text:
Can I strike backward directly?
I am an amateur player of carrom and I have seen in tournaments players striking backward their striker to pocket the coins behind the hand.
Is this allowed?

Having played a bit more, I believe the difference here is whether you're on fixed sides or moving around. In tournaments, players are seated and have a fixed baseline to play from, and they take backwards shots. In casual play people often move around and choose their baseline; in such a game you only shoot forward.

According to the rules of ICF (international carrom federation) you can strike backwards directly. It is popularly known as thumbing as you use your thumb to strike the coins behind the baseline.  Watch any international tournament matches on youtube. you will notice players thumbing.

It is against the rules:

Striking

For each strike, the player must position the striker within the
baseline OR on one of the two circles at either end of the baseline.
A striker within the baseline must touch both the front line and the
rear line.
The striker may not "cut the moon" - be placed partially
within the baseline and partially within the circle.
The player must flick the striker with one finger so that it crosses the front baseline - it is not permitted to flick backwards or horizontally.
A piece that is on or behind the front baseline must not be struck by
the striker until the striker has crossed the front baseline.
In striking, the player's hand or arm must not cross the diagonal foul
lines at either end of the baseline.

Welcome to Board and Card Games Stack Exchange. I took the liberty to Improve your answer by adding a reference to the rules and quote the relevant part. Next time, please put some more effort into your answer.

@ToonKrijthe I'd personally much rather you submitted your content as a separate answer. While this is a good answer, it's nothing like the answer that was given, so it seems weird to me to upvote Ravi's answer purely because of your work.

@Samthere, Probably, but I like the positive encouragement theory.

Yes it is allowed now by ICF but in India a lot of people on the streets are yet to adopt the change

Welcome to Board & Card Games! Do you have any sources (links) to back this up?


text:
Turning in cards when you have five or six cards
In regards to turning in Risk cards, the rule book says if you have five or six cards you must turn in at least one set.
My question is why do they give you the option of five or six?
If you have five cards you will have a set of three. You can only get one card per turn so you would never move from 4 to six in one turn. It seems a bit confusing.
I was playing with a group and there was a disagreement about this and my opponent said he was going to wait until he got six.

You can only get one card per turn so you would never move from 4 to six in one turn.

Not true. The rules of Risk state that you get the cards held by an opponent if you eliminate them from the game. There is the additional condition: When you get enough cards from an opponent that brings you to six or more cards you must immediately turn in sets until you have four or fewer cards left over. (You must stop if you have four or three cards and have another set to turn in.)
But consider the case where you start your turn with four cards, then eliminate someone with one card. You gain the card, giving you five cards. At the end of the tern, you've captured new territory so you draw another card. This gives you six cards at the start of your next turn!
So therefore it's possible to have up to six cards at the start of your turn, but no more than that. The rules explicitly state that if you have five or six cards, you must turn in a set. Having five cards and waiting for the sixth isn't playing by the rules.

One thing to note is that when turning in cards at the end of your turn because you had more then 6 you must stop once you get 4 or fewer cards. So for example of you had 7 cards after taking them from your defeated opponent then you would turn in 1 set of cards and stop.

@JoeW You've misread the rules. You must reduce your hand to four or fewer, not reduce your hand until you have four or fewer cards. You can absolutely trade in two sets, although some editions of the rule make that impossible in other ways.

@lly - Nope, you've misread the rules (as quoted by Martin in the other answer anyway). The wording is "enough sets to reduce your hand to 4 or fewer cards". If you have 7 cards, one set is enough to reduce your hand to 4 or fewer, two cards is not "enough" it is "more than enough".

This particular question will have 2 different answers depending of the time period & the rule books that you are using throughout the evolution of the game.
In the Parker Brothers/Hasbro rule books of 1959, 1963, 1975, 1980, 1993, 1999 & 2016 you will find the following:

If during your turn you eliminate an opponent by defeating their last soldier on the map, the eliminated player is out of the game & you win any territory cards that player has collected.  If winning them gives you 6 or more cards, you must immediately trade in enough sets to reduce your hand to 4 or fewer cards.  This is called a mid-turn trade-in.

In the Parker Brothers/Hasbro rule books of 2003 you will find the following:

If during your turn you eliminate an opponent by defeating their last soldier on the map, the eliminated player is out of the game & you win any territory cards that player has collected.  If winning them gives you 5 or more cards, you must immediately trade in enough sets to reduce your hand to 4 or fewer cards.  This is called a mid-turn trade-in.

Since 2003 & prior to 2008 it is impossible to have 6 cards in your card hand at the beginning of your next turn as you must trade them in until you have 4 or less cards.  Your earning another card at the end of your turn can only bring your card hand to a maximum of 5 cards at the beginning of your next turn.  There is no confusion since 2003.  In 2008 Parker Brothers/Hasbro moved onto a Star method of trading in cards rather then the 3 image method. In the Star method of trading in cards you can trade at any time during your turn always & you can hold onto more then 5 cards.  In 2016 Hasbro returned the mid-turn card trade-in to 6 or more cards so the confusion has returned.
Pre 2003 & as of 2016, it is possible to eliminate an opponent, get their cards bringing your card hand to five & then ending your turn earning your sixth card.  At the beginning of your next turn you were forced to trade in at least one set.  If you wished & were able to do so, you could trade in 2 sets of cards at the beginning of your turn.
The only way to end up with 6 cards under any set of rules while using the 3 image method is by eliminating an opponent & earning their cards.  Therefore your friend wishing to wait until he had 6 cards to trade in a set could not do so under any set of rules because if you have 5 or 6 cards at the beginning of your turn you must trade in at least one set.  If he had 5 cards at the beginning of his turn he had to trade them in.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I add Ogre mercenaries to any army in Warhammer fantasy?
In the fluff, Ogres are generally employed as mercenaries, as opposed to an army in their own right.
Can I do the same in the tabletop version?
And if so, does it matter which army? Could both the Skaven and the Empire hire them?

So, it actually depends on the Version you're using. On 6ed et 7ed, mercenary did exist and (at least for 6ed) ogres had a special rules that let them be purchased as mercenary for anyone except Bretonnia. (I do not recall Lizardman beeing able to recruit them, but i've lost my 6ed book..)
Since 8ed, there is no mercenary that exists per se, there is "pacts" you can do with storm of magic (an extension). During End Times, you did not have mercenary but larger army pool. And nowadays Warhammer doesn't even exist.
During the mercenary era, basically, if it wasn't an enemy of Skaven (Like the pirates dwarfs) it could be recruited by them, and if it's not an enemy of the Empire (and even in some cases), Empire can recruit them. These two factions had a lot of mercenaries available, Chaos very less so, Khemri and Vampire counts had a few mercenaries available only for them (but not the same) and for the others, well, it depends.
Hope it helps!

To add to this, in Age of Sigmar, you can take any faction with any faction ... you just might miss out on some bonii you'd get for fielding an army composed of a single faction.

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


text:
Is putting a Draw 4 card on top of a Draw 2 card legal?
Is it within the UNO rules to put a Wild Draw 4 card on top of a Draw 2 card, as it is a 'higher' card?
We've ALWAYS played that you can, but my new friend is adamant you can't.

Are you playing with the variant that the recipient of a draw two can play another draw two card to avoid drawing and instead make the next player draw a total of 4 cards?

A common Uno variant allows the recipient of a draw 2 to avoid drawing (and being skipped) by playing their own draw 2.  The next player either needs to skip their turn and draw 4 cards, or play their own draw 2.  If they play their own, the next player must either draw 6 cards or continue the sequence.  Some variants allow similar behavior with draw 4 cards.
Assuming you're talking about this "stacking" draw cards, you aren't going to be able to get an official answer, because it isn't an official rule.  This would explain why you and your friend are both adamant about it working in different ways.  You're just going to have to come to an agreement on how you will play.
For what its worth, every place that I've seen this rule described you have to play the exact same card, so you cannot "stack" a draw 4 when receiving a draw 2 in order to make the next player draw 6.  So I expect that is the more common way of playing the variant.

TIL it's not an official rule.

You can play a Wild card on top of anything, so long as it's your turn to play. Your friend is crazy.
For the Wild Draw 4, you should ideally be unable to match the color - it is possible to challenge a Wild Draw 4, and if the person who played it could have played a card to match the color instead (not the number), the person who played it has to draw the 4. If the challenge is wrong, the challenger draws 6 instead of 4.

According to this link (http://www.qcsalon.net/en/uno), a +4 can't be played on top of +2 or vice-versa. There are other rules too, regarding playing of a +4 card, you can choose to follow.

Referencing rules is positive and helpful in backing up an answer as reliable, but that link doesn't seem to be an authoritative source, and could quite possibly just be the house rules used by one playgroup. Are you able to cite an authoritative source instead?

@doppelgreener The rules on +4 are very ambiguous and nowhere it mentions that it can/can't be played on a +2 draw. In the rule sheet which comes with the pack, it says "With this card, you must have no other alternative cards to play that matches the color of the card previously played. If you play this card illegally, you may be challenged by the other player to show your hand. If guilty, you need to draw 4 cards. If not, the challenger needs to draw 6 cards instead.". It can be interpreted to say you can play +4 on +2 if you don't have a +2.

My family has never put a draw 4 ontop of a draw 2 we will only do that if it is agreed on and that is the rules of uno but you can play however you want to play

This just talks about how your family plays and not any official rules which is not helpful. Also it does not add anything new to the question.

Yes you can me and my family had the same problem it comes in the uno manual

This is not an answer. After some time of activity you will have enough reputation to comment anywhere.

@jknappen It clearly is an answer; "yes; source: the manual". It's just a minimalist and low-quality answer.

Well that some time wont happen as you keep downvoting him ;)

But not telling you to not downvote him

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


text:
What happens if you move into a point of interest not on your turn?
We encountered a story page where the story moves the stuffies when specific things happen. Doing so moved a stuffy whose turn it wasn't into a point of interest (POI).
Is there a specific rule to what happens that I am not reading? I did not see anything specific about this online.
We guessed it would be:

The POI activates for the stuffy whose turn it was
The POI activates for the stuffy who was on it
Nothing happens, but on the stuffy who was on it next turn (if still on it) it would activate (after white and black dice were assigned)
Nothing happens at all.

Option 2 seemed weird since a lot of the "event" stuff that happens require dice and out of turn stuffy would only possibly have a reserved die or conditional die.
Tried to keep this spoiler free but can add the scenario or more detail if needed.  It would also be nice to know if this happened for other general events (lost, vendors, objective tokens) if the ruling was the same.


text:
Mission Risk - ambiguous missions
I've had arguments on the interpretation of 2 different missions in the last week. To me the interpretation is pretty obvious but I do want to verify. I'm hoping you guys can help :)

Mission: Conquer one territory on 5 different continents. Play at the end of your turn.

Now to me I interpret this as, in one turn, you need to attack and win in 5 different continents. My opponent argued that he already owned Africa so he only needed to do so in 4 different continents. His argument was that if he owned 3 different continents, would that stop him from completing the mission? I said yes. Who's right?

Mission: Control 3 different continents. Play at the end of your turn.

I interpret this as owning 3 different continents at the end of your turn. So at the beginning of my turn if I don't own any of them, and at the end of my turn I own 3, I've fulfilled my mission. My opponent was arguing that control means you have to hold it for a turn (which is usually true) but since specifically said to play at the end of your turn, I think doing this all in one turn is fine. I also think in a game of mission risk holding on to three different continents for a whole turn is almost impossible.

Rule book: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk_2003.pdf
The 5 Territories Mission
There are three possible interpretations:

The player needs to have conquered all of the territories this turn.  This has the problem that a player who controls two or more continents cannot fulfill this mission.  I believe the rules do not support this interpretation.

The player can have conquered the territories at any point in the past and that's it.  This has the problem that a player who has fulfilled this condition at any point can claim this mission at any later point.  This has tenuous rules support.

The player can have conquered the territories at any point, but must still control them to claim the mission.  I believe this is the correct reading, but my argument for this over option 2 is weak.

This mission does not specify that the conquering all needs to be done in a turn.  It simply means you have to have conquered a territory on each of five continents at some point already.  It does seems like a bit much bookkeeping to me, but that's how the rules and cards read.
Here are the relevant rules:

Page 12: You win the invasion when you defeat the last defending unit from a territory.  You have now conquered this territory.   Take the units used to win the battle and move them from the battleground into the territory you have invaded.
Page 17: You may claim a mission once you have achieved what it says on the card.  But you cannot claim more than one mission a turn.

At the very minimum, we can conclude that you can claim a mission even if didn't take all of the actions required to complete it this turn.  This must be true, or else the mission "Control Europe - play at the start of your turn" would be impossible (as this is a mission where you need to have taken the actions to bring you to the state where you controlled Europe on a previous turn).
Given this mission does not specify whether the conquering needs to have happened this turn, then the conquering certainly could have happened in the past.  This rules out interpretation 1.
The question then is whether your status of having conquered a territory is an indelible event in history (interpretation 2), or if it's tied to the current game state (interpretation 3).
I prefer interpretation 3, so I'm going to try to create a rules justification for it, but I admit that this is a bit of a stretch.  The justification for this is a nuanced reading of the term conquer.  The rules for conquer require you to move units into the territory, so I argue that if you no longer have units in the territory, you lose your status as its conqueror.  If this is true, this mission says "conquer" and not "control" to prevent players from being credited with territories they claimed during initial setup (which are "claimed" and not "conquered").

The Continents Mission

Page 8: If you control every territory within a continent, you control that continent.

and

Page 7: territories you control [are] the territories with your units in them

Note that this is a deviation from classic risk which has the following:

To control a continent, you must occupy all of its territories at the start of your turn

In the rules supplied with mission risk, you may conquer the continents that turn and still have that count towards the mission.  In fact, it should be obvious from the fact that you claim that mission at the end of your turn that you can have conquered the third continent on the same turn.

5 Territories: I apologize, I mistyped it. I've fixed that now. You're actually supposed to play at the end of the turn. So I think you need to attack and win against territories in 5 different continents, all within this turn, and turn the card in at the end of the turn. I also think if I already own 2 continents, then this cannot be done. Correct?

I looked for those definitions, I cant find them in the manual you linked. And I especially dont see them under the Mission Risk section. If they're higher up in the manual somewhere would they not apply to Classic Risk, not Mission Risk?

@BigDan I have edited the answer to include page references and to take into account the updated wording.

@BigDan the mission risk rules says on page 17: "Follow the rules for Global Domination RISK with these changes".  This means that all the rules earlier in the rulebook apply unless superseded by one of the Mission Risk Rules.  This is also necessarily the case since Mission Risk relies on the normal Risk rules for things like reinforcements and combat

Thanks man for all your help. For the 5 Territories mission you're saying that its cumalative, not needed to be done on one turn. That doesnt make sense to me. As you said that would require a lot of bookkeeping. Are you sure about your interpretation? Because to me its quite clear that it would have to be done in one turn. Else I dont see the challenge in it.

In the rules supplied with mission risk, you may conquer the continents that turn and still have that count towards the mission. -- is this in the rules anywhere or is this your (and my) interpretation of it?

@BigDan The fact that you can conquer the continents that turn and have the mission still count is an emergent property of the rules I quoted.  You can conquer the territories that turn, which is sufficient to conquer the continents.
The rules have no further clarification that I saw on the 5 territory issue.  A principal of rules in games is that if it is not stated, it is not a rule.  Since it is not stated that the conquest must happen in the same turn, then it doesn't need to happen in the same turn.  If you don't like it, house-rule it.

@Zags currently complete (as per my previous comment) <> previously completed (as per your answer when I commented). But you've now edited to change that, is that you now agreeing with me? Not that I agree with your edit: Your example of "actions required to control Europe" is spurious; there is only one action on that card "Control Europe", it is not a multi-action "conquer each territory in Europe".

@AndyT I've edited my answer to remove the ambiguity I believe you were reading.  Hope this helps

Hi @Zags - I don't think I had a problem with ambiguity, I think I just straight up disagree with you. Rather than argue with you in comments I've decided to write my own answer. So I've cleaned up my comments; the only bit that's still relevant I'll repost here: Your example of "actions required to control Europe" is spurious; there is only one action on that card "Control Europe", it is not a multi-action "conquer each territory in Europe".

The rules require you to use a bit of common sense. You can argue bizarre interpretations along the lines of "the rules don't explicitly state that such-and-such isn't the case", but the intent is obvious to the vast majority of people. In both of your situations I agree with your interpretation, and think your friend is completely wrong.
Let's look at what the rules specifically state. I'll be using the 2003 rulebook (pdf link), which I think is the only version which has the specific missions that your quote. Relevant extracts are:

Completing a mission
You may claim a completed mission once you have achieved what it says on the card, but you cannot claim more than one mission on a turn. To claim a completed mission, show the Mission card (at the time it indicates) to all players, confirming that you have completed what it asks for.

For the "Conquer one territory on 5 different continents" there's nothing in there which says everything has to be done on one turn. But let's look at the expected difficulty level. It's a General level mission, the hardest level. Doing it one turn is difficult, but by no means impossible (as long as you haven't backed yourself into a corner by controlling two continents already). If you do it on your first turn it's actually not too hard. Doing it across multiple turns would be incredibly easy.
The fact that your friend already owns one continent, and therefore can't conquer a territory on it, is his own problem due to poor planning. There's nothing on the card or in the rules to support that controlling a continent changes the mission.
For the "Control 3 different continents" mission we can again look at the difficulty level: General. Owning every territory in 3 continents at the end of your go is hard, but not impossible. Owning every territory in 3 continents at the start of your go is extremely difficult, far harder than any of the other General missions, and if you've managed to keep 3 continents through to the start of your turn you're about to win by world domination anyway (and the whole point of Mission is that it's faster than Domination). Oh, and if you hold them at the start of your turn, then you'd be guaranteed to hold them at the end of your turn, so the card may as well say "Start of your turn". The only reason to say "end of your turn" is because you don't need to hold them at the start of your turn.

This is a perfectly reasonable case for rules as intended.  For lack of an official answer from Hasbro, it's a matter of rules as intended vs rules as written.


text:
How does one defeat an enemy's True-Name Nemesis?
In Magic the Gathering, there is a card called True-Name Nemesis. This card, when entering the battlefield, allows the caster to select an opponent. Once selected, True-Name Nemesis gets protection from said opponent. Just how does someone deal with one that was played by an opponent in a 1v1 match?

This article goes beyond dealing with them on the battlefield, but had 10 approaches for dealing with this card: http://mtg.summoning.ru/cards_eng/TrueNameNemesis.shtml

I removed the image of the card because it mostly contains the same information as the Gatherer page, and it takes up a significant amout of room.

The same way you deal with Progenitus.

Protection doesn't provide perfect invulnerability against your stuff. The reminder text on the card lists specifically all of the things that you can't do. Here are some ways to deal with an opponent's True-Name Nemesis:

Decrease your opponent's creatures' toughnesses. For example, if you play Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite, your oppenent's creatures will get -2/-2, so the True-Name Nemesis will have less than zero toughness and die due to a state based effect.
Destroy or exile all creatures. If you play Wrath of God, all creatures will be destroyed, including the True-Name Nemesis. There's nothing that say's that it can't be destroyed by effects you control.
Force your opponent to sacrifice a creature. If you play Consuming Vapors, they'll have to sacrifice a creature. You can force them to sacrifice the True-Name Nemesis if you get rid of their other creatures.
Prevent it from attacking. You can either make it very expensive to attack you, with Norn's Annex, for example, or just prevent it entirely with Blazing Archon.
Remove its protection. If you play Polymorphist's Jest, Sudden Spoiling, or Humility, all of your opponent's creatures will be 2/2 Frogs with no abilities, including the True-Name Nemesis. Then you can get rid of it like any other creature.
Make damage unpreventable, then deal mass damage. For example, you could play Everlasting Torment, then Anger of the Gods.
Outpace your opponent. If you have enough power on the field, you can either kill kill them faster than they can kill you, or force them to keep the True-Name Nemesis untapped as a blocker.
Prevent it from entering the battlefield in the first place. You can counter it with any of a number of counterspells, name "True-Name Nemesis" with Nevermore, Meddling Mage, or Voidstone Gargoyle, cast Iona, Shield of Emeria and choose "blue", or just cast Llawan, Cephalid Empress.
Force it to block with an effect that destroys blocking creatures. For example, if you enchant an Engulfing Slagwurm with Lure and attack, the True-Name Nemesis will be forced to block if able, and it will be destroyed.
Make it deal damage to itself using Wave of Reckoning.

2 more possibilities for your list: 1. make damage non-preventable and then use a global/non-target damage spell.   2. redirect a spell that you do not control and use that spell to destroy/damage/exile/ect... the nemisis.

I'll add 1, but I didn't include 2 because it's extremely situational: it relies on your opponent playing a targeted creature removal spell.

@murgatroid99 Hooray! That works well and makes more sense for that particular bullet point. :)

I wish I could +1 this additional times, because Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite is always the correct answer.

Council's Judgment is a clean answer. It works because, rather than targeting the true-name, you chose it (this conveniently gets around shroud, hexproof, and other protection effects as well)

Using a card that's dumb in 1v1 to deal with another card that's dumb in 1v1. I like it.

two easy ways come to mind when dealing with heavily protected creatures:

global/non-targeted destruction- If the card does not say 'target' the spell does not target and can be used. Think 'wrath of gods'.
forced sacrifice - target the player and force them to sacrifice it. For example using the card 'diabolic edict'.


text:
Does declaring victory end your turn?
A scenario that played out in our game of Settlers of Catan:
What happens if a player falsly declares he won when he was at 9 points instead of 10?
Does declaring he won end his turn? (and this is after the said player laid down his cards and left the table)
I ask this because after we told him he didn't win, the player was able to play two resource cards to make a road and then have sufficient points. However, if declaring your win ends your turn, does it not leave the possiblity of at least one more round and the other players to play for the win?

While its a different question, the answer here should help you: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/21105/in-settlers-of-catan-if-you-have-unrevealed-victory-point-cards-that-would-make/21107#21107

The offical rules (bottom of page 5) state:

ENDING THE GAME
If you have 10 or more victory points during your turn the game ends and you are the winner!

Interpreted literally, this is a state of the game, not an action - if at any point during your turn, you have 10 or more victory points, you win, independent of what you say or do. "Declaring victory" is not something which is covered in the rules, so it can't end your turn. However, this literal interpretation of the rules leads to an obvious problem if somebody does have 10 victory points on their turn but doesn't declare victory - are they still the winner?
As such, this is going to depend on the context you're playing in - in any of my gaming groups, we'd give the person claiming victory a ribbing for not being able to count to 10 and let them continue their turn - but that's a decision for your group to make, not one the rules are going to make for you; you can't expect the rules to cover every mistake a player can possibly make. If you're in a more formal context like a tournament, this is the time to call the referee over to your table - that's what they're there for.

"if somebody does have 10 victory points on their turn but doesn't declare victory - are they still the winner?"  Yes! The faq makes this very clear. http://www.catan.com/faq/4616-victory-conditions-what-if-someone-has-reached-required-number-victory-points-for-win

I'm pretty sure the 1st edition rules said you had to declare victory on your turn to win, but I'm going from memory.  I have seen tournament scoring schemes where delaying winning to have more VP would be worth considering.


text:
What is the name of this patience style 2 deck card game
I was playing a card game online but I don't know the name.

The game is played with two decks.
Approx 1 dealt face up in 10 columns with the rest kept for dealing but only 5 at a time despite 10 columns.
Cards can only be moved to the next card in suit (you build packs from K to Ace), but you can move an entire column of non suited cards on top.
Only Kings can go in column spaces.
Full suit doesn't leave the game until it is full and free if additional cards on top of it.

Here is a list of solitaire variants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_patience_games

Not sure what "Approx 1 dealt face up in 10 columns" means...did you mean "1 dealt face up in approx 10 columns"? (assuming approx mean approximately)

10 columns face up but i can't remember how many cards in each.  Sorry.

Sounds like the game you are thinking of could be Spider Solitaire or a variant of it.
The game:

is a solo style Patience/Solitaire game
is played with two decks
consists of 10 columns
cards are stacked with like suited cards from K to Ace in order to remove them
Only Kings may be placed on empty spaces

You can find the how-to-play rules here:
Bicycle Cards: How to play Spider Solitaire
A common game may look like this at the start (Source Wikipedia):

Sidenote: If you want to give spider Solitaire a go, try searching for it from your start menu. Some versions of Windows have the game installed by default.

No sorry marco the cards are dealt face up.

@Solitaire The cards are dealt face up, with the majority of the cards being kept in the stack. When you pull from the stack you add a new card to each column. Perhaps you played a variant where all the cards were in the stack instead of most?


text:
Can I discard more than 1 card at a time if there are no draw cards left?
Ordinarily no one would discard more than one card when there are no draw cards available. In this situation though, the player discarded down to one card on one turn, and then on the next turn played his remaining card, a Swap Hands card, on a player he suspected was on the opposite team, thus preventing the other player from playing.
It was a brilliant move, and I don't see anything in the rules specifically preventing this.
Is this legal?

Please clarify your question. Did both of these actions (discard to the last, play the  swap) occur in the same turn or did they occur on consecutive turns?

I read it as two separate turns for my answer.

Question clarified. Clearly taking two actions in one turn is illegal.

Looking at rules here I think your interpretation is correct.  Although I suspect from the way you say "its a brilliant move, and I don't see anything specifically preventing this" makes me think whoever you did this against didn't agree!
anyway the rules quotes....
On a players turn one of there options is

Pass and discard 1-3 face-down cards from your hand..... then draw 1-3 cards.

The note underneath clarifies

When the pile is used up, no cards are drawn.

So if there were a situation where a player is to draw a card and can't they simply don't get a card.  So yes you can discard cards knowing you can't draw back and deliberately shrinking your hand size.
The rules for swapping state :-

The player who plays this card chooses one other player and exchanges hands with them. Discard the action card, then the other player gets to draw 1 card!

So you swap your remaining hand of zero cards with the other player.  They are unable to draw a card as non left.
So yes the move seems entirely legal based on that.

For the record it wasn't me who did it or who was on the receiving end; I was the one who called shenanigans who couldn't back up my claim.

I stand corrected!


text:
Rules for playing a sorry card?
If you draw a sorry card but you do not have a man in start, are you able to take one of your live players and bump one of your live player opponents back to start?
The Sorry rules for a sorry card play are:

Take one pawn from your “START” position and move it to any legal
  space occupied by an opponent (no “HOME”, “START”, or “SAFETY ZONE”
  spaces), and bump the opponent back to their “START” space. If you
  have no pawns in the “START” space, or there are no legal pawns to
  bump, end your turn.

It'sliterally written in the rules you quoted: "If you have no pawns in the “START” space [...] end your turn."

If the rules of a game say that you should use a man from position X to do Y, and you have no man in position X, you cannot do Y since you have no piece that qualifies to do Y. So if you have no man available in your "start" position, you do not have "what it takes" to "Sorry" someone.


text:
Multicolored lands for a rainbow deck
There are 10 two color combinations for land in magic. Black-white, black-blue, black-green, etc. For any one color, 4 of those 10 will contain that color. I.e. four of these two color combinations contain black. That's almost half.
My question, then, is why not run a rainbow (5 color) deck with twenty dual color lands, two from each color permutation? I assume for the sake of simplicity a 20 land 40 non-land split but the principal is the same.
One of the arguments against rainbow decks is that you can easily find yourself in a position where you don't have the land you need. But in this construction, 40 percent of lands will give you any single color, which seems pretty good to me. Am I missing something?

That's assuming that you are only using mono-color cards in your rainbow deck, which (as far as I can tell) removes many of the benefits of running a rainbow deck.  Multicolored cards tend to be stronger than single-colored cards with the same cost.  A well-constructed rainbow deck lets you use lots of multicolored cards.

You answered your own question: "[Y]ou can easily find yourself in a position where you don't have the land you need."

I know a lot of experienced Magic players probably think the answer here is really obvious, but let's not confuse that with "unclear" or "too broad". The core reasons that 5-color decks tend to be iffy are really pretty objective.

This question is kind of the mirror image of this one: "Why would you want to play with a deck that had 3 or more colors in it in Magic?"
Playing multi-color decks is desirable because it lets you make a powerful and versatile deck by cherrypicking the best cards (for your strategy) from multiple colors.
So, why are 4- and 5- color decks so comparatively rare?

A lot of the strongest spells of a color have deeper mana requirements.
Make a list of your favorite powerful cards. A lot of them probably have costs like 2WW rather than 3W, huh? This drastically alters the math of consistent color access. If you look at this number-crunching article by Frank Karsten, you'll see he figures 12 sources are enough to consistently cast a 2C-cost spell on turn 3, but you need 19 sources to get the same quality of access to a 1CC-cost spell on turn 3. 19!
This is an active, purposeful design decision to make these cards easier to cast on-curve and on-time in a deck that's dedicated to those colors, and harder to include in a deck that only splashes a color.
Cards are strongest when you play them on time. A mana base that's heavy on comes-into-play-tapped lands or requires casting land-selection spells like Borderland Ranger to set up your mana introduces notable lag before you can start playing spells that will really interact with your opponent.
Opponents can disrupt your mana base. Consider how much tighter mana requirements become when you're playing against a deck with 2x Rishadan Port and 4x Wasteland.

All these serve as a damper on the greediest multi-color decks. On top of that, because:

The color's "pie slices" overlap (e.g. green or white can both play effective enchantment removal, so you only need one of those colors to get that ability in your deck).
Not every color in a format will meaningfully support the specific synergies / strategies you're trying to exploit. (Maybe there just are no red cards worth playing in your midrange deck, even with perfect mana.)
A stable 5-color manabase can lock you out of playing amazing utility lands like Academy Ruins.

— there's often very little to gain from building a full four- or five- color deck instead of one that's "just" three colors.
Exceptions, such as Chapin's Cloudthresher + Cruel Ultimatum Lorwyn control deck (example decklist), are typically the result of slower formats with multi-lands that support greater color depth than simple dual lands.

Another way to look at this is to look through current competitive decks, for example, vintage, legacy, and modern  on MTGGoldfish. You'll tend to notice that 5-color or even 4-color decks are most common in vintage and legacy (with no-drawback original dual lands), and especially in modern, they often have to do interesting things to actually get all those colors easily enough to make the deck work.


text:
Can someone explain me why was this a split pot? texas hold'em
I would want to ask you why was this a split pot.

You get the highest possible five card combination. The remaining hole cards are lower than the A and K on the table -- best five cards then is Three of a Kind in 10s, Ace, King.  Other cards are ignored, so both players have the same hand.


text:
When to play a Knight card
When can I play a Knight Card.
For example, when it's my turn, and I already have a knight card I have not played, can I use it if I do not have the robber on one of my hexes?
Or, if it's another players turn, and they place a robber one of my hexes, can I immediately counter them with one of my Knight cards, or do I have to wait until it's my turn to use it to remove the robber?

Welcome, to board & cardgames.
Next time when you have two questions, please ask them as separate questions. In this case I could change them into a single question, so no need to change it now.

According to the rules, you can play a Knight card in your turn if you want. But only in your turn.

b) Playing Development Cards
At any time during your turn, you may
  play 1 Development Card (on the table).
That card, however, may not be a card
  you bought during the same turn!

I would add that you can also play the knight on your turn BEFORE you roll your dice :)


text:
Thumbing with both hands
Can we use both the hands while thumbing the coins in carrom board or are we limited to single hand only.

Your question is very unclear, and also appears to be two questions.  Could you please clarify.

I've removed the second question. It can be asked separately.

Under IV: How to strike in the official rules

Any hand may be used in play.

Hand in this case is singular. This is somewhat clarified further down...

The elbow of the playing “hand” shall not come within the playing surface nor shall extend beyond the imaginary lines of the arrows. The “hand” may, however, cross the arrow.

This indicates that there should only be one hand in use.
The rules also indicate what the other hand could be used for

While making a stroke, taking support of the Stool or Chair, Stand or Table of the C/B or keeping the legs on the rim of the stand or table by the player is not permissible. However, hands may rest on his body and legs or on the rim of the stool or chair on which he sits.

Furthermore, if you wanted to make an analogy with cue-sports, there is almost always a rule against double stroking or push strokes, as the concept of a "stroke" is one single instantaneous point of contact. Carrom's definition gives some more leeway because we're using fingers instead of cue sticks, but the concept is still the same. Using two fingers undoubtedly results in striking the striker twice.

Either hand could be used for thumbing but not both at the same time.
Ref: https://icf-media.beepworld.de/laws-of-carrom.htm
IV. HOW TO STRIKE
35) Any hand may be used in play.

Welcome to the site! When answering a question, it is a best-practice to cite (and link to) a specific source for your answer. These sources provide an authoritative reference and make it easier for the OP to select the Right answer based on objective standards, instead of what could be just a subjective opinion. I would suggest updating your answer with a link to the rules where you found this information.

You can shoot with either hand and thumbing is allowed:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-thumbing-allowed-in-the-international-Carrom-game

Hi lhmit, and welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange. We don't generally accept link-only answers here: you can see "your answer is in another castle" for why. We prefer answers to include the important parts of their link, in this case, citing the rules themselves that allow this would be appropriate and the link itself isn't necessary. Pretend the link became a 404 tomorrow (it very well could): what would you include your answer to keep it relevant and reliable?


text:
Catan: Play any development card before rolling
In Settlers of Catan, I have always played that you can play a knight development card before your turn, which is obviously useful to get the robber off or your own hex before you roll the dice. Is this the same with all playable development cards? I have played lots of Catan but I have never raised this question with my friends before since I did not think there was any scenario in which it would be advantageous to play a different Development card before rolling.
However, consider this scenario:
I have 11 cards (6 ore, 4 wheat, 1 brick), 8 victory points, and the ability to build 2 cities next turn, giving me the victory. If I roll a 7, I will lose 5 cards, which will ruin my ability to build both cities and win on my turn. If, however, I play a Monopoly and take 8 arbitrary resources (say lumber), even if a 7 is rolled I will lose 9 resources but still be able to keep the 10 resources (4 wheat, 6 ore) necessary to build my cities and win.
Does anyone know if in situations like this it legal to play any playable development card prior to rolling?
Also, I still cannot see a benefit to playing a Road Building card prior to rolling. Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks!

You can play a development card at anytime on your turn.
From the Catan Rules p. 7:

You can play the [development] card at any time, even before you roll the dice. You may not, however, play a card that you bought during the same turn.

However if you have Year of Plenty there is no reason to play it before the roll because you can just play it after the roll and get the ore you need in order to win (and still have a card left over), and if you were not in a position to win playing it before the roll would mean you have one fewer cards than playing it afterwards.


text:
Does Prowler's helm effect makes an unblockable creature blockable by walls?
Full question in title. Do equipment effects always override creature effects even tho the creature effects are superior?

The "full question" in your title is a different question than the one in your description text - whether equipments in general override creature's effects is entirely different from the question of the specific effects named here.

I think this question may be labouring under some unclear or mistaken assumptions: that "creature effects are superior" (the rules don't define anything like that, so I don't know what you mean), that Prowler's Helm "overrides creature effects", that the Prowler's Helm wording means "can be blocked by walls". I suggest you ask about specifics, rather than try to extract a generalised principle, given the generalised principle you're asking about appears to be based on notions not consistent with the game's rules.

You seem to be asking about a creature with

[This creature] can't be blocked.

equipped with a Prowler's Helm that has

Equipped creature can't be blocked except by Walls.

Each of these abilities creates a blocking restriction, and all blocking restrictions must be obeyed.

509.1b The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t block, or that it can’t block unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal. [...]

So that means it's can't be blocked by any creature, and it can't be blocked by non-Wall creatures. The result is that it can't be blocked by any creature.

In Magic, can't always wins from can.
The creature says:

[This creature] can't be blocked.

The Prowler's Helm says:

Equipped creature can't be blocked except by Walls.

This will simply result in:

Can't be blocked

The prowlers helm doesn't add anything.

You misread Prowler. It doesn't give walls the ability to block. It takes away the ability of non-walls to block. So that means you have two "can't" (restrictions). It comes down CR 509.1b, not CR 101.2.


text:
In Stratego, what happens if in the setup a player puts all six bombs in the front row but not behind the lakes?
Imagine a situation which is highly improbable in practice but still possible theoretically. A novice player in Stratego, when making his/her initial setup, has put all his/her six bombs in the front row. No bombs behind any of the two lakes, however. So, in other words: two adjacent bombs are on the left flank, two bombs on the right flank and two in the center.
I had been playing wonderful game of Stratego for a long time, but I am so afraid of the above mentioned setup I never dared to try it. Still, I wonder what the game rules say about it. Is this an immediate loss?

If you can't move, you lose the game.
Here is an excerpt from the rules:

If all of your movable pieces have been removed and you cannot move or attack on a turn, you must give up and declare your opponent a winner.

You have zero movable pieces and they are all removed so it is a loss.

There's one exception: if the opponent also has no moveable pieces, the game is a draw. In tournament games, if your last moveable piece has been captured and you therefore cannot move anymore, you can call the referee to check whether your opponent still has a moveable piece left.


text:
Pandemic Legacy Researcher relationship (Feb spoliers)
I am not sure if this is asked before but I don't want to search too much as keep coming across spoilers.
My question is, if you have a coworker relationship with a researcher, I know the researcher can then pass any card at any time to her coworker, but can the coworker also pass any card to the researcher, or does it only work one way?
I'm not sure we've got the understanding of researchers and passing cards correct and don't want to carry on the game if we're doing it wrong.

This is one way only.
Reason:
Researcher ability works one way only (He can only GIVE card with his ability, NOT TAKE.)
Co-worker relationship make good combo with researcher, but don't extend his ability to the "taking" part. (Although, it is possible for other players, to take cards form researcher, in their turns. So also his co-worker can take advantage of this.)

The Researcher may pass any card, but they can only receive a card as per normal Share Knowledge rules.
This is actually explicit on the Researcher card (emphasis mine):

You may give any 1 of your City cards when you Share Knowledge. It need not match your city. A player who Shares Knowledge with you on their can take any 1 of your City cards.

The card itself only specifies that the Researcher can pass any card. It does not specify that they can receive any card. The accepted answer on this question has the same answer.

While the ability to pass ANY card only applies to cards coming from the Researcher, the co-worker of the Researcher still gets the normal co-worker ability to pass the card of the city the Researcher is in, without needing to be in that city themselves.


text:
Rules about claiming a tunnel in Ticket to Ride Switzerland
I just want to be clear about how to claim a short tunnel route in Ticket to Ride Switzerland.
Say I am taking a tunnel that requires only one card (red, for instance). If I turn over a red card I need another red card (or a locomotive) to match it. But if I turn over 2 further red cards (i.e. 3 red cards in all) do I need further red cards (or locomotives) to match?
It would seem strange to have to use 4 red cards in total to claim a one route.

Note that this mechanism is an attempt to reflect the uncertain and treacherous nature of tunneling through mountains. Even short tunnels can be extremely expensive and fatal to build, often with massive delays, which is reflected in your scenario above.

And you always can resign building tunnel if it was too hard and loose move.

You must have an additional Train Car card of the appropriate color (or a locomotive) for each card of that color that gets flipped over.
From the Ticket to Ride: Switzerland rules (emphasis added):

When attempting to claim a Tunnel route, a player first lays down the number of cards required. Then the 3 top cards from the Train Car card draw pile are turned face-up. For each card revealed whose color matches the color used to claim the Tunnel (including locomotives), an additional card of the same color (or a locomotive) must be played to successfully claim the Tunnel.


text:
Proper use of stations, only as connecters/extenders or in place of built track?
I had a destination ticket of Palermo to Constantinople.
An opponent built the segment Palermo to Smyrna so I placed a station on that segment. The same opponent built Smyrna to Constantinople so I placed a second station there.
I believe the purpose of stations is to allow a "backup plan" when someone builds on track you need. If that is truly the intent of the game designers, I believe 2 stations on 2 segments completes a 2 segment destination.
A player sacrifices 4 points per station, 8 points total to accomplish a 2 segment destination card.
My opponents believed stations only connect track, so they cannot be the only contribution to the destination card. This point of view, outlawing this use of stations, would seem to assume rules that are not written.

To quickly summarise stations: at the end of the game, pick up the station and put it over the trains on the route you're using. That route counts as yours for (and only for) the purposes of completing your tickets.

The rules on stations are a bit complex. But there is nothing in the rules that either:

prohibit the use of two or more stations in a single route.
force the route to have at least one section without a station.

But since each unused station gives 4 points to the end score. And short routes don't give that much points. It is probably only wise to do, if the sections with stations are used with other routes.

Building a train station
  A Train Station allows its owner to use one,
  and only one, of the routes belonging to  another  player,  into  (or
  out  of)  that  city  to  help  him  connect  the  cities  on  his
  Destination Tickets.

So you can use stations to borrow a route from another player. Each station borrows only a single route.

Stations may be built on any unoccupied city,
  even if it currently has no claimed routes into it.

This is a bit vague, but later on, it implies, you can build a station on an unoccupied city and in the end chose one of the routes (taken by another player) to claim.

Two players may never build a Station in the same city. Each player may build a maximum of one Station per turn, and three Stations through- out the
  course of the game.

(Skipped part on using cards to pay for stations)

If a player uses the same Station to help connect cities
  on several different Tickets, he must use the same route into the city
  with the Station for all of those Tickets. The Train Station owner
  does not need to decide which route he will use until the end of the
  game.

So it can be an advantage to claim a city using a station to avoid a later clogged bottleneck. Which also implies only one station can be build on a single route. (It does not solve the situation in which two players each claim a different city on the same route...).

A player is never required to build any Stations. For each
  Station a player has not used, four points are added to his score at
  the end of the game.

One possible advantage of using stations may be that you are left with more trains and can claim more routes.

Where is it implied that only one station can be built on a single route? Do you mean the same player can't claim the route twice?


text:
Fire token pawn returned to start by opponent
Does a pawn, that has the fire token on it, and is bumped back to start  keep the fire token? Or does the fire token go back to center of board?
If you keep the fire token on a return to START, I assume you would take that token directly to fire on your next turn before drawing a card.

The rules clearly states that the ring is only moved with a card. So this implies it is not moved when bumped. Which looks like a huge advantage.


text:
Search for a board game
What board game might this guy be playing?

This is part of a riddle, I feel the pattern reminds me of something but I can't get a grip on it. Can anybody help?

Maybe a boardgame version of Tetris ;-).

@ToonKrijthe This is indeed a good guess, but it was hinted, that this is not the case. Thanks anyway!

Can we see the original riddle?

I think that's just a crossword puzzle.  So based on that it would be scrabble.  Is this from a boardgaming source?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because there is no evidence this is a real board game, following the same close reason as this question.

@SocioMatt I at least expected that someone mentions hnefatafl or the like, or maybe tawlbwrdd... This would have been the obvious guesses, but unfortunately it is neither of both. However, guessing these would show a lot more proficiency than simply voting to close this question.

My vote to close is based on the fact that answers would just be guesses. Trying to determine a board game using only a drawn picture of a fraction of the board, with no other information, isn't supportable by evidence or expertise. And, as I pointed out in my previous comment, there is a precedent for closing these questions.

@ScottMatt So, five people voting to close a question then decide for all future, that this kind of questions always has to be closed? This is barely a democratic process...

It could conceivably be Blokus, or possibly a black and white variant of it.
In Blokus you place shapes of your colour such that one (or more) corner(s) of the shape you place must touch a corner(s) of an existing piece of your colour, but such that no edges of your colour touch any other edges of your colour.


text:
Diplomacy Attacking a Territory as they move
If I convince Turkey, to move Army Bul to Gre, would I be able to send Army Ser to Bul and take the area?

Full image

Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: you can enter an area that is left by another unit. But there are some conditions.
If unit leaving the space succeeds in moving out:

if there are no other units that are ordered to enter the space, you succeed in entering it.
if there are other units ordered to enter the space, the strongest (with the most support) succeeds in entering the space, if there is a tie, nobody enters.

If the unit leaving the space fails to move out:

if there are no other units that are ordered to enter the space, you only succeed if you are stronger that the defending unit.
if there are other units ordered to enter the space, but no unit is stronger than the defending unit, the unit stays.
if there are other units ordered to enter the space, and there is at least one unit stronger than the defending unit, the strongest unit enters. In case of a tie, the defending unit stays.

Just note that you only keep the supply center, if you occupy it during the fall phase.
And on the diplomatic level, if you trick another player like this, be prepared for revenge. So backstab wisely.
Each move has a strength. If moves conflict with other moves, the strongest move wins. In case of a tie, nothing changes.

An empty space has a strength of 0
A single defending unit has a strength of 1
A single moving unit has a strength of 1
Each unhindered support adds 1 to the strength.

So if I move in then Turkey is bounced from Rum, would I then be bounced out of Bul or would I have control of it still.

You would bounce also unless you had support.


text:
Axis and Allies 1940 Multinational Defense, AAA and Radar
Background:

In Axis and Allies 1940, two powers may occupy the same territory and defend it together.
AAA fire first at enemy aircraft, with each AAA capable of firing at up to 3 enemy aircraft--but no more than 1 per plane. Hits are scored on roll of a 1.
Radar increases the hit score from "1" to "2 or less".

General question: What happens when two powers are sharing a territory, and one power has radar, and the other power does not?
Possible solution 1: Split the rolls?
Example: UK has Radar and has 1 AAA. The USA shares this same territory, doesn't have radar, and has 1 AAA. Germany is attacking with 5 aircraft. Normally, the total number of AAA present (2) is enough to fire up to 6 aircraft; but since total number of aircraft (5) is lower than 6, only 5 total AAA rolls are permitted. How does the defender split the dice rolls between the radar-AAA and regular-AAA? Possibilities: Radar AAA: 3 / regular: 1; Radar AAA: 2 / regular 2; Radar AAA: 1/ regular. 3;
Possible solution 2: radar presence.
I the above scenario, since at least one unit with radar is present, are all the friendly AAA "upgraded" to two or less? (i.e., all that is needed is at least one radar-AAA). This also means that if the territory is owned by UK, but the AAA present are from the US, then they score a hit on a dice roll of a one.
Possible solution 3: territory ownership?
The rule book doesn't explain it this way, but this solution can solve the question. If the territory is owned by the power that has radar, then all friendly AAA also roll on 2 or less-- even if the only AAA present are from friendly-but-foreign power without radar. The justification is that the AAA units themselves do not have radar, but the territory is equipped with a radar network. But if the territory is owned by a power without radar, then all friendly AAA do not hit on a one, regardless if the other power has "radar-capable" AAA.

It depends on the exact wording of the rule that "radar increases the hit score". If there is nothing beyond those words, then it would logically apply to the unit; in your example the Allies have one British AAA that can take up to three radar-assisted shots, leaving the American unit to take the other two without the bonus. (It would be logically possible to decide to take two radar-assisted shots and three 'manual', but this is unlikely in a real game.)


text:
Revolver Question
The revolver text doesn't say that the target needs a Speed roll in order to use the revolver on a monster. If a monster doesn't have a speed trait, how does it defend?

You cannot attack a monster who doesn't have speed with the Revolver. The general attack rules state:

You can't use a trait to attack an opponent who doesn't have that trait.


text:
Can I use predict on a basic land card?
There is this card "Predict" that reads

Name a card, then put the top card of target player's library into his or her graveyard. If that card is the named card, you draw two cards. Otherwise, you draw a card.

Reading its text on Gatherer.Wizards.com, the Oracle text reads as

Choose a card name, then target player puts the top card of their library into their graveyard. If that card has the chosen name, you draw two cards. Otherwise, you draw a card.

My doubt is, can I name a basic land card?

Yes. Basic land cards are cards, so you can choose their names when instructed to choose a card name.
Rule 201.3 governs choosing card names:

If an effect instructs a player to choose a card name, the player must choose the name of a card in the Oracle card reference. (See rule 108.1.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.

Basic land cards are in the Oracle reference, so you can choose them.

Note that several cards, such as Desperate Research, say "Name a card other than a basic land." The fact that Predict doesn't is a strong indication that they are valid names. Cards in MTG generally mean exactly what they say, nothing more and nothing less.


text:
In carrom, what if a player pocket the last piece of other player, while queen still on the board?

One player pocket the black piece of other player while the queen is still on the board.
Does the other player whose black piece was being pocketed by other player wins? If so, then by how many points?


text:
Is using 1 die when all but 1 piece is in home and the last piece near home ok, or do I use both dice like usual?
Parcheesi is a race between four players. Each player moves four pawns from their starting point, around the board and then into the center.
In Parcheesi, is it possible to use just 1 die at the end rather than 2 for moves less than 7 spaces? I play by the rules, and there is no rule on dice usage at the end of the game.

If there is no specific rule that allows you to change the dice usage at the end of the game, then you must roll the dice as always. However, after reading the rules more carefully, rolling only one die would actually be a disadvantage. The dies are used separately, not necessarily added together to move. That is, if you are 3 spaces away (a move less than 7 as you stated) and you roll a 4 and a 3, you use the 3 and it's done.
From this website...

Die may be combined to move one piece, or may be used separately to
  move separate pieces, but you may not split a singular die to move two
  pieces.


text:
From which expansion is this magic the gathering card?
From which expansion is this magic the gathering card?

@doppelgreener, that most excellent post applies to English Cards.  It is not clear if it applies to non-English cards or not.

According to the chart in the answer to the question to which this question was found to be a duplicate, this card is from 4th edition (white border, with a Copyright of 1995, and no set symbol)

It's Meekstone
First printed in Alpha, but this particular one is probably from fourth Edition due to the look and wording on the card.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=2058


text:
Is it possible to achieve a negative score?
I was playing Azul the other day, and by a bad choice, one of the players ended up subtracting points until they were in negative numbers.
How should you act in these cases? Is the negative score maintained or does it remain at 0?

You cannot go below 0 points, so you will get a break on the penalty you have to take.
From the rules, under scoring:

Finally, at the end of the Wall-tiling phase, check if you have any
  tiles in your floor line. For each tile in your floor line, you lose
  the number of points indicated directly above it. Adjust your
  scoring marker on your score track accordingly (however, you
  can never drop below 0 points).


text:
Self-publishing options for a card came with box
I would like to self-publish my card game with a service that will ship the game to buyers.
The game would include 45 poker-size cards, 17 A5-size cards, 6 small cards carrying 1-6 numbers (as a replacement for a die), a game instructions sheet and a box.
I know two services:

TGC but I read they are expensive and not high quality for cards.
DriveThru Cards seems to be great but I believe they don't do boxes, am I right?

Are there any other services which could do this for me?

Where are you publishing this game? And do you plan to deliver to the domestic market only, or also internationally?

I live in Europe, but my main target would be the US, so I would be publishing there. If I can find a good solution for this, I would already be happy. However, it is true that I would like to target Europe as well.

Do you think I could have these cards shipped to buyers without a game box? I guess DriveThru would make a parcel including the cards in their three different sizes. That would be a bit strange, or do you think it would be ok?

No, I'd definitely go for boxed. How many unboxed - non-prototype- games do you have in your games cupboard?

Indeed. So any service that could do this for me? In the States or in Europe?

It is true that it would not make sense to send a game consisting of cards in three different sizes without a box. I am now thinking that I could make all cards in A5 format. They are not cards that you need to keep in your hand, only briefly refer to them and then do some actions. So if I use DriveThru and make one A5 card with the cover of the game and the instructions on the other side, plus 68 A5 cards to play and no box, do you think that could work out fine?

Still tricky without a tuckbox (which they won't do for individual sales) or a plastic deck box, which they won't do for bigger formats than bridge or poker cards. Any other ideas or alternative self-publishing providers?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this isn't about designing the game or testing game mechanics, but  soliciting recommendations for production services.

DriveThruCards now offers tuck boxes.
Daniel Solis gives a great review of them here.

The information that DTC offers boxes is definitely useful, but its usefulness is masked by the "have you tried" question which makes it look like you didn't read OP who explicitly mentions DTC. Perhaps rephrase?

I've fixed my answer, and added a link to a review of said tuck boxes from DTC.


text:
Twilight Imperium 2 Planetary Defence Units per planet question
So I was reading the rules for PDS units using the Deep Space Cannon technology and I want to be positive I understand it correctly. So if an enemy faction puts a control marker down and moves ships into a system within the range. I may fire one die per PDS unit in range?
There is a planet tile with three planets in it and you can have up to two PDS units per planet. So if that is the scenario, that would be six dice rolled in total? That seems really overpowered.

You've read the rules correctly - not sure what your question is?

This is pretty powerful early but once you can field some carries with fighters this won't be as powerful.

It's powerful, but remember that you're limited by the number of pieces you have.  And if I recall correctly, then you only get the 6 PDS units.  So while yes, the PDS wall is strong, it is just a Maginot line.  You can just go around it, since the PDS units have to be transported or rebuilt.


text:
Can you attack any creature of your opponents with flying if he can't block it
Let's say you have a flying creature and your opponent has nothing with flying or reach. Could you attack any one of his creatures you choose?

I picked the wrong duplicate target, the duplicate should be http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/27039/can-i-choose-not-to-fly

@Joe Neither of those look like dups. This question isn't really just about flying (though the OP thought it was); the OP is asking about attacking creatures directly.

There is what the question says, and what the asker needs to know.

No, because you don't attack creatures in Magic; you attack players (or planeswalkers), and then the player being attacked can choose to block (or not block) your attacking creatures with their creatures if able.  If your opponent has nothing with flying or reach, they will be unable to block an attacking flyer, and so your flyer will deal damage directly to your opponent.


text:
Is either player at a disadvantage when cards "aren't' shuffled well enough"?
Perhaps I should be asking this on one of the math sites rather than here, but I reckon cardplayers would know: when my wife and I play Skip-Bo and things aren't going her way, she claims that I "didn't shuffle the cards well (long) enough."
While it may be true that I only shuffled the cards a few times (rather than dozens), my assertion is that it doesn't really matter, as far as who has the advantage - we're both playing with the same "badly shuffled" cards, so it's an "even playing field."
Am I wrong? Is either player at a disadvantage with insufficienlty shuffled cards?
I am even tempted to not shuffle at all between game 1 and game 2 to see how that turns out.

Are you looking for proof that shuffling poorly provides no advantage to a player? If so, then you have not provided enough information to answer the question. What was the state of the deck before you shuffled it? What process do you use to shuffle? How do you deal? What game are we playing? Do both players have equal knowledge of the state of the deck before it gets shuffled? Do both players have equal knowledge of the shuffling process (e.g., is it possible for the shuffler to know that a card that was on the bottom or top stayed on the bottom or top, without the opponent knowing)?

The state of the deck is that there are many cards in this order before shuffing: 12, 11, 10, ...1 (but there could also be "wild cards" (SkipBo) anywhere in there). I shuffle the normal way, with my two hands, especially my thumbs. Dealing is done by alternating cards from the top: one for her, one for me, until both have 30; then the same for another 5 each. As mentioned, the game is SkipBo (which I highly recommend - it's just complex enough to be interesting, but "anyone" can learn it pretty quickly). Both players have equal knowledge.

@Rainbolt I would be curious to know how any of your questions would actually change an answer that you would give. It seems to me that adding information for your question 2, 3, and 4 would make the question too specific to an individual player. I also feel that 6 doesn't add useful information and 7 would imply cheating. That leaves your question 5, but the OP is curious about shuffling in general, and an answer to this question could apply to other games (e.g.: Spite & Malice).

@Rainbolt As such, I think it is perfectly clear what the OP is asking: In a game that uses a shared deck, do bad shuffling practices inadvertently hurt one player more than another?

@SocioMatt I'm happy to explain why each of my questions are useful. I can provide a justification for each question that is reasonable in my opinion. Choose one and we'll talk about it, and then we can move on to the next one if you still aren't convinced. But not here - let's move to the site chat.

With Skip-Bo in particular, a game would go faster due to poor shuffling, as you would be more likely to draw a series of cards in ascending order, leading to more plays per turn and more options.
This could give a slight advantage to the first player because that player goes first.  (In other words, if both players could go out on turn 8, player 1 will go out first and still win).

@MikeR: Good point, but who gets to actually play a card of their main pile first is still random. IOW, if I get to go first, and my top card is a 10, and my wife's top card is a 1 (or even quite possibly a 2 or a 3), she is going to "draw first blood."

As long as neither player has information about the order of cards in a deck of cards, no player can gain an advantage from a "bad" shuffle.
A "bad" shuffle could be defined as a shuffle that does not, by a reasonable standard, erase all information remaining from the end of the previous game, most notably the order of cards. This does not mean that there is no recognizable order to the cards, only that neither player knows in what order the deck is, including after a player has seen a part of the deck.
If a particular game produces long streaks of ordered cards on the table, and a subsequent shuffle before the next game does not break up that order, then there is the potential that information remains to be gained in the next game, and a possible advantage for one player. The amount of shuffling needed to prevent that depends on the technique used and the amount of order that is present (e.g. how large are the blocks of ordered cards the game typically produces).
As for your problem with the half-serious allegations of negligience or even cheating by your wife: That question is not likely to be resolved with better shuffling alone, it's about venting her frustration after losing - she is not going to complain about a bad shuffle if she wins. Simply offer to let her shuffle the deck whenever she wants, or at least let her cut the deck before the game starts. This involves her in the shuffling process and she has no more reason to take insufficient shuffling as an excuse.

Truth be told, she wins more often than I do (probably 60-65% of the time) - and it seems to me that when she wins, she has "better" cards than I do - but in reality I'm sure that playing style/philosophy has a lot to do with it.

If both players are using the same strategy, then I agree that there is no advantage either way from a "bad" shuffle, but if individual players have specific biases (that could be suboptimal for a fully randomized deck), advantages could be had for specific kinds of "bad" shuffles. For example, if one shows a bias towards going for a flush in the game of poker, badly distributed suits could be an advantage over a player that prefers going for a straight.

Note that for certain games, poor shuffling can give a considerable advantage to one side: consider the simplest game where each player draws a single card, and the higher card wins (and then the pair is placed in a 'trash' heap) the heap will be ordered with win-lose pairs. If it is later poorly shuffled and cards are dealt to each player, one will get all the 'win' cards and the other all the 'lose' is a given unshuffled streak. Similar phenomena can happen in much more complex games...

@G0BLiN: but that does not in fact give any advantage to a player unless he a) knows which side is the winner and b) can somehow take advantage of the knowledge. A biased (or even two-headed) coin can still give an even chance - so long as the person calling does not know of the bias (and can therefore be assumed to call heads or tails with equal probability).

There are certainly games in which a bad shuffle can benefit one player. I remember playing Ligretto, also called Dutch Blitz, against my teenage nieces who were winning far more frequently than even teenage reflexes would indicate likely.
In Ligretto the cards end up stacked in order, and there is a distinct advantage to having low cards on the top of your playing pile. It turned out that my nieces were giving their own cards only the most perfunctory shuffle possible, essentially just turning them over.

This is a bit different from the OP's question, since the game does not involve a shared deck. A poorly shuffled deck may fare well against a well shuffled deck, but if both players are using the same poorly shuffled deck, it won't matter.

Your wife is confusing 'random' with 'balanced'
Human beings, in general, have a terrible understanding of probability.
There's a rather popular probability demo that teachers use, where they'll give half their class coins and ask them to flip the coin 100 times and record the results.  The other half the class is instructed to attempt to fool the teacher by creating a sequence of fake results for 100 flips.
When the teachers look at the anonymous sequences, they can usually identify them correctly about 90% of the time.  The secret is that the fake sequences almost never include runs of more than four or five heads or tails in a row, while the randomly generated ones almost always do.
Randomness does not mean "evenly distributed".  It means that sometimes you'll get an even distribution, and sometimes you'll get horribly unbalanced clumps.  At random.

The answer to this question is going to depend on how you are shuffling the cards. If you are doing a standard riffle shuffle then as long as you can do a decent shuffle you should not need to do it more then 7 times. In most games shuffling the deck 3-4 time is enough to provide the randomness that the game needs. It should also be noted that even if you get streaks of cards that is not a sign that the deck is not random enough. It is easy to forget that random can still produce streaks that do not appear random.
Back to the original question, can a bad shuffle put a player at a disadvantage? Yes, but so can a good shuffle as the issue will be that one player will be at a disadvantage if they don't get the cards they need but the other players do.
Last thing to remember is that while you want to perform a good shuffle there comes a point where you have shuffled to much and can undo the work you have done.
Here is some information that might help you out some more.
Seven Shuffles
This talks about randomizing a deck of cards
Shuffling
Wiki article with different shuffling techniques
How many times should you shuffle a deck of card
Really detailed paper about math of shuffling a deck of cards.
Perfect Shuffles
With the perfect shuffle, cut the deck in half and interlace every other card it takes only 8 shuffles to restore the deck the original order

There is no need for card runs to be long or for one person to have deck knowledge for a "shuffle" to be unfair for one player.
Consider the case where high cards are placed on top of low cards during game play. If these alternations are then flipped over and dealt, the high cards will now be in the even-numbered positions and will be predominantly dealt to dealer of a two player game.
One reason for the tradition of having non-dealer cut is so that any simple inversion such as this is (nearly) randomized as to which player it will favour.
Slide shuffles are notorious for not breaking up runs efficiently - but in addition if the deck has not been fully squared first the individual slides will tend to be full tricks. This can mean that in terms of breaking up tricks of two cards, a slide shuffle may not be a shuffle at all. Card sharps know all these tricks and many more.
The standard in hand-dealt Contract Bridge (a single-deck game) is for a minimum of seven riffle shuffles followed by a cut by non-dealer's side - though even this is subject to manipulation as eight perfect riffle shuffles restore a deck to its original order. To be seen as scrupulously honest, make one or two of your riffle shuffles obviously imperfect.

Since I don’t know Skip-Bo, I will give a more general answer:
In deck-building games (like dominion) it is absolutely possible that a player benefits from a bad shuffle of their individual deck, because good cards, once close together, will tend to stay close and are more likely to be on their hand at the same turn, making for some really good and some almost useless hands which allows to buy extremely valuable things one on turn and forfeit the other, compared to many medium hands if well shuffled which leads to many purchases of less valuable things.
If you feel that another player profits from bad shuffling, there is an easy solution for that: Let the player's individual decks always be shuffled by their right neighbor instead of by themselves.
But even in games with only one deck for all, bad shuffling can mean a different advantage to players:
In trick-taking card games high trumps as well as cards from the same suit are often in one trick. A bad shuffle means a higher probability that any one player has a superior hand. But in trick-taking games, a superior hand is more valuable when you are the starting player (usually left of the dealer) and can control what suit others have to follow on the first (few) trick(s). Therefore the player sitting left of the one player who shuffles less well than the others has an advantage on the long run.
As a consequence, Skat, a traditional German trick-taking game, has a rule for tournaments - if one player is not shuffling by hand but uses a machine (which will generally shuffle more thoroughly), all players on that table are required to use the machine. Of course, in casual games (and even competitive ones outside official tournaments) this slight imbalance is usually ignored.


text:
Bang! Fistful and Boots
What happens with fistful and boots? Do you draw for the hits from fistful between the hits?
Boots (1 stock, 3 cost, black border) For each lost life point, you draw 1 card from deck.
A Fistful of Cards: at the beginning of his turn, each player is the target of as many Bang! as the number of cards in his hand.

Each bang is coming in as a separate event so you will draw a card each time you take damage.  Just like if you had a barrel and you would flip for each one.  Also if you are playing the character with the same ability as boots you would draw for each one.


text:
Siren of the Fanged Coast vs. Devotion
Two of my friends and I were playing MTG and someone (we'll call her player 1) had played Siren of the Fanged Coast (SFC) and she was going to use its 'control creature' ability against one of player 2's god, which player 1 couldn't pay it's devotion cost to keep it as a creature.
My question is this: After player 1 ends her turn (while controlling the god) and it then became an enchantment would she still be in control of it? My reasoning is since SFC's ability isn't like Mind Control, where as that's a passive ability of the card, SFC's ability is a one-off thing. You officially have control of the god, it just so happens to become an enchantment shortly after you take it.

"pay its devotion cost" - since MTG features actual costs that you pay, and this isn't one of them, this is probably some poor choice of terminology. More, you should probably think of it as: "couldn't meet its devotion condition" or something.

In particular, it stops being a creature immediately after player 1 gains control of it, not at the end of the turn.

The fact that the ability says "gain control of target creature" only means that the chosen target must be a creature at the time it is chosen and at the time the ability resolves. This is just like any other targeted spell or ability: targets have to meet the specified conditions when you choose them, and also when the spell or ability resolves.
After the ability resolves, it doesn't matter what happens to the targeted god's characteristics - whether it stops being a creature, changes color, starts being a creature again, changes power and toughness, gains or loses abilities, or so on. Nothing causes the control-changing effect to end, unless it has its own built-in time limit (for things like Act of Treason). Of course it can be overridden by another control-changing effect, i.e. player 2 could steal the god back. Here's the relevant rule:

611.2c. If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won't change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability that doesn't modify the characteristics or change the controller of any objects modifies the rules of the game, so it can affect objects that weren't affected when that continuous effect began. If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don't, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.

You're basically right about the difference between this and Mind Control, by the way. With Mind Control, the control-changing effect comes from a static ability of a permanent, as opposed to the Siren's effect which comes from the resolution of an ability. The relevant rule for Mind Control is this one:

611.3b. The effect applies at all times that the permanent generating it is on the battlefield or the object generating it is in the appropriate zone.

So in that case, the control-changing effect only lasts as long as the Mind Control is actually enchanting the thing.

Since the tribute wasn't paid for SFC, the if statement of the Come into Play ability is satisfied. Player 1 gains control of the God, but only if it is a legal target, i.e. Player 2 has devotion.
When Player 1 gains control of the god, since she doesn't have devotion it stops being a creature. However, she retains control of the God since the ability doesn't say "until end of turn" Act of Treason.
In the case of Act of Treason, or similar, against a Theroes God, the duration still applies even if it is no longer a creature. At end of turn, it will return to its previous controller.


text:
Can I strike again if I pocket the queen and my opponents black coin?
First I pocket queen. Then I pocket my opponents black coin.
Do I get a chance to strike again?


text:
Insufficient resources for full resupply
At the end of Bureaucracy, what happens if there are not enough available resources to fully resupply a given type? For example, assume the game dictates resupplying 5 Coal but only 3 are available from “the bank” because one player has 2 stored on a plant.

You just supply with what you can. In your case, supply just 2 coal, instead of 3, because one player has been hoarding coal.
From the rulebook, page 6:

If there are not enough resources left in the supply, that resource is
  not fully re-supplied! This might happen, if the players store too
  many resources in their power plants. The resource tokens in the game
  are limited.

This is in fact an important part of the strategy to deny players the resources they need by hoarding them.


text:
Does the Candle item work with It Is Meant To Be?
Can you use the "Candle item card" with the "It Is Meant To Be" event card, in order to roll 5 dice instead of 4 to use later as the card describes?

No, you cannot.
Candle says:

If you draw an event card, roll 1 additional die (maximum of 8 dice) for that event's trait rolls.

(Emphasis mine)
It Is Meant To Be says:

You can choose instead to roll 4 dice and write down the result. [...]

The dice rolling for It Is Meant To Be is not a "trait roll".
A trait roll is one where you are rolling a number of dice equal to one of your traits (Speed, Might, Sanity, or Knowledge). "Roll 4 dice" is not making a trait roll.
From the rules:

Sometimes a card or room
  tile tells you to attempt
  a roll based on one of
  your explorer’s traits
  (Speed, Might, Sanity, or
  Knowledge). When that
  happens, roll as many dice
  as your explorer currently
  has in that trait. For
  example, if your explorer
  must attempt a Sanity roll,
  and she currently has a
  Sanity of 4, roll 4 dice and
  add the dots together to
  get the result. Whether you
  succeed or fail, the card or
  tile will tell you the results
  of your attempt.

This rule does not specifically define "trait roll", but it strongly implies that "trait roll" is either "sanity roll", "might roll", "speed roll", or "knowledge roll"; because it defines a "trait" as one of those 4 things.


text:
Wild Card colour change rule
When using a Wild Card, can we say the same colour as the current colour in the game?
E.g. If the current colour was red and my brother played a Wild Card and said the colour will stay red so that he can discard his red card and win. Is it the correct way?
I felt that a change of colour should have happened?

Either a) your brother should have just played his red card, guaranteeing that he could play his wild card the next turn or b) he played a Wild Draw 4 in a two-player game, which meant he'd be next to play, but he violated the rule of not playing the Wild Draw 4 if you have a card of the current colour.

According to the official rules found via a google search 'uno rules' (emphasis mine):

Wild Card - When you play this card, you may change the color being played to any color (including the current color).

This means that when you play a Wild Card you can name the current color.

And you can only play ONE card each turn. I.e. you can't play a Wild Card and then another card in the same turn.

First of all, you don't have a turn after using a wild card.
Second, Your brother didn't violate any rules. If the going color is red and he used the wild card to keep the color to red only- there's no fault in that.


text:
Does mana stay in your mana pool after the land has been destroyed
If I tap a bunch of land and then it gets destroyed after I tapped it, does the mana stay in my mana pool?

Be careful not to associate lands and mana too closely. Tapping a land happens to be the most common way to produce mana, but not all lands produce mana, and there are other ways to produce mana other than lands.

Unless any cards explicitly say otherwise, things in mtg like mana, abilities, damage, and so on, usually exists independently of, and doesn't really care about, its source. Once it has been brought into existence, it is its own entity.

Yes, it will stay in your mana pool until the end of the current step or phase.
There are effects that empty your mana pool, but they specifically say so, such as Mana Short.

106.4. When an effect produces mana, that mana goes into a player’s mana pool. From there, it can be used to pay costs immediately, or it can stay in the player’s mana pool. Each player’s mana pool empties at the end of each step and phase.

Yes.
Once mana has been added to your mana pool it will remain there until the end of each step unless you choose to spend it to pay a cost.

"end of the round" is incorrect

@Hamsterrific Whoops. Apparently I was more tired than I thought when I typed this up.  Thanks for the catch.

The land is tapped for mana and that mana is available until the end of the current phase or step.
For example, the Combat phase has several steps.

The combat phase is the third phase in a turn, and has five steps in this >order:
Beginning of Combat Step
Declare Attackers Step
etc...

Mana tapped, then the land being destroyed sounds unlikely to happen all in a single phase or step, as land destruction is often sorcery speed. You would have to be tapping on opponent's turn, or they have instant speed destruction, but yes, the mana stays until end of the step, within the phase.

I can go into a really long, technical explanation of how/why but the short answer is yes. Yes, the Mana stays in your mana pool until the end of the step/phase the lands are tapped in.

Hackworth's answer already gives the (not so) long, technical explanation.  I don't think this answer adds anything that the other answers didn't already cover.


text:
Tapping cards - mana pool - general questions
I've been playing  for very long time right now (with long breaks though...) and I happen to find some uncertainties about mana pool/tapping etc.

When you usually play with your friends do you argue about untapped lands? For example You forgot to untap them during your untap step and then you want to use them in the following main phase. Do you let it go?
What if I have 2R&2W lands -> I am spending 2R on a spell card (draw a card) with 1R/1C cost. I happen to draw a spell card with 1R cost which I currently lack because I stupidly tapped it before. Can I just mention that in the reality I spent 1R+1W previously and now use that 1R land again?

For one: I could just tap them all at the beginning as there is no long mana burn rule and no one should argue about what I just spend for what card...
But at the same time this kind of mechanics adds some spice to the gameplay because you must think more about random things etc...

Yes, untapping is NOT optional, is ok if you forgot to untap something and doing it in your main phase, but please don't do it repeatedly.
For casual games with friends, you can allow it between you, but it must be agreed by all of you. If you do this in an "official match", you screwed it up, you cannot rectify.

Note that all the mana in your mana pool that has not been used, it ceases to exist at the end of each phase.

Under normal circumstances, you cannot forget to untap lands because it's not an optional action. As for rules enforcement in your own group: that's entirely your group's call.
Untapping lands is not optional. It's a turn-based action that happpens automatically. If you forget to do that, your group may handle that situation any way you decide to. The document Judging at Regular Rules Enforcement Level (REL)
 can provide guidelines on how such things are handled at the lowest level of rules enforcement, for example at Friday Night Magic. For forgetting to untap things, you can just rewind the game state to that point.

Turn-Based Actions

703.1. Turn-based actions are game actions that happen automatically when certain steps or phases begin, or when each step and phase ends. Turn-based actions don’t use the stack.
703.4. The turn-based actions are as follows:
703.4b Immediately after the phasing action has been completed during the untap step, the active player determines which permanents they control will untap. Then they untap them all simultaneously. See rule 502.2.

As for your second question: within the rules of the game you could not undo your choice of how to pay for costs, even if you put all your mana into your mana pool and just skip over that detail. After you have paid a mana cost, you have to announce what mana still remains in your mana pool:

106.4a If any mana remains in a player’s mana pool after mana is spent to pay a cost, that player announces what mana is still there.

If your group allows retroactively changing how costs have been paid, then that's entirely up to you.

In casual play, I would let 1. slide, but not 2.
The first is (roughly) a missed mandatory trigger, which iirc at REL:Regular isn't punished above a warning.
The second is backing up game state from new information. Part of the balance of multi-colour decks is matching the colour(s) of costs with the colour(s) of mana abilities.
Who's to say the caster of the CR + R spells doesn't also have some WW spells they would cast if they didn't draw the second red spell?

For #1, because uncapping is mandatory, not optional, your lands should be considered untapped once you get past the untap step of a turn. If your opponent notices that you forgot to untap a land, they should inform you, because this wasn’t a legal decision you made. The land should become untapped as soon as you realize that it wasn’t untapped.
The second one is different. The question of whether to spend 2R or 1R 1W is a strategic decision. You made that decision based on not knowing what you would draw... you could have drawn a spell costing 2W instead. Some more casual players ay still let you take it back, but you made a strategic decision based on unknown information, and are wanting to changing it after learning new information. That generally isn’t something you would be allowed to undo.


text:
alternatives for odd # of players in hand and foot canasta
Can we have a dummy score for a fourth player instead of having to play on our own?
It is hard when there are 11 players.

Is there an issue with playing a round with 3 players that I'm not aware of?

I have a few ideas off the top of my head.
First, one thing we have done in the past is to have one of the "more experienced" players play multiple hands.  It is a little complicated because that person has to pull double duty.
If you go this route, you may also want to try and not have the person play their two hands right after each other.  This way there is no issues with the person discarding something from hand 1 that hand 2 desperately needs.
I have been the 2 handed person a few times, and the extra effort sometimes makes it seem like I am paying more attention to the game and not in having fun with the people around me.
Another option would be to have somebody sit out each hand.  Maybe two people can share one "seat".  This gives somebody (like the host) to get up and check on everyone and all of that kind of stuff.
Last, invite somebody new to the group.  The more the merrier!

Is there a way to prevent the player who plays for two players from using one hand to benefit the other? Or picking one hand with no chance of winning to intentionally mess up the player after them?

Not really.  You kind of have to trust the player.  As I mentioned, one way is to not have the player playing the two hands one immediately after the other.  This way the player can't throw away something form hand A that benefits hand B.  Other than that, it is just trust.