text:
What happens when a creature with "Whenever a creature dies" dies simultaneously with multiple other creatures?
Marchesa, the Black Rose has the following ability:

Whenever a creature you control with a +1/+1 counter on it dies, return that card to the battlefield under your control at the beginning of the next end step.

I had a number of creatures on the battlefield, including Marchesa herself, with one or more +1/+1 counters on them when Supreme Verdict was played, destroying each creature on the board.
When Marchesa and several other creatures would be killed simultaneously,

Does Marchesa's ability trigger for herself?

Does Marchesa's ability trigger for the other creatures under my control with +1/+1 counters?

In attempting to resolve the issue, we tried to look things up, leading to this forum post, which cites Rule 603.6d (now 603.6c) as proving that Marchesa's ability should trigger both for herself and for each other creature with +1/+1 counters.
Unfortunately, none of us could actually understand Rule 603.6d, aside from this example:

Two creatures are on the battlefield along with an artifact that has the ability Whenever a creature dies, you gain 1 life. Someone plays a spell that destroys all artifacts, creatures, and enchantments. The artifacts ability triggers twice, even though the artifact goes to its owners graveyard at the same time as the creatures.

The example certainly seems analogous to me, but without understanding the actual rule, rather than just the example, we weren't too sure.
A complete answer has to not only answer the question, but back up that answer with citation and explanation of the official rules on the matter.

For what it's worth, you're also right that it makes no difference whether it's an artifact or a creature with the ability.

Removed comments regarding title change.

I am rolling this question's title back to just be about Marchesa because we now have a much simpler and easier to follow canon question available on this issue that doesn't involve so much mechanical complexity: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/22658/5573. With that being the case, this question can afford to just be about Marchesa and her specifics.

@doppelgreener The mechanic "Whenever a creature dies" is not specific to Marchesa. Hundreds of other cards have the exact same trigger condition. We've already had this discussion, a mod nuked the comments, and there is absolutely no reason to start it again.

@Rainbolt Man, I know, did you read my comment? It had the reason. The situation's changed; I'm not trying to rehash the same thing. I'm taking this to meta: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/1257/5573

@doppelgreener The situation has changed, but I think you still need to relate that to why the title of the question deserves to be changed. It does not automatically follow that every time a canon question is introduced, we should narrow the scope on the titles of all older questions. Also, mind the courteousness of your responses. (i.e. Don't respond with a condescending "Man, I know, did you read my comment?".)

@Rainbolt Mocking me isn't going to get you anywhere. I consider the earlier title to be better fitting because it describes this question and its specifics uniquely, but was satisfied with letting the genericised one stay whilst it was treated as a canon question. Apparently, you will roll back any change I make here, so whilst I consider it a loss, I'm not going to bother.

Yes, Marchesa's ability will save herself if she dies with a +1/+1 counter, along with other creatures who died at the same time as her that had a +1/+1 counter. You are correct that rule 603.6d is the reason for this.
Basically, 603.6d says the in normal circumstances, whenever something changes, all objects that now exist are checked to see if any of them trigger. BUT, it says that leaves-the-battlefield triggers work differently. With leaves-the-battlefield triggers, the game must look at what the gamestate was like just before the event took place to see if the event caused any triggers to go off.
In this case, after all creatures die, the game checks to see what things were like just before they died. And now that the game is looking back in time, to just before the event happened, it sees Marchesa as an object that has a triggered ability that should trigger as a result of this event; in fact one that should trigger multiple times, once for each creature with a +1/+1 counter that died.
Hope this clears it up!
603.6c is how you know that "dies" triggers count as "leaves-the-battlefield" abilities:

603.6c Leaves-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent moves from the battlefield to another zone, or when a phased-in permanent leaves the game because its owner leaves the game. These are written as, but arent limited to, "When [this object] leaves the battlefield, . . ." or "Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, . . . ." An ability that attempts to do something to the card that left the battlefield checks for it only in the first zone that it went to. An ability that triggers when a card is put into a certain zone "from anywhere" is never treated as a leaves-the-battlefield ability, even if an object is put into that zone from the battlefield.

(Note that "dies" means "Whenever [something] is put into a graveyard from the battlefield".)

603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like. However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially. Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event rather than afterward. The game has to "look back in time" to determine if these abilities trigger.

So Marchesa would still die if she didn't already have a +1/+1 counter on it. The third paragraph confused me.

@CeesTimmerman, Marchesa dies either way. If she didn't have a +1/+1 counter, she would stay dead. If she did have a +1/+1 counter, she would return to the battlefield at the beginning of the next end step.

@GendoIkari And of course, it's a completely new object that returns, so in some sense "she" doesn't return, a new Marchesa enters the battlefield that happens to be represented by the same card.


text:
Can a player redirect his attack if the defending player concedes?
The situation: Player A has 1 life and several lifelink creatures adding up to 100 power. He swings at player B who has no defenders, planning to gain 100 life. Player B concedes. Without a valid defending player, player A can gain no life and has tapped all his creatures, and so player C can swing with a 2/2 and kill him.
Player A claims he can redirect his attack to player C after player B concedes.
Question: as per the official rules, can player A redirect his attack in response to player B conceding?
I already know the real answer is to play with sportsmanship in mind. In the specific example we were all having fun winding up player A, all done in good humour and would not be tolerated in a deliberately spiteful manner.
I was simply curious how the official rules would deal with it.

Strategic Tip: only attack with enough power to kill player B. You could also attack player C with the other creatures at the same time. when B concedes then you still get the lifelink from attacking C. But even then I would leave some blockers because a simple Fog or a Holy Day-like spell screws you in the same way.

Tangential to the actual question - I'd say this exposes a problem your group needs to address - some people (including it seems player A, in this case) don't like the concept of performing non-game actions to impact the game state. It might be just me, but I wouldn't want to play a game where tactical concessions such as this are accepted practice.

Agree with Patters. I personally would warn player B that this sort of thing would make me not want to play games with him in the future. The act he took didn't help increase his chances to win the game; so he shouldn't have taken it.

PS - Attacking doesn't target

Correct answer is what Gendolkari said. Spite in so far of casting spells to damage the board of the person killing you is fine; spite in scooping just so the person killing you loses an advantage they may have gained is rude.

I feel like I am the only one finding such a strategy interesting. Like you're in a tournament and you can still win if you because you have more points, unless that exact player wins. So, if my death can make them die too and lead me to win the tournament, I would do that for sure. There's nothing better than unexpected tactics when playing games.

@Morwenn I might agree with you if multi-player tournaments were more common, but the only 'common' 'competitive' multi-player tournaments I can think of are Conspiracy drafts (2HG doesn't count since if 1 player concedes their teammate loses too)

@Morwenn If you (and your friends) find kingmaking interesting, go for it. Everyone here is speaking for all the folks who find it frustrating, and they're totally right in that case.

Kingmaking rocks in my world.

Legal or not, I would find myself hard-pressed to ever play against a player that used a tactic like this to beat me. Using a mechanic like quitting the game against a player is un-sportsman-like. Each player should not play to the benefit of another competitive player. That sounds too much like hustling in my book.

I don't get why people get so upset about this, why would you want someone who is taking you out the game to profit. Also, in your scenario, the game would be over next turn and everyone could shuffle up and play again, whereas if you gained all that life, he could be sitting there for the next hour watching you two play it out.

Homerule: Players can only scoop on their turn, so if a player gets hooked with creatures and loses all his lifepoints because of that he can't scoop in reaction. Further: that would definitely be an unfair advantage to player C and as player B you're technically an asshole for giving the unfair advantage. After such a move if I was player A I wouldn't play with Player B anymore

No, they cannot change who they are attacking. Once a creature has been declared as an attacker you cannot change who (or what) it is attacking.
Say instead of attacking Player B directly you attack their Planeswalker, but before damage gets dealt they Boomerang the Planeswalker back to their hand. You would not be able to redirect your creatures attack to that player, they would just end up ineffectually attacking the air. It is the same thing when a player concedes, your attackers are still going attacking the one player even if they leave the game before the creatures deal damage.
There is also this rule that implies you can still have creatures attacking a player that is no longer in the game.

800.4e If combat damage would be assigned to a player who has left the game, that damage isn’t assigned.

IIRC I've seen a couple of rules that cover situations which are either impossible or sufficiently obscure that I can't figure out how they could happen. (I don't remember which ones.) So I don't think it's a good idea to take the presence of a rule describing situation X as evidence that situation X can actually occur.

Oh, and also it may or may not be worth mentioning that this seems to be a general principle in Magic: once you make a choice of any sort, the choice is locked in, and if it becomes invalid you don't get to change it.

Just confirming diego's answer since it's still waiting to be accepted: There's nothing in the rules giving you the option to change the attackee, and there's nothing in the rules giving you the option to rewind the game to a point before you declared attackers. Your choice has been made, and you must stick with it unless you have an instant or ability that can help you.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
In Citadels, when do characters get the extra gold from their colour?
In the Citadels one of the benefits of your characters is receiving extra gold from buildings of the same colour.  For example, each green building gives one extra gold to the merchant.
I am wondering; does this bonus start immediately at the beginning of your turn, or can one trigger the bonus at will?  In the last example it could be beneficial to build a new building before triggering the bonus so one gets an extra gold piece.
Also, do you have to trigger the whole ability at once or can you split it up?  This is especially important for the merchant who already gets 1 gold by default as special ability.

You can trigger the bonus before or after building. This means you can either build a building with your existing gold, then trigger the gold collection, OR trigger the gold collection, and use that gold to pay for a new building.
What you cannot do is gain some of the gold, build the building, and gain the extra gold from building that building.
To answer the edit, you always get the merchant's one gold before building.  You can still choose to take his 1 gold per green either before or after building.

This ability is called 'taxing'. You may do it once per turn (which means it can't be split up). You may tax before or after you build a district.

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


text:
Mechanic for secret actions in a card game
Is there a good mechanic for taking an anonymous action in a card game, specifically one that still moves resources?
For context, in one phase of this game, each player will give the target player a card. These are shuffled face-down and given to the target player, each having a certain effect on him.
I'd ideally like a way that a card could do something like steal gold (represented with tokens) without having to reveal who played that card.
I'm also trying to avoid too much of an honor system, so having someone just add gold to their own count by tracking with a pencil and paper isn't a great solution really.

Anonymous to whom? Say that player X is trying to steal a resource from player Y. I'm guessing based on your description that X knows about the transfer, since it doesn't sound like they are choosing actions blindly. Does Y know that an action is taking place, or will they not know about the resource being transferred until some later point? Is it acceptable that X and Y know about the transfer, but nobody else at the table knows about it?

A related question: what is the goal you are trying to achieve by shuffling the cards? To prevent Y from knowing that X was the one who is trying to steal the resource? Or to make it so that other players can't figure out each others' cards based on card order and such?

My intention is that everybody knows what happened to Player Y, but only Player X knows who did it. @MikeR is the only solution that accomplishes this, but some of the other answers are really interesting, and I might adjust my circles of knowledge.

I'll illustrate with a five-player example.  It is player A's turn.  Based on my reading, I am assuming the following things.  Are these assumptions correct?

Players B, C, D and E each play a card face down and give it to player A.
All cards are played simultaneously.
Player A does not know which player played which card.
Some cards may cause player A to lose resources to another player.

If the above are true, use the following arrangement and turn workflow.
Setup / components

Each player has a screen behind which they can keep their resources available for easy access, but hidden from others.
The game board will contain a number of spaces for playing cards face down. These places will be labeled with numbers.
Resources are the same size and shape, even for different denominations.
A number of opaque bags (with drawstrings for easy and quiet opening and closing) are available

Turn flow

Player A looks away from the board.
Players B, C, D, and E, each plays a card on one of the available spots on the board.
Once all cards are played, the player to A's left tells A that they have finished.
A looks back at the board.  A takes 1 card, reads it, and fills a bag with the required resources from behind his screen.  If the card does not cause a resource transfer, player A places a 0-resource token in the bag.  A replaces the bag where the card was.
A repeats the above step for each card.
A looks away from the board.
Each player takes the bag from the spot where they placed their card, and claims the resources from it.
Once all cards are played, the player to A's left tells A that they have finished.

Also note that this method can be modified to allow resource passing in both directions by putting the card and resources (including 0-resources token) in a bag on the first step and putting the bag directly on the board.

This generally works until someone makes a mistake.  If you were supposed to get 3 resources, and only got 2, you can't correct the mistake without giving up your anonymity.

This hits everything I was thinking of, nice job!

I was even intending to have Player Y reveal which actions happened to him, which made me originally think this wouldn't quite work, but on a closer read he can easily do this whithout revealing which card goes to which bag.

Thanks. I do think @bwarner raises a valid concern regarding the difficulty of resolving errors while remaining anonymous. I guess that can be resolved by officially having the active player remain turned until everyone has confirmed their transaction was correct. Experienced groups could assume correct transactions and proceed more quickly.

Depending on how long you'd want to be anonymous to the target player, and assuming every other player plays their cards anonymous at the same time you could do the following:

each player takes one bag from a set of colored bags (or alternatively card sleeves, or something similar) and puts their action card in it without making it obious to the target player which player used which color
put all bags in a single container (or just mix them together), then hand it to the target player
the target player now opens each bag, reads the card, acts according to the instructions given (such as "Put 4 Gold Pieces in this bag, you scallywag!") and puts the original card in the bag as well, then returns the bag and the possibly added contents to the container
after all bags are handled, the container is returned to the other players
each player then takes their bag and verifies it's contents using the card that was returned along with the "loot", and may protest at this point if that player didn't follow the instructions, using the returned card and the rest of the bag's contents as proof

This system has the following qualities:

minimal memorization is required - players only need to remember the cards they put into the bag, and only until they get it back
other players than the target player will know what bag color you've chosen, but because you can choose a different color each time, this isn't an issue (if a player always takes the same color of bag, that's their decision, and may even be used as a deception tactic)
even though the distribution is secret, all players can prove that they got out of the action what they should have, as until they move their loot back to their own goods, it will be united with the card that describes what should have been done
bags will be anonymous only until their contents are verified, so this is only useful at all if the cards you are able to play include choices, such as "Put 4 Gold Pieces in this bag, or discard a Crew Mate!"

You might be thinking that just like selecting the bag color secret from the target player, taking it back in secret would work just the same to make the whole process anonymous. Depending on your game, this may or may not be possible, but here are the issues I see with that:

it's much easier to handle the verification of bag contents when you don't have to hide it from a player, because if you do, chances are you won't be able to prove that you didn't modify the bag's contents until you show it
if you do have any objections about a bag's contents, you would have to reveal yourself either way. This could be an incentive for the targetted player to intentionally provide the wrong contents in order to find out who played a certain card (which could be a game mechanic on it's own, as that player possibly doesn't even want to reveal themselves, so the target player might get away with it)
excluding a player from gameplay is always fickle, so you would want to minimize the time that has to happen. Choosing a bag takes a few seconds at the most in a sensible play group, but opening bags, verifying contents, adding those contents to your stock in a way that doesn't make it obvious you just gained a pile of dubloons, then making sure everyone else is done as well and finally notifying the targetted player that they may continue participating in the game again sounds like it would take too much time.

Also, sorry for giving this a bit more of a pirate theme than I probably should have...

We posted nearly simultaneously with similar ideas.  I think taking the best elements of each makes a great solution.  Your use of differently-colored bags is more elegant than my use of a gameboard.  My inclusions of a screen to conceal resources and a 0-resource token speeds up gameplay and preserves anonymity.

@MikeR: Indeed! I tried to avoid secret elements as much as possible, which is why I tried to work with openly visible resources. Screens will make a lot of it easier indeed, yet fall under the same criticism from the lower-most list in my answer. Be that as it may, have my upvote.

This is a really great solution, I like that it can potentially obscure what happened to player Y from everyone else. Do you think there's a way to twist this so that everyone can know Y was stolen from, but only X knows who did it?

Might be too complicated, but maybe Y doesn't reveal which card came from/goes to which bag? Incorporating a screen like @MikeR s answer?

@Cain: The target player could reveal what each card says and not where it came from simply by keeping the rest of the bags (and the one from the current card) out of sight of the other players. It's a bit hard to answer without knowing exactly what you're going for, as in terms of playability, I would opt against both this and a screen, as players can be a lot more relaxed the less things they have to keep secret, yet you apparently require such a solution. Unless MikeR's answer already fulfills all your needs, maybe update your question with a little more info on why anonymity is relevant?

if you wanted not to use a screen and still be able to give people nothing you could have empty tokens that look the same as resource tokens.
Also if the coloured bags also have a token with it's colour on one side and a design common to all of them on the other you keep upside down then you can use that to keep people honest, also you might be able to work in bag swapping to the cards somehow

Hmm, tough one. I don't see a way to do this as long as you have physical resource tokens. Even if the number of tokens is obscured via a bag or similar, it's really hard to conceal a transaction between two players. Two ideas come to mind:
Have one player dedicated to a standalone banker position. This player would be responsible for housing all other players resources and brokering transactions. In your case, they'd have to be handed the event cards unshuffled (so they'd know who provided what), perform the required transactions secretly, then shuffle the cards and pass them to the target. But nobody wants to do that by itself, so you'd have to integrate it into game play by creating some additional set of victory conditions for this player. E.g., maybe she can choose to play underhanded and shortchange other players, keeping some resources for herself. Of course, now you're faced with the additional task of, how does each player remember what their resource bank looks like? Maybe they have counter cards like in King of Tokyo where they can spin a dial to set what they think they have. Imagine this conversation...

Player: (looks at card, sees their wood counter at 5) "I spend four wood to build a house." (spins wood counter to 1)
Banker: "I'm sorry, you only have three wood."
Player: "What?"
Banker: "I'm afraid there's been a fire."
Player: "You cheating scum!"

This of course opens up the wonderful tactic of intentionally trying to spend more than you know you have, so that the banker will have to tell you that you don't have that much, so you can accuse them of stealing and hurt their reputation with the other players. Heh heh, this seems pretty damn fun actually.
Alternatively, if you don't have physical resource tokens then you have to have electronic ones. This pretty much implies that you'll need some sort of electronic device included with the game, or (more likely) a companion app that each player runs on their phone. (Heh, I'm a software engineer, so this is how I tend to solve problems.)

So you are making the assumption that if player X steals from player Y, then Y doesn't know about it until a later point? This is a pretty good solution if that's the case (especially if you are forced to build something you declare, since as you pointed out, that's the only way to know for sure how much you actually have). But as I put in the question comments, it's not entirely clear if that's what the OP intended.

I have read it as, "I want player Y to know that something has been stolen from them, but I don't want them to be able to figure out that player X was the thief." So in my suggestion, Y would know that he's had something stolen because he gets the card that says so, but he has no idea who did the stealing, because the broker has shuffled the cards and hidden the movement of resource counters.

This is a really interesting idea, the concept of not knowing your own resources. Definitely requires  a third party to track, but I'm going to think about incorporating it

One thought I had was that the cards played against the player are still in play (and could have stolen resources on them), but they aren't applied to the "giver" until claimed. This would reduce the resources of the target, but not give away the "giver" until they wanted to show it.
I like to think of it like illicit money (which it kinda is!) and having an audited bank account. It's really hard to tell you've stolen money until you add it to your account or have more possessions than you should have.
Now, how to make sure that someone doesn't claim your card: one thought is that the cards would be put into envelopes with a clear side.  You put the action at the window, and a "it's mine" card behind it.  Then when claiming show your card.
This idea does have the problem of cards laying around unclaimed, but it would depend on how often it happens during a game.

Piggy banks!
You can't say "Give 3 coins to a Player A" and not make it obvious they are the theaf, right? Make it "Put 3 coins in the red piggy bank" instead. Now, the players were assigned colors secretly at the start of the game and each have corresponding set of cards of their color, but nobody knows which is which.
The tricky part, though, is to let people pick up money  from their piggy bank (possibly along with played cards of their color) later in the game.
I see next options:

Most obvious and most fiddly. Add a phase when all players leave/close eyes/cycle piggy banks under the table and have an opportunity to secretly check their own piggy bank. You'll need a specific key for each piggy bank for this to work.
Reval everybody's colors at the end of the round (maybe after a set of rounds), take what's yours and then re-assign colors again.
Make it a voluntarily reveal action, so you can pick up your "income" when you need it, but everyone knows who you are from now on.
Never pick up money, just check who had stolen more at the end of the game.

Or just use an app.

I like this, because it keeps conistent which bank is getting how much money, so everyone is trying to guess who the jerk with the red piggy bank is. But the effort to withdraw seems like too much for a card game.

@Cain How about this: each piggy bank is actually a container with money but without any visible indication + colored overlay that attaches to only its container with specific latches. Then it can work like this: remove colored overlays and shuffle now unidentifyable containers, then players find one that matches with their keys, take money, shuffle containers again and attach colored overlays to fitting containers once again. With manageble number of players (4-5) it shouldn't be much fiddlier than other solutions. Also, it can be more convinient and cooler with magnetic latches and keys!

@Cain. Actually, it would be easier to just cover piggy banks with sacks, pass them around and remove sacks when you are done. Not as cool as magnets though :)


text:
What happens if two forces of unequal strength attacks the same province?
I'm the gamemaster for a diplomacy game played between a couple of friends, and we encountered a situation where we didn't really agree. I've looked through the rules and searched the internet, but I still couldn't find an answer.
What happens if two forces of unequal strength attack the same province?
The rulebook clarifies that an underpowered unit in such a situation has to make a retreat move, but it doesn't seem to mention what happens if there is no defending unit, only attacking units.
To clarify the situation I'll give you an example:
Germany:

A War - Gal
A Sil S A War - Gal

Russia:

A Boh - Gal

Here we see that Germany's attacking force is stronger than Russia's, and there are 2 possibilities (I think) of what happens next arises. Either the unit in Bohemia stays in Bohemia and the unit in Warsaw moves to Galicia, or the unit in Bohemia has moves to Galicia where it then has to make a retreat move and the unit from Warsaw stays in Galicia.
Is there any rule that I have overlooked which answers my question, or do you have any opinions of what might be the proper way to handle the situation?

Welcome to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange! Great first question!

There are lots of different versions of the rules, so it is hard to give an exact quote and page reference, but they all agree on the resolution of this. The version I found says "A unit moves with its own strength combined with all of its valid supports. Unless it is opposed by a unit that is equally or better supported, it can complete its move." In this case Bohemia was opposed by a better supported unit, so it cannot complete its move and stays in Bohemia.
So in the case that two or more attacks occur on the same province, and one is stronger than all the others as well as being stronger than the existing defense, the strongest attack succeeds and the others all fail. Any units participating in those attacks remain where they were (unless they are dislodged by a different attack on their own province) and any units that started in the attacked province are dislodged and will need to retreat. You can only be dislodged from the province that you started the turn in.
If there are multiple attacks on the same province, and there are two or more attacks tied for the strongest (or tied with the existing defense), then all the attacks fail. This can result in an unsupported defender holding a province against two supported attacks as long as the supported attacks are of equal strength.

I believe the latest rulebook is at http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy_rulebook.pdf which is probably the best to cite.

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


text:
What are good ways to learn to "read" a sequence of moves mentally?
What are good ways to learn to "read" a sequence of moves mentally (i.e. visualize it in one's mind), in Go? Is practicing on a goban useful, or is trying to stick to mentally imagining the moves better? or a mix of both?
(I am asking this question because I feel that better reading skills can have a strong impact on the outcome of a game.)
PS: I now realize that the question of reading sequences of moves mentally is only part of the story: in addition to "pure" reading, it is also extremely useful to learn to not read certain moves (because they have little potential, or because the outcome of some board situation reached while reading is known). In other words, learning how to prune the move tree helps read faster: it is wasteful to read down many branches of the move tree when theory can prune these branches (the theory of killing shapes, of their vital point, of semeai,…) or give them a lower reading priority (useful moves tend to exploit weaknesses, or choke the opponent, or have multiple good effects, etc.). In essence, learning to read well involves both the raw skill of imagining a sequence in one's head and the art of pruning moves or giving them a lower priority while reading.

@Rainbolt This question is not about memorization but about imagining moves mentally by just looking at the goban.

TLDR: Putting stones on the board is not always possible. Reading is super important. Practice it with tsumego and apply it in games.

You're definitely right that it has a strong impact on the outcome. Reading is the most fundamental skill in Go, and improving in that area is absolutely required to become a strong player.
In serious games, it is usually not possible to put stones on the board "just to see what happens". You'll have to imagine the results in your mind before you put down a stone. This is a fact that can't be changed.
However, as a beginner, you should try some stuff by yourself or in non-serious games (with knowledge of the other player, obviously) first. Then, it is absolutely fine to put the stones on the board to check what happens. You'll then quickly become aware of typical shapes (for instance a ladder), and be able to spot it immediately (if not, just keep trying!), without the need to put actual stones down. This is the first step on the road to strong reading.
In teaching games, you'll usually also lay down important sequences (during or after the game), in particular when they are not easy to see. Try to remember them so you'll notice them next time!
Further, you will need to improve your reading abilities. Typically, players practice solving tsumego for this purpose, as they require reading skills of a particular level (yours in this case). First make sure you really solved the problem - do not miss a strong, difficult-to-see reply by your virtual opponent. Then, to check your solutions, it is fine to put down stones to make sure you did not miss anything. It is also beneficial to have reliable solutions at hand with which you can compare your own, for instance by using a tsumego book.
Over time, tsumego as well as simply practicing reading in real games will improve your abilities and you will be able to read faster, deeper and more precisely. In particular, as you memorize the involved shapes, you'll immediately know which moves are impossible without considering them. This will drastically speed up the selection process and cut down the variation tree to very few branches, each of which you have to explore as best as your visualization abilities allow you to.
As a beginner, it is actually often sufficient to always read only 2 or 3 moves ahead to avoid stupid mistakes. Once this does not help you anymore, try reading a few moves more, and you'll certainly do more than most lazy dan players :)
This last tongue-in-cheek sentence is actually true - when they are not serious, advanced players often rely on shape exclusively without reading much, as they can already tell the results from the initial shapes (often, but not always correctly). This ability is beneficial in very fast games, but in serious games you still need to actually read (deeply) to find the best moves. Use memorized shapes only to reduce the tree width.
By the way, aspiring pro players typically spend a few hours every day on tsumego. It is, after all, said that pros solved every tsumego in existence at least twice. If you enjoy it, feel free to do alike! If not (which applies to many people), well, just do it if you feel like it - Go should be fun! Tsumego are often more fun when hand-picked and given by a friend, possibly to many people at once, with a joint resolution session which typically includes a lot of "Oh!"s and "Aaah!"s.
Regarding "visualization" of moves. I did not go into that point yet. This is something I kind of wonder about myself, as I found it difficult to see clearly the moves very deeply, in particular when "new" stones touch stones from a while ago or are even played on top of them (this is called "ishi no shita" or "under the stones"). As far as I can tell, you cannot work on this specifically - it's simply a result of studying and will hopefully improve as one gets better at tsumego.
As a final, practical advice: Copy or print out tsumego from a good book on cards or cut little paper sheets. I liked this a lot, but definitely start with the easiest book, as the problems are often harder than they appear at first! Then put them in various places in your house as well as in your pocket. Every time you are forced to wait for a minute or more, pick one of them and try to solve it. Repeat until the wait is over. I often did that in waiting rooms (even though I have to admit that it sometimes made me rather sleepy).
Quoting tasuki on the above works:

Cho Chikun’s Encyclopedia of Life and Death is a wonderful progression which will take you from an absolute beginner to mid dan level.
Next, we present you with the three most famous classical tsumego collections. Gokyo Shumyo deals mostly with patterns occuring often in real games. XuanXuan Qijing focuses on feeling and vital points, and the insanely difficult Igo Hatsuyo-ron is here just to make you cry.

They come without solution due to copyright, but you can mostly check them with friends and/or stronger players. By the way, I can absolutely confirm his statements, in particular about Igohatsuyoron :'(

Thank you for sharing your experience! I understand that tesuji problems are very good problems to start with; I guess they work as well as tsumego problems, for practicing training? Side note: iOS apps are very convenient, for problems (one of them even uses a spaced repetition system!).

I count tesuji problems to tsumego (I think tsumego translates to (generic) "go problems"), and yes, they are very useful. TimK mentioned Davies' Tesuji book, which I found terrific, particularly for beginners. I actually started learning about tesuji from that book. Some of them are also often seen in games, or (subtly) they are the reason a seemingly obvious move was not played, and it's fun to try and find them.
I have few experience with Go apps, I only tried a few Android ones and found them so-so at best. I don't have an iOS device, but it's nice to hear there are good apps for that.

It is called ishi no shita, not shita no ishi – but this is still a good answer. You might also mention http://goproblems.com/, a good site for practising.

When you're actually playing, you aren't going to be able to put stones on the board, so you need to practice reading exclusively with visualization.  The best way is to do go problems.  It's important to do them the right way, though.  When you think you have found the solution, go through every response the opponent could play, and make sure you have an answer for it.  If you can't do this, then the problem you're using are probably too hard for your current reading level.  The first chapter of Tesuji by James Davies has a detailed example of how to do this correctly.  The more you practice, the better you'll get.

The easiest thing to do mentally is to count. That is, "if I play this and my opponent plays that, how many liberties does each side have?"
Some of the more complicated plays, like long joseki sequences are best played out for full understanding.

Regarding visualization, try playing through pro games, first on the board, then, memorize them until you can play through them in your head. You won't succeed entirely in this, but, you will create more "space" in your mind for reading in actual games. Internet go and clients have been great for easily spreading and seeing game records, but the downside is that it is TOO easy.  Reading is like lifting weights, the more you do it, the stronger you get.  Also, work on ladder problems.  In my case, my eyes always get confused when I try to read out which stones are or are not ladder breakers on the other side of the board.

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


text:
How can I quickly estimate my level in go by playing against a computer/tablet?
I would like to have an idea of my level in go (in kyu). This would for instance help me choose the most appropriate go books to read. I would like to do this through playing against a program—because I can play anywhere anytime.
I read on Wikipedia that each difference of one point in kyu is equivalent to one stone of handicap, and also that one stone is valued to 13–16 points in score difference. So, if I knew the level of the program I play against, this would allow me to quickly adjust the handicap (depending on the score difference) so that games are balanced, and then counting one kyu of difference for each stone of handicap.
But what is the level of computer/tablet programs? Is there a reference somewhere, or some resources that would give some information on that? In my case, I would love to have some idea of the current level of Little Go on iOS (which is based on Fuego), for 19x19 go.

Though it would be a bit tedious, one way to test this would be to play a few games between Fuego and another bot with known level. You can easily find such bots on KGS.

As it is now, it seems this question is too specific and will quickly get outdated. Would you mind rewriting it, for instance along the lines of "How can I quickly estimate my level in Go?", that would allow for more broadly helpful answers, and your particular examples may still be mentioned, possibly with a date or version.

@Gregor, thanks, that's an idea. I guess someone has an idea about the level of Fuego on a tablet, though?

@mafutrct, this makes sense. I did edit my question. Before posting it, I looked for the posting guidelines but failed to do find them in a reasonable amount of time… :) PS: Ah… found the answers under "Help": http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic, http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask.

Usually when one has no hint about is level in go it's because he is just a beginner that is between 25 kyu and 15 kyu.
The level of Fuego on iOS is probably something between 3 kyu and 1 dan. So if you win at 9 handicap on 19x19 it's already very good on. If you success, try to decrease the handicap one stone each time.
For book reading really good books for beginners level are graded go problems for beginners volume 1 and volume 2
If you only can play against a computer and not on a server or in real (which are really better to learn), my advice would be to start at the lowest level at 9 handicap and decrease handicap every one or two win when you win 0 handicap increase the computer level and restart at 9 handicap. Be aware that only win/loss count. (especially against monte-carlo computer such as fuego which tend to reach a 0.5 point win).
A better time spent for improve when can't playing against real opponent is to do life and death problems like the ones are found in graded go problems for beginners.
A good tip to know an approx level in doing problems is http://goproblems.com/ (under the section go to problems) when you reach a plateau it's approx your level plus our minus 2 kyu. That should be enough to choose a book.
The really point for knowing your level is to choose a fair handicap against a an opponent you don't play often. When you play often against the same opponent the best is to change handicap every one or two consecutive win.

Thanks. I guess that the level of Fuego on iOS depends on the hardware running it. It also depends on Fuego's setting. What hardware were you referring to? and to what Fuego level setting (the default?)?

I spoke about the highest level settings in a typical tablet/phone hardware. There is really no point to use a computer to evaluate your level. Usually the ones which don't know their level are really beginners so somewhere between 15 kyu and 25 kyu

Thanks. The highest level varies quite a lot between programs, I guess, no? Little Go with its pondering mode puts a lot more power into playing than the maximum 24 seconds per move of SmartGo, for example. The comment about people who don't know their level (like me) is however not fully useful to me: I only don't know my level because I don't play games against ranked opponents (I can beat SmartGo at its 3rd highest level in even 19x19 games on a fast iPad, so I guess I don't fully qualify as a beginner).

I asked for your level directly to the software author https://twitter.com/Xavier_Combelle/status/566325976100253696 because I don't know the smartgo strength.

Thanks. Anders' answer is interesting, but a bit puzzling: programs on Go Servers do have a ranking. Maybe he meant that a program typically has weaknesses that, when exploited, can yield a completely different rank than its average rank?? Maybe a more correct answer is that it is not meaningful to rank oneself by comparison to a single opponent?

program have often weakness and strength different of human ones On server I encountered people which are good at exploiting bot weakness. I have personally hard time with bots at correct handicap. generally ranking is very tricky and work better on a statistical point of view so more opponents is better.

There are several rating systems, for most players their KGS rating and EGF rating will be different, and it can be different from national rating systems (e.g. it is often assumed that French and British ratings for the same player are 2 stones different). So, in a sense, your question cannot be answered unless you specify the rating system you want to be measured against.
The benchmark could be a KGS rating, because KGS is so widely used. The best way to know your rating is to play on KGS with the real players, and KGS will answer your question.
It might be more psychologically comfortable to play against robots, but, from a personal experience, I would not recommend it, they do not help you to improve at the rate that the games against humans will. Also, they have flaws that you might identify and this will allow you to win the games against these robots, but this won't translate in your improved ability to play against humans.

The question can be answered: it just has to specify a level along with its rating system (very much like units are important in a speed like 3 km/h). :) Also, playing a robot is more than psychologically more comfortable: it is also very convenient, as one can play anywhere, anytime, and even interrupt and restart a game if needed. That said, what you write about humans being more interesting opponents is very reasonable (and shared by many).

Yes, this is good way to rephrase my answer.


text:
First things to learn about semeai?
I would like to learn more about semeai and be able to quickly learn about how to handle the most common situations (determine quickly whether a group is alive, dead, or undetermined).
Now, there is the simple idea that counting liberties works in simple cases.
Then there is the idea that eyes generally require more attack moves that their number of liberties (along with pre-calculated values that are easy to remember), which is a special case of having to count approach moves.
That said, I am still at a stage where I have to mostly read the sequence in my mind and keep track of outside liberties, shared liberties, eye liberties, etc., which is slow and error-prone.
I have not yet looked further in details yet: what would be the fastest way of learning useful information applicable to most semeais encountered in real games?
There are some specific pages on Sensei's Library (no eye vs no eye, eye vs no eye, eye vs eye).
There are also two books (Counting Liberties and Winning Capturing Races and Capturing Races 1) and a more recent mathematical paper (I don't mind math).
What would you suggest is the most efficient way of getting practical semeai tools that cover most common situations?
PS: The pages at Sensei's Library give a quick overview that lacks details or even sometimes basic definitions, so they are not a good starting point.

I decided to read the 2012 paper by Thomas Wolf, and this was a very fast way of learning important basic counting techniques. Now, the paper is arguably not always perfectly clear, but it can be followed with a reasonable amount of effort. It also contains a simple result that had been missed before (in some circumstances, it can be beneficial to start an attack by filling the liberties shared by the competing group).
I had a quick look at Chapters 7 and8 of The Second Book of Go: while they give many concrete details, they still take much longer to read, and give more complex and less complete recipes than the succinct paper by Wolf.

There's also an extremely thorough coverage of semeai in "The Second Book of Go".  It's out of print, but it looks like there are used copies available.

Do you know how approachable it is, in particular compared to the resources I cited?

I just checked, and Chapter 7 gives many concrete examples of various fight types (6 of them), along with a general "recipe" for each fight type, while chapter 8 describes how to fight them. This looks nice and detailed, but way longer than the paper by Thomas Wolf that I linked too… I guess I'll take the plunge and check Wolf's paper first, and move to the detailed explanations of Bozulich if needed.

From the OP

That said, I am still at a stage where I have to mostly read the sequence in my mind and keep track of outside liberties, shared liberties, eye liberties, etc., which is slow and error-prone.

This is good for you as long as you know how to kill/live in certain shapes. Reading is very important in all aspects of Go  and this is a good time to practice it. The links you mentioned on Sensei's library will be useful. Try to remember the facts so that it will become instinctive.

I agree, reading is important, but I prefer to practice it with problems. I like the idea of reading semeais, but I prefer to do it under the guidance of some theory, so that I can read faster. This is why the question asks for the most efficient way of learning some important semeai theory…


text:
What happens to counters on a creature when the equipment that put them there is exiled?
A green creature is equipped with Ring of Kalonia. A +1/+1 counter is put on at the owner's upkeep(BTW, I believe a new counter isn't added every upkeep step). The creature gains trample.
What happens when the Ring is exiled? I believe the trample ability is removed. But what happens to the +1/+1 counter?

A new counter is added on every one of the upkeep steps of the player who controls the equipment. After five of these upkeeps, the creature will have five +1/+1 counters.
The counters (plural) stay there.

You seem to be confusing a counter-placing effect with something like what Bladed Bracers says:

Equipped creature gets +1/+1.

Whereas Ring of Kalonia says:

At the beginning of your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on equipped creature if it's green.

Ring of Kalonia's ability is a triggered ability which adds a new +1/+1 counter to the creature every time it resolves, and it triggers at the beginning of every upkeep of the equipment's controller. This adds up. These counters are independent of the equipment, and stay there when it goes away - whether it gets unequipped, exiled, or anything else.
Bladed Bracers' ability on the other hand is a static ability, which says the creature "gets +1/+1". This doesn't apply counters, it just modifies the equipped creature. It doesn't increase, and there's no delay - it just starts applying instantly. When the Bracers go away, so does the +1/+1.
The ability on the Bracers I've quoted is the same kind of thing as Ring of Kalonia's "Equipped creature has trample", which is also a static ability, and as you're aware, goes away when the equipment does.

Excellent explanation, @doppelgreener!


text:
Awaken targeting rules
If my opponent plays Ruinous Path and pays the Awaken cost, then I make the creature it targets invalid (e.g. bounce, protection, destroying it myself, ...) is that enough to counter the spell due to targeting rules:

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal... The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. ...

Are there 1 or 2 targets here? Does the land count as an additional target - so it still resolves because there is at least one valid target? Or is there only one target (the creature), as the other instance of the word "target" only appears in the reminder text not as actual rules text.

Note, any and all answers to this question may be incorrect. Questions about upcoming cards should not be asked until release notes are out for the new set, as all answers possibly given here are subject to change.

Also note that Wizards of the Coast (an authoritative source) has released an article explaining the mechanics of Awaken. It is entirely possible to answer the question correctly, provided that we assume the comprehensive rules will not contradict the article when they are released. In the unlikely event that a contradiction does occur, we can update the answers.

@Rainbolt Unlikely, but still a reason to wait.

You've mostly answered the question yourself, including the ruling quotations. Yes, paying Awaken cost will add a new target (a land), so if you make a first target illegal, it won't counter the spell to the full extent. And vise versa, as even mentioned in the linked article:

Also, if a spell with awaken normally doesn't require a target, and you choose to cast it for its awaken cost, you will add a target to the spell by doing so. If that target land becomes illegal before the spell tries to resolve, the spell will be countered. You won't get any of its effects, including the first effect that didn't require a target. This won't come up a lot, but it's definitely something to be aware of.

So if it says something like "Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn. Scry 1. Awaken 2 {G}{3}" and they bounce the creature, you still awaken and you still scry, but if you don't cast it as awaken you don't get to scry either? That seems very relevant  in certain matchups, and also as a skill-testing feature.

@corsiKa, Correct. No awaken means no scry on bounce as the spell will be countered as it would start to resolve.

The spell will still resolve and animate the land.
This is because Awaken does indeed target, from the article you linked:

You can also choose to cast a spell for its awaken cost. If you do, you'll also choose a land you control as a target of the spell.

Since it does target, and the spell has at least one legal target when it goes to resolve it will do as much as it can. In this case animating the land and putting 4 +1/+1 counters on it.


text:
What to consider when naming decks
I'm relatively new to deck building, but I have noticed that sometimes players name their decks. What are the things to consider when I come to name decks?
Here are a few things that I consider (specifically regarding MTG):

It should bear some resemblance to what the deck does. Song of ice and fire would be relevant for a Red/Blue siren deck, but does not make sense for a ramping green deck.
Some decks make reference to a card that the deck has been built around.
You do not want to give too much about your deck away (disagrees with point 1 and 2). A name like Mill-ion cards in your graveyard really gives away that you will try and mill them, and may affect what they choose as an opening hand.

Maybe a good middle-ground is if your opponent can see why you named your deck what you did after you have played.

Clever names are more interesting and everyone loves a good pun, right?

Deck names are also format dependent, Standard decks tend much more often to be named after key cards, or the color combination involved. Legacy decks are much more likely to bear little or no resemblance to the deck itself at first glance (death and taxes, the rock etc)

You do not need to give your deck a name. A name for a deck is just an easy way to describe the same set of ~60 cards (accounting for the fact that you won't need a different name for a deck that only changes two cards).
A deckname is just used to communicate about that specific deck easier. If you want to name your monored Goblin-deck "Green Guys" (since goblins have green skin) and the people you talk with know what you're talking about, there's absolutely no problem.
Note about point 3 that there's no way for your opponent to know the name of the deck you play before you start playing, unless you tell him.

I rather think that people name their deck to express what's inside, to easily tell the other what you are going to play. Typically (at least with the people I play) we use the color code (see this question) added with the typical category of the deck (aggro, control, mid-range, combo... you can find an exhaustive list on various websites). This is the easiest way to explain what you have, for example if you say "I'll use my Selesnya aggro", people will pretty much what kind of cards are inside (in that case, white/green full of creatures and tokens, likely with low cmc to kill quickly).
On competitive (and less competitive) games, the format is also added to the name (t2, modern, legacy, EDH, poper...) for people to know which range of editions you are using. Some classical decks are quite different depending on this (t2 Jund or modern Jund for example) because some particularly efficient and famous cards are available or not.
If the deck use a particularly famous combo or game-mechanic it can lead to a very specific name (Melira-pod, Dredge...).
Finally, the Elder Dragon decks which are a special kind of decks (100 cards, a commander and other specific rules) are most of time named after their commander.
This way of naming decks is also useful to get advices for deckbuilding, when discussing with other players, if you tell them such a 'regular' kind of name, they will know quickly what kind of gameplay is in your mind and will be able to give you more accurate advices on how to improve
EDIT: As Brian S pointed out:

There are many famously named decks that don't really have much to do with the cards in the list.

But I recommend to only use non-classical names when your deck is more or less built like these famous decks, for the sake of clarity.

There are many famously named decks that don't really have much to do with the cards in the list. America, for example, is not a RWU deck, but rather a deck designed by some Europeans using cards that American players refused to run. The Rock is named after the WWE wrestler, and has little to do with the individual or with wrestling in general. (The connection being "The Rock and his Millions [of fans]", with the deck producing squirrel tokens.) You can occasionally find decks simply named after their creator, too.

@Brian S Correct, although the question is "What are the things to consider when I come to name decks?", I understood this as give me advices to name my decks, and since user is pretty new in deckbuilding, my answer is basically how to give a clear name for everyone to understand. But I'll add your comment in my answer


text:
Ahn'Morpork: Placed to one side
On some cards I've read "Place to one side" and I couldn't understand does that mean that it is removed? If said for a building does it mean that it is destroyed or has a different meaning? I couldn't find that in the rules.
The card that baffled me was Bloody Stupid Johnson: "Roll the die. If the City Area card of the same value is in play then that card is placed to one side. The owner of the card must also remove one of his minions from the same area as the card."
How is this played out?

Bloody Stupid Johnson works like this:
You roll for a random city area. When you roll an area that contains a building, the owner of that building has to put the corresponding area card away. The card says "to one side" but the important thing here is that the area card is removed from play. The building is still there, it still counts as a building for all intents and purposes (win conditions, for instance), but the owner can no longer use the power on the area card.
According to Martin Wallace, the designer of the game, the card is back in the game if the bulding gets destroyed and subsequently rebuilt (by the same player or another).


text:
In Battlestar Galatica Pegasus expansion, does the cylon team win if the cylon leader wins?
In the pegasus expansion, these points happen:

The cylon players win.
The cylon leader reveals his agenda
and he completed it successfully.

Did both cylons and cylon leader win the game OR did the cylons lose the game and only the leader wins?

The Cylons and the Cylon leader win the game, together. The Agenda Card condition indicates which side they favor. They will have another condition which seems counter to their allegiance, but they are predominantly on one side or the other.
From page 10 of the Pegasus rule book:

Note that Cylon Leaders may win with the humans or the Cylons, as
  specified by their Agenda Card.


text:
Does "sacrifice those creatures" happen all at once?
Do the sacrifice triggers of Wake the Dead happen at the same time, or do I get to stack them?
As an example, say I cast Wake the Dead targeting Liliana, Heretical Healer and another creature. Assuming no other creature dies until it's time to sacrifice the two, can I "save" Liliana into her Planeswalker form by sacrificing the other creature first?

It's worth noting that in general, that's a relatively poor use of that card. Since you have the card in your deck it's clearly something you're considering actually using, which means you would want something like a Typhoid Rats in your graveyard or maybe a Skinrender so you get to keep Liliana. That spell exists to get temporary blockers and relive ETB effects.

Suggested title change: Does "sacrifice those creatures" happen all at once?

@corsiKa of course you should try to have a creature die before it's time to sacrifice. My question was more whether I can, in theory, stack the sacrifices.

That also answers @Rainbolt's comment, yes, I like your title better.

The sacrifices happen all at once. You cannot sacrifice them sequentially and use the death of the other creatures to flip Liliana.  But it works a little differently than you think.
First, the sacrificing happens all at once (similarly to how board wipe cards like Wrath of God destroy all creatures at once).  However, rule 603.6d applies here.

603.6d Normally, objects that exist immediately after an event are checked to see if the event matched any trigger conditions. Continuous
  effects that exist at that time are used to determine what the trigger
  conditions are and what the objects involved in the event look like.
  However, some triggered abilities must be treated specially.
  Leaves-the-battlefield abilities, abilities that trigger when a
  permanent phases out, abilities that trigger when an object that all
  players can see is put into a hand or library, abilities that trigger
  specifically when an object becomes unattached, abilities that trigger
  when a player loses control of an object, and abilities that trigger
  when a player planeswalks away from a plane will trigger based on
  their existence, and the appearance of objects, prior to the event
  rather than afterward. The game has to "look back in time" to
  determine if these abilities trigger.

This means that Liliana's ability will trigger and go on the stack!  However, when the triggered ability resolves and tries to exile Liliana, she no longer exists on the battlefield and does nothing.
For reference see these other questions:

What happens when a creature with “Whenever a creature dies” dies simultaneously with multiple other creatures?
Does the 2nd ability of Teysa, Orzhov Scion trigger with mass destruction?
When a permanent has a “When a creature dies” ability, and gets destroyed at the same time as creatures, does that ability trigger?


text:
When both players have the same 2 pair, can a 3rd pair be used as a valid kicker?
player A : 4,4
player B : A,10
board : K,K,Q,Q,2
Which player wins? I guess Player B but player A claims he has a pair of 4 which is a bigger kicker. who is correct?

Player B wins. All that matters is the best 5 card hand you can make with the combined 7 cards. So player A does NOT have a pair of 4 as a kicker... player A has K,K,Q,Q,4. Player B has K,K,Q,Q,A. Both identical 2 pairs, but player B has A which beats 4.

The best "hand" of five cards wins. That is two pair: KK QQ A kicker, and player B wins.
Player A has a pair of fours that "doesn't play" because there are already two pairs on the board (and no room for a third pair in a five card hand). But player B's ace kicker does play (and beat's Player A's 4-kicker).
Change the board to KKQ32, and Player A wins, because he has two pair, kings over fours, with a Q kicker, while player B has one pair, KK with an ace kicker. The second queen "counterfeited" Player A's second pair by giving player B a second (higher) one.


text:
In Elder Sign, can I use Jenny Barnes' ability to discard a spell when the mythos lingering effect bars investigators from using spells?
Can I use Jenny's ability to discard a spell to gain the dice, because discarding is not the same as 'using' a spell?

Yes.  Special effects that refer to discarding a card do not count as using the card.


text:
Takenoko: What happens if you draw a card that has an existing pattern in the garden?
What if you draw a objective card that has a specific pattern, and it already exists in the garden, for one reason or another.
Examples:

You draw a plot card and that exact same shape is already existing in the garden (including the right parameters). Can you just show your objective card as fulfilled and get the points without doing anything else?
You draw a gardener card and you need 3 four-level bamboo in the garden. If there's an existing four-level bamboo in the garden, do you only need to do 2 more?

What happens in each example?

You draw a plot card and that exact same shape is already existing in the garden
  (including the right parameters) Can you just show your objective card as fulfilled and
  get the points without doing anything else?

Yes. At any point in your turn, you can play as many fulfilled objective cards from your hand as you like. I've found this often happens at the end of the game... drawing a card in hopes that the objective is already fulfilled is a decent strategy.

You draw a gardener card and you need 3 four-level bamboo in the garden. If there's an
  existing four-level bamboo in the garden, do you only need to do 2 more?

Yes, provided they're the same color. As it often happens with objective cards, other players may be configuring the garden to suit your objectives without even knowing it.

While your answer is correct per se, the rulebook lists an advanced variant, where should you draw an objective card that has already been fulfilled, you have to discard it and draw another one.

Yes. At any point in your turn, you can play as many fulfilled objective cards from your hand as you like. I've found this often happens at the end of the game... drawing a card in hopes that the objective is already fulfilled is a decent strategy.

On https://pl.boardgamearena.com/ version of Takenoko, when you draw already fulfilled objective, you need to pick another one ;)

Picking another objective when the one you draw is fulfilled is a variant that can be played to make the game harder, but is not the basic ruleset.


text:
House rules for Spade bids of nil, blind-nil, and 10-for-2?
My favorite bids in Spades are the riskiest ones: 10-for-2, nil, and blind nil. 10-for-2 is always worth 200 points, and most rule sets I've seen put nil at 100 and blind nil at 200.
In our group, we eventually had to put restrictions on these bids because they were making it too easy for people to catch up from being behind, which was diluting the value of solid play in less dramatic rounds:

no bids of 10-for-2 or blind nil unless the bidding team is down by at least 100 points
only one bid of blind nil per team per game
players do not get to trade two cards if someone calls blind nil

What other house-rules do people suggest for limiting the bomb effect of these three bids, or alternatively, do you not agree that it is a problem?

The variation that my game group played for years and loved was this:

50 points for a nil (no passing)
100 for blind nil (2 cards passing)
Can only go blind-nil if the team is 100 points behind
Suicide: one person on each team MUST go nil.
Minimum bid 4 (even if you first say 2 and your partner's bid is nil, your team-bid is 4).
You only score your nil if your team makes its bid.

This makes the blind option just a catch-up option, and keep the game competitive.  suicide works because often while trying to cover your partner you end up covering the other guy's nil.  Finally, the minimum bid rule pretty much enforces playing good cards well, and not turning it into a game of chicken with the other team (a problem with normal suicide).

Passing 2 on blind-nil is still way too easy in my book :)

Yeah, hence the come from behind only rule.  The game's inherently random, so when the scores got too far out of synch we knew it was due to bad luck not skill,  and the blind thing was a bit of fun to fix it, but, for sure, we thought hard about taking that 4th trick or sluffing it when 60 points behind...

The main rule I strongly endorse is that you only trade ONE card, on blind-nil bids only.  No trading cards in any other situation - the only purpose is to avoid the "oops, guy going blind nil has the Ace of Spades" case which makes the whole round more or less pointless.
Other than that I have also frequently played with a "must be X points behind" rule on blind nil.  Is it really happening (successfully) so often that it overshadows all else?

not only the A♠ is a sure winner, also those combinations (or higher) of ♠'s: KQ, QJT, JT98, T9876, 987654 or any 7♠'s

I think lilserf's suggestion is the best way to go - either eliminate passing altogether or limit it to that one worst case scenario.
But, as another alternative, if your group has gotten "nil-happy," perhaps you could try the "suicide" variation on Spades where one partner from each team is forced to go nil every round. It wouldn't eliminate the large point swings, but perhaps it would better fit some of the player's playing style in your group. Certainly changes the dynamic of the game and it's fun to mix it up every now and then.

Nice to see a spades question here. I used to play spades a lot around 2003 but haven't played at all recently.
I generally hate blind-nils and we used to outlaw those. I used to discuss scoring with people a lot and we generally felt the nil-bonus of 100 was far too high, as the game just became dominated by nil-bidding. I felt 70 was a reasonable nil-score. 50 was suggested.
The "must be X points behind" rule means that you can't catch usually the other team on this board even if you succeed, and you certainly can't win the game instantly with it. It also means a team can try to ensure they don't go too far ahead.

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


text:
Catan pirates and explorers ships and roads
In Catan Explorers and Pirates, can a ship share a hex side with a road?

It is worth pointing out the distinction between the question of if a ship in Explorers and Pirates can share a space with a road versus if a ship in Seafarers of Catan can share a space with a road.  For Seafarers, the rules specifically state "You may not build a ship along a coast route if there is already a road along that hex side (and vice versa)" however this rule does not apply to the exact question being asked.

Yes, 2 ships and a road can share a coastline.
According to the FAQ for Catan Pirates and Explorers:

Sea Routes - Are only ships allowed on "sea routes" located between
terrain hexes and sea hexes / frame, or may I also build roads there?
Roads may be built on all paths, both inland and along the coast. At
the shore, roads can be parallel to ships, meaning that up to 1 road +
2 ships may simultaneously occupy a path on the coast.

Source :
Catan FAQ page 157

Looking at rules [here] I see no reason why not1  Small Caveat, I've never played this expansion but the rules seem fairly clear.
Firstly I can't find anything in the rules that prohibits this.  If this was not allowed I believe it would be explicitly stated. The rules do include very details rules about the building a movement of ships.  The following all make me think its fine as well
The rules define a Sea Route as :-

The edges of a sea hex are called sea routes.  Sea routes separate sea hexes from each other and terrain hexes from sea hexes.

So if the ship is in a sea route than it cant be in same space as the road which is on land.
In the rules for building ships it states :-

When you build a ship, place it on a sea route directly adjacent to one of your harbour settlements, with the following conditions:

None of the following conditions say that you cant build a ship a sea route next to a road.


text:
What's a fair handicap?
I really enjoy the Game-Of-Thrones board game. (We only own the first edition, so no ports or siege engines etc.). My wife and friends tend to enjoy it also, well they used to.
The problem is that currently, every time we play the game I always win. I've tried playing whomever I think is the weakest army but that doesn't seem to help much.  And by always win, what I mean is that a turn ends, and generally, I take the last castle, or they look at the board as the turn starts and see that no matter what they do, I'll get the last castle. They are normally only  1 or 2 castles behind me.
Is there some handicap I can give myself which will still make the game enjoyable but also even the odds a bit?

Play to win, but don't play to win ruthlessly. I've done that a few times with other games to ensure the new players are having fun and not being steam-rolled

@link64 they aren't being steam-rolled, I always win by just one castle.

Take away a single unstarred order token from your set. Which one depends on how much handicap you think is needed. A huge handicap would be to remove a march token. A big handicap is to remove a support token or a defense token. A significant handicap would be to remove a consolidate power or raid token.
If you find those handicaps too hard on you, you can also try playing without an order token for a few turns (say, 3-5 turns) and then getting them back. Or, maybe, play the first 3 turns without a march token, then 1 turn without each one of the remaining tokens, then with all of them. This will make the game much harder to you, but then you'll not need to feel bad about doing your best against your opponents.
Something I do when I'm teaching the game is, for the first 3 rounds, play my orders facing up and explain the strategy. This shows players some possibilities they did not understand they could do and open their minds to new tactics. You can't do that for too long though, specially in games with more than 4 players.

Though we haven't tried it, it would seem the power tokens would be the way to go. Try some generous amount and see if the game starts swinging : it certainly should, once the player they are given to takes all the positions on the tracks, as longs as the player understands the rules and is not attacked ruthlessly in the beginning by the others.
Another tactic to be considered, employed by go-players where a strong player playing a significantly weaker opponent, is for the better player to attempt to win by as small a margin as possible. Making intentionally some mistakes and suboptimal moves, and gauging the situation to allow the weaker players more 'life'.
AGOT is a pretty complex game and so much depends on how the others are playing, like if you get stuck fighting your neighbour and nobody pays attention to the guy peacefully expanding his power, and so forth, that one more tack might be to allow for more diplomacy, perhaps even encourage somebody to team up with the weaker player to start with, or to play an 'open game' where tactics are discussed as the game progresses.

The best way to get a good handicap going is to attack ruthless and try and make the other players ban together to stop you.( this works best with lanister since no one like them in the first place) this can give you a huge handicap if you are playing with a 4-6 player game and I can assure you that if your fighting 5 players by yourself, then your going to lose.


text:
Can you change the order of cards in a Graveyard?
My friend was counting the number of Creatures in his Graveyard and then randomizing the order the cards are in. Is this allowed?

By default you are not allowed to change the order of cards in a Graveyard. This is because there are some cards that care about the order that cards are in the Graveyard.

404.2. Each graveyard is kept in a single face-up pile. A player can examine the cards in any graveyard at any time but normally can't change their order. Additional rules applying to sanctioned tournaments may allow a player to change the order of cards in his or her graveyard.

However, since they haven't printed any cards since before Urza's Saga that care about Graveyard order the Magic Tournament Rules contain this rule.

3.14 Graveyard Order
  In formats involving only cards from Urza’s Saga™ and later, players may change the order of their graveyard at
  any time. A player may not change the order of an opponent’s graveyard.

This means that Legacy and Vintage are the only common tournament formats that you can't rearrange your own Graveyard, you are allowed to in Standard, Modern, Draft and Sealed formats.
In casual play generally as long as nobody is playing with any cards where Graveyard order matters it isn't a big deal if graveyards get reordered.

I think in most circumstances, though, you'll find that (even in sanctioned tournaments) by default you CAN change the order of your graveyard because many more games are played with non-order-caring cards than with order-caring cards. So while you're answer may be technically correct, from a practical perspective, it seems to over-represent how often it matters.

That's why I included the last two sections, but maybe a note saying it only applies to Legacy and Vintage wouldn't be out of place.

Most of these cards care about the controller's (or owner's) graveyard order (like Nether Shadow, which sees play in Legacy), but there are also some, like Guiding Spirit or Bone Dancer, that care about the opponent's graveyard order. Of course, even without them, spells like Commandeer, Fork, or Control Magic mean that your own graveyard order could end up mattering even without any such spells in your deck.

Examples of cards where it matters
Nether Shadow (Alpha - 5th) http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=159265

At the beginning of your upkeep, if Nether Shadow is in your graveyard with three or more creature cards above it, you may put Nether Shadow onto the battlefield.

While useful information, this doesn't explicitly answer the question. This would be better suited as part of a more complete question.

@ArcanistLupus thanks for feedback. My philosophy is: if it helps Googlers, then it's good. Hopefully we can let up and downvotes decide that for low volume questions.


text:
Counter Emerge Spell
I have recently started playing MTG after a few years of inactivity. Decided to jump into Standard as I always loved the format because it was in my perspective a lot fairer for the newcomer.
I used to play Esper control and today I faced a Temur Emerge deck. Now I was completely lost with the emerge mechanic. My opponent casted an Elder Deep-Fiend and when I prepared myself to counter it he said that I couldn't counter. He tried to explain to me everything but I was left with the same thought: "WTF". From everything I find I know that I cannot do anything about the casting cost, but why can't I counter the creature itself?
Like I said, it's a new mechanic to me and for some reason the explanation I got didn't truly make sense to me.
Can you guys shine some light into this matter?

Was your opponent claiming that you wouldn't have the mana to cast your counter spell, because of the triggered ability? i.e. he was going to tap your mana sources before you could tap them to pay for the counter?

You can always tap your lands in response to the triggers and play cards at instant speed.

He claimed that everything happened before and that I wouldn't be able to do anything against it. To which after reading the card I thought I could still prevent the creature from landing with a counter (I did have enough on top of the lands that he tapped). He said that I couldn't.

@NeilMeyer , so you are telling me that I could have use my lands for instants before the casting ability? i.e. to pay for the counter prior?

Your opponent was incorrect, you can counter creatures with Emerge. All Emerge does is gave the spell an alternative way of casting the spell, but you are still casting it.
Your opponent may have gotten confused because even if you counter their emerged spell the cast trigger will still occur, and their creature is still sacrificed. In order to stop that you need a card like Summary Dismissal that specifically counters abilities.

702.118. Emerge
702.118a Emerge represents two static abilities that function while the spell with emerge is on the stack. “Emerge [cost]” means “You may cast this spell by paying [cost] and sacrificing a creature rather than paying its mana cost” and “If you chose to pay this spell’s emerge cost, its total cost is reduced by an amount of generic mana equal to the sacrificed creature’s converted mana cost.” Paying a card’s emerge cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
702.118b You choose which creature to sacrifice as you choose to pay a spell’s emerge cost (see rule 601.2b), and you sacrifice that creature as you pay the total cost (see rule 601.2h).

So he will still sacrifice and tap the permanents, but I can counter the fiend itself?

@ASalcedo That is correct

Oh that little s... It's good to know before I go there tonight and hopefully play him.

Both answers are well received guys. Thank you. Marking this one for the rules and the dismissal recommendation.

You can counter the Fiend, but you can't use a normal counter spell to counter the tap effect.
EDF reads:

When you cast Elder Deep-Fiend, tap up to four target permanents.

That is a triggered ability, it is not a spell.  So, after casting EDF (either normally or using Emerge) the stack is (1 top):

Tap up to 4 target permanents (ability)
Elder Deep-Fiend (spell)

Now, it is true that once he declares he is going to cast EDF using Emerge that you can't do anything until it is on the stack; so you can't kill the Emerge sacrifice.

Really appreciate the answer. I'm sure I can find something out there against the ability also.

Summary Dismissal is good for on-cast triggers in standard right now


text:
Can you attempt to counter an "can't-be-countered" spell?
Can you cast a counterspell on a spell that can't be countered, or is it not a legal target...
Just wondering if you can Frightful Delusion something that can't be countered but still have the player discard.

Yes you can, since the targeting requirement for counter spells is just 'target spell' not 'target spell that can be countered'.
When the counterspell goes to resolve it will do as much as possible, so it won't counter the spell but any other effects it would have (like Frightful Delusion's discard) will still happen.

Similarly, you can target a tapped creature with a "tap target creature".

This means you can still Deprive an Emrakul to trigger your Sphinx-Bone Wand for the kill! Huzzah!

@Gendolkari's example is thoroughly covered here. In fact, this question could be considered a duplicate of the one answered at that link.


text:
Numbers after a draft format
Most drafts that I have seen on MTGO use a set of numbers after the format. I think it describes what matches are played after the drafting portion. For example:

Modern Masters 2015 6-2-2-2[1]

Modern Masters 2015 refers to the types of boosters that will be opened. What does the "6-2-2-2" mean?
I have also seen "8-4" as a common postfix. Are there others, and if so what do they mean?

You must be referring to MTGO (the online version of the game). You generally enter a draft with seven other players (for a total of eight). The postfix refers to how many packs you will receive when the tournament is over.
The postfix "6-2-2-2" indicates three rounds of Swiss. Swiss means that you will continue to play whether you win or lose. After three rounds of 6-2-2-2 are completed:

One player will have three wins. That player receives six packs.
Three players will have two wins. They will each receive two packs.

The postfix "8-4" indicates three rounds of single elimination. This means that when you lose, you are out. After three rounds of 8-4 are completed:

One player will be the winner. That player receives eight packs.
One player will be the runner-up. That player receives four packs.

This is described in more detail on the Wizards of the Coast website (which I just noticed you also linked to in the question).

That is the prize payout.
First place receives 6 booster packs, 2nd 3rd and 4th receive 2 each.  (Or first place receives 8 and second receives 4, in the other example.)
If you scroll down a bit on your link it's written out in a table.

That is the prize payout. 6-2-2-2 means 1st place will get 6 packs, and 2nd - 4th will get 2 packs each. 8-4 means first gets 8 packs, 2nd gets 4. This is shown underneath under the Prizes section on the page you linked to.

3 Wins 6 Modern Masters 2015 Edition booster packs
  2 Wins 2 Modern Masters 2015 Edition booster packs

With a normal 3 round, 8 person draft, assuming no ties you will end up with 1 person with 3 wins, and 3 with 2 wins (and 3 with 1 win and 1 with 0 wins, though they don't get any prizes in a 6-2-2-2 tournament)


text:
What do I need to replace Cranium: Turbo Edition's electronic timer?
I picked up Cranium: Turbo Edition at a yard sale for a couple dollars, and everything is in great condition except that the electronic timer centerpiece is missing. I figured I could replace the color selection and timer functionality with the die and hourglass from my copy of the original game, but is there any other functionality that I'm missing out on? Is the length of the electronic timer the same as the old hourglass? Are the color probabilities the same as an old die roll?

@diego - Thanks! I was surprised at the lack of a Cranium tag at first, but I guess there isn't really that much to ask about.

From the Turbo rules, the electronic timer lasts 60 seconds. This is the same as the egg timer in the base game.
I can't speak to the colour probabilities or guarantee that there isn't a mechanism to (for example) ensure that a mix of colours comes up, but I think uniformly randomly choosing a colour is a fair and fine way of doing it.

Great! We've been playing it with the old timer and die and it's been working perfectly. :)


text:
The Comeuppance of Commeuppance
So this came up in a game of Commander the other day. Player A has Purphoros, God of the Forge in play without the 5 red devotion to make him a creature. They then cast Tempt with Vengeance, spending 20 for X.
In a bid to turn a losing situation into a win Player B casts Comeuppance to prevent the damage and turn it back on player A. Player A responds in kind with their own Comeuppance while Purphoros' 20 triggers are still on the stack.
As far as I can tell this will cause an infinite loop where the two instances of Comeuppance each prevent and then attempt to re-deal the damage back and forth between A and B, with no exit condition.
What happens in this case? I was led to believe that causing an infinite loop results in a game loss, but if this is the case, which player is considered responsible for the loop since it required them both to cast Comeuppance?

Since the question doesn't have all that much to do with Purphoros or Tempt, it would probably make sense to just replace those with something simple and well-known like a Shock. Sure, there are links, but it still takes effort to follow the part that's not relevant, even if you know the applicable cards.

Since Purphoros doesn't have enough devotion to make him a creature there is indeed a loop, but it's not a loss for any player, but a draw:

104.4b If a game that’s not using the limited range of influence option (including a two-player game) somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.

I edited your answer to remove the old wrong answer and the 'EDIT:'. In general you should call out edits in the text, just make them, and feel free to remove parts you find are not correct.

to clarify diego's comment since he missed a word: you should NOT call out edits in the text! if you write "the answer's A. edit: whoops, the answer's B." then you should just edit it to say "the answer's B" to begin with.

Yeah, @doppelgreener is right, I forgot a word. That should definitely have a NOT in there.

Since it's mentioned in the rule you provided, might I ask what the 'limited range of influence' option is?

@Aiken, limited range of influence can be applied to multiplayer games. If you play with this option, you can only affect players within some set distance, for example, players only next to you if the range of influence is 1.

In a multiplayer game with limited range of influence, in case of a loop the game will be a draw for players involved in the loop as well as their range of influence. Only they will leave the game.


text:
In Dice Masters, does an opponent's active character trigger your effects?
For example, Robin has the card text

While Batman is active, each of your Robin dice gets...

Does this apply when my opponent fields a Batman die, or only when I do?

Your Robin only gets a bonus from your Batman, and would not get a bonus from your opponent's Batman.
From Page 19 of the rules at http://dicemasters.com/wp-content/uploads/mdm/MDM_Rules.pdf
Powers, Abilities, and Card Text:
Card text that names a character only considers your characters for its effects. Your card’s
text doesn’t trigger because your opponent has the same character, nor do your dice get a
bonus from your opponent’s cards of the same name.
Active and Fielded:
When game text says, “While active,” that means “When one or more of this card’s dice are in the field.”

Thanks!  I had read the rules, but I obviously missed that bit.


text:
How should one handle miscommunication being abused?
I was observing a game the other day and saw a miscommunication that resulted in a player essentially cheating. This was at an FNM.
Here is the scenario, Andrew has a 1/1 thopter token and and a Spireside Infiltrator, Nick has 2 tapped Ovalchase Daredevils.

Andrew confirms his move to attacks and declares thopter token and
Infiltrator as attackers. They resolve the Infiltrator's trigger
Nick says "before blockers, Subtle Strike" placing the card on the table near Andrew's thopter and
waiting for Andrew.
Andrew then says, "in response, cast Built to Smash" placing the card from his hand directly on the thopter.
Nick
then replies, "then I'll give your infiltrator -1/-1 and put a
counter on one of my Daredevils".

What ended up happening was Andrew just let this happen since he recognized that Nick had not finished casting the spell when he announced his Built to Smash. Technically speaking Andrew is the one who made an error in this manner, but it was clear to everyone watching that Nick intended to give the thopter -1/-1 and manipulated the communication to his benefit.
What should be done if behavior like this is observed? If the answer as a player is to report to a judge, then what would a judge's course of action be?

Technically Andrew cannot act at step 3 because at step 2 targets and modes were not fully defined so Subtle Strike wasn't technically on the stack.
So, since Andrew acted without priority, the steps should be rewound to Subtle Strike being cast.  It would then need to be fully cast before priority is regained by either player.
Now, assuming that there were no modes and only a single target, I would actually say that Nick implied that he chose the thopter as his target, and since Andrew accepted the shortcut (by acting like it was on the stack and casting his spell) that Nick's choice is set. There's an old article from Wizards about "false information", but there might be something more recent.

So you are saying that the proper move would have been to enforce Nick's implied target of the thopter with no modes chosen since he did not announce one? If so is that outcome even possible since Subtle Strike requires at least one mode to be chosen?

@Fr33dan In your case, you have an illegal cast since no modes or targets were chosen.  I was also answering the situation if a card had no modes and 1 target.

Yes and the way to fix that is just to roll back and Nick must cast the spell properly with modes and targets but by this point he has already seen the Built to Smash and can pick his targets accordingly. Is the answer just that players like Andrew need to be more careful and that there is nothing for observers or a judge to do but roll back the problem when it happens?

@Fr33dan Yes, Andrew should play more carefully, but this is just an opinion. It is irrelevant that Andrew gave away information about his hand. Observers cannot do anything, except to say "Hang on while I call a judge." A judge would roll back the situation. Does that clear things up?

@Rainbolt Yes I suppose that makes things clear. I know it's just my opinion but I feel as though that there are no ramifications on Nick for using this to his advantage is not morally right, so I just wanted to be very clear on it.

@Fr33dan If a judge is applying a fix they are probably also handing out some sort of penalty. In this case probably a Games Rule Violation to N and Failure to Maintain Gamestate to A (I could be wrong about the exact penalties though since I don't have the MTR available right now)

While this is probably all a judge could do in the first instance, I disagree that that's the correct penalty given the question description. Fr33dan said explicitly that Nick waited for Andrew to respond, mid-cast. If this was to intentionally hide information to gain an advantage, he's cheating, and either way this is the behaviour that should be addressed. However, a judge won't be aware of this after-the-fact, at least if Andrew doesn't mention it.

@Samthere The targets and modes of a spell are free information. Players are only obligated to provide free information when an opponent asks for it, so Andrew hasn't cheated at least for the reason you described. I also think that the violations in diego's comment should be reversed. Andrew is the one who violated a game rule by acting without priority, so I would give FTMGS to Nick and GRV to Andrew.

You might be correct if this were an innocent mistake, but if Nick is trying to mislead Andrew by falsely representing his plays (and table positioning is part of communication), then inviting Andrew to act (by pausing and waiting) then he's trying to gain an unfair advantage through disingenuous means. If that's the case, it's absolutely a violation, even if Andrew also causes a violation by responding incorrectly.

@Samthere I disagree, and I'm willing to continue the discussion somewhere else.