text:
In Russian card game Durak, is it efficiently to keep the trump cards till the end of the game?
Speaking statistically - is it better to directly kill all weak cards with the trump ones, or is it better to keep the royal cards up to the end?
(card game Durak)

Not sure about statistics, but my gut feeling is that if the deck is empty, the one with more and higher trump cards wins. So it feels to me that it does make sense to hoard them even if it causes you to become unable to beat your opponent's lead and take up more lower cards in your hand as the result. This is completely unscientific though, it's just how I feel it works.

@AndrewSavinykh But at the same time habing 20 cards at once is not that great.

It depends. If by stroke of luck you draw all the trumps and your opponent does not, you will eventually win even with 15+ cards in your hand. But then you will also win without them ;) What I'm saying is, that it is possible to navigate the endgame to victory even with a lot of cards, if you have enough trumps and can lead (repeatedly) with several cards of the same rank, with a trump that the opponent cannot beat.

Btw 20 cards is more than half of the deck, let's be realistic here.

@AndrewSavinykh Yeah Im playing Durak usually with my friends and when you lose on start having beaten 5 cards, not beaten the last one you’ll get 11 cards, the same thing again, 11+6 = 17, so it goes pretty fast if you can’t beat the income. Ive once taken enough cards and couldn’t get out from the multiples of cards, because i didn’t want to give away the trump ace.


text:
Does a player have to say uno twice on the same last card?
When playing with 4 or more players, if one player says "uno" when the second-to-last card is placed on the pile and now holds only one card, must they say "Uno" again at the start of their next turn, or can they say "out", or do they simply place the last card down as long as the card is playable?

Per the rules:

The moment a player has just one card they must yell "UNO!".

So calling "Uno" happens at the point where you go from having 2 to 1 card in hand. When you play your last card, you do not need to call anything, you just go out.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How is a gold rune different from a silver rune?
In this game, it's possible to earn runes and there are some special golden runes you earn by doing extra special stuff! Are the uses of the two types of runes different? So runes can be used to buy spells to help you out. Does this work in the same way even if the runes are gold instead of silver?
Note that what I call runes can also be considered shields/shield tokens.
The ISBN of this game is 978-1-58994-706-1 (this should help in distinguishing versions).

A similar question has been asked at BGG:
The collected wisdom is:

You can buy Gandalf cards with either the gold or the silver, or a combination of the two. Any time you need to discard runes, you can discard either or both.
The silver runes are gained through the spaces on the board, and you always gain one rune per space. The gold runes are stacked face-down (or otherwise randomized) so that you do not know which value of rune you are getting until it is picked. Only a few spaces on the board have you picking a gold rune.
Runes are good for scoring, Gandalf cards and can also be spend to avoid effects of at least one event. And 1 rune can be used to avoid a specific event tile (together with some other stuff). Might be some I have missed.

Cool, this was helpful! I'll see if any better answers come up before accepting and awarding bounties, but +1...

@Voldemort'sWrath, no problem, this was a simple google search. I have the game but have not played it for some time.

I can award the bounty in some hours, but it's coming!

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


text:
Can I deal damage to the opponent’s health after I kill their creature trying to block my attack?
I’m a new player to Magic the Gathering and I was confused about this particular situation. Can I deal damage to my opponent’s health after I kill their creature trying to block me? For example, I have a creature on the field that has 5/5 and the opponent has a creature on the field with 3/3. I declare attack but the opponent decided to let the 3/3 creature block my 5/5 creature. I kill the 3/3 creature because I have more toughness. Do I deal 5 more damage to my opponent’s health?

No, if an attacking creature is blocked, then it can only deal damage to the creature(s) that are blocking it. (Unless the attacking creature has trample.)
After attackers and blockers are declared, all attacking and creatures deal damage. Your 5/5 will deal 5 damage, and if it being blocked by a creature, then it must deal all 5 damage or that creature. So you will deal 5 damage to your opponent's 3/3, and at the same time your 5/5 will take 3 damage from the blocker. Then the 3/3 will die because it has more damage than toughness.
If your 5/5 had trample, then you could have assigned 3 damage to the blocker and the other 2 to your opponent; killing the blocker and dealing 2 damage to your opponent.
Also, you say “I kill the 3/3 creature because I have more toughness” but this is incorrect. You kill the 3/3 because your attacker has 5 power, which is more than the 3 toughness that the blocker has.
From the basic rules:

Once all blockers have been chosen, each creature—both attackers and blockers—simultaneously deals damage equal to its power (the number on the left side of the slash in the lower right corner of the card).

An attacking creature that isn’t blocked deals damage to the player it’s attacking.
An attacking creature that is blocked deals damage to the creature or creatures that are blocking it, and vice versa.


text:
Can you use the row the card is in as a clue?
If you are the spymaster, can you use the row as a clue?  For example, can I say "Top 3" for the field operator to guess the top row?

No. First entry under "Firm Rules"

Your clue must be about the meaning of the words. You can't use your clue to talk about the letters in a word or its position on the table.

I agree with a comment on another answer to keep the firm rule in place; as position clues can be used on every board, the game will become repetitive if they're allowed.

No.
From the Codenames rule book:

Your clue must be about the meaning of the
words. You can't use your clue to talk about
the letters in a word or its position on the table.

This rule is in place to keep the game interesting.
I would recommend keeping close to the game rules, but if the spymaster thinks they've got the perfect clue (Maybe there are two words relating to 'top' and one unrevealed card in the top row) the other spymaster can authorise a clue:

If the opposing spymaster allows it, the clue is valid. If you aren't sure, ask your opponent. (Quietly,
so the others can't hear.)

The only times I've asked the other spymaster have been words that are open compound words, such as 'pet food', which represent a single concept but don't have a single word name.

I would strongly advise you to keep that rule in place (do not relax it). That rule exists to keep things interesting. The game has tons of replay value since there are 400 words in the box and hundreds of thousands of interesting connections you can make between them, but because every grid of words has a top row etc, if you allow position clues then your games can get boring and repetitive.

"You can use house rules" is always true. Adding house rules should generally come after having an understanding of the official rules, and the question indicates that that is not yet the case. The golden rule is, in Codenames, intended to cover gray areas, not to alter the hard-and-fast rules. (But you can house rule that away, too, of course).

If you allow clues based on card positions, all the following hints are going to be coordinates stacked together in one monster-word. (okay, that's probably easier in languages like Finnish where compound words are more of a thing, but anyway.) Sure, you could invent ways to pack numbers into words as a puzzle, but it would be something different than Codenames, or even Codenames-with-house-rules.

Where it gets really problematic, in my opinion, is that every card can be identified by its row combined with its column. While being guaranteed a card every two turns is much lower than the usual pace, I don't like the idea of it being an option. And there are cases where it might be strategic, but not sporting, such as one team has only one word left, and the other has five.


text:
In Dungeon Fighter, what is the priority between death and activating an ability?
I've got this question because I cannot find it in the rule book:
I roll the dice, I miss (so the monster attacks me), I die because of the miss, but the dice shows the "eye" (so for example I activate an ability that works even when the dice misses). In this case, the ability is activated before I die or I die before activating the ability?

Quick disclaimer, I've not played the game or even heard of it until I read the question.   However, I've watched a tutorial video and found the rules online here  to try and find the answer for you.
Look at the rules on page 9 for 'No Damage'  it says :-

No damage: If activated, the hero takes no damage if he misses the target board.

This might infer that you get to activate this ability before taking damage.  However unhelpfully back on page 7 the rules say this :-

Hint: The damage dealt while becoming defeated by a
monster is not avoidable. No special powers can prevent that
damage.

It would be really helpful to have that 'hint' on a page with all the abilities but it does seem to make it explicit that if a monster defeats you then you do not get to activate a special power, including those that are activated when a character misses.

Thank you for your effort in reading rules for a game that you don't have! In BoardGameGeek forum I received the right answer: the ability activates before dying when there is a "miss" with the dice. It is not well explained in the italian rulebook, that's why I asked. Thank you again!


text:
double royal marriage and a roundhouse
How do you score a double royal marriage and a roundhouse if you are playing double deck or triple deck pinochle?
I got that tonight playing and wanted to score it 50 points, thirty for the double royal marriage and the 20 for the roundhouse instead of 24 to subtract the trump marriage from the roundhouse.
I got shot down like I was nuts and they only wanted to let me have six points for the roundhouse.

A roundhouse normally doesn't have any special scoring involved; it is simply a nickname for a set of other things that score, that happen to add up to 24. In your case:
Double Royal Marriage: 8
Queens around: 6
Kings around: 8
3 Marriages: 6
This adds up to 28 (which is 24 for the roundhouse, plus 4 for the extra royal marriage).
Thus, by default rules, you should have scored 28.
There are variants that some people play where a roundhouse does score higher than 24. However, you and your playgroup would have to discuss and agree to such a thing before the game; as it isn't part of the standard rules.

Roundhouse

This consists of a king and a queen of each suit. It normally scores 24: royal marriage + 3 marriages + kings around + queens around. However some players give a roundhouse a higher score of 32. Some score a roundhouse with a run as 39 (24 + 15, allowing the royal marriage to contribute to the roundhouse as well as being part of the run). Some score a double roundhouse as 240 (it should normally be 160 = 8 + 3*4 + 80 + 60).


text:
Mutual Identification mechanics in a deduction game
I'm thinking about a deduction board game idea for at least five players where there are two Spies who don't know each other (Spy A and Spy B).
Their mission is to accomplish mutual identification during the night phase (when other players closes their eyes) but totally secretly. After the identification attempt only the following outcomes are possible (publicly known by all players):

Both Spies failed identification
Spy A successfully identified Spy B (Spy B doesn't know who identified him)
Spy B successfully identified Spy A (Spy A doesn't know who identified him)
Both Spies successfully identified each other

In case of an unsuccessful attempt, they can try again to identify each other in next rounds, but all other information should stay hidden (e.g. which civilian(s) they tried to identify).
I had a lot of ideas for the mechanism, but none of them worked with easy setup.
It would be easy with a game master, but I want to make it an everyone-can-play type. What kind of a mechanism which uses cards or items might make this work?

Hmmm... the best I can come up with would be need 4 types of tokens: 2 that everybody has in front of them to tell whether they are a spy or not, and 2 that are in the center of the table and tell whether each of the spies found his target.
Everybody has two tokens (blue for spy, red for not spy) with the same background. Before the night phase, they place the fitting token in front of them (face down, ofc). Spy A awakes, looks at one of the tokens of another player. If that player was the other spy, he flips over the "spy B found" token in the center of the table. Then spy B wakes up and does the same.
There are some drawbacks:
-) you might be able to see whether tokens were moved. You can handle that the same way one night werewolf does.
-) people need to sit very closely, so it does not work for larger groups.
If you want larger groups you will need smartphone support or a solution that includes the spies walking around, which will very likely be very obvious.
Ps: what keeps the spies from just being very obvious about being the spies during daytime? ;)

Thank you for your idea. It needs some token which is very silent :) And I want to make it good for large groups too... App is a solution, My best own version is so far was everyone puts their hands in the middle of the table. Eyes closed. First spy opens his eyes touches someones hand. If he is a spy he shows thumbs up. After that Spy 1 sleeps back, then Spy 2 does the same. Spy 2 then knows if it was mutual identification. But problems are civilians will know they were touched, they can say "hey, he touched me in the night." maybe its not a problem as lies are common things in these games.

Hands out will also only work when you are a small group, since otherwise you cannot reach all hands (and, as you said, it gives more information). If everyone places their tokens very far in the center ot the table, you will not be able to hear which of the tokens was revealed. Then the sound is no problem.

you are right, you gave a very nice idea! It is also important that after the night noone should know who were investigated. Thats why Ii thought tokens should be turned back to down position after checking, but something needs to tell Spy2 if his was identified or not by Spy1. Maybe a ringbell (spy hits it 2 times if he was successful, once if not), or some other tokens on center marking zero/partial or full success.

Thats what i used the tokens in the middle of the table for. After the night, if one of those was flipped by an agent, he identified one of the others. I will highlight that in the text.

If you trust everyone to not cheat (or mess up accidentally), you can take a regular deck of cards, take out two red cards and a suitable number of black cards, and shuffle them hand them out, every player looks at theirs, and then they put them back in order. Every night, each player takes the pile of cards, holds them for a set amount of time (you don't want people to know who's a spy by how long they hold them), and if they're a spy, looks at one of the cards (the position of the card in the pile tells them which player it refers to), then passes them on. You can also have a card represent whether a spy has been identified.


text:
3/4 creature versus a 3/3 creature, why would the 3/4 creature die?
I found myself in a situation where my adversary attacked with a 3/3 creature and I blocked him with a 3/4, what happened later was that both creatures died.
Shouldn't my 3/4 creature be alive with 3/1? In other situations this was always the case and I didn't get confused.
To clarify, there was no instantaneous card activated and there was no active spell that could be used to improve the enemy's creature.

From my time playing MTG arena, and seeing the decks and cards it gives, was their creature a zombie and they had Death Baron on the field also? That would mean your creature died because of deathtouch.

Damage does not modify toughness, so your creature will not become 3/1. It will remain a 3/4, but it will be marked with three damage. (Some video game versions of Magic show this as 3/1, but that is inaccurate.) That alone is not enough to kill it, so something is missing from your description.

Maybe your creature was marked with damage earlier in the turn.
Maybe an effect enhancing your creature's toughness was removed.
Maybe the attacking creature had deathtouch.
etc

A more detailed description of the scenario would allow us to give a more detailed answer.

By 3/1 I mean during the combat phase, after that yes, the creature will remain a 3/4.
I will try to pay more attention next time, thank you very much for the answer.

No, I stand by what I said. The creature is NEVER becomes 3/1 in the scenario you presented (because damage does NOT reduce toughness (wither/infect aside)). If Arena shows 3/1, it is lying to you. Furthermore, marked damage is removed at the end of the turn (Cleanup Step), not when the Combat Phase ends.

I want to add that unfortunately Arena does display damage as a toughness decrease, like Magic Duels did. So, the most likely explanation here is that the 3/3 did have deathtouch, which would result in the 3/4 immediately dying.

@murgatroid99, I did mention that, and another equally likely scenario: Say the creature was a Soldier, and their Aven Brigadier died from blocking a different attacker.

Right, that would make sense too.

My money is on deathtouch.  Was the attacking creature a Nightveil Predator by any chance?


text:
If unit A attacks unit B (which was attacking unit C) does the attack on B by A stop the attack on C by B?
Let's say an English fleet has orders to attack Denmark from Skagarac, with plenty of support to take it. However, a Russian fleet attacks the English fleet from the Baltic Sea, with plenty of support to take Skagarac.
Would the Russian fleet's attack take priority, preventing the English fleet from taking Denmark? Or would both moves be successful, putting Denmark in English control and Skagarac in Russian control?

BAL and SKA are not adjacent. Ry4an's answer to the question in the title is correct.

Both attacks/moves are successful. Supports can be cut by attack from elsewhere, but moves aren't.


text:
What is the standard cost for the illustration on a Yu-Gi-Oh! card?
The illustration on Yu-Gi-Oh! cards sometimes appeats so surrealist. I wonder how much it costs for only one image that was drawn by some artist like that, for example (these are some that crossed my mind, there is more detailed like in Zexal, ARC V, or Vrains)

They are so detailed and there are many more detailed than this.
I found places where artists do things like draw and sell their works online. When I ask artists who interest with their work, the prices shock me, it costs like $50-$70 (we have to pay more for adding environment, background, detailed skin, colored-draw) so the total, approximately $100.
What's the actual prices of the art on Yu-Gi-Oh! card?

I think there's no correlation between commission price and the real price. I mean, they could be working officially as Yu-Gi-Oh's card illustrator that got paid regularly instead of per-card based.

Is this question about how much it cost Konami to produce the artwork, or how much it would cost an individual to buy a print of it? The former is answerable on this site, since it's about game design. The latter isn't, since it's a shopping question, which is off-topic.

@Thunderforge this question is about how much it cost Konami to produce the artwork, since for each card, with a detailed illustration it must be cost a hundreds, or thousand dollar. While Konami always regularly printed a  new Card yugioh each month or years.

It looks like the company that makes Yugioh is very tight lipped about their contracts with their artists.
More is known about Magic the Gathering artists, they reportedly get paid roughly $400-$600 / card, with "known" artists making more, possibly 2-3 X.
My guess would be that Yugioh artists make less than Magic the Gathering artists.

what's make you think that they got pad less ? i mean, in that reddit link you gave never stated, well i am not sure either

Magic the Gathering by revenue is significantly higher than Yugioh, consequently, I expect they pay their artists more.

And the quality of art/quality standards in general are much higher for MTG than YGO. Compare some of their most recent cards Y1 M1 Y2 M2 Y3 M3 - note that all those MTG cards are commons.

@John it seems like heartstone artwork or shadowverse

@Samthere those cards are by no means recent... Scapegoat and Mirror Force are mearly 2 decades old.

@WeckarE. Are they still using the same art on current printings? I was looking through cards from recent sets. Is there a list of only new cards I can compare to?

@Samthere Card art rarely changes for reprintings, usually only for promo cards. Unfortunately there is not really a good repo of true new cards available, but the yugioh wiki does list for every card every set they appeared in - including date of release. The newest archetypes include Sky Striker, Crusadia and Fur Hire.

@WeckarE. Right! I spent a long time trying to figure out when Vampire Familiar was originally from and getting nowhere :P That one is new from Dark Saviors, then, but the other two are much older?

YGO/MTG art comparison updated to correctly show recent cards: Y1 vs M1; Y2 vs M2; Y3 vs M3. The (current) MTG art style is more consistent and detail-intensive.

@Samthere Good update! I would like to make a final note that YGO DOES purposely use different art styles to differentiate different archetypes, so consistency is naturally going to be lower.

As John said, it is not much clear about the costs of designing a YuGiOh! card.
Yu-Gi-Oh cards don't even have flavour text (except Normal monsters), and they also don't have the artist's name on the card as several other TCG's do (like MTG, Legend of the Five Rings, etc.).
Another interesting thing to consider is that there are a few fan-made cards, which have actually made it to real cards printed. In this case, the drawings were made by Duelists during drawing contests.
There is also the well-known Tyler the Great Warrior, which is a card that was made because of the Make-A-Wish foundation, who granted Tyler Gressle his wish by creating this card in his honor.


text:
Civilization cards with toolmakers
If, for any reason, the card remains unused till the end of the game, when scoring the toolmakers, do we take into account the value of "one-time" tools or just the permanent value of tools on our board?

You do not get to add the value of unused one-time bonuses. I'd post this as an answer if I had a more reliable source than just my experience playing this (both cardboard and digital).

Chaz, when I want to answer a questions I find most rules are available online somewhere.  Stone Age rules can be found at https://www.yucata.de/langnet/1/StoneAgeRules.pdf  if you want to cite the relevant bit.

The rules appear to not have a definitive statement about it; but Chaz is correct. Just can’t find a source at the moment either.

Im not very familiar with the game so dont want to answer the question myself.  But it seems that from the picture example scoring tools it just shows scoring for players tools and not the bonus ones on cards.  Also the cards.  in the explanation civ card it says ". He can add this tool once to a die roll"  this would infer thats the only thing it can be used for and can not be used for scoring.  But as I say its a game I've only played a few times years ago so dont feel confident enough to answer myself.  I think that lack of source in the rules is perhaps proof its not possible?

No, the "one-use tool" cards do not count for scoring tool makers.
The rules specifically call out "Tool tiles" in the scoring section:

The "one-use tool" cards are exactly that: cards (i.e. not tiles). Nowhere in their description are "tiles" called out:

I see. The english version calrifies it much better.

authors: Αντώνιος Κελεσίδης


text:
What should happen if a player requests the floorman after an opponent deliberately exposes their hand?
There are 5 players in a poker game, 3 players fold before the flop, and the remaining two are heads up after the flop. The first player bets 25, the second player calls.
The first player checks the turn, the second player bets 55, and the first player calls again.
The first player checks the river. The second player bets 100, the first player goes all in and shows their cards inside the line. Now the second player wants to speak with the floorman. What should happen?

Please edit your question for clarity: improve the spelling and grammar, and use punctuation. Currently, it is extremely difficult to tell what you are asking.

I rejected the original "improvement" edit after closure because its formatting was as bad as the original, it broke the terminology, and used a title so vague as to be unhelpful.

If this edit is indeed accurate to what the OP wanted (and there's at least some guesswork there), then I don't see how it's not just a duplicate of the post that it was originally asked on. At the least, the question should be edited by the OP to include the specifics of why the answers given in the other question were not sufficient.

@AndyT Betting is pretty integral to the Rules of poker, and this question ask about how to deal with a situation/game state that might come up while playing poker. This question is on-topic.

@AndyT "The Line" may be a feature of casino based poker, but just because it is casino based doesn't make it off-topic. If you believe that casino based variants of on-topic games should be considered off-topic you are welcome to make a proposal on meta. As it stands this is an Ok question that was salvaged that lead to a pretty good, well written and supported answer. I don't think that the question should be penalized for that.

@Malco - Fair point about meta. I've now checked, it's on topic. Objection removed as it appears the community consensus is against me. I guess this question is basically just a "rules" question after all.

@AndyT No problem, glad it could be resolved. If you do feel strongly about it you are welcome to readdress it in meta, or post a dissenting answer on that meta post and see if the community still feels the same way.

I think there is a misunderstanding that 'the line' is a fold line.  I've played in many casinos where there is no line. Just because cards have crossed that line face up doesn't automatically make them dead.
The most important bit here is was there a verbal statement 'all in'.   If we look at Robert's Rules, which has been on display in most poker rooms I've played in, then

A verbal statement denotes your action and is binding. If in turn you
  verbally declare a fold, check, bet, call, or raise, you are forced to
  take that action

If the player announced all in then the bet stands and other player can call or fold.
Two other rules worth mentioning here regarding 'dead hands'  Note the section on Dead Hands make no reference to 'the line'

You throw your hand away in a forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if not facing a bet).

You say the player tabled his cards inside the line.  This to me is very different to throwing them away in a forward motion.  The rules on dead hands also say....

Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is
  clearly identifiable may be retrieved at management’s discretion if
  doing so is in the best interest of the game. We will make an extra
  effort to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of
  false information given to the player.

In the situation you describe the cards never went into the muck.  They are also clearly identifiable. So it stands that the hand is live and they have not folded.  Of course by making this mistake they have disadvantaged themselves as the other player knows if they are winning of not thus denying the all in player extra value or loses a bluff.  This is punishment enough for the mistake and the rules don't punish them further by declaring the hand dead.
I did once witness this situation live once where a player went all in and tabled cards, admittedly pre flop.  It was ruled the players was all in and other other player was able to decide if they wanted to call or not based with the information of other players cards.

On some tables if you are last to act facing an all in you can expose your cards.
This was different as the first player was all in but not last to act.  Cards crossing the line face up or face down is not a fold if the player is all in (or just bet). First player broke the rule on exposing cards but gained nothing by doing so. Second player gained by knowing the cards. As a floor man the hand is live and I would not even penalize the guy.
In the same situation heads up on the river Jamie Gold first to act put his opponent all in.  Jamie exposed one card briefly but the dealer did not see.  It was one card that Jamie needed but the other card was a blank. Opponent had him beat but folded. That should have been a dead hand as he exposed a card which influenced action.

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


text:
Why does the dealer in blackjack receive only one face-up card, not two like the players?
In Blackjack, at the start of each hand, every player is dealt two cards face up. The dealer receives only one card face up.
What is the reason for this difference? Why aren't the dealer's cards dealt the same way as the players' cards?

It is not the case that the dealer receives two cards in all places. Many deal just one, the face-up card alone. The presence or absence of the face-down card has other implications, but none are relevant to this question. I have corrected the factual statements to reflect the key point of difference between player and dealer initial deal.

The dealer cards only are relevant if there is at least one player that passed.
If all players are busted or had 21, there is no need for a turn for the dealer.
Dealing the dealer cards face up influences the play of the players. For example, if the dealer has a 18, no player will pass on 18 or lower.

But I still don't understand why is one of the dealer cards face down? Why not simply deal two face up cards for the dealer just like for the players?

You don't want the players to have that information.
For example, if the dealer has 21, players won't play.

But when the dealer starts dealing the cards, haven't the bets been already placed? How could you "not play" at this point? If we dealt both dealer cards face up and they got 21, surely you can't withdraw your bet now that you have been dealt cards?

It's about how much More people are willing to bet against the House.  There's splits and insurance to deal with, besides the initial bet.  Also, instantly knowing that you aren't going to beat the house is a downer, just like when the dealer gets blackjack.

If the dealer is showing an 8 or higher, then players have decisions to make. If a player makes 17, they need to decide if they should risk hitting and busting, or staying and risk the dealer turning over a 10 for 18 and losing. If the dealer's second card is visible, then that decision tree is gone. Either the dealer has 18 and players at 17 or less must hit, or the dealer has less than 18 and players can stay and win unless extremely unlucky.

Okay, I understand it now, it's quite obvious now that I think about it. Thank you!

In Black Jack, you play against the dealer, not the other players, and one of the main mechanics is deciding whether to hit or not. This decision becomes trivial and meaningless if you could know exactly what the dealer has. You hit if you have less than them; stand if you have more than them (if they have 17 or more so that they won’t hit). Hiding one dealer card is necessary to make it so that there’s a non-trivial choice to make.

Information known about other players hands is meaningless in blackjack, since it is played against the dealer alone. This also helps prevent cheating, since a player can't swap a card dealt face up. The players are free to take any action they like with their cards, hit, stand, double, split (when legal) the dealer however must follow a set of rules for their play, and if the dealer had both cards face up then the players would know what the dealer has and would know what the dealer will need to do to follow the rules for the dealer.

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


text:
Breaking an unknown rule had major effect on our Monopoly game, how do we resolve it after we learn the rule?
I owned Whitechapel and Old Kent Road, both with hotels. My friend owned Mayfair and Park Lane with no developments.
We traded and I gave a further two million dollars to him. Nothing was said about the fact this was an illegal trade because we didn't know there was a rule that you can't trade properties with houses on them.
Later in the game, another player asked if you could sell properties back to the bank. It was only during the search to that question we discovered that the above was an illegal trade which has affected everyone.
If the rule was unknown until later in the game, do you play on as no one had brought it up when it occured? Does the whole game become invalid? Do you play on or quit?
Is there an official rule about not being able to argue a rule once a turn has passed?

So you ask if there is a rule that rules the situation when you disregarded a rule.

I'd just correct any issues, which should still be possible, as the correct way to go about that trade would have been to sell the houses [adding their value to the trade] then rebuild after the trade.

This question can be asked about any rule in any game; the answer will not be specific to Monopoly.

@GendoIkari True but some games have specific ways of dealing with broken rules. In fact there are even games where cheating is encouraged, like Munchkin.

I would honestly suggest playing a game that isn't monopoly.

The rules don't specify how to handle this, but I would fall back on the second following player rolls the dice provision for collecting rent.
When learning a new game, there will always be occasions when a rule is initially missed, and then discovered later. There must be limits on how far back to attempt reconciliation, so adopting a limit already in the Rules is a sensible compromise.
First games should always be recognized as a learning exercise for all players; complete this game quickly, and offer a prompt rematch to assuage any ill feelings. Remember that making the mistake once, in a game situation, is likely the very best way to remember the rule going forward.


text:
Do you have to play the basic Risk Europe game with exactly four players?
My son got Risk Europe for Christmas. Neither of us are familiar with any version of Risk.
The “Basic Game” section of the rule book says it’s for four players (implying exactly four, not two to four). There is a variation of the rules for two to three players where the spare armies are mercenary armies, but we played through a game of the basic rules with just the two of us and we didn’t seem to hit any hurdles. Can you play the basic game with just two players?

Playing with fewer than four players and without mercenaries is not intended by the rules and will upset game balance
The main problem is the victory condition which likely is achieved too easily. As the goal for each player is to capture seven Crowns (primarily by taking cities), fewer players means more Crowns per player without any territorial struggle which upsets the game balance. With each player being closer to victory by default, a single city changing hands might end the game, quickly and without much of a build-up to that point. Maybe with two players it can even be won without ever facing your enemy.
Another concern is resource distribution. The balance here might be upset by fewer players as well. I don't remember that part of the game well enough though.
The mercenaries are introduced to balance the lack of player-controlled powers. It is not marked as an optional variant, but is the intended way to play with fewer than four players.
If you really want to play with two players and without mercenaries, my first advice would be to adjust the number of Crowns required for victory and maybe remove some of the Crown Cards, as well. This will probably require some experimentation and a different target number for two and three players, respectively, but it will help with some of the issues. Keep track of how other elements of the game like income or cities' special abilities pan out as well, and if you feel like something is consistently off, try adjusting it accordingly.

Thanks. We only had a brief game that was cut short so we will experiment further tomorrow.

Update: We played with the merc armies and it made a big difference. The mercs ended up with London and Paris initially which tied up the western half of the map making it harder to expand in that direction. Thanks.


text:
Claiming a tunnel when no matching cards are turned over
Could I claim a tunnel if there are no cards matching the color of the cards played to claim the Tunnel?
I want to claim a red tunnel of 4 cards. I have 4 red cards. Three top cards from the Train draw pile are turned face-up and there are no red cards or train cards there.
The rules state:

When attempting to claim a Tunnel route, a player first lays down the number of cards required by the length of the route. Then the three top cards from the Train draw pile are turned face-up. For each card revealed whose color matches the color of the cards played to claim the Tunnel, an additional card of the same color (or a Locomotive) must now be played from his hand. Only then can the player successfully claim the Tunnel route.

Yes, you can. There were zero cards revealed from the train draw pile which matched the colour of the cards used to claim the tunnel (red), so you must play zero extra red cards - and having done that trivial action, you claim the tunnel.

If you draw no red cards OR locomotive (wild) cards, you would not pay any extra cards, correct.


text:
Can a pawn be promoted to queen if the player is missing a knight, bishop or rook?
My classmate says that you can't have another queen if one of your chess officials (knights, bishops and rooks) are captured and not yet replaced.
Is this true?

You can promote a pawn to any piece (other than a Pawn or King), regardless of how many of that piece is on the board. In theory, you could have nine Queens by the end of the game (unlikely, of course).
Piece availability is not a concern, either. An upside-down rook (if available) is the recommended stand-in for a queen, though you may have to improvise due to limited resources (stacked checkers tiles also work well).

You can promote a pawn to any piece as long as the piece is of the same color and it isn't a pawn or a king ;-).

Thanks for catching that, I've edited my answer accordingly.

Actually, an upside-down rook is still a rook, whether you want it or not. You may use it when you don't have ressources, but when you have (and competitions always have more than enough), use the queens.

The upside down rook bit comes from  U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess (5th ed.).  While having spare pieces available is obviously preferable, it frequently is not practical.

What if you play with Bauhaus chess set?

Ok, going for official rules here :

When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival.
This is called the square of ‘promotion’. The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate.

(source : FIDE Handbook E, Laws of chess, §3.7.e : https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article)
This doesn't state whether or not you can promote you pawn to a queen if one or more of the other pieces are gone. Therefore you can do whatever you want in promotion as long as you don't do an illegal move.


text:
If I summon a world breaker can I exile a card my opponent owns?
I summon World Breaker and want to destroy my opponent's land.
But my opponent thinks I should exile one of my own lands, as cost to summon a World Breaker.
Whose lands am I allowed or required to exile in this case?

Does he ever play a Shock, Doom Blade, Lightning Bolt, etc? Ask him if he thinks that he should have to choose one of his own creatures for the "target creature". Then ask him what wording is different here.

Hes very bad in english... thats the problem most of the time

I'm pretty sure that this ability isn't actually a cost. If it were a cost, it would be written as, "As an additional cost to cast World Breaker, exile target artifact, enchantment, or land." Since the ability begins with "When you cast", it's a triggered ability. One of the things that this means is that if there are no artifacts, enchantments or lands on the battlefield, you can still cast World Breaker.

@TannerSwett Even if the card were worded the way you say, you could STILL exile an opponent's permanent instead of your own. Being an "additional cost" doesn't change that at all. Though you're right that it would mean you could only cast it if there were a valid target.

I don't think additional costs ever use the word "target". The rules might handle it, but it would cause confusion and complication. e.g. As an additional cost, sacrifice target creature you control. Draw 3 cards. would be countered on resolution for having no legal targets!

Worldbreaker's cast trigger says:

When you cast World Breaker, exile target artifact, enchantment, or land.

So, when you cast World Breaker, you pick a target.  It doesn't have to be one of your artifacts, enchantments or lands.
However, for the return ability:

{2}{C}, Sacrifice a land: Return World Breaker from your graveyard to your hand.

Using that ability would require you to sacrifice one of your own lands (which means putting that land into the graveyard; it won't get exiled).  You can't sacrifice something you don't control (although if you somehow came to control an opponent's land, you could sacrifice it even though you don't own it).

If any effect/ability states "target (insert card type here)", it can be any permanent of that type.


text:
Why/how was Ajani's Pridemate ability made mandatory?
I just viewed this question where Ajani's Pridemate was mentioned. I noticed a small but significant difference; on all printings, including the recent Core 2019 set, its card text says

Whenever you gain life, you may put a +1/+1 counter on Ajani's Pridemate.

Yet its official Gatherer card text omits the "you may" part:

Whenever you gain life, put a +1/+1 counter on Ajani's Pridemate.

Why/how was this done? I can remember some rule changes happening soon after the card was released (e.g. Walking Atlas which became an artifact creature) but not on a card which was already in play for 8 years; Ajani's Pridemate made its first appearance in 2011.

I would like to point out that you seem to be mis-estimating how erratas happen in general. In the same update bulletin that included this errata (linked in both answers), every other card that received errata is older than Ajani's Pridemate. Old cards get errata'd all the time as new rules, cards, and templating conventions are introduced, and as old errors or inconsistencies are caught and corrected.

I might have misstated that: I meant to say that erratas on cards which have been around for quite a while and recently re-released are rare.

I don't think that's accurate either. The last printing of Dark Depths was two months ago and it still got errata in that same update bulletin.

But that was a non-functional change, just a "wording optimization" if I read the bulletin correctly.

Well, if what you're saying is that it's rare to have functional erratas of old cards with recent printings, that's probably true just because it's so rare to have functional erratas in general. That is, if you don't count stuff like the giant planeswalker redirection errata from Dominaria.

The ability was originally optional, and it was made mandatory with the release of Ravnica Allegiance. The Ravnica Allegiance Oracle changes update bulletin explains the reasoning behind both the original choice and the errata. The short answer is that changes in tournament policy, increased popularity of digital Magic implementations, and renewed popularity of the card made the errata desirable and worthwhile. The full explanation is quoted below:

Ajani's Pridemate was originally printed under a tournament policy where missing any trigger, no matter how beneficial, always resulted in a Warning. Multiple Warnings would upgrade into a Game Loss. To avoid the problem, many cards with strictly beneficial triggers had those triggers made optional—it doesn't count as "missing" a trigger if it's a "may," you just chose not to do the thing.
Then trigger policy changed. Nowadays, missing beneficial triggers doesn't get you a penalty, you just don't get the benefit (there's some nuance to this, but I'm leaving it simple here). We've left the cards that received "may" under the old policy alone under the general Oracle policy of minimizing functional changes, so Ajani's Pridemate was printed in Core Set 2019 with its "may."
Ajani's Pridemate has since become heavily played in a popular Standard deck, and that deck's inclusion in the upcoming Challenger Deck series became the place to print the card with errata to remove the option, making the card look and read better on paper and improving the life of digital Magic players everywhere. There isn't an Oracle update scheduled for small supplementary products like Challenger Decks, and given the options of adding one or changing the card early, digital was the deciding factor and we're releasing the card's updated wording a little early.

Note that there are a ton of cards with optional "always positive" triggers which are not receiving errata.  Ajani's Pridemate got singled out from the usual policy of "no functional errata" because of the significant digital burden this particular trigger applies. (because it's a popular card that can trigger many, many times in a turn)

I wonder how "always positive" is defined. It easy to find cases with conditional removal, gain control, ... where this trigger is can be harmful. It seems that the card is now strictly worse than before - assuming that being allowed to forget the trigger doesn't imply it is optional if your opponent reminds you. I don't disagree with the change, but I find the explanation lacks discussion of the downsides.

@Zulan I have a quick explanation of beneficial triggers linked in my answer below

It is a bit complicated but Wizards actually released a short article about the changes.
ORACLE CHANGES: AJANI'S PRIDE-MAY-TE (FUNCTIONAL)
To summarize it is a combination of a couple of reasons:
#1
Due to changes to the way missing Beneficial Triggers are handled in tournament settings, a major reason for including the "May" doesn't exist anymore. Previously if there was a mandatory trigger both players would be responsible for remembering the trigger and if a mandatory trigger was missed it would require judge action to repair the gamestate.
Since the change, that is no longer the case. Nowadays if a "Beneficial" (gain life, creature gets bigger etc.) trigger is missed, too bad for the player that missed it.
#2
Ajani's Pridemate is a popular card in the online Magic Arena game. It is also included in the "Tutorial" decks that are provided for free to players when they first get the game. This means that not only is the creature encountered fairly frequently Online, but it is also featured in most players first impression of the game (and for some non-paper players maybe even their first experience with magic).
Normally this wouldn't be that bad but the "May" trigger is quite obnoxious for pridemate in digital as each trigger requires player input, so something like swinging with a board of lifelinkers may require the player to click accept 20 times per combat. It can slow down the game quite heavily. Removing the "May" allows the triggers to auto-resolve with no player interaction (something that is not possible with "may" triggers currently).
#3
It makes the card read slightly better in digital (and paper when it is re-printed).

The how is that it will be printed with the now wording in Challenger Deck coming out in 2019 and an announcement on official magic website (
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/ravnica-allegiance-oracle-changes-2019-01-22 )
The why boils down to (digital) user experience issues vs tournament policy.
In the past, during the tournaments with higher REL (rules enforcement levels) one could receive a game or match loss for missing any trigger, even a purely beneficial one, if it wasn't optional.
These rules caused the creators to make many beneficial triggers optional. While working good for tournament rules, it caused some annoyance for digital players - especially Arena ones as at the time of writing one cannot automate the response to the trigger (which is possible in MTGO).
Since then the tournament rules were updated to allow for lesser penalties for missed beneficial triggers (i.e. opponent choosing if the trigger happens). Given that magic R&D team decided to errata the Pridemate to make it more convenient for digital players.


text:
Does a player draw new destination cards if the player has none left, in Ticket to Ride Europe?
I cannot find anywhere in the rules whether or not a player may hold NO destination cards.
Is a player obliged to pick up new destination cards when he or she has run out?

Destination tickets are kept secret until the end of the game and the final scores are counted. You can't start the game with no cards, and you can never discard the ones you keep, so there is no way to hold zero destination tickets at any point in the game.
This is written on the last page of the Ticket to Ride rules, the last paragraph under "drawing destination tickets".

Destination Tickets are kept secret from other players until the Game's final scoring. A player may have any number of Destination Ticket cards during the game.

http://cdn0.daysofwonder.com/tickettoride/en/img/tt_rules_en.pdf

That makes sense, we had been revealing destination cards as we went along!

You're also not required to pick up new destination cards when you complete your existing destinations.  It's perfectly legal to complete your first few destinations (or even ignore them, taking the penalty at the end of the game) and spend the rest of the game just buying long routes and/or blocking players.

In addition to the answer provided by Aether, the rules clearly state that a player must keep a minimum of two destination cards at the beginning of the game, out of the four that they are dealt.

Before taking their first turn, players must choose which Destination Tickets they will keep from among those they were initially dealt. Each player must keep a minimum of two tickets although they may keep more.

The number of destination cards dealt is stated earlier:

... shuffle the long routes, and randomly deal one to each player. Put any remaining long routes back in the game box without letting anyone see them.
Now shuffle the regular Destination Tickets - all short routes with a plain background -, deal three to each player, and place the remainder in a draw pile face down, next to the board.

By now each player should have 4 cards. Since destination cards cannot be discarded, it is not possible for anyone to remain without them at any point in the game.


text:
Games that have no element of luck.
Most of my favourite games, such as Diplomacy, have little or no element of luck - either via dice rolls, hands dealt, or other methods.
What other games can you recommend that rely on 'skill' alone?
One game per answer, game name formatted as header and link to more information. Vote for your favourite if it exits already.

Of course, there are some positions in Diplomacy where there is some luck involved - e.g. where you are attacking an opponent and there are two possible sets of orders for each of you; you just have to guess what your opponent will choose.  In those situations, it's random in the same way that rock-paper-scissors is random.  This is, of course, true of any imperfect-information game.

I came here to ask a similar question. Your question, however, is ambiguous: By "no element of luck" and "rely on skill alone", do you mean there is absolutely no chance involved at all? Or do you mean all players begin (or are affected by) equally random influences? To differentiate, Chess and Go are examples of the former, while Set is an example of the latter (all players access the same random board). To me, it would be helpful if the two were in separate questions.

@RichardG The "luck" you are talking about is a matter of semantics. Guessing at another player's hidden information is not "chance" as long as the generating process does not bring in random chance (unlike card games). Stratego is a good example of educated guessing with no random generation.

Anything involving rolling dice involves luck... Same with drawing cards. So the games you mention involve luck, possibly a lot of it.

agricola also has 0 to no luck involved.

Go
Go is an ancient game; at least 2500 years old, and possibly as old as 4500 or more. Originally from China, it is now most popular, and professionally played, in China, Japan, and Korea, though there are strong and growing amateur communities in Europe and the Americas.
Go is a simple, pure abstract strategy game, with no element of luck or hidden information. The rules are quire short and simple; the simplest expression of the basic rules is 10 sentences long, though rules that cover a few extra conventions for ending the game sooner and making scoring easier, and provide more detailed explanation, are a little longer.
Despite the simplicity of the rules, it is extremely strategically deep.
The starting player has a slight advantage in Go, which would give a slight luck-based advantage to who goes first, but because winning is based on total territory scored, you can even that advantage out by giving the second player a few extra points; generally somewhere between 5 and 8 extra points, with the number having drifted upwards a little in recent years as people have discovered that the original amount was still a bit too low.
One of the great features about Go is that it allows you to play handicapped games against strong or weaker players. By letting one player start with a few extra stones on the board, you can even out a difference in skill, and still have an interesting game even though one player is considerably stronger than the other. This is great for small clubs or tournaments, when you don't have enough players of roughly equal level to compete against each other; instead you can play handicap games, and everyone has a chance to win while playing at their own skill level.
Go is a beautiful game, with a great balance between whole board strategy and local tactical battles. It has been studied deeply for centuries, and new innovative ways of playing are always being discovered. In recent years, mathematical analysis of the endgame using the theory of surreal numbers has yielded insights that have helped even top professional players, who have devoted their life to learning the game, and have teacher lineages going back hundreds of years.
I could wax poetic about Go for hours, so I'll stop here, and invite you to check it out. The Wikipedia article gives a good overview, while Sensei's Library is a wiki devoted to Go. There are hundreds of books on Go, a manga and anime series about it, professional players and teachers, schools devoted to teaching young Go players, servers for online play, Go clubs all over the place, and more.

Chess
Is an obvious and longstanding game of skill alone.

I agree that chess is pretty close to pure skill, but whoever plays White does have a slight advantage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

@Scott, yes, but that advantage only really comes out at the highest levels.

@Scott Mitchell - additionally, in most play in which I have participated, colors are alternated between players on successive games

@warren: So who is the winner if everytime you play an opponent, whoever is white wins? :-)

@Scott Mitchell - if you're worried about the apparent advantage white has, then switching colors game to game means the "advantage" is evenly distributed. fwiw, I prefer to play black :)

Blokus
A personal favourite, You could try it online here.

And now... both links are dead. x(

blokus.com online game died in 2012/2013.  Try http://pentolla.com instead.

Or here https://lefun.fun/g/bloco (disclaimer I made it!)

Stratego
Stratego may seem like a slightly strange choice since each game involves a completely a hidden setup, but it's a setup entirely devised by the opponent with distinct strategies, counter-strategies and bluffs available. If there's an element of luck it's in trying to guess your opponent's approach to a setup, but there are no dice rolls for combat or drawing of positions involved. First-move advantage is also minimal, and certainly seems less important than in chess.

That is not entirely true.  The position could arise where a player has to make a choice to attack one of 2 or 3 different opponents pieces.  Depending on the choice made can easily affect the outcome of the game for better or worse, with no possible way of making a better decision.  There is an element of luck in any imperfect information game, although chance elements for the game force it to involve luck, not having chance does not stop it from involving luck.

That's where the lower ranked pieces come into play - to probe the opponent's position. Throwing valuable pieces onto unknown forces definitely comes under the heading of "sub-optimal play" and not "bad luck". To be ultra-contrarian, it's possible to say that in Diplomacy a player is often "guessing" whether an opponent will honour an agreement or not.

Unless a proof can be formulated to show that there is some magically and always best starting state, which would result in both players knowing where every piece on the board is, then the opponents position is much like the drawing of cards, and one person will have a calculable advantage over the other player.  That doesn't mean that player will always win that game, but it does inject a small element of luck into the game.

Interesting point, although I actually think the opposite proof would be needed: is it impossible to derive sufficient knowledge of the opponent's position through tactical sacrifice of your own pieces? If it is impossible, then luck is needed to win. But more simply, I could see your contrarianism and re-raise you and posit that I'm unlucky because I was born bad at Diplomacy, and therefore Diplomacy involves luck.

That is also an interesting point, but slightly off the mark.  I would say that being born bad at Diplomacy did involve luck, but not the game itself as a result thereof.  However, the rules of Stratego involve luck in the manner I have suggested.  I agree there is much skill in Stratego, so much in fact that I would consider it a game of skill, but just like poker, also a game of skill, it does involve luck due to the rules.

-1 Nick is correct, any imperfect-knowledge game has an element of luck, since you have to guess at the parts you don't know.  Of course, there may also be an element of skill (see poker), but that doesn't mean it's entirely a game of skill.

I disagree with the claim that imperfect knowledge introduces luck to Stratego. Placing your troops at the beginning of the game is part (quite possibly the most important part) of the game, and optimal placement of those pieces is a skill. Luck depends on chance by its very definition, and Stratego has no element of chance.

@Andrew: to take an extreme case, wouldn’t you agree that Paper Scissors Rock has an element of luck?  It again has no “pure chance” — everything that happens is determined by players’ choices.  The combination of imperfect information and symmetry among options is what makes it effectively a matter of luck.  Few sophisticated games ever exhibit such perfect symmetry, but many come close at times.

I disagree that any game where you are playing against the other player's decisions involves luck in the slightest - imperfect information is an element of a game but it is NOT an element of luck - it is a reflection of the skill of the other player in disguising their moves. But much of Stratego is a matter of how you choose to set up and how over the course of the game what you have to reveal to the other player (and in turn what she or he reveals to you) gives you insights into what may remain in play. i.e. is that unmoved piece a bomb or a flag or a bluff?

Re: Paper Scissors Rock; If I play randomly I am introducing chance into the game. Likewise, if I randomly place my pieces in Stratego I am introducing chance into the game. Unlike in games with open information, my opponent is unable to account for this chance. The point: Stratego can have luck but it doesn't necessarily have luck.

Chiming in here with another minute variation of the points the previous three commenters made: I would say that what one might naively call chance in imperfect information games is really psychology - a very important element of such games. For example, there are important considerations of psychology in Rock, Paper, Scissors - even if your opponent is consciously trying to determine her next play at random. (This assumes that the players do not have access to true sources of randomness, such as dice, to create their strategies.)

@Erik Imagine a computer which plays optimally always, and gets to choose which side to play.  Is it possible to beat it?  If the game we're playing is chess, or go, or some other perfect-information game, the answer is no, because there is no luck involved.  In Stratego, the answer is yes - by trying different strategies, you will eventually beat it.  It has nothing to do with "psychology" (we're playing a computer); it's just luck.

Stratego is as much "luck"-based as diplomacy - in diplomacy you also have hidden information - namely the moves of the other players for this round, if you guess wrong where a player might move, you can lose the game to a wrong guess, which is the same "chance" of picking the wrong piece in stratego

Puerto Rico
I can't say that there is no luck element at all in Puerto Rico, but it is definitely extremely low. The game involves selecting roles to perform actions. Each person will perform the chosen action, but the actual chooser gets a bonus for it. The main theme is developing plantations to grow crops, and then shipping these goods off for victory points.
The only luck elements I can see in the game are the 5 random crops that are available to plant during a planting phase, and possibly the turn order. If you the skill level of the people playing is drastically different, then sometimes the person you are sitting next to and what role they choose can greatly affect your strategy.

+1 - One of the best boardgames ever made, and the element of luck is negligible. (I think the only thing that uses luck is if you choose a very specific ability that makes you draw a random plantation instead of one of the current set. Of course it's your choice to purchase this ability.)

Also, I don't agree that the random crops involve luck. Sure, they are random, but you get to choose which one you want.

You get to choose from what remains. It adds a small but measurable amount of luck, in my opinion. I say this especially having been burned a few times. :)

Chinese Checkers

In the same vein as Checkers, but popular and distinct enough I felt it warranted its own post.

Reversi/Othello
The initial board position is fixed, pieces to be played are controlled, and the object is to have more of your color upright than the other player.

There's a style of game that Chess belongs to, as Jon already suggested, to which Go and Shogi and Checkers and Halma also belong. Modern family members are Khet and ZÈRTZ and I think most other members of the GIPF project. These games have in common that, other than in Diplomacy where you have the written orders, all information is openly visible - except of course the secret plans plotted by your opponent. They are also all fairly abstract games, in that they do not pretend to model any aspect of the real world.

You should throw Shogi in there as well while you're talking about Chess and Go.

Homeworlds
Homeworlds is an Icehouse game about space conquest. In the multi-player game, there is hidden information about who is good and who is evil, and thus there is a certain element of luck in your guess about who is who. In the two player game, however, there is no luck; it is a pure abstract strategy game.
To quote Andy Looney on Homeworlds:

I really like John Cooper's Icehouse game, Homeworlds. I think it's one of the very best Icehouse games we currently have. It's elegant and exciting, it looks great on the table, it's different every time, the theme rocks, and it makes excellent use of the pyramids. One of my criteria for a perfect Icehouse game is that it offer deep strategy while using little or no equipment other than the pyramids, especially including using the table itself as a featureless gameboard. Homeworlds is a perfect Icehouse game.
...
Where Chess is an abstract pure strategy game representing medieval warfare between kings, Homeworlds is an abstract pure strategy game representing interstellar warfare between planets. In both games, complicated forces have been reduced to elegant icons, but where Chess is played on a restrictive, 64-square grid, Homeworlds creates a free-form, dynamic space-map out of any plain surface.
Whereas Chess was a game played by Renaissance Kings, Homeworlds is a game for Starship Captains.

Yay, Binary Homeworlds is a superb two-player game with no chance whatsoever. One of my favourites.

This game is excellent, play it at http://www.superdupergames.com.

Caylus
The only random element within Caylus is the initial 6 buildings setup order. The rest of the game is pure skill. As with the Endeavor answer, there is a very very small advantage that may be had by going first with order of the buildings, but I think this adds more variety and skill to the game rather than luck.

Agricola (the Family Game, without the random hands of Occupation and Minor Improvement cards) is nearly as un-random as Caylus.  (Is the same true of Le Havre?  I can't recall off the top of my head.)  I like the fact that you can play Agricola as a nearly deterministic game, and then add layers of extra randomness according to taste...

Connect Four
The object is to get four of your color in a row horizontally, vertically, or diagonally. No luck - just pure skill against the other player.

I believe Connect Four is a solved game. In that sense, the only skill there is is to memorize the solution.

@corsiKa - checkers is "solved", too: doesn't mean you can't still win or lose. Memorizing all the possible solutions is crazy

Set
No luck at all, just plain skill.

Never got into this game, but for those interested in learning more about it (before buying) you can practice / play for free online @ http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Set

It's a great game, but resist the urge to play a second game of it right away. You may suffer brain damage.

Umm... the cards that displayed are drawn at random, right? It may be the same for all players, but it would still count as luck to me.

There is a random element, but no real luck unless you're comparing your score across games.  The real difference is that the outcome of a single game doesn't depend on the randomness.

The only aspect of luck I would see in this game would be "I'm good at identifying sets of colors, but not identifying sets of shapes. It's unlucky for me to get board configurations where the correct sets are shapes." So in that sense it could be considered luck, but I would simply consider that a deficiency in skill.

It would be the same amount of luck as rolling a dice to see how many chess games we will play against each other. "aww - 6 games in a row? I'm not good at this"

Icehouse
Seeing as Brian added Go, I'll get ahead of him on Icehouse for once.  A turnless game of pure skill and diplomacy.  (Also consider IceTowers and Zendo, which use the same pieces.)

Mastermind
I suppose it could be argued that a first guess that is "right" would be lucky, but it should be a game of logic based upon guesses leading to a pattern match against the hidden sequence of pegs setup by the other player.

Extra hardcore bonus to those players who allow the lack of a peg to be considered a valid possibility.

@Zoot - is there any other way to play? =D

In the original game Bulls and Cows, from which Mastermind was derived, there are 10 possibilities: the decimal digits.

Rumis (aka Blokus 3D)
Like Blokus, no luck; an advantage to going first (more so than in Blokus), but a great game of strategy with simple rules but very interesting consequences.

A Game of Thrones
To my knowledge the game has only 1 random event - flipping the Westeros cards.  This randomness can be nearly entlrely removed via the optional "Westeros Phase" rule variant in the A Clash of Kings expansion (which allows you to see the results of the random card flip several turns in advance).
Aside from the Westeros cards, everything is based on player skill. Games regularly feature numerous epic staredowns and healthy backstabbing.
This game is based on Diplomacy (and in my opinion is much better).  If you like Diplomacy you will probably love this one.

Endeavor
I also prefer games that have little to no randomness. One of the best ones I've come across lately is Endeavor. Other than the initial tile distribution (which isn't tremendously significant, just changes it up a bit), there's no randomness at all. One of my favorite games right now.

I think the initial tile distribution is very significant.  The first players to go will be able to grab the advantageous tiles, and will be able to set themselves up better.  Which isn't to say it's a bad game, you just have to understand that going in.

I disagree. I think going first offers a very slight advantage at best. But, it's pretty hard to find a game where that isn't true.

Steam
The only luck element is the initial distribution of goods, but it's shared by everybody equally and I think it helps replayability. Also the initial turn order used to auction the real first turn order. After that it's all there on the table, no more luck!
Age of Steam has much more luck, with semi-random goods going to the cities during the game.

Besides the ones already mentioned:

The rest of the Project Gipf Games: (besides Dvonn) Gipf, Tzaar, Zertz, Punct, and Yinsh (all awesome, by the way)
Hive
Abalone
Did someone say Mancala yet?

Arimaa
I've never played it myself, but it's supposedly more complex than chess is, though it probably suffers from the first turn advantage issue.

Actually it doesn't, at least not half as much as chess does. Since the players who goes first sets up their pieces before the second players, the advantage of going first is nicely combatted by the advantage of reacting to your opponents set up. Amazing game, with incredible deep strategy and huge numbers of possibilities. :D

It may be important to clarify that it is more complex in the computational sense.  I do not think it is necessarily harder for a beginniner to learn or play than chess is.

Crokinole
A dexterity game.

Just to clarify, this is a dexterity game.

@Don Kirkby edited, it was lost in translation.

Mancala has no luck. Some might debate that if you are using irregular sized pieces and don't keep strict track of how many stones are in each space there is luck in picking the right space to "move". However I'm not sure that applies, as it is simply a matter of counting to keep track the quantities of stone and the entire game state...

Maharaja has no random elements.

This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post.

@Tom Au: does your comment apply to this response?

Yes. Besides linking to the game, you don't explain how and why Maharaja has no random elements.

18xx
The only randomness is seating order.  Utterly brilliant games.

*Star
A strategy game that looks good too!

Try replacing the * with %2A in the URL.

khet
fits the bill it is very chess like
I actually prefer it to chess because, although it is simpler in many ways, each player has the ability to move their opponents pieces making some interesting strategies possible.

Chess, with fricken laser beams? Sold!

Sleuth
A deduction game that uses cards, but they have small impact on the game, since you usually have plays that will be useful, and when you don't you can trade them all in.

DVONN
I haven't played the other Project GIPF games, but DVONN reminds me of a variation of chinese checkers -- but each time you move a piece, you affect how it can later move.  You also sometimes sacrifice some of your pieces to take out the opponents pieces by disconnecting from the red DVONN pieces.
Um ... this explanation is probably more confusing than helping make the case, though.

Full Métal Planète
Wargame reimagined by boardgame designers! Combat involves absolutely no luck: Two attackers will clean out any enemy piece, no questions asked.
There is one small element of luck though: The tide, which impacts the board layout. However as long as you keep your weather-predicting piece, you know the tide for the next turn, so this mitigates luck down to almost nothing.

No Dice has no luck as one of it's selling points.

Antike
Another Civ-lite game. Battle is handled by removing troops one after another, and a lot of it is guessing what the other players are going for, and trying to beat them to the punch.

Love Antike. The only luck is what empire you start with; if they were perfectly balanced it wouldn't matter, but there's a small element of luck there.

La Strada
It's got a great diversity of initial setups, but once the game starts there's no chance at all.

Martian Chess is another Icehouse game with no element of luck.  It's not as deep as some of the other assorted games mentioned, but since I prefer light games that doesn't bother me. ;)

There are many games that have just a tiny bit of luck, but zero-luck games are hard to come by (most are probably already listed here). I wouldn't be so quick to label games as no-luck just because they have no dice or cards though.  If a game is more than 2 players, one player could wind up benefiting greatly if the actions of other players are not focused at them.  For instance, if Players 1 & 2 wind up ganging up on Player 3, they could create a runaway leader in Player 4.  Would you say Player 4 was the benefit of some luck, having not been chosen as the target of these attacks?  Or would you say then simply made their obvious optimal moves in the face of unskilled play by Players 1 & 2?  I view the actions of an unskilled player as an element of luck, since at times they could be making decisions seemingly on a random basis.

That's probably true, but I think most folks here have interpreted no luck to mean games without stochastic, game-intrinsic random events that influence the outcome. The inpredictability of other players doesn't seem to be the intent of the question--even if that inpredictability is capricious rather than strategized. For example, if I manage to beat Gary Kasparov at a game of chess because last night he suffered a concussion after slipping in the shower then by all accounts I won because of luck, but the game--chess--is still considered a no luck game.

Blam!
A fun little piece-placing, abstract, unit management game...  No luck.  No hidden knowledge.
You'll want one Icehouse stash per player.  Two to four players.
Rules online: http://www.invisible-city.com/play/29/blam
Asynchronous, online, at SuperDuper Games: http://superdupergames.org/main.html?page=listgames#blam

Easter Island
Two player abstract strategy game with no element of luck.

Nice suggestion, reminds me of Khet

Genesis
A bit of randomness in the startup. Pieces are placed in the order of oldest first and he/she is the one who starts the game. After that you make your move in clockwise order. The first player marker moves every round creating a supprising new level of strategy where you also needs to consider at what point in the current and the next turn you will make your move.

Terrace
From the wikipedia write-up:

Terrace is an award-winning strategy game played by two, three, or four players on a multi-leveled 8×8 (or, more recently, 6×6) board. It is most widely known for also being a prop in the American television series Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Dungeon Twister
An unusual 2-player dungeon-crawl game.  Some luck in the initial setup (the board is random), but pure skill once the game starts.  Looks like Descent, but plays nothing like it - it's a game of positional advantage and smart maneuver.  Has a simple and effective handicap system - which is needed, as experience pays off in a big way.

Axis and Allies Chess
Years ago there used to be whole websites devoted to describing the rules to Axis and Allies chess, which is a no-luck version of the popular board game, but Google seems unable to find the rule set I remember, which I think was originally developed by the A&A club at MIT.
The basic modification from the standard game is to replace rolling with a deterministic combat model. The standard model is to roll one die per unit and score hits against a unit specific threshold (i.e. an attacking tank hits on a 3+). In A&A Chess, the attacking or defending values are summed and divided by 6. Remainders of 4 or less are discarded and remainders of 5 or considered hits. For example, four attacking infantry can't do any damage, but two tanks result in one casualty.
Although theoretically this model would enable a player to work out a complex combat round in their head, this is impractical: first, it's too much math to keep in your head for multi-round combat; second, you don't know how the enemy will respond to taking casualties and/or if they will retreat (if attacking).
Anti-aircraft guns are resolved by the same rules: meaning an AA gun is ineffective against 4 or less aircraft attacking at once, but will automatically record (at least) one hit against 5 or more.
Typically chess does away with tech research, but it would be easy to set a price for each technology.

+1 for a variation of A&A I hadn't heard of - could you expand here: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2111/axis-allies-chess

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


text:
Sunrise versus "Summon Eclipse" in Buffy the Vampire Slayer
The Sunrise rule states:

When the talisman moves to the Sunrise, all vampires that are outside must immediately move to the closest indoor space.

The "Summon Eclipse" card states:

Move the Phase Talisman to the first New Moon space.

If the Talisman has to move past the Sunrise space to get to the first New Moon space, does this trigger Sunrise?
I say, "No", since you're moving the Talisman to the first New Moon space (effectively skipping over the Sunrise space), but others in our group insist it does in fact trigger "Sunrise", since they argue you move the Talisman forward (and through Sunrise) to the first New Moon space.

No need to be so defensive! :)

Is this for Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Game or Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Board Game? To make things more confusing, both were published in 2000 by different companies.

Going off of this version of the rules.

If the Sunrise space is moved past in
one turn, these effects still take
place.

It sounds like the token always advances, and passing through the Sunrise space is sufficient to trigger the vampire actions.

I guess I look at it more as "Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" sense of "Move the talisman to the first new space".  I guess for my interpretation to work, it would have to say something like "Place the Talisman on the first new space" or explicitly state that sunrise is ignored.

@LittleBobbyTables - Its definitely not clear cut, but this is the way I read the rules coming to the game cold.  I suppose if it horribly unbalances the game you can make a case for the alternative.

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


text:
What is the name of the following chess opening? What are its pros and cons?
At some point, when I was young, I learned an opening that involves the following moves: possibly after moving queen's pawn to the centre (d4), move out king's knight to above the bishop (Nf3), move knight's pawn up one (g3), move bishop up behind knight's pawn (Bg2), castle on king's side (O-O).  This results in a very tight and turtle-like defensive formation that was sufficiently aesthetically pleasing to my young self that, in the years since, I've found it quite hard to get out of the habit of using it as my opening.  (I'm not a chess expert in any way, I hasten to point out if it's not already obvious, though I do usually beat other casual players.)

Is this a well-known opening and does it have a name?  Given my apparent overwhelming predilection for playing it, what are its advantages, and what weaknesses does it have that I should watch for my opponent being able to exploit?  Any recommendations for taking my opening game to the next level would also be appreciated!

See also: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/616/in-chess-what-is-the-queens-or-kings-indian

I'm wondering if someone who knows about chess nomenclature would be willing to edit the above question to include the official notation of the move. I think a picture showing the position of the critical pieces after the opening would be useful.

Moving your bishop like that is called a fianchetto.  There are a lot of openings which fianchetto the king's bishop; what you are describing sounds somewhat like the King's Indian for white.
The advantage of fianchetto-ing your bishop is that it very quickly puts the bishop on the long diagonal, its most powerful position.  However, it takes two moves, and weakens your kingside (specifically the f3 and h3 squares), giving your opponent potential areas to attack.  For example, a common plan for black in many openings (if his pawn structure allows it) is to force the trade of bishops by Bd7, Qc8, and Bh3.  Once the bishops are traded, your king would be very vulnerable to attack.
Traditionally (beginning with Steinitz), it was taught that one of the goals of the opening phase was to control the center by occupying it with pawns.  However, Nimzovich introduced hypermodernism, which states that the center should be controlled from a distance by pieces, not occupied by pawns.  Neither view is more correct than the other - even today, both have very strong Grandmaster supporters, and accepted opening theory draws from both sides.  I mention this because yours is a hypermodern opening.

This is NOT a King's Indian Attack, because d4 has been played.  In the KIA, white plays d3 and e4, not d4.
The classification of an opening requires moves from both sides, not just white.  For example:

This position, which arises after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b5 4.Bg2 Bb7 is sometimes called the Romanishin System.  But it is only a Romanishin System if Black has played ...Nf6 and ...e6.  The Romanishin System is mostly just a sneaky attempt to get into a Catalan while avoiding some of Black's sharper replies, which is why Black plays ...b5 to restrict White from playing c4.
Or, there is this position:

This is a Dutch Defence, because Black has played ...f5.  If Black meets 1.d4 with ...f5, it's considered a Dutch Defence regardless of how White then proceeds.
So, you see, Black's replies are quite often important in classifying the opening.
As to whether it is good or not - that rather depends on Black's replies.  Against the Dutch Defence, for instance, this would be the main line, but against a slav-style setup with ...c6 and ...d5, it would be considered rather innocuous.

That would be the King's Indian Attack.  It's been always considered to be a good opening.
It's like the King's Indian Defense, but with an extra tempo for White, and can transpose to many other openings.
You can see most of the popular openings here.

A "hypermodern" opening... regarded as "highly suspect" until the 1930s!  Crikey!  One further question: that article seems to take it as read that the King's Indian player is black.  Would it therefore be considered really bizarre to play a similar sequence of moves as white?  Because (not being a very deep chess thinker) I've never made much of a distinction between playing it as white or black.

@thesunneversets, yes, as BlueRaja points out, there is a King's Indian for white.

And this is neither the Kings Indian Defense nor Attach. If you  play the pawn to d4, you have a structure called the Catalan(ian) Opening. Black could response with the KID, but there are better replies.

@dwo, my answer was based on the original question which didn't specify color.  It has since been modified to be from white's side, so it's the Kings Indian Attack now.  It's not the Catalan, because you don't see an early e4 in that line.  Thanks for the bump, I've edited my answer.

With d4 (or d5 as black) played it can hardly qualify as a KID.


text:
Paying with property wild cards, can they be placed anywhere?
In Monopoly Deal, when paying rent with a property wild card, can the opponent receiving the card place it anywhere in their property collection?

Yes. Property cards - including wild cards - can be arranged however the receiving player sees fit, at any point during their turn. For two-colour wildcards, there is no restriction that these have to remain in the orientation that they were originally played.
Note that ten-colour wildcards have zero monetary value so should not be used to pay rent -see Property FAQ points 3 and 4 on monopolydealrules.com.


text:
In Monopoly, can you save an 'advance' card to use later?
Playing with friends, and they give me this rule I've never heard of before, can't find any info.
They say you can save an 'advance token' card (like a go to jail card) to use at any time.
Their reasoning is because it says 'advance token' instead of 'advance to', even though it says 'advance token to'.
Is this legitimate?

Do you mean a community chest or chance card?

FWIW, this does seem like one of the less game-breaking house rules I've heard of, but it is a house rule.

Do your friends realise that the card isn't an "advance token", but instead is instructing the player to advance their token (i.e. playing piece) to the stated location?

@AndyT Ah, brilliant observation. I hadn't noticed the confusion that might arise from the parallel to, for example, token cards from Magic: The Gathering.

No. Cards are resolved when drawn (except for Get Out Of Jail, by explicit card text).

CHANCE AND COMMUNITY CHEST
When you land on either of these spaces, take the top card from the deck indicated, follow the instructions and return the card face down to the bottom of the deck. The "Get Out of Jail Free" card is held until used and then returned to the bottom of the deck.

Source : Hasbro - Rules of Monopoly
The wording choice of "advance token to" versus "advance to" is a distinction without a difference: the token in question is the player's playing piece, i.e., the pawn: top hat, shoe, racecar, whatever.
In the case of cards that say to advance your token, you must advance your token to the designated space when the card is drawn.


text:
Does Vela the Night-Clad’s effect affect creature tokens?
I was going to cast Vela the Night-Clad after I had a bunch of creature tokens to cause them to have intimidate.
Would this work the way I expect, or does the effect not apply to them?

Vela's text says

Other creatures you control have intimidate.

Creature tokens are creatures, so yes, Vela will give intimidate to creature tokens you control. (Except for itself, of course, if your Vela happens to be a token - but it has intimidate anyway so that doesn't matter.)
If the ability weren't supposed to apply to tokens, it would say "Other nontoken creatures you control have intimidate."


text:
What is the intended goal of Level 5-3, in the Kremlin?
When playing Level 5-3 (Kremlin) we have to uncover enemy spies. We guess it has something to do with the US flag on top of the Hamburger, but we do not understand what to do.
We tried to poison them, no effect, we took a photo when the burger was there, also no result. We understand this is some kind of a puzzle, but we do not get it.
What exactly are we meant to do in this mission?

I'm voting to close because it's not clear what game this question is about, and I strongly suspect it's actually a video game from the nature of the problem being described.

@doppelgreener It sounds like this is a hybrid table-top and mobile game that involves scanning cards into an app with your phone's camera.

@nick012000 it is a coop card game, but comes with a companion app which handles the point counting and tells about the slightly changing rules from round to round. also it contains kind of an interactive color-wheel. It is definitively not a video game, have a look https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/260407/soviet-kitchen-unleashed

We were blocked too but we found the answer thanks to your remark. You have to poison only your ennemies with the two American burgers, not the other meals.
Have a good game


text:
Not noticing that you have a sequence
If a player does not realize he made a sequence for a complete round of plays, can the next player play a one-eyed jack and remove one of the chips in that sequence, thereby undoing the Sequence?

No, you cannot remove a sequence.
Rules:

You cannot remove a marker chip that is already part of a completed SEQUENCE. Once a SEQUENCE is achieved by a player or a team, it cannot be broken.

Note that it doesn’t mention anything about noticing or declaring that you made a sequence. There is no requirement to announce or declare that you have made a sequence.


text:
Are armies supposed to be limited by available plastic units?
During our first playthrough of this game we found that some of the plastic units in the game are very limited, based on the mustering capacity for various houses.
For instance, each house only has 2 plastic units for Siege Towers. When mustering, does this mean that a player's armies are limited to 2 siege towers in total, or just that the player needs additional tokens of some kind to identify them?
I can see both arguments. I can see an argument that units in the world are a finite resource, but I can also see a possibility that this is just a limit in the number of pieces provided and as long as players can track their armies and their armies conform to the supply rules they can have any composition they have the mustering capacity to create.

Armies ARE limited by the available plastic units
According to the rulebook for Game of Thrones Second Edition page 9 (emphasis mine):
A mustered unit is taken from its player’s unused units, and placed directly into the area of the Castle or Stronghold that  provided the mustering point(s) to muster it.
Because you must take the unit from your unused units when mustering, if the token is not in your unused unit pile then you can't muster it. Thus you are limited to the tokens in the box.
EDIT: As pointed out by @user2357112 supports Monica, the rules explicitly state you cannot use additional components on page 4:
Exceeding the Components Provided: Each House is provided a limited of units, tokens, and cards. If a player is using all his components of a particular type, he may not bring additional components of that type into play. Units that are destroyed in combat (or removed from the board for any other reason) are available to be mustered again.

Thank you so much for the wonderful clarification of that rule!!

More direct statement (from page 3): "Exceeding the Components Provided: Each house is provided a limited number of units, tokens, and cards. If a player is using all his components of a particular type, he may not bring additional components of that type into play. Units that are destroyed in combat (or removed from the board for any other reason) are available to be mustered again."

Didn't notice that @user2357112 . I'll add it to my answer for completeness.


text:
Does Vagabond gain points when using Ambush card against hostile in Root
When Vagabond is hostile with another player and uses an ambush card against them, does Vagabond gain Infamy points?
Rule:

Infamy: Score one extra victory point for each piece of a Hostile faction you remove in battle during your turn, except the warrior that made the faction Hostile. (Add this to points scored for enemy buildings and tokens.)

No, the vagabond does not score victory points for infamy, since in order to score they need to remove hostile faction warriors in battle during the vagabond's turn. The ambush card normally does not allow to do that.
However if a vagrant uses their special "Instigate" action to make a hostile opponent attack them on vagrant's turn and play ambush during that battle, the vagabond will score victory points for infamy, if pieces are removed by ambush.


text:
In Rummikub, Is it possible to change the location of a joker inside a meld?
In Rummikub, assume there is a Run of Joker, R4, R5 on the board.  Is it possible to move the joker to the other end of the run and to add a R7? So the new Run is R4, R5, Joker, R7.

Please do not use codeblocks for anything that is not actual code. This seems to be something you'd be aware of, but now certainly should be. @Cohensius

@Nij, I did not know that preformatted text is reserved only for actual code.  I mean, on Stack overflow i would not use it anything but code but here at Board & Card Games that could improve readability (in my opinion).

It actively interferes with accessibility. We already have emphasis and strong emphasis, and table formatting. Please don't make life harder for people.

The answer depends on the version of the rules are being played.
The older Pressman Toys rules require matching both the color and number of the tile represented by the joker.

On future turns, a joker can be retrieved from a set on the
table by a player who can replace it during his/her turn with a tile of the same number and color the joker
represents.

Where the newer rules from 2019 for the joker state

a joker can be retrieved from a set on the table
by a player who can replace it during his/her turn with any tiles that can keep the set legitimate.

So as long as the set remains legitimate after you have manipulated the tiles you can reclaim the joker.
This is further reinforced by example (3.) from the rules, where a B8 Joker is reclaimed by a B5 tile

I remember that this rule has been changed several times though the reeditions of Rummikub, so if the OP is playing with an older box and checks their ruleset, they might find the exact opposite of your answer.

interesting, it looks like there are 3 main rules variants, but only two options for joker replacement rules.


text:
What happens if you give Defiant Bloodlord Lifelink? Infinite Health/Damage?
What would happen if you cast a spell like Grotesque Mutation on Defiant Bloodlord, then gain life from one source or another?
Theoretically, he would then deal X damage (where X is the triggering life) to target opponent (from his ability), which would cause the player to heal X life (lifelink), which would cause him to deal X damage to target player, etc.
Am I missing something?

This does not work as an infinite combo because "damage" is not the same as "loss of life". Lifelink only happens when damage is dealt, and Defiant Bloodlord doesn't damage an opponent when you gain life.
See the question here for a very similar combo that does work like you're thinking:
Is Sanguine Bond + Exquisite Blood a potential game ender?
Because Exquisite Blood triggers whenever an opponent loses life, as opposed to Lifelink which has to do with damage dealt, it will cause a loop of triggers until your opponent loses the game. (Defiant Bloodlord could be used instead of Sanguine Bond in that combo).
The official rules on Lifelink:

702.15b Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much life (in addition to any other results that damage causes).

So Lifelink just changes the results of damage; it does not trigger on life being lost.

So, Defiant Bloodlord's ability does not could as dealing damage, and thus doesn't trigger lifelink? Ok, that makes sense.

@PatrickvD that is correct. Damage generally causes loss of life (though now always with things like wither and infect), but loss of life doesn't cause damage

This is a case of all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs. Damage does cause life loss so it does work the other way around