dice added from other rules.  So a boost adds an extra die, but is itself unique - adding an extra die from other effects that do not boost will still add the extra die.
And, as thesunneversets noted, you cannot get the flanking bonus more than once per damage roll.


text:
In Diplomacy, is it good strategy to have a primary alliance with a country on the opposite of the board?
The countries I'm thinking about are England and Turkey (northwest and southeast).  This type of alliance seems unlikely to develop "naturally" in the real world, since they're nowhere near each other, but they have a common enemy, Russia.
I have to assume that more pressing concerns for each are "taken care of" by "natural" rivalries, Italy vs. Austria, and Germany vs. France.
But if England and Turkey succeed in partitioning Russia, can they find "common ground" in a war against say, the Germanic countries, Germany and Austria-Hungary? Or possibly in alliances with them against the "Latins," Italy and France?

"England and Turkey... This type of alliance seems unlikely to develop 'naturally' in the real world, since they're nowhere near each other." You may find this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

England and Turkey are really not that far away from each other.  A "wicked witches" alliance against Russia is quite viable in the early game, depending on how all the other relationships takes shape.
A common mistake for novices playing England or Turkey is to assume that the affairs of the other are irrelevant to them, since they are on opposite corners of the board.  Just because your pieces are not next to each other, does not mean the relationship doesn't matter.  You can leak information, or false information, to prop up or sabotage the efforts of others.  You can plan for the eventual stab.  Endless possibilities!
For example, imagine that France attacks Italy early.  This is a perfect opportunity for England and Turkey to swoop in and take some centers while those two are fighting.  But if the "wicked witches" aren't talking to each other, that is much less likely to happen.

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  Corner alliances are quite different from neighbor alliances.
Pros:

Information sharing is often more effective, because there is little reason for your corner ally to try to deceive you, and other players often overlook this and tell your ally information thinking that "It doesn't matter if he knows".
While I generally agree with Oltarus that you need to plan for when an alliance will end, corner allies have relatively limited ability to attach each other effectively, so its unlikely that a stab from them will put you out of the game.

Cons:

Because your opponent is generally between you and your ally (at least early on), there isn't much you can do to help each other attack.  You can't support each other's attacks until the battle is mostly over, and Russia can hold out for quite a while against you if other players don't join in.
As England, if you don't choose a side in the EFG triangle, its likely that F and G both end up attacking you (since fighting each other 1 on 1 leaves them both weak).  So you will likely need to work with someone there first, and then transition to an attack on Russia after your first target is on the ropes.  Turkey has a bit easier time focusing on Russia, but if Italy is gunning for you, you're likely to have to spend a lot on defense, even assuming Austria is friendly.

So I definitely encourage you to be friendly with your fellow "witch", but it is difficult to make this an effective "primary" alliance, at least in the early game.

Well, having allies is never a bad strategy, whether it is in Diplomacy or in real life wars. But the one thing I've learnt about Diplomacy is that an alliance never lasts long. There is only one winner at the end of the game. If you agree with the other country that Russia will be destroyed and that you will share the remains, it is a good idea. The question you should ask yourself is: "should I betray the other before he betrays me?"
Let me answer your question in a more generalistic way. Whenever two countries are allies in Diplomacy, each part should have these two strategies:

What will I do if we are allied? What do I want from my friend? What do I do when I have what I want?
What does my ally want? What do I do if I am betrayed? Is there a way for me to forsee that betrayal and use it to my advantage?

So basically, yes, it is a good idea to team up with a distant country, but until when?