text:
When is a Spell considered to be "Cast"?
Is a spell "Cast" when it is first declared and put on the stack?  Or when it resolves?
I used to think it was when it resolves.  But I think I am wrong.
For example, if my opponent puts a creature spell on the stack, then I put the spell Silence on the stack, it sounds like all spells on the stack will still resolve.  (I get that any other spells can also go on the stack and resolve until Silence resolves.)
So I guess that spells that use the word "Cast" mean when they are first put on the stack?

Neither. A spell is cast after its costs are payed, before anyone has a chance to respond to it, before it resolves. From the rules:

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect.

So yes, if you cast Silence, it will be too late to stop any spells that are already on the stack. This is also important for effects that say "whenever you cast a spell", for example.

The answer wasn't quite right. You need to place the card or copy on the stack, make choices (such as targets), determine cost, activate mana abilities, and pay the cost before it's cast. Fixed.


text:
Does the commander count as part of your deck?
Say I have an EDH/Commander deck with Omnath, Locus of Mana as my commander.
Does that count as being in my deck?
Or can I have another Omnath, Locus of Mana in my deck?  (If so I imagine I would have to follow all the Legendary rules about playing the second one.)
If I could include a second one in my deck that could be useful (if the commander version gets killed a few times I would be able to play the one from the deck for only 3 mana.)

Yes, the Commander is part of the deck.

903.5a Each deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including its commander.

The Legend rule doesn't limit what can be present in a deck — it limits what's on the 'field — but the following Commander rule does:

903.5b Other than basic lands, each card in a Commander deck must have a different English name.

The uniqueness rule extends to the sideboard. You only have a single copy of a card in both the deck and 10 card sideboard combined.

You also might want to mention that if you use the optional sideboard rule, you may still only have a single copy of a card in both the 100 card deck and 10 card sideboard combined.

@user1873, It would be silly to place one there as you couldn't add it to your deck without breaking the uniqueness rule, but I mentioned it nonetheless.

@ikegami But you could Wish for it.

No. The commander itself does not count as part of the deck. When you are playing EDH your Commander is technically off the board when it is in the command zone. So before you even start playing an EDH/Commander game the Commander is not in the deck. Ergo it does not count as part of your 100-card restriction.

This answer is wrong. The rule quoted by the earlier answer is still part of the latest CR [Jan 16, 2016]: "903.5a Each deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including its commander." The EDH site confirms: "A Commander deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including the Commander."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
"Each" and Targeting
I played with a group recently who was convinced that an effect like "each creature" will target (while "all creatures" does not).
I consider rule 114.9a good enough to prove that it must say "target" or have a keyword whose rule says target or... it doesn't target.
But they are so sure that I think I will get some push back.  Is there anything besides rule 114.9a that I could use to clearly show that "each" does not target?  (Assuming I am right and it doesn't.)

Very similar to this question: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/14777/do-cards-that-say-creatures-you-control-trigger-heroic

To quote 114.9a, with bold for emphasis:

114.9a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn't make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word "target" in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it's not a target.

That really seems as straight-forward as possible. Does the spell or keyword rule use the exact specific word "target"? No? Then "it's not a target". The only other thing I can think of that may help is to show them gatherer rulings from any number of cards. Look at any card with Overload, for example: Cyclonic Rift, Blustersquall, etc. Both of these have Gatherer rulings that specifically state "If you pay the overload cost, the spell won't have any targets."

The overload card rulings will work perfectly!

More importantly, they have the follow-up ruling under it which says "Because a spell with overload doesn't target when its overload cost is paid, it may affect permanents with hexproof or with protection from the appropriate color."

Re "Does the spell or keyword rule use the exact specific word 'target'?" That leaves out Auras. They target when they're on the stack.

@corsiKa, I don't rely on rulings; they're sometimes outdated. But it wouldn't have hurt to mention it too.

@ikegami Isn't that covered by the special exception 114.1b?

@corsiKa, Yes, "114.1b Aura spells are always targeted. [...]"

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


text:
Athreos, God of Passage and Undying
I am curious about how this scenario will play out:
I have both Athreos, God of Passage and Geralf's Messenger in play and Geralf's Messenger dies (with no +1/+1 counters on it) .
My guess is that it will work like this:

Geralf's Messenger will leave the Battlefield (maybe even go to the graveyard?)
Athreos, God of Passage's ability will trigger (and go on the stack?)
The opponent that I target will have to choose to lose 3 life or put Geralf's Messenger back in my hand.
If they lose 3 life, Geralf's Messenger will go back on the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.
If they choose not to lose 3 life, then Geralf's Messenger will go back to my hand.

Does that sound right?  Basically I am trying to see if Geralf's Messenger will effect loss of 6 life before it is well and truly dead (as long as Athreos, God of Passage stays on the board).

Basically I am trying to see if Geralf's Messenger will effect loss of 6 life before it is well and truly dead

Nope. Undying actually makes it worse for you.
I think your error is that you forgot about one of the key rules of MTG:

400.7 An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule:

In this context, that means that when the Messenger leaves the graveyard, abilities that later try to move it from the graveyard won't find it since it doesn't exist anymore.

Here's what happens:

Geralf's Messenger dies (is moved from the Battlefield to the graveyard) for whatever reason.

Both its undying ability and Athreos's triggered ability trigger.

The abilities that triggered are placed on the stack in APNAP order. A player decides the order in which his abilities are placed on the stack.

What happens next depends on the order in which you place the abilities on the stack.

If you place the Undying ability on the stack first and Athreos's triggered ability second.

Athreos's triggered ability resolves:

Return it to your hand unless target opponent pays 3 life.

Undying resolves:

If it's still in the graveyard, return it to the battlefield under your control with a +1/+1 counter on it.

So,

If opponent pays 3 life, it ends up on the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter.
Otherwise, it ends up in your hand.

He shouldn't pay any life, forcing you to cast it again.

If you place Athreos's triggered ability on the stack first and the Undying ability second.

Undying resolves:

Return it to the battlefield under your control with a +1/+1 counter on it.

Athreos's triggered ability resolves:

Target opponent may pay 3 life, but it doesn't matter if he does or not since the object to move no longer exists.

So,

If opponent pays 3 life, it ends up on the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter.
Otherwise, it ends up on the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter.

He shouldn't pay any life since it doesn't make a difference.

Perfect!  The first scenario is exactly what I am wanting.  I am building an aggro EDH deck with Athreos and Undying/Persist.  The idea is that they have to give me an endless supply of cards or take double damage from Athreos.  Generally, I want them to not pay the life and give me the card back.  The groups I play EDH with usually ends up with fairly long games, so we are frequently top decking.  (I misstated that what I wanted was 6 damage when what I really want is the deterrent of 6 damage)

I don't know if "undying makes it worse". Undying means they'll always give you the card, which is good. Maybe the statement "athreos makes undying worse"(rather than the other way around) may be closer to accurate. In any case, usually cards like this suffer from the fact that, since the opponent can choose, the effect gets diminished, he can plan and make good plays as a result. In this case you're forcing a decision, so you have more certainty. The uncertainty of opponent decisions can really hurt.

Also, consider if you have a bunch of mana and a sacrifice engine. In this case they may ACTUALLY pay 3 to have the messenger come back, take another 2, just so that you can't loop damage with your excess mana anymore.


text:
Drawing and going first
In what scenarios or formats can a player draw even when they are going first?
For example: I usually play that if there are more than 2 teams (each team having 1 or more players) then the first team can draw on their first turn.
Are there other scenarios or formats that affect this?

When there are more than two players/teams.

103.7a In a two-player game, the player who plays first skips the draw step (see rule 504, “Draw Step”) of his or her first turn.
103.7b In a Two-Headed Giant game, the team who plays first skips the draw step of their first turn.
103.7c In all other multiplayer games, no player skips the draw step of his or her first turn.


text:
Statistics on a booster pack (to make my own re-packs)
I have a lot of magic cards.  For constructed play they are mostly worthless.  I would like to pack these up into re-packs that are like booster packs.
But I am not sure what cards go into a booster pack.
NOTE: I am not asking about Rareity distribution.  I know that each pack has:

Token/Advertisement
Foil/Land
Rare/Mythic
3 (ish) Uncommons
Rest are Commons

I am asking how random the other types on the cards are.  Meaning is it possible to open a booster that is all Red?  or all Creatures?  Or all Sorcery?
Or is there a guarantee that there will be a certain number of each color, creatures, instants, sorceries, etc.?

For what it's worth, if your purpose behind the repacks is to open them to draft with, you should consider building a cube : see http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/multiplayer/11755_The_Cube_20.html , for instance.  (Some people go to the trouble of 'balancing' their cube packs, but many more folks just shuffle up and let randomness be randomness)

There is no hard guarantee that a booster will contain X creatures, or X sorceries, or X red cards.
However, the contents of a booster aren't completely random either. Instead, the commons in a booster are heavily influenced by the set's common print runs.
Print runs are easiest to explain by example, so let's look at the print runs for Born of the Gods, a small set. The commons in the set are divided into two lists, with each common showing up in only one list (but appearing twice in that list).
A normal Born of the Gods booster contains 10 commons, made up of 4–6 commons from list A and 4–6 commons from list B. This means that certain combinations of commons are likely to occur together, and other combinations of commons can never occur together.
Now, all of this is probably too much of a hassle to be worth simulating when building your own repacks. I would probably just add 10 random commons from your pool. But print runs are the basis of how real boosters work, both in paper and online.

Generally it seems as though exact statistics are unavailable, though there are lots of booster/draft simulators available online to help you get a feel for distribution.
The best resource I found for booster pack setup has been over at MTG salvation and via Wizard's own Booster Draft Simulator.
In general, from playing around with it, it seems as though there will always be at least 2 of each color and half creatures, half other spells.
Unless there is a resource I missed, more details statistics would have to be gathered using some booster simulating system, to which I wish you good luck.

If they're entirely random, you could probably look at at least several dozen packs without ever seeing fewer than two of a color - I wouldn't infer that it's a rule. And it's definitely not true that they're always half creatures and half noncreature spells. Maybe you meant about half? Which again, is likely to happen with random choices...

That the statistics are unavailable implies the selection of which commons are placed in a booster isn't random. Could you provide documentation to support that, at least?

@ikegami Well, they could be fully random and Wizards just hasn't said so, right? (But of course, they can't be completely random given that they print the cards in sheets.)

@Jefromi, Yeah, I suppose that's a possibility too. // Printing cards in sheets of cards containing varied cards (as I presume you meant) doesn't mean it can't be completely random, but if that's what they do, it would imply it's not completely random (because you'd have no reason not to print sheets of identical cards otherwise). Is that what they do? Again, this is the kind of information this answer could use.

@ikegami They've stated explicitly they print cards in sheets and you can see them if you for example do an image search for "mtg sheet". And I really just meant that they're not completely random, because they print some finite number of sheets (presumably equal numbers of each card at a given rarity) and then repackage those into packs, so at the very least they can't all be all red, and if they don't mix up all the cards from a really large number of sheets, it's much less random than that :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

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


text:
Does the Thorncaster Sliver's ability damage have to be assigned before or after blockers are declared?
If I have 5 slivers and one of them is a Thorncaster, will I need to assign the "1 damage to target creature or player" before or after my opponent declares blockers?
My guess is that it is as I attack, but I would like it to be after blockers are assigned.

This is likely a duplicate or can be gleaned from the other questions that have been asked/answered recently relating to Thorncaster Sliver.

@ColinD - You are right.  I should have looked at that question.  (Funny that we both used the same example of 5 slivers attacking.)

As a side note, you often wouldn't want it to be after blockers are assigned. Since it is before blockers are assigned, you can use the damage to remove potential blockers

I voted to reopen it. I explain why here.

As with most abilities, you choose the targets as part of placing the ability on the stack. The damage is assigned and resolves before any blockers are declared.
I will cite ikegami's answer from another question related to Thorncaster Sliver.
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/12644/3128

Here's what happens:

You attack with five slivers. Five instances of Thorncaster Sliver's ability triggers
You place the abilities on the stack in the order of your choice: (Best order used)

You place PS#1's ability on the stack targeting the 2/2
You place PS#2's ability on the stack targeting the 2/2
You place TS's ability on the stack targeting the Blood Artist
You place MS#1's ability on the stack targeting your opponent
You place MS#2's ability on the stack targeting your opponent

MS#2's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to your opponent.

MS#1's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to your opponent.

TS's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to the Blood Artist

The Blood Artist dies. Blood Artist's ability triggers.
Your opponent places Blood Artist's ability on the stack targeting you.
Blood Artist's ability resolves:

You lose one life.
Your opponent gains one life.

PS#2's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to the 2/2.

PS#2's ability resolves:

Deal one damage to the 2/2.

The 2/2 dies.
[Move on the Declare Blockers]

The emphasis is mine.

Before blockers are declared.

First of all, it's not combat damage, so it's not assigned. The ability triggers, the ability is placed on the stack, targets are chosen, the ability resolves, and the Sliver deals damage.
The ability triggers when the Sliver attacks, which means when it's declared as an attacker.
The ability gets placed on the stack the next time a player would get priority [CR 112.3c], which is still within the Declare Attackers step. That means the ability resolves and causes damage to be dealt in that step too.
My earlier answer covers a very similar scenario in detail.


text:
How can I quickly calculate the shanten number in Mahjong?
I am able to calculate the shanten number myself, but it often takes me more than a minute. I'm looking for ideas how to become more efficient.
Background: I'm currently writing a paper about determining the shanten number with a computer algorithm. This works very well so far, but there are likely some ideas for improvements that I missed. I am a really poor Mahjong player myself, so input by experienced players would be most welcome.
This is a rough description of my (manual) strategy right now:
First, detect any tiles of which the usage is certain. This means tiles that are alone (no adjacent tile within a radius of 2) and sets that are completed (chi, pon).
I keep count of how many single tiles there are. Next, I look for incomplete sets (in a shape similar to any of 11x, 12x, 1x3, x23). I insert one of the singles into any of them and increment the shanten number in my head. During this step, I attempt to keep up to 2 pairs for later though.
There will be some singles or incomplete sets be left over, I split them up and multiply their number with 2/3 (because any 3 tiles can be made into a set by exchanging 2 of them). I also check if there are one or two pairs, if not, I create one (increasing shanten by 1). So far no problem at all, this only takes me a few seconds.
The trouble starts when there are multiple options how to combine tiles. Should I split this set up, or should I keep it? Should I add this tile here or there? Especially pure (only one suit) hands are annoyingly complex, and I could not figure out a fast way to solve them.
My algorithm of course just laughs at the hands I have trouble with, as it is able to solve even the most complicated hands in fractions of a second. It explores all reasonable ways how to combine the tiles in a tree (with heuristics) and yields the best option.

For clarity, shall we assume you're just looking to complete any hand, rather than caring about the value or shape thereof?

@gold Yes. Yaku etc are not important.

Already answered here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4239028/how-do-i-calculate-the-shanten-number-in-mahjong

@PieterGeerkens Yes, I found a way that works somewhat nicely, luckily. I should have linked the questions. I'll leave this on here, however, because it would be awesome to also have some input from a veteran player's perspective - I have very few experience with mahjong as a player sadly.

If you're eyeballing it, then you go with counting three things:

the standard count from 8. (worst case scenario: 147m147p147s1234z or 13-sided kokushi)
the terminal count from 13. (worst case scenario: all simples is 13-shanten)
the seven pairs count from 6. (worst case scenario: anything without a pair)

Standard count from 8 is to identify up to 5 groupings. Groups of 3 (subtracting 2) are always better than 2 groups of 2 (subtracting 1 each), as there is always an extra tile to pick up a spare from overlapping groups. If #groupings >= 5, then verify if one of the groups is a pair. Otherwise, you only have 4 "legitimate" groups. Protogroups of 2 are called taatsu (t), pairs are counted separately (p). Generally, shanten = 8 - 2*g - t - p. My code extracts pairs before protogroups when counting. With no complete groups, the best you can achieve with the standard count is 3-shanten.
Terminal count is easy. How many terminals, and how many different terminals. For live play, just look for a pair and ignore counting them all. shanten = 13 - diffTerminals() - if(numTerminals() > diffTerminals;1;0).
Pair count is also easy. shanten = 6 - p. Whichever of the 3 is smallest is your shanten count.

Now what the code does is that it can take a hand with size 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,13 or 14 and just break it down. When feeding less than 13 tiles, g can be pre-loaded with the number of melds formed. AFAIK, it won't count for self-walled protogroups if you feed it 45p55777z with 2 melds, and they happen to be two kans of 3333p and 6666p, it won't register that the hand is 1-shanten instead of tenpai... and same with 4578p if the 3 melds are 3333p6666p9999p, then the hand is 2-shanten, not 1 or 0. This is the edgiest of edge cases though.
What it does do though, is if it ends up tenpai, it will test adding every tile to get a complete hand (-1). However, it cannot add a tile already there. So even if one of the intermediate checks says it's fine, when a full hand is present, it will not validate. A hand with 4 of the same and 3 unrelated groups is by definition, not tenpai, as the only way it could "complete" is with a 5th copy of the same tile, which is not possible.
As for what elements to take, it cycles through everything. Could a group like 34555p be better as 345 + 55 or 34 + 555, especially if you need a pair amoing the non-grouped items? Maybe, but it will still cycle through all possibilities. The line detecting three of a kind will just shift eveerything forward by two tiles as there's no point in detecting if in tiles ABCDEFGHIJKLM: DGH, EGH and FGH make runs if you know DEF are the same. Just do DEF at that point, jump, check FGH and move on.
When I run this formula on cycles of random tile distributions, I get in the area of 220 tenhou hands per 100M, which is in line with Tenhou's monthly running stat pages.
  // INPUT: hand is a sorted array of tile values from 0-135 without repeating
  // INPUT: g is the number of groups. The function works recursively by extracting a group and calling itself with stc(smallerHand, g+1)
function stc(hand, g) {
  // INIT
  var retVal = 8; var t = 0; var p = 0;
  // KOKUSHI
  if (hand.length >= 13) retVal = Math.min(retVal, 13 - diffTerminals(hand) - Math.max(Math.min(terminalPairs(hand), 1),0));
  // SUBHAND RECURSION: Sorted hands have relevant tiles spaced 4 apart or less. Order: O{4*4*(n-5)} instead of O{(n^3 / 6}
  if (hand.length > 3) {
      for (i=0; i<hand.length-2; i++) {
      for (j=i+1; j<hand.length-1 && (j-i<5); j++) {
      for (k=j+1; k<hand.length && (k-j<5); k++) {
          // Max subhands:: 14 tiles: 6635520; 13 tiles: 1351680.
          if (isGroup(hand[i], hand[j], hand[k])) {
              var subHand = [];
              for (var m in hand) {subHand[m] = hand[m];}
              subHand.splice(k,1); subHand.splice(j,1); subHand.splice(i,1);
              retVal = Math.min(retVal, this.stc(subHand, g+1));
          }
          if (isPair(hand[i],hand[j]) && isPair(hand[i],hand[k])) i++; j=999; k=999;
      }}}
  }
  // PROTOGROUP COUNT
  if (hand.length > 1) {
      // Priority: AB pair, AC pair, AB taatsu
      for (i = 0; i<hand.length-1; i++) {
          if(isPair(hand[i], hand[i+1])) {p++;i++;}
          else if(i<hand.length-2 && isPair(hand[i], hand[i+2])) {p++;i=i+2;}
          else if(isTaatsu(hand[i], hand[i+1])) {t++;i++;}
      }
  }
  // 5 to 7 pairs, immeditate return on 7
  if (p==7) return -1; if (p>4&&hand.length>=13) retVal = Math.min(retVal, 6-p);
  // Standard count: 8 - 2*g - max(4-g,p+t) - min(1,max(0,p+t-(4-g)))
  if(p+t>Math.floor(hand.length/3)) {
      if (p>0) retVal = Math.min(retVal, 8 - 2*g - Math.floor(hand.length/3) - 1);
      else retVal = Math.min(retVal, 8 - 2*g - Math.floor(hand.length/3) - 0);
  } else retVal = Math.min(retVal, 8 - 2*g - p - t, 6 - p);
  // Tenpai check for shanten == 0.
  if(retVal==0 && hand.length==13) {
      for(var i=0;i<136;i++){
        var checkHand = [];
        var checkRes = 0;
        for (var m in hand) {checkHand[m] = hand[m];}
        checkHand.push(i);
        for (var n = 0; n<13;n++) {
            if (checkHand[n] == i) {n=999;}
            if (n == 12) {
              checkHand = checkHand.sort(doCompare);
              checkRes = stc(checkHand,0);
            }
        }
        retVal = Math.min(retVal, checkRes + 1); // checkRes would be -1 if legit tenpai, 0 if not. **EDIT2016: I think the +1 should be out of the parentheses**
      }
  }
  return retVal;
}

Thank you, this seems very closely in line with my results, which are derived purely from theory (I'm not playing Mahjong much myself). I'll consider your answer carefully.

If you're taking over a minute to count shanten you're thinking too hard. Shanten counting can be done in seconds using your head.
Look at your hand. For every pair or incomplete sequence, count 1. For completed melds, count 2. Subtract the total from 8. Do not count tiles with overlap!
Example:
1225dots 56bamboos 23588characters red east
12dots  = 1
56bamboos = 1
23characters = 1
88characters = 1
total = 4
shanten = 8 - 4 = 4

Well, try something like 1233445567789m then :)

The general idea is close to what I'm doing right now though.


text:
How do I properly place handicap stones?
Handicap games are very common in Go. The weaker player, taking black, gets to place (usually) up to 9 stones on the board, depending on the difference in skill.
Both free and fixed placement are possible, with fixed placement being far more common. This question refers to fixed placement.
Traditionally, both in handicap and regular games, black opens in the upper right corner, making him "bow down" to the (stronger) white player thus paying respect.
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

How does proper placement continue after the first stone?
The second stone in handicap games is, as far as I know, always placed in the lower left corner, but is the third stone in the upper left or the lower right? And what about the order of the next moves?
Is there a difference in tradition between Japan and China (or elsewhere)?

The idea behind playing in the upper right first is so that White doesn't have to reach far to play his first move.  The corner immediately in front of him on his right is left open.
So the third stone goes in the lower right corner, from Black's viewpoint.
[Edit as per the comments: Move order for 9 stones]
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . 4 . . . . . 7 . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . 6 . . . . . 9 . . . . . 5 . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . 2 . . . . . 8 . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

It's worth noting that this custom is appropriately deviated from on many computer programs, as the board is shown to both players in the same orientation. It's polite to let white play in the lower right from her perspective, so when sitting opposite each other (in most real games) the 3rd stone goes in lower right as this answer says, however in virtual games the third stone is placed in the upper left because it is the upper left from both players' perspectives.

In the other cases that aren't completely symmetric (6 and 7), I believe it's customary to fill the hoshi points on the sides of the boards before the top and bottom. I.e., in a 7 stone game the handicap stones form an "H" rather than an "I"

What is the order of the moves 5-9? Afaik it is left, right, top, bottom, center, but why play 3 on the lower side and 7 on the upper side, isn't it inconsistent? (I wonder about the order of symmetric moves, too, even though I'm sure nobody would notice in a real game.)

AFAIK: 5: as for 4, then the middle. 6: as for 4, then the sides, starting with Black's right side (as for the first). 7: as for 6, then the middle. 8: as for 6, then on Black's far side (as for the first), then on Black's near side. 9: as for 8, then the middle.

@KarlKnechtel: Why is 7 on the far side? The reasoning of 3 would indicate a placement on the near side to make it easy for w to place her first stone.

you mean the 7th stone out of 8 or 9? because the first stone in each 'pair' is on the far side, by analogy with the first stone in a no-handicap game.

@KarlKnechtel But shouldn't 3 be at 4 (far side) in that case?

After the four corners are accounted for, the fifth stone goes to the center point.
If it is a six stone handicap, there is no center stone, but two stones (above four) go in the middle of the left and right sides. The seventh stone goes back to the center.
If there are eight stones, the four stones (above four) go to the middle of the left and right sides, and top and bottom. The ninth stone goes back on the center point.


text:
Which hands do not consist of sets and a pair?
I know of only two hands that do not consist of 4 sets and a pair in riichi mahjong: Seven Pairs, and Thirteen Orphans. Are there more?

Based on this source I would say that those are the only ones.

This source explicitly states that 13O and 7P are the only exceptions in Riichi.

A Winning hand is, except for two
  exceptions, composed of four MELDS
  (mentsu [面子]) and a PAIR (jantoo,
  [雀頭]). The two exceptions are the
  SEVEN PAIRS (chiitoitsu [七対子]) hands
  (covered in a later section) and the
  THIRTEEN ENDS (kokushimusoo [国士無双])
  hands (covered later in the special
  hands section)

In some variants you have hands like Knitting (seven cross-suit pairs), Thirteen Grades of Imperial Treasure, and the Wriggling Snake.
This page matches the rulebook I learned from. It describes several others such as Windy Chows, Dragonfly, Heavenly Twins (a special case of All Pairs), Run Pung & Pair, and Red Lantern.
I believe most of these should apply to riichi mahjong as well.

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


text:
Where can I read Mahjong game commentaries?
To improve, I'd like to read game records of professional players, and to understand these commentaries would be useful. Do you know if these game commentaries exist, and where I can find them?

I kept searching for the past few days, but the only thing I found was tenhou's logging feature. It basically lets you replay previous hands, so you "only" need to find strong players and links to their hand records. I do not yet know how to do that.
Example: http://tenhou.net/0/?log=2008120919gm-0007-7447-xc9f52854acf6&tw=3. It starts with some Japanese advertisment, but just click the link at the bottom after a few seconds and you'll be lead straight to the game. Everything is self-explanatory from that point on. Sadly, I have no idea how strong the players in the link are, I just found it by accident.
Apart from that there is a number of youtube videos, but it's rather hard to follow so I can't recommend it really.
Sadly neither of these options offers commentaries, so it's only partly useful.
Edit: This page tells how to watch replays on tenhou.net. It's a very comprehensive guide. Also have a look at this page which explains how to watch live games of high dan players.
Replays on tenhou look like this:

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


text:
What is the meaning of 'karai' and how is it applied?
A Western insei recently wondered about the term "karai":

Japanese
  players call black 57 "karai", which is a term which I haven't heard
  used in western go at all! The meaning appears to be close to "(a move
  creating) a solid position, including a territorial profit".
  Professionals appear to love "karai" moves and groups.

This term is apparently unknown in the West and so far I found no books explaining or even mentioning it. What does it mean exactly, and to what moves is it applied? An example board would be great.

"Concentrating on getting territory, rather than playing for influence."
Pasting in the native speaker sources from the Sensei's answer (put there by Bill Spight I think):
辛い（からい）厚みよりも地をとることを意図すること。
from Weblio's Basic Go Dictionary
厚みより地をとることを目的とすること。
from a different go dictionary
厚みよりも実利（地）を重視していること。
From the katteyomi go dictionary
Also, if you google for "地に辛い" (ji ni karai, i.e. concentrating on taking territory) you get it described as a style of some players (Wikipedia mentions Hane Naoki, Iiyama Yuta, but also says this style of play is becoming more widespread/dominant recently).

I find this answer far less helpful than it could be, as I do not read any Asian languages.

@PJTraill All three definitions say the same thing, so I added its meaning at the top.

(This is a preliminary answer, I'm hoping for someone to come up with a more founded answer with example situations).
To my knowledge, karai means "clear and sharp" and is typically applied to important, big moves that globally put pressure on the opponent to come up with a (global) strategy. This is different from kiai which is a little closer to (local) tactics.
There is also the somewhat related term "aji karai" which refers to a shape free of weakness. The precise difference to 'honte' is unclear to me, though.

Strange, as the Japanese word "karai" means hot or spicy, or salty. It can also mean strict, harsh, tough. It does not sound, to me, like a word that would be used to describe a nice, solid defensive move. [EDIT: but it seems it is, see the comments]
I'm wondering if the original person mis-heard or mis-typed the word "katai". That means solid. As a negative connotation it would mean tight, stiff and close (i.e. too slow a move). As a positive connotation it would be strong, firm and steady, a move that gives your group a definite life.

Yes, hot, spicy, salty was named many times in the discussions recently (also at http://senseis.xmp.net/?Karai). Gobase (a reliable source on at least the basics) has 'karai' but not 'katai' so I guess it was actually 'karai'.

@mafutrct Yes, the Sensei's page answers your question. So "karai" means a move that grabs/emphasizes territory instead of thickness. That (to me, at least) is fascinating as I still don't see any relation to the non-go meaning.

I'm not sure if you knew but the Sensei's page was created from the discussion here and at the article linked in the question, it's not founded on a solid source. So we can't really use it as a reliable reference.

@mafutrct I did wonder if they were related, but there were links to three native Japanese Go dictionaries, all of which were saying the same thing. (and saying it in slightly different ways).

Yeah, that's true, my mistake, I forgot about that. That is something actually new, and very useful.

Not that strange, if “aji” means taste!


text:
In MTG, can I use Stave Off to save my creature from Oblivion Ring?
I was asked this question by a player at an M12 draft over the weekend, and I would like to get the question & answer up on the internet for all:
Can I use Stave Off to save my creature from Oblivion Ring?
The player was asking while deck building, so there was no specific game state to go with the question. Considering that, please be complete when providing an answer.

I have an answer for this, but I'd prefer to accept a correct & complete answer from another user. I'll add my answer tomorrow otherwise. That won't be necessary now will it?

No it won’t. This is one of the most basic concepts in Magic.

@ghoppe Basic or not, the question gets asked a lot. Oblivion Ring is a difficult card for all the players I've taught the game to.

Sure you can.  Oblivion Ring comes into targets "another nonland permanent" - your creature.  With this triggered effect on the stack, cast Stave Off in response targeting your creature, giving it Protection from White.  The Oblivion Ring's ability will now be countered by game rules, due to having an illegal target.
What you can't do with Stave Off is bring back a creature that has already been exiled by Oblivion Ring.  The creature is far from the battlefield and can't be targeted; even if it could, it is too late for Protection from White to help it!  You'll need something capable of getting rid of an enchantment to rescue your creature from oblivion in this case.

In my experience, what you can't do, bring your creature back, is what most players WANT the card to do with Stave Off, probably relating to drawing it after their creature is gone.

If they are having chronic Oblivion Ring problems, they could always put Demystify in their deck... same casting cost as Stave Off, though admittedly less useful in general!  It does deal with Oblivion Ring rather nicely, and perhaps even creates the possibility of "phasing in" a surprise blocker when the opponent least expects it :)

Yes, you can. For the complete answer, in addition to thesunneversets' answer, an excerpt from the game's Comprehensive Rules:

702.15. Protection
702.15a Protection is a static ability, written "Protection from [quality]." This quality is usually a color (as in "protection from black") but can be any characteristic value. [..]
702.15b A permanent or player with protection can't be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can't be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.

and

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that's no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability's effect for which it is an illegal target can't perform any actions on that target or make that target perform any actions. The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.
Example: Aura Blast is a white instant that reads, "Destroy target enchantment. Draw a card." If the enchantment isn't a legal target during Aura Blast's resolution (say, if it has gained protection from white or left the battlefield), then Aura Blast is countered. Its controller doesn't draw a card.[..]


text:
What are some good games or techniques for helping kids learn to "lose gracefully"?
This is a good question asked as example on Area51.
I remember when I was a kid I hated to lose, and worse; I would try to cheat to win. I don't remember when or how this attitude changed but I started to hate players who tried to cheat or make the game too serious and don't accept losing.
In my personal opinion, accepting a loss after doing your best has a significant role in every person's life. What are some good games or techniques for helping kids learn to "lose gracefully"?

Hmm, guess I should've asked it here faster. ;-)

I agree :-) Sorry Brent.

Not a board game but Dark Souls will make anyone feel okay about losing...

Well, I personally suffered from this condition for a long time---and still do to some extent.
In my opinion, the ability to lose gracefully is dependent on one's self esteem. It is much easier to shrug off a defeat if your self esteem is secure than when your whole life is a battle for every scrap of validation. With age (I'd say 20+) it does get easier to recognize and control such tendencies in oneself.
Things that help:

Playing games where no one loses. There are games that do not employ the competitive aspect of most games. A good game shop should be able to help you find them.
Playing games where winning and losing is shared among multiple players. Team based or completely cooperative games.
Not rubbing in defeats. Kinda obvious but there it is.
Help the child see what they did well. Point out good moves, complement them when they show self restraint during a loss.

Things that don't help:

Telling the child they're a bad loser. The child is not going to see it that way. Any insistence on the topic is just gonna piss them off even more. Not only does it rub in the fact that they failed to win the game, but it aggravates the damage by insisting that they also failed at failing to win the game.
The amount of self reflection necessary to recognize one has this problem comes only much later in life.
Letting the child win. While sometimes effective as a stop gap measure it bears two dangers:

Children are quite smart. If they figure out that you've let them win they're gonna be pissed off even more.
The child is not going to learn without having to face defeat.

Playing more so it can get accustomed to defeat. Without the inner strength to withstand one defeat you can't train someone how to withstand ten of them.

Disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist or child expert - just someone talking from his own experience. Take all of this with a grain of salt.
Final Toughts: In my opinion such behavior - especially if it persists - is only a symptom of an underlying problem. As I said in the beginning, it's a matter of self esteem and that can be heavily eroded over the years even by the smallest things. Do you often have arguments with the sore loser because they're stealing attention from their siblings at social events? Are they by any chance the older or middle child? Are they the less reliable one? If your answer is yes to any of these questions I suggest you go see a professional to determine IF you are unwittingly undermining that child's self esteem. I don't want to paint you a horror picture - I might easily be wrong.

Great answer. For a list of some cooperative games, see the answers to this question. In reply to your third "thing that doesn't help": I agree, but I think when you see progress, as in, the child is starting to lose gracefully, then it might help to start playing more, to reinforce their newly found comfort in losing. Finally, I think the sword cuts both ways: with low self-esteem, it's hard to lose, but learning to lose gracefully can be a boost to self-esteem as well.

Play games that have intermediate goals.  Maybe you didn't win the Crown of Erebor, but you did acquire the Scepter of Saint Stephen, and you became President of Botswana.

Example is critical.  Lose to the child gracefully yourself.  Teach them by example to say thanks for the game when they win. (Graceful winning is the flip side of graceful losing, and I always found it much harder to do; I like gloating, dammit.  I have to consciously suppress that.)  And, importantly, demonstrate that it's to the child's benefit to lose politely.  Offer to play again when they lose (or to play something else, or do something else fun) - unless they're handling it badly, in which case go back to work.  The lesson
is: if you're no fun to play with, you don't get to play as much.
Try playing any fast-play game repeatedly.  It makes it easy for you to demonstrate
the point; if the child knows you're playing ten in a row for three minutes each, it lowers the stakes and makes it easy to learn the principle.  Try (depending on the age of the child) something like Icetowers. (Several other Icehouse games come to mind, but Icetowers is very fast and easy to play, yet hard to win reliably, so it's a good example.)
James Ernest of Cheapass games is a good designer for this sort of thing also; try Lightspeed or "Before I Kill You, Mr. Bond" (sadly now "The Totally Renamed Spy Game" due to copyright issues...)
Totally cooperative games may not help, but team games or group cooperative games can.  And several-on-one games (Space Crusade?) can be good - but put the child on the team, not the solo slot.  (Learning to lose gracefully when one of your team messes up is another key skill anyway.)
Bad losing - in children and adults - should be handled like any other temper tantrum.
(We have one aggressive player and bad-tempered loser in our adult group - but he tries to keep himself under control and is great fun to play with, so we let it pass.)

Here's what I did - though it may be too late for some:
I never, ever just let my son win while he was growing up.
This was not always easy. For a while, for example, I could always count on him to side with his mother when we played A Game of Thrones. It was OK, she was going to win anyhow.
Sometimes, he would score a win - usually in luck based games - and he would be congratulated. But I always told him when he played well, thanked him for the game, and helped him after the game was over by discussing what went wrong and what he might have done better. And I pointed out when he made good moves or decisions, during the game, too.
As a result, he got a lot of practice losing - and what I hoped was a good model for a gracious winner, too. He also got an absolute certain knowledge that when he won, he deserved it. Nobody can take a win away from him by saying, "Well, I just let you win that one," because it simply never happens. So now, when he regularly kicks my butt, he knows he did it legitimately, and he usually models excellent gracious winner behavior for me when he does.

How old was your son when you played 'A Game of Thrones' ?

Neither of my children liked to lose but for very different reasons. I used very different strategies to help each of them through it.
My eldest took losing as an affront. It challenged his self-image. I followed the strategy of "always play my best" and by the time he was 7 or 8, he was beating me of his own accord and taking enormous delight from it. He doesn't mind losing either. I call that a success.
My youngest daughter is less self-confident. Losing confirms her self-image. I try to let her win sometimes (without being obvious about it). As a result, she still loves playing games and is just now starting to win a few games for real. I expect that strategy #1 on child #2 would have put her off playing for life.
Moral: Tailor your strategy for your child's personality.
A last thought: My wife hates to lose and hates playing games as a result. I don't mind losing at all, but I absolutely love winning. My wife doesn't understand the distinction but I made sure that my children do.

I would say... type of game, number of players, etc... are all factors... but being a "good loser" is a learned trait.
You want to train him to be a good sport? Make sure he plays with respectful people.
Other answers are all and good... but the best way to encourage good behavior is to encourage good atmosphere.
You stick your kid into a Halo server... or you stick your kid into a LAN with other church members. It's going to be obvious which group will encourage better manners.

Collaborative games (especially Pandemic, since it's quick and easy to teach) come immediately to mind. The thing is, it can teach you how to accept collective failure, but I'm not certain it has a lot to do with losing to another human being (especially a relative, with all the emotional weight they carry) in a child's mind.
I know a grown up (not the most mature person around me, but still) who simply hates to lose, and continually "raises the stakes" orally during a game, so that every opponent ends up in the same competitive over-emotional state. I hate to lose to her... Crucially, she hates the mere idea of collaborative games and generally refuses to join them.
What the question inspires me is that kids are remarkably more prone to learn by example than by drilling. You may want to try having adults (or more mature kids) losing games against him/her and recovering gracefully, showing their joy of having had a good time ostentatiously.

I'm not sure, but maybe playing games in partnerships or teams would lessen the sting of losing.
Perhaps a mixture of cooperative and competitive games would also help.
Any game where players can exclude an unpleasant player from deals or trading might be effective in letting a child see the consequences. However, it would have to be done very delicately to avoid upsetting the child too much. Some examples with trading and dealing are Settlers of Catan and I'm the Boss.

One thing to consider is that players might have other reasons for preferring some players over others, which may be reasons completely independent of the game itself, and therefore failing to meet the objective, or even working in the opposite way.

I once saw a good suggestion elsewhere on the web: in a one-on-one game, allow the kid to swap places with you at any point in the match. The original example was chess, but it would work with many duels. Dominion and Star Realms would be as easy as swapping decks. Helps to keep a bored child's interest if he gets to pilot a winning strategy for a while. It may also help to develop game understanding faster, both in the child who needs to learn combos and the parent who gets to solve the puzzle of a comeback.
One by-product of ungraceful losing is an unwillingness to play anymore. Quitting in frustration is a terrible habit. Keeping a kid in the game allows more exposure to the parent's correct example. This is merely a way to get into more situations for the child to observe correct behavior, as Tynam suggests.  If he swaps the board just before a finishing turn, he can be congratulated for recognizing something crucial about the game. Ultimately, gomad is right about the hard lessons. Kevin Lawrence is also correct: tailor your strategy. This is an option for bored, frustrated kids.

this is an interesting advice, but it doesn't help with named problem. Loosing after you swapped to more favourable situation will be even worse to take gracefully.

Those are good points. Probably worth it to incorporate them into the answer.


text:
What strategies can you use as a Renegade in 4 player games to maintain your cover?
So in 4-player Bang!, there is a Sheriff (wins when all others are dead), a Renegade (wins when all others are dead) and 2 Outlaws (win when the Sheriff is dead).  So your typical game opens with the two outlaws shooting the Sheriff, the Sheriff shooting the Outlaws, and the Renegade being forced to shoot the Outlaws so that they don't kill the Sheriff too quickly.  This has the effect of telegraphing to all players involved who the Renegade is; the resulting game devolves into a shootout with no subtlety or strategy;  everyone knows everyone's situation and there are no surprises.  Are there better or more optimized strategies for these situations?  Or does the game only hit its stride with more players involved?

Surely the Outlaws don't want to just jump straight into obvious gunning for the Sheriff?  If they do that, it becomes a 2-vs-2 fight, where they have a disadvantage, as the Sheriff is more powerful.  Any Outlaws worth their salt will pretend to be the Renegade, to confuse the Sheriff, try to guess who is the true Renegade, and soften them up before turning on the Sheriff.  Oh, it's all very confusing.  I generally agree that the 4-player game doesn't sound like the best way to play Bang!, though.

The trouble with pretending to be the Renegade is that you are expending resources that you will need against the Sheriff, and forcing your other Outlaw comrades to do the same.  From the Sheriff's perspective, he doesn't care; shooting at an Outlaw will not save you from being shot at, as he wants you ALL dead anyway.

@GWLlosa: The sheriff certainly cares: He doesn't want to be left alone with two Outlaws. Killing first the Renegade is a suicide.

I'm not sure Bang! is really about maintaining cover, anyway. Even for big games, it seems like ideal Bang! strategy is...
1) Outlaws try to spike down the Sheriff roughly ASAP, though they can sometimes wait until most players have long-range guns before exposing themselves.
2) Once the Outlaws are dead, the Renegade immediately tries to kill the weakened Sheriff before he gets time to recover.
The only subtlety I see is that, if the Outlaws are having a tough time, the Renegade should stop shooting them.
You're right, though, that in 4-player, because the range is so short, Outlaws don't even need to wait until long-range guns are out. And there's no moment of wondering who the Renegade is -- in larger games, that moment is brief, but it does exist.

In a big game such as an 8 player game it can be effective for the outlaws to hide for a couple turns while building up some defence. If a single outlaw comes out to fast it could end up just getting them killed quickly as both deputy's, the sheriff and possibly the renegade turn on them. It could also lead to them being killed by a fellow outlaw in order to prevent the law from getting the reward for killing an outlaw.

Well in a 4 player game there is no real incentive for anyone to hide.
The Sheriff can kill anyone since the worse case is killing the renegade first who is at best is only a temporary team mate. Anyway you look at it they will need to kill all other players anyway. But if the sheriff knows who the renegade is they might just ignore them to focus on the outlaws so that they have a little more help.
Both outlaws just need to focus on the Sheriff as there is no real incentive to kill the renegade since it takes away from damage they can be doing to the sheriff. Now if they can't do anything to the sheriff then it might make more sense for them to work on the renegade.
As for the renegade you need to deal with the fact that both outlaws will be wanting to kill the sheriff and the sheriff will probably want to focus on killing the outlaws first as there is more incentive to kill them first (3 cards and they only have the goal to kill the sheriff). If the renegade can come out early and get the sheriff to focus on the outlaws then it is easier to build up some strength while killing both outlaws and leaving the sheriff in a weakened state.
Honestly I think its in the best interest of both the renegade and the sheriff for the renegade to play a little more on the deputy side then they would in a bigger game as it can help the sheriff survive both outlaws.

There is still a bit of strategy to be had. If the Sheriff is clearly getting the upper hand, then try shooting him instead of the outlaws for a while. Plus, it can add in a bit more distrust into who is an outlaw, which can cause them to shoot each other.
Also, the outlaws might want to kill the Renegade, because there will be one less person to be attacking.
Still, if you know who the Renegade is, in general, you should ignore him until the end of the game, so it doesn't really matter if he's caught.

I didn't think you got cards for shooting the Renegade?  Just the Outlaws?

Oh, NM... Still, it'd be helpful to get one player out of the way, so... I've corrected my statement.


text:
Can Terminators Assault Through a Gate of Infinity?
Suppose I have a unit of assault Terminators on the board, and they are joined to a Librarian who has the Gate of Infinity power.  Can he, in the movement step, use the power to deepstrike the squad, and then, in the assault step, can that squad assault as normal?

Gate of Infinity allows units to be placed as per the Deep Strike rules.  According to the Deep Strike rules you cannot assault the same turn you arrive via Deep Strike.  You are also subject to any other rules related to Deep Strike.  You scatter, are affected by terrain, and can mishap the same as if you arrived via normal Deep Strike.
Here's an example forum thread where the general consensus is that you can't assault through a Gate of Infinity.


text:
Rock-paper-scissors type randomizers
Most non-luck-free games use either open-ended randomizers (like dice, or spinners) or closed-ended randomizers (cards, chit pulls, etc).
But there is an alternative, which is simultaneous revelation of chosen selections (rock-paper-scissors).  One example of games that use this type of randomizer are games with written orders, like Diplomacy - which is so completely driven by the diplomatic factor that most people regard it as being luck-free.
Are there any games that use rock-paper-scissors type mechanics as an explicit randomizer?

I don't know that the Diplomacy example is a good one, since people aren't choosing random things, they're choosing specific actions that have a specific effect.  The simultaneous reveal is just a method of concealing information, but I wouldn't consider this a randomizer.

I think this comparison between Diplomacy and RPS is very interesting. There must be some situations in Diplomacy which are equivalent to RPS, and many others which are like a much more complex version of RPS with more players.  The discussions in Diplomacy are similar to the game banter in RPS. (+1)

@tttppp Yep, it's definitely true that a few diplomacy situations do come down to RPS.  They usually involve debates between offering a support for your own move versus trying to cut support for an opponent's move, or supporting to hold versus supporting to attack your attacker.

Race for the Galaxy has this kind of randomness in the action selection phase, although it has a lot of luck of the draw in it as well.  A typical early game example is the explore, settle, trade relationship in the early game.  Often, you want to explore if other players trade, settle if they explore, and trade if they settle.
On the other hand, I disagree that this is not inherently lucky.  If we play Rock Paper Scissors, and I play uniformly at random, the only way that you are going to beat me is luck.  Even if we introduce a little bit of information into the game, if I am making a decision that has any randomness in it, and I certainly should be if the game can be reduced to a mixed strategy, then the game still has some luck involved.

The question is, are you truly capable of playing completely at random, without any tells you aren't even unconsciously revealing!  (If the answer is yes, one suggests you take up competitive poker.. :) )

Robo Rally uses action cards — move 3, turn 90° right, move 1 — placed in predetermined slots; the cards laid down by other players may change how those cards translate into game actions.

Sid Meier's Civilization, the board game based on the video game based on the board game, used this method for combat. You have three types of pieces, and you each reveal one of them simultaneously, and then use a rock paper scissors method to decide who wins.
(This is from the very first edition of the game, and I haven't played it in years, so I could be remembering this incorrectly.)

If I understand your question correctly, Duck Duck Go could be an example.
You play as rubber ducks in a bath tub, and you have a hand of three cards with different movement patterns on them.  Each player picks a card from their hand, and once all cards have been selected, everyone reveals their card simultaneously.
The catch is that each card also has a number in the upper-left corner, with the cards resolved in lowest-number order.

Yomi from Sirlin Games is designed with this specific purpose in mind.  Where the whole game is supposed to be about RPS with unclear-unequal decisions.  It basically is a card game version of Street Fighter.  Its an expensive game but there is a free trial available on the web.  You can find the rules on their wiki

Age of Renaissance
This boardgame starts each turn with a bidding mechanic that I believe meets your criteria for simultaneous revelation of hidden choices.  Each player makes a bid which has two main effects.

Turn order (lowest to highest).  (Generally going earlier is desirable)
Number of influence tokens to place (Generally placing more is desirable)

This leads to an interesting choice for everyone as they need to determine which is more important to them each turn, and then to pick the proper bid in relation to the other player's bids.
To give a simple example.  If the three revealed bids are 12, 13, and 30.  Two of the players will likely be happy (the 12 and the 30) while the person who bid 13 could have bid 29 and still gone second.
I've simplified things a bit here and there are of course exceptions.  The game is very enjoyable and takes 3-5 hours to play.

Nibelungenlied
In 2003, Abstract Games Magazine and About.com's board games section held a game design contest for simultaneous movement games. I helped one of the judges play test, and Nibelungenlied was my favourite. How could you not love a game where the two players represent the forces of tragic destiny and natural order? It placed third in the contest. You can find several of the entries on the contest page.
You could also look at board game geek's rock-paper-scissors mechanic and their simultaneous action selection mechanic.

Another games that might fit your description is Category 5 / 6 Nimmt!. Every player is dealt a number of cards which are numbered from 1 to 104. All players select a card to play and then simultaneously reveal it. They must then add their card to one of 4 or 5 rows on the table in ascending order. Any player who has to add the 6th card or cannot place his card in any of the rows must take one of the rows (which will count against him) and start a new one with his card.
There are numerous games in that family...

I once wrote a gadget to google wave for Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock
Of course this is just the same as rock paper scissors but with more options.


text:
How do I avoid the endless trade negotiations in Settlers of Catan?
When I play Settlers of Catan, I often find myself rapidly bored by the trading component of the game. This is normally because of one or two players who insist on endlessly protracted negotiations for any item. These always start at ludicrous extremes ("I want a lumber.", "I'll give you a lumber - for 3 sheep, a brick and two ore!", "No way!", etc. etc.) and take forever to converge (if they ever do). I find this type of thing can quickly suck the life out of the game. This is a shame, as, apart from that aspect, the game is quite entertaining.
How do you handle this sort of behaviour?

Don't engage in it. Start with your offer (Make it a fair one the first time round), and break it off as soon as someone tries to squeeze a little more out of the deal. People will tend to loosen up as soon as they realize they are not getting any deals done thanks to their negotiation urges.
Simple 'no's work best.

Agreed; I've found that once people find out no one will trade with them, they start to tone things down.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

-1 because this does not address the more difficult part of the asked question, wherein two OTHER players are having protracted negotiations that are boring you.

You are playing with the wrong people... :). You can usually disrupt a trade by underselling the player whose turn it isn't. You can also start by acting like a auctioneer, guiding the players through the trade. This may not always help ins speeding things up, but at least you have got something to do.

I've played with some slow players, but those folks sound extreme!  Here is how I would handle it.
First, agree on a time limit for trading and enforce it.  Next, initiate trading with the players you know are more reasonable.  If an agreement can be reached, ask the problem traders if they can beat it.  Don't give them long to answer and then move on.
You might consider starting closer or even on a good port if you are playing with these players.  If they know you can trade 3:1 or better it should loosen them up.
Also, be sure to enforce the rule that requires you to be a part of all trade discussions during your turn.  IE, this should not happen

You - I need Lumber
Player 1 - I'll give you a lumber for 3 sheep
Player 2 to Player 1 - I'd do it for 3 sheep and a brick

Is "you to be a part of all trade discussions during your turn" actually a rule? I know that you need to part of all trades during your turn, but limiting discussions too?

You can only engage in trades when it's your turn, or with the person whose turn it is. I believe this is clearly stated in the rules.

It's perfectly legitimate for Player 2 to say "I'd do it for just 2 sheep if you wait until my turn."  In fact, this adds more strategic depth to the game.  But admittedly, it does slow the game down.

We play we an implicit rule of offer, counter offer, response.   I suggest you discuss that rule with you players and you implicitly play it.
The player who is playing his turn something like : I would like a wood, I can offer a sheep.  The other players can accept, reject or making a counter offer.  The player who is playing his turn something can accept a counter offer or make a final counter that the other player can just accept or reject.
If the other player just reject the first player offer, its turn is over.
Playing that way, people making extreme demand just get reject by everybody and their turn is very short.  It force player to make reasonable offer at the start.
I am not in favor of a time limit because it is hard to enforce.  But it should be clear that if a person is not decide after around 5 seconds, we told her to decide now how or think to it while the other are playing.

This is just a case of a player taking too long to take their turn.
Just house rule in a turn time limit, say "You should finish your turn in X minutes/seconds/whatever, except in really extraordinary circumstances."
Assuming everybody's just playing for fun, it shouldn't be too contentious.
Of course, if you find your games are really competitive you might consider a proper time piece to enforce stricter time limits.

The question http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/122/countermeasures-to-analysis-paralysis discusses this particular aspect in greater detail.

If people want exorbitant quantities of resources for a trade, I just don't bother trading with them.  Encourage your friends to be reasonable, or deny trades.  A little mediation on your own part might even be worth it.  I know I've successfully encouraged other players to trade to my own determent.  I would have won when my turn came by claiming largest army had my friend not gotten the resources to build that city.
If your going to take forever to cut a deal, I don't mind commenting.  If people are willing to pay exorbitant rates, I'll undercut them if I can.

Something that might work:  Limited permission to trade.  Consider this...
Every player starts the game with a "merchant" token.  If you want to initiate a trade (ex: "I'm looking for ore or wood.  I'm offering sheep and grain."), you have to spend your merchant token.  If you don't have a merchant token, you can't initiate a trade, but you can still offer responses to a trade request.
If all players but one are out of merchant tokens at the end of any player's turn, all players get a merchant token.
The idea here is that the ability to initiate a trade becomes rare and valuable.  This makes  players who futz around with ridiculous (and time-consuming) offers less likely to initiate a trade when they're not desperate, and makes them less desirable to negotiate with when you're the one who initiated the trade.  It also prevents them from attempting to trade every turn, since they can only initiate a trade if they have a merchant token.
I hope this helps!

The only person who should be initiate trade is the current player, and I have had games where I look to trade most turns because I am missing one resource and have a decent amount of other resources to trade.  I have also seen trades that will slow down the leader in the process, seen people trade to block the road of the player in the lead.

Borrowing a mode from another game: you only get one offer attempt per opponent. They either accept or reject. If accepted, you may repeat after the first trade. Move on to next offerer (in 5-6p).

This is a social question, akin to 'How do I get my guest to offer to do the dishes', or 'How do I convince my housemates to put their dishes in the dishwasher?'.
Some people are better at social cues than others, and in any social situation, people may not be aware at first that they're breaking social rules.
The answer, is to provide social cues, that they pick up without losing face. Make light of that they're dragging the game out, while keeping the mood light and fun. without making a drama of it. Hopefully they'll pick up on it.
The term we usually use is 'Quick game is a good game!'.

One way to speed up the trading is that a player may offer only one trade at a particular RATIO (e.g. 1 to -3 or 1 to -2)  per turn. That means, I can offer you one ore for one wool and one grain (1 to -2), or one ore for one wood and two brick 1- to -3).
But it eliminates different permutations of the same ratio; "You won't give me one wool and one grain for one ore? How about two bricks for my one ore? No, make that two woods for my one ore."
The other person can counterpropose: I won't accept one ore for one grain and one wood, but I would accept one brick for one grain and one wood (same ratio, 1:2, from the first to the second person).
But in this way, a person can basically make two (not unlimited) offers per turn, one at a 2:1 ratio, the other at a 3:1 ratio.

I've always hated player trade and it is especially bad when players invoke no kind of trading strategy.  Sometimes they'll hand cards over to the player who is close to winning!  People seem to think solely about the cards they need, but there are many scenarios where the act of trading leaves you in a worse position overall due to helping another player.
Because of this, when playing on catan universe I have implemented a strategy to discourage player trading.  It is as follows.
Focus exclusively on hexes with ore, wheat and sheep.  Get your 2 cities down and then relentlessly buy cards.
Meanwhile, publicly keep track of the number of player trades initiated by each player and announce you intend to exclusively attack the player who attempts the most trades.
Keep the robber on that player using knight cards and all your 7s.  You will quickly get the largest army and all of the help you need to make up for the absence of lumber and brick from the rest of the deck and the robber.
If they don't have cards to trade, they can't trade.
Don't engage in any player trading yourself.  You won't need to anyway.
Where possible rob hexes that will prevent the other player from being able to buy development cards.
Don't do this unless you have at least four probability dots for each of the three types.
Expect lots of anger from the compulsive traders, so don't play like this with friends

This sounds like a good way to make people not want to play with you.

So is excessively trading or handing the game to another player through idiotic trading.  The game is better without it.   I use it on catan universe against strangers I'm never likely to encounter again.  Yeah, they find it infuriating:-)

There are other solutions to fix excessively trading besides publicly calling people out and trying to target them. Kingmaking is a different story and can actually be encouraged by what you are doing. If the person you are targeting is losing they could decide to make sure you don't win.

I've won games using this strategy where all of the other players were trying to target me.  They can try, but I control the resources needed for dev cards and I don't give them away.  Once they all managed to block me in with roads.  4 points for 2 cities, 2 for largest army, 4 victory cards later, I won.

Honestly if there was a player doing this in games I played I would either not play with them or stop playing. As you said it there will be people who don't like this and I would expect them to exclude you from games if this is your answer. As for not winning my point was they can easily become kingmakers with the goal of making you lose.

You're repeating a point I refuted while ignoring the refutation.  It's very hard to decide to be a kingmaker when you don't have control of the robber and your resources are being stolen left right and centre.  Yes there are people who don't like it.  There are people who don't like power serves in tennis too.  There is a difference between a friendly game over a beer and playing competitively with strangers.  Personally, I'd choose not to play someone who wastes my time with excessive trading if there was any way of knowing in advance they were going to do that.


text:
Do cards that supply bonuses trigger on actions modified by other cards?
Many cards in Agricola give you bonus resources under certain circumstances. For example, the Stone Carrier occupation says:

Whenever you take Stone with an
  action, you can also take 1 additional
  Stone. If you also receive other
  building resources, this costs you 1
  Food.

Many cards also modify existing actions. For example, the Quarry reads:

Whenever you use the "Day Laborer"
  Action, you receive an additional 3
  Stone.

If you have a Quarry and a Stone Carrier, and you take Day Labour, do you receive 2 food and 4 stone?
Is this generally true for all cards that supply bonuses?

I really recommend downloading yourself a copy of the Unofficial Agricola Companion, which has many amazingly useful and comprehensive rulings from the game designers themselves.  From the entry for Stone Carrier, for example:

Is activated when you use an action space on which stone is placed each round. You cannot use such an action space just to use this card if the action space contains no stone (e.g. when you have the Bureaucrat.)
Is activated by the action space "Take 1 Building Resource" in 3-player games if you take stone.
Is also activated by the action space "1 Reed, Stone, and Wood" in 5-player games and the action space "1 Reed, Stone, and Food" in 4-player games, if you pay 1 food.
You also pay 1 food to use this card if you receive other building resources at the same time from occupations and minor improvements.
Is not activated when you receive stone because of a minor improvement or occupation.
Other building resources are wood, clay, and reed.

I've highlighted the part that answers your question: you only get the additional Stone if you take Stone from one of the specified action spaces.  (Yes, this is generally true in Agricola, though be sure to read the card wordings carefully, and check the rulings if you are in any doubt whatsoever, as it is a game with lots of exceptions to any given rule!)

The way I read that, you're not directly taking stone with the action.  Day Laborer gives two food only, so I don't think Stone Carrier applies in this case.  So with the Quarry, you get 2 food and 3 stone.
If you were using the family variant of Day Laborer which gives 1 food and 1 resource, then things might be different.  If you chose stone as your resource, then I think both cards apply.  You get 1 extra stone per the Stone Carrier, 3 extra stone with the Quarry, and you pay the 1 food because you received additional resources.  So I think that's a total of 5 stone and 0 food.


text:
Where can I learn the lingo of Go?
I'm only a beginner at Go, but have been reading the questions in the go tag with interest.
However, this game seems to have rather more special terminology than most. What do joseki, shimari, high-point, pincer, aji keshi, fuseki, komi, moyo, tsumego etc. mean?
Could someone explain these terms, or is there a good glossary somewhere that I could consult to help me understand these conversations?

Most of the special terminology of Go is just Japanese Go terms adopted by English-speaking players.  Depending on who you're dealing with, you can be just as likely to see references to "shimari" and "fuseki" as you are to see "corner enclosures" and "the opening".
A good beginner's resource for learning Go can be found at Sensei's Library.  In particular, they have a page dedicated to common Go terminology.


text:
Can Scientific Cooperation happen when there's no science to share?
The text for the Scientific Cooperation Pact reads:

Every time one of the civilizations plays a technology, it pays 2
  science less and the other civilization pays 1 science.

What happens if the other civilization has zero accumulated science? Does the tech-playing civilization still get the 2 science discount, or does the pact have no effect?

I actually fell into this trap in a game, and was surprised at the rules.  If the other civilization can't pay, you can't develop.
The question was asked on BGG, and the rule that covered it was also discussed there- it's on the last page of the rules, i.e. on pg. 20 under Scientific Cooperation:

If one civilization has no science points, neither civilization can
  play a technology.


text:
Can a Great Unclean One ruin regions immediately on summoning?
The Great Unclean One upgrade card says

Immediately place two corruption tokens in a region when you summon a
  Great Unclean One there.

These corruption tokens appear outside of the normal Corruption phase, so it's not clear how they interact with region ruination. The rules (p.19) say

To resolve the corruption step... players count the total number of corruption tokens in the region... If this total is 12 or more, that region is RUINED.
Then each player who placed at least one corruption token in that region during this corruption step immediately scores the same number of victory points indicated for ruiners on that ruination card.

If placing the Great Unclean One pushed the total number of corruption tokens to 12 or more, is the region immediately ruined? Or does ruination not occur until the Corruption phase?
The Nurgle player's corruption tokens were not placed during the corruption step. Does the Nurgle player count as a ruiner for VPs?

In the FAQ it says:

Errata
  Rulebook (pages 19–20)
  If a region is ruined, each player who placed at least
  one corruption token in that region during this round
  immediately scores the number of victory points
  indicated for ruiners on that ruination card

So that means the Nurgle player would count as a ruiner if that region was ruined that turn. However, ruination is only checked in the ruination phase, and so the region would not be ruined immediately.


text:
Can Amber Prison prevent multiple permanents from untapping?
Amber Prison reads

You may choose not to untap Amber Prison during your untap step.
4, Tap: Tap target artifact, creature, or land. That permanent doesn't untap during its controller's untap step for as long as Amber Prison remains tapped.

If during my turn I tap a creature, and then on my next turn I untap Amber Prison and use it to tap another creature, do both creatures remain tapped during the next untap phase?
If not, why not?

The only way it can be done is by copying the ability (such as through Rings of Brighthearth.  With just one copy of the ability, it works as follows:
"As long as" denotes the duration of the continuous effect. The effect ends when Amber Prison is untapped, and when it ends, there is nothing preventing the first creature from untapping.

611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it
  (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts
  until the end of the game.

Even if Amber Prison is  untapped while its ability is on the stack and activated again, it wouldn't be possible, becase the effect from the first instance of the ability would not even start:

611.2b Some continuous effects generated by the resolution of a spell or ability have durations worded “for as long as . . . .” If the “for
  as long as” duration never starts, or it ends before the moment the
  effect would first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn’t
  start and immediately stop again, and it doesn’t last forever.

So you're saying the effect ends when the Amber Prison untaps (for whatever reason)? Does that also mean if my opponent forces an untap (e.g. with Twiddle), then the creature is freed, unless I retarget it?

@ire_and_curses Yes, the effect will end as soon as it untaps, no matter the reason.

It's a bit of a niche effect but using an effect that copies the activated ability of the Amber Prison you can choose a new target and both will remain tapped until the Amber Prison is untapped  (Rings of Brighthearth can do this).

@Pablo is this also correct considering untapping with the ability on the stack? e.g. activate amber prison, untap with voltaic key with the tap ability on the stack, and tap again targeting another permanent. This is not dissimilar to the special case of removing oblivion ring style permanents before their exile trigger resolves, but I believe it may well work differently, so it's probably worth including in this answer.

Turning it into a creature and equiping it with illusionists bracers would be another long shot but a way to make it able to tap more than one.

@ire_and_curses, Yes, that's completely correct.

@Rawrgramming If you untap with the ability on the stack, the continuous portion of the ability does nothing: 611.2b " ... If the “for as long as” duration never starts, or it ends before the moment the effect would first be applied, the effect does nothing. ... "

@Affe yeah, there was a second answer for a while where we established the rule 611.2b stuff, but the answerer deleted it rather than editing to provide the additional information. I was pretty sure this was how it worked but I wasnt 100%, and I thought it was definitely worth including in the answer to the question.


text:
What are the differences between American Megafauna and Bios: Megafauna?
The idea of a detailed board game simulating evolution sounds awesome. I understand that Bios: Megafauna is a more recent reworking of American Megafauna, but I'm quite unclear on the differences. From my limited reading, it also sounds like these games are part of a larger gaming arc, since I've heard mention that it's possible to combine these games with others by the same designer. That's all I know though, and I'm interested in picking one of these up for Christmas. So:

What was the intention with the reimplementation?
What are the principal differences?
Are there specific reasons to prefer one over the other?
How can these games be combined with others, or expanded?

Thank you for saving both of those tags from extinction. :-)

@Monica Cellio - That may just have been intentional. ;)

Suspected it might have been. :-)

In both games you are playing a phylum of either mammals or lizards (250 million years ago or so).  You place your creatures on an ever-changing board, seeking out biomes that (a) have food you can eat (including other creatures) and (b) give advantages to your genetic advantages (such as being amphibious, being fast, having armor, etc).  You acquire these genetic advantages during the course of play (more later on that), and you can spin off new species that share some of the genetics of the parent species.  The world is not a stable place, though, and the board changes frequently, generally becoming harsher (i.e. you need more of these genetic advantages to remain viable).  Placement is governed by proximity to your existing creatures and size (bigger creatures can move farther).  Tangentially, I note that in both games we have found the rules to be poorly-organized and somewhat confusing to learn.
In American Megafauna, genetic advantages ("DNA") come out one at a time and players bid on them.  When you spin off a new species you inherit all of the DNA of the parent (I think).  You have 14 counters for each of four species, and the game supports four players (five with the expansion).  So the board can get fairly crowded.  DNA is tracked by little cardboard tents on a playing mat, which are pretty hard to see across the table.  The winner is the player with the most creatures on the board when the game ends.
Bios Megafauna makes several changes:
The bidding mechanism for DNA is completely revamped.  Several cards are dealt out on the table; the cards represent a mix of DNA and opportunities to start new species.  A player can take the first card for free, pay one for the second, pay two for the third, and so on.  If you take a card with payment tokens on it, you get them.  Tokens are quite limited.  Cards are replenished, coming in at the end.
There are two ways to spin off new creatures.  One is similar to the earlier game, but you choose which traits to inherit and indicate them with a limited pool of tokens.  So, for example, you may have one "nocturnal" chit that you can use for this, and once it's gone it's gone.  The other way is with cards.  A species card will indicate several genes, and to play it you must match at least half of them with an existing creature (which will be the parent).  So if you have a creature that's marine, nocturnal, and doubly speedy, and the card has marine, speed, armor, and insectivore, you can use it.  The new creature has the DNA on the card.  New creatures can therefore have DNA that you didn't previously have represented, which is handy.
Presumably because of the connection to other games (which use the same idea), Bios Megafauna adds non-DNA characteristics that you can also acquire through cards (things like manual dexterity, language, and a couple others I'm forgetting).  These can give some additional advantages, but in our games they haven't really been well-integrated.
When tiles (mostly biomes) are removed from the board they go into a pile that will eventually turn into victory points.  Points are distributed multiple times during the game based on population at that time -- so instead of "biggest at the end wins", you have several checks and players' fortunes can ebb and flow.
There are many fewer creatures in play.  You get eight tokens (wooden counters now rather than cardboard tents) per species (still four of those), and you have to spend some of them on "tracks" -- one to indicate your current size, and one for each of the "roadrunner" DNA (nocturnal, speed, armor, marine).  So yeah, go ahead and acquire those traits, but you do it at the cost of board position.  In our games it has not been uncommon to have only one or two tokens of a species on the board.  (In both games, if you go to zero that species is extinct -- flush the cards, reclaim your tokens, and carry on.)  The game supports up to four players.
Regarding physical aspects, the biome tiles are larger (so easier to see) and the annoying little tents are gone.  However, DNA for any given species is now represented by the combination of counters on tracks, DNA on cards, and the chits used in spinning off creatures.  Add to this that the counters for the different species are not that visually distinct from a distance, and we have found that it's just as hard to see what that tasty morsel you're considering eating has in place as it used to be, but it's differently hard.  In both games players are constantly having to ask each other questions like "how speedy is that guy again?" and "does that have armor?".
Anecdotally, I have heard that "total party kills" -- that is, world-destroying events that end the game -- are much less likely in the new game, and that this was one motivating factor.  Beyond that I don't know why the author reimplemented the game.
The new game is designed to fit into a family of games in ways that aren't entirely clear to me.  We have played one of these, Origins: How We Became Human, once; it shares the non-DNA traits of Bios Megafauna but the rules are very different.  As the name implies, it is set later in time.  I haven't played it enough to make further connections.
How to choose between American and Bios?  Both have merits and both can make play difficult in different ways.  It seems to be easier to recover from misfortune in Bios and the cards provide more options; American is a harder and I think harsher game, which may be what you want sometimes.


text:
How can I learn to play chess blindfold?
I'm an intermediate-level amateur chess player. How would I go about learning how to accurately play a complete game of chess, blindfolded? What skills are needed, and how are they practiced?
In particular, how can I maintain an accurate representation in my head of the board state over time? Whenever I've tried this, I get a dozen or so moves in, and it all starts to fall apart. Are there specific techniques or representations to help with this?

Do lots and lots and lots of chess problems :) Not only is this the fastest way to get better, but as you get to more and more difficult problems, you'll have to keep track of more and more moves in your head.  Besides that, play lots of games - after so many hundred games, you get used to knowing where each of the pieces commonly moves to, and what squares it attacks from there, without even having to think about it.

I think you have to take a closer look at mnemotechnics. Probably Memory Palace technique in particular. You can read about it here, for example.
Here is a discussion about techniques used with Chess games. Mainly about memorizing them. A book called How to develop a perfect memory is suggested reading.
If you know Derren Brown (he's British mentalist, a "mind-reader", if you like), he has done a bit about playing 9 simultaneous chess games with top English players. You can watch it on youtube with explanation on how he did it.
Of course, he only had to remember 8 moves at a time, but it's still pretty tricky not to get confused. If you are interested, you can read Derren's book Tricks of the Mind, it has whole section about Memory.
Best of luck!

I basically agree with Cyriac, but have one added training twist. That is, I try to read accounts of games without the use of a board. That is a test of one's memory.
Of course, everyone knows how the board looks at the beginning. Say White moves 1. e4, Black e5. That's just a standard king's pawn opening. Say the next moves are 2. Nf3, Nc6. Now you know that you are heading for a Ruy Lopez, or maybe a Guoco Piano or Four Knights' Game. The next move seals it; 3. Bb5  a6. Now it is a Ruy Lopez. Play the game in your head, from the "score" without looking at a board.
One help in most chess books is that there is a diagram every 20 moves or so. Say you are fine up to move 12, and then get lost. Then look at the diagram. You can use it to "look ahead" to the 21st, 22nd, 23rd move, etc. But also, "retrace the moves. What did the board look like at the end of move 19 before the 20th moves were played? How about move 18? Go back to move 17, working back toward the picture you had at move 12. Try to "reconcile the two pictures.
You might work up to move 12, and backward from move 20 to move 15. Then you might need to play out moves 13-14 on a board. But use this only as a stopgap and train your memory and visualization skills.
One way to train yourself to play blind is to (initially) allow yourself a look at various intervals, say move 15, move 25, move 35, etc. Then lengthen the intervals so you can play a game blind.
I have deliberately NOT included diagrams to illustrate the thought process.

"I get a dozen or so moves in"
Great start! I am another intermediate-level amateur chess player interested in learning blindfold play (because I am told that it can help me in appreciating the role of pawns). My advice is try playing blindfold to weaker players. Don't worry about inaccuracies or complete visualisation now. Practice is most important in learning most of the skills.
And one tip: Play a fixed number(say 12) of moves blindfold, then play a few moves (say 5) in the normal way, then again (say)12 moves blindfold, then (say) 5 normal moves and so on. You will be able to gradually increase the number of moves you play blindfold.
This is good when you start practicing blindfold play (that's where I stand now). When you can play a decent number of moves blindfold, you can stop this and play whole games blindfold. Goodluck.
PS: Having accurate representations of positions in your head is not possible even for blindfold experts. People who studied the skill of blindfold play does not associate it much with visual memory! The book Blindfold chess by Eliot Hearst and John Knott shares truths like this and give useful techniques to develop blindfold skill.

My experience is that the ability to play blindfold is a function of your chess skill.  When I improved at chess, at a certain point I found myself able to play blindfold without ever having previously done any blindfold training.  I would imagine that all players rated FIDE 1900 or above can likely play at least one game blindfold.
The best way to get the ability to play blindfold is to just get better at chess.

While you're not technically wrong, I'm not sure "just get better at chess" helps with playing blindfolded specifically.


text:
What does a combo deck based around Thran Lens look like?
I like building casual decks based around obscure rares. This one has been sitting in my collection forever, and I've never used it. I'm completely stumped.
Thran Lens is a two mana artifact that reads

All permanents are colorless.

Other than making Black creatures vulnerable to Dark Banishing and the like, what is this card good for? My ideal deck would use the Lens as part of a winning, or at least very annoying combo. I'm not worried about how feasible the combo is to execute - Rube Goldberg machines based on many cards are welcome.
There is one important extra caveat. My collection is strictly old-school. I can only use cards from Scourge or earlier, since those are the only cards I possess (or am willing to buy). On the plus side, I do have most of them...

That is a fantastic card for beating circles of protection.

Stephen Colbert would not notice any changes with this card.

There are at least two good choices:

Invoke Prejudice - Affects all opponents in multiplayer.
Intimidate (or Fear) - Shadowmage Infiltrator is probably the best Fear creature.

To add to this: Avatar of Woe is a great addition to any fear deck.


text:
Can I make wine from the fields I harvest with the Laborer?
The text for Laborer states:

Harvest up to 2 fields OR make up to 3 wine. You may lose 1 VP to do both.

If I pay my VP, can I make wine using grapes I have just harvested?

Viticulture link at BGG

Yes, that's how we play it, though not sure of the official ruling. And yay, so glad to see Viticulture questions popping up!

Yes I believe you can.
The rules for visitor cards state

Many visitors have two separate clauses delineated by the all-caps
  word "OR".  These are two completely independent clauses.

, so in a normal situation you can do just one. However the Labourer is giving you the option to do both so there is no reason why you couldn't do both and thematically losing a point for the labourer to work extra hard makes sense.
When you harvest you add grapes to crush pad.  When making wine you move from crush pad.  There is no rule that says they have to be there a set time limit before they can be made into wine.  There is nothing on the labourer card that says if you choose to do both they happen simultaneously.  You would choose the order they happen in to your advantage.

Sounds reasonable. A powerful card if true. Is there any official FAQ that makes this explicit?