text:
Value of Joker options
How should one compare the value between the two main options of Jokers?
In Yomi, Jokers have two primary purposes: Gold Burst, which allows one to gain aces, and Time Rewind (also affectionately known as Blue Burst), which acts as a "combo breaker" when being hit.  There are also other minor uses, such as using them for pumping fodder in extreme cases.
Being so rare and having powerful effects, Joker's are extremely valuable.  As such, it becomes important to judge the opportunity cost of the two options against each other.  It seems to be a general guideline that Blue Burst is substantially more valuable than Gold Burst in the broadest strokes, but it is not a hard rule.
What is the estimated mathematical value between the two options?  In what situations or character match-ups does it significantly change?  If one is playing for winning in the long-term over multiple games, as one might do in Poker, what is the most conservative way to value these cards?

It's pretty hard to math this out.  It also depends on the game situation.  For example, if you are behind by 30 HP and on the brink of death, that blue burst might save you from a dodge into attack followup, but it probably won't save you from anything else.  Even then, you might have a hard time winning after using it.  A gold burst can get you the two aces you need to have the damage in hand necessary to kill your opponent.
In general, characters like Argagarg and Rook cannot add a large amount of damage to their combos, so gold bursting against them is better.  Characters that have high combo potential like Valerie and Zane generally give you more opportunity to prevent damage with a blue burst.  Gold burst can only be done when you read the opponent to attack or throw so it can win combat, and should only be done when taking the risk to get aces is one of your only options.

I disagree that it should "only be done when taking the risk to get aces is one of your only options". It should be done when you want the aces more than the ability to undo damage, and when you think you have a better chance of landing it (either by reading the opponent's play, knowledge about their hand, or by knocking them down).

Blue burst is more valuable for simple reason. Let's compare them
Blue burst:
+ It's more certain to hit than gold burst
+ It gives +1 card advantage
+ It makes you immune to damage
- OR -
+ It gives you card advantage over opponent that thinks you are bluffing
Gold burst:
+ It's less certain to hit than blue burst generally 50% case.
+ It can give opponent chance to retaliate for free
+ It gives +1 card advantage, while it gives +2/3 card advantage compared to power-up (3 cards for 2 aces)
- Other cards can achieve similar effect, and can recur more often.
- If you lose your opponent is almost guaranteed to gets some free damage in.
With blue burst, you win whether opponent does something or not (assuming you played a Joker). With gold burst it's a bit more all-in.

While each option gives the same numerical card advantage gain, it certainly seems worthy of note that the 2 deterministic cards drawn from Gold Burst have a much higher chance of being much more valuable than the 2 random cards from Blue Burst.

That's the problem. The draw from blue burst is more reliable than from gold burst.

You misunderstand.  I am saying that, while you have a higher chance of getting the cards with Blue Burst, you have a higher chance of getting GOOD cards with Gold Burst (since Aces are usually near the top, albeit not usually the very best, cards you can get in the typical scenario).  In that sense, Gold Burst is more "reliable" in terms of getting consistent value.


text:
PDF with Shogi Zukou and Shogi Musou
I'm very interested in Shogi, and I have a board I bought from USA (I'm in México).
So of course I'm interested in Shogi tsume (mating problems), eventually I came to hear about Shogi Zukou by Kanju Itou, and Shogi Musou by Soukan Itou III (the third).
However I've come across a bit of a problem, I can't really find any one source for all the problems, at least an English one...
So, is anyone aware of a PDF file (preferable) or some kind of file that has all these problems compiled? Along with their solutions of course. If they could use images or kanji instead of pure text, I would be grateful.

A web search for tsume shogi reveals lots of sites with Shogi mating problems.
I'm not aware of a specific compilation of Shogi Zukou and Shogi Musou, but if it's a pdf you want I did discover this compilation of 300 problems in pdf form.

Oh that's awesome! Thanks! I'm aware that they offer the problems, but what I was looking for was a compilation, this helps out a lot, thanks! I won't accept this answer just yet, in case somebody has something more specific. :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can the Balrog be used before going into decline?
My friends and I had an argument over this the other night. The rules say that the Balrog can be used at "any point during your turn." So I attempted to use him to ruin my friends day (taking out one of his places of power) and then go into decline. He claimed that I could not do this as I had started conquest by moving the Balrog and therefore could not decline. I countered with the "Any point during my turn." would imply I could do it pre-conquest as that is still during my turn. I searched elsewhere on the internet but only found discussion boards and forums with similar arguments to the one my friend and I had.

There's actually an official ruling on this very point by Days of Wonder in the SWU FAQ:

Q.If my active Race controls the Pentacle, may I move the Balrog, then
enter in Decline?
A.Yes, since the Balrog may be moved "at any point
during [your] turn".

Some people may not like this ruling very much, but I don't think its existence can be denied!

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


text:
Is there a paid ability window before the runner can jack out after the last subroutine executes on a piece of ice?
Basically the title. A situation where this would matter. If I have a House of Knives scored and my opponent runs into Kominu with no breaker can I use the House of Knives ability after he loses all his cards but before he has a chance to jack out?

Short answer, yes there is a window at 4.1 (before the runner decides to jack out after passing the last piece of ICE), or at 4.3 if the runner decides to continue.  If Komainu has another piece of ICE behind it, 2.1 also provides an opportunity for House of Knives to strike before the runner jacks out.
The run timing chart:

Runner starts, names server.
If there's ICE, goto 2.
If no ice, goto 4.
Approach outermost ICE.

2.1. Paid ability can be used (can be used if there is another ICE behind Komainu, and also kicks in before runner has a chance to jack out)
2.2. Jack out (Goto 6, cannot jack out if first piece of ICE encountered this run) or continue to 2.3.
2.3. Approached ICE can be rezzed, Paid ability can be used cards can be rezzed.
2.4. Check if ICE is rezzed.
If rezzed, goto 3.
If unrezzed, and there's another piece of ICE, goto 2.
If unrezzed, and there's no more ICE, go to 4.

Runner Encounters Ice if rezzed.

3.1. Icebreakers can interact, Paid abilities can be used
3.2. Resolve all unbroken subroutines
...Either the run ends, goto 6
Or it continues, and there's another piece of ICE, goto 2.
Or it continues, and there's no more ICE, go to 4.

Runner approaches attacked server

4.1. Paid abilities can be used.
4.2. Runner decides:
To jack out, go to 6 or to continue, go to 4.3
4.3. Paid abilities may be used, cards may be rezzed.
4.4. Run is successful. Trigger abilities if any.
4.5. Access cards. Trigger abilities if any.
Agenda : Stolen (Unless additional cost)
Trash cost present : may be paid to trash
Everything not trashed or stolen is returned to server.

Run ends. Trigger abilities if any.
Run is unsuccessful. Trigger abilities if any.

If there's more ICE behind the Komainu, then the paid ability window at 2.1 should provide the opportunity to flatline the runner before he can jack out.

True, and excellent point!  2.1 is mean like that.

Oh a related question. I do not see a paid ability window before 4.4 and 5. So that means that I could not flatline the runner with House of Knives after a Psychic Field?http://netrunnerdb.com/en/card/05010

Nope, there are no paid ability windows during the run once the runner accesses.


text:
Why should I ever go green?
My friends an I have tried playing this game a few times now and have come to the conclusion that going a green never wins. Green cards do not seem to be more powerful than red cards and yet red cards have victory points attached to them. This gives players who go red an automatic advantage over those who go green. Going balanced doesn't seem to work well either since then you do not have the power or token generation to get boss loots.
So the question is why would you ever go green, or more exactly why would you ever not go red?

It depends on the setup. If you've got Bat Milk, and a few other deck thinners, you remove all of the other trash from you deck, draw your entire deck every turn, and win before anyone else has really started.
Green has the majority of the deck thinning cards (and PVP Defense). Also most of your combo cards are going to be in green. Werewolf in a Tophat and 3 Natural 20s = 3 of each boss loot all on the same turn. With Bat Milk in the mix you can do that reliably.
On the other hand, sometimes Red IS the better choice. Again it depends on the setup, and how other people play. Having some Defense or Deck Thinning is vital if you have a lot of people buying PVP attacks.

The real question is why bother to focus on one side at all? There are plenty of cards on both sides that increase the power of the other side. As for you claim that Red cards are more powerful I would argue that green cards are more powerful.
Depending on what cards are available a green deck has lot of power and its all in how the cards are used.
Baby Ninja: While it adds +1 power its great to have for pvp defense (and you get a replacement card) and it can be used with other green cards
Magical Unicorn: Great for getting rid of a bad hand.
Bat Milk: Doesn't give much by itself but it can be used to get a replacement card that is more valuable and it can clean your deck of red cards if you are going pure green.
Robot Cowboy Angel: Great pvp defense as you get 2 cards back and if not needed for pvp defence you can just draw another card in its place.
Faerie Candymancer: Great for removing pox cards since you can draw another card and it can get rid of red cards.
Psychic Cat, Stone Yeti and Hawkman with a Laser Gun: Great card for early on where you can discard a quarter and a cardboard tube to get 3 Tokens.
TochWieners: Free card if your opponents also get them
Natural Twenty: One of the most powerful cards in the game once you start using two of them since they are cumulative in power. Throw two of them on a Werewolf with a Top Hat and you got a total of 12 tokens and 12 power for 3 cards which shows you how quickly they can give you tokens/power. That combo can allow you to buy both red and green boss cards while not worrying about other red cards.
Sorcelator: How can you go wrong with 1 token, 1 power and 1 card?
Pickle Recognition Engine: In a green deck this will give you 5 tokens most of the time and combine it with a few Natural Twenty's and you will soon have the ability to buy multiple boss cards on a turn.
Werewolf with a Top Hat: 3 tokens and 3 power combined with Natural Twenty is a great way to build up green cards and grab red boss loots before your opponent.
Sure the only green cards with victory points are the boss loots but the cards have the ability to help a player build up quickly.
In the end the decision to go with pure green, pure red or a combination of the two really depends on what what cards are available for the game. Nothing is set in stone when you can get a game with 9 or 10 stacks of green cards then it would be silly to worry to much about red if they didn't have many cards that help you get the boss loot quickly.

The problem is, going green your high end points you can get is 63 (maybe a little more if you grabbed a few low cost red cards). This can also only occur if you got all green boss loots, which probably wont happen. This number is pitiful compared to what red decks can generate.

For example, my roommates and I did a run where we completely stacked the green side to give it the best advantage possible (using several of the cards you listed above). We also put the worst cards we could on the red side. Then we had 2 players go red (thus competing for points) and one go green. Even with all of this in his favor the green guy still got crushed.

But you are missing the point, it is very possible to buy only green cards but still be able to buy red boss loot. To me it sounds like the players who are going green are not playing to the best ability because with the right cards you can quickly buy out all the green boss cards and end the game preventing other players from building up many points.


text:
How exactly do "start of turn" affects trigger
This came up in a casual game with a friend last night. He is the runner with an economy based upon the The Supplier. One turn he hosted a Data Folding on it. At the start of his turn the "start of turn" effects trigger, and since it is his turn he picks the order. He claimed he could have the supplier resolve first, and then still get the money off the newly in play Data Folding. This didn't seem right to me as Data Folding wasn't in play when the "start of turn" effects triggered.
Who is correct?
What about a similar situation. He already has a data folding in play and wants to use the "start of turn" credit from it to pay for something else already hosted on the supplier. Is this allowed?

When the start of turn triggers happen at 1.2 every card currently in play which has a start of turn trigger tries to trigger. Since it's the runner's turn, their effects go first. The runner can choose the order of their own effects, so you can gain a credit from data folding, and then use that credit to pay to install something off The Supplier.
What you cannot do is install something off The Supplier / Personal Workshop and then have that newly installed card trigger a start of turn ability; it wasn't in play for the start of turn signal, and so has missed it's chance.
So you are correct, and the Data Folding wouldn't have given him any money for that turn.

This is correct. However there is one other complication. Cards that have a 'At the start of your turn...' trigger which are trashed before they are resolved do not resolve. For example if you have Wyldside and Aesop's pawnshop in play you may resolve them in either order - draw 2 cards and lose a click, then sell Wyldside to Aesop for 3 creds or sell Wyldeside to Aesop before it resolves. Yes, you can use the credit from Data Folding for paying for subsequent Supplier installs.


text:
How does Kajia's Swarming style work against attacks measured from markers?
For example, say we have the following board setup
S = Kajia Salix
B = Karin Brandtford
bold = Jager's marker
ooSBooo
Karin has an insect token in each discard pile.
Kajia plays Swarming Drive.
Karin plays Howling Grasp.
Because of the insect tokens opponents at range 1 or 2 cannot hit Kajia. Karin is at range 1 so she should not be able to hit. However, the attack is coming from Jager's position, which is range 0. Does Karin hit in this situation?

Howling just calculates range from Jager's position, it doesn't change where Karin is.  Swarming checks Karin's position when determining whether or not you can hit, so the attack misses.


text:
Why is card counting considered illegal in Blackjack?
As far as I can see, a card counter is still subject to the same mechanic as any other players, but they are able to perform better then most people within these confines. So why is card counting a justification for casinos to kick people out? Obviously, a card counter will cost them money, but if that is the only justification, then it's like the casino is cheating- they only allow sucky players to play. If you are too good you get thrown out. Is that all there is to it, or is there a valid gameplay justification for this?

Actually, it is not the "mechanic," that makes for card counting. What card counters (mostly) do is to vary their bet sizes in their own favor. See my answer below.

Well, the very odds of the game are per se in the casino's favour -- it turns out they're not a charity :) If you want to play a fair game, simply don't go to a casino in the first place...

@NeilCoffey: What you said is basically true, except that the best players can beat the game by varying their bets at appropriate times.

@TomAu But isn't that essentially if "the appropriate times" are derived by "card counting" or methods that the casino decides "aren't fair" (on their scheme of making a living off an unfair game)?

@TomAu (Or by "beat the game" do you mean beat the other players? I was under the impression that if all players play by what the casino deems are the accepted rules, then statistically, the players collectively are essentially bound to lose to the house.)

@NeilCoffey: POKER is played by players against each other, with the house playing a "neutral" (dealing) role. Blackjack is played by all players against the house. The house beats "most," and then throws out the one (card counter) it can't beat.

Just a little addition to the previous answer: Imagine you have the opportunity to play blackjack against a thousand people. You have a few advantages, but also have to play by strict and predictable conventions, but the thousand can play in any manner they choose.
You also know that one of those thousand is capable of card-counting. You wouldn't risk your money betting against someone with such an advantage would you? You'd stick with the odds, and play only the other 999. A perfectly sensible and logical position, which is, in essence, the same position the casino takes.

OK this actually makes sense. As a slightly off topic followup, do casinos typically let you keep what you won if they do catch you card counting? They may have the right to choose not to play with you, but the games in which they did play with you should be considered legitimate, right?

I believe that if you have won it legally, they cannot take it back. (Only if you've used a counting device, or properly cheated etc, but then they also throw you in jail after taking back the money :) ) Of course, there's nothing to say you aren't going to suffer a few accidents "falling down the stairs" on your way out of the casino....

Card counting isn't considered illegal. Casinos have the right to deny service to anyone, and of makes sense to deny players from playing a game in which they have an advantage versus the house. This isn't  cheating in any sense of the word. 994 P.2d 1151 (2000) CHEN v. NEVADA STATE GAMING CONTROL BOARD and Monte Carlo Resort & Casino:

This case presents a conflict between two inconsistent public policies that have developed over the years with regard to the gaming industry. On one hand, gaming establishments have the unquestioned right to protect themselves against so-called "card counters" who have developed expertise in the game of "blackjack" ("twenty-one"). On the other hand, neither card counting nor the use of a legal subterfuge such as a disguise to gain access to this table game is illegal under Nevada law.

cheat transitive verb

1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting  intransitive verb
1 a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly   [...]

I'm still not convinced. "gaming establishments have the unquestioned right to protect themselves against those who have developed expertise in the game" So basically you are not allowed to become skilled in the game. Casinos pretend that they let you gamble in a game that has certain rules, but if you use skill to win, then you are not allowed to play, even if you play within the confines of those rules. Sounds like fraud to me.

@EpsilonVector actually, according to Wikipedia, casinos in Atlantic city can't kick you out for skilled play

@EpsilonVector: If casinos took bets where they didn't have an edge, they'd go out of business. (Yes, even if the game was precisely even; the mathematics is interesting).

@SamIam: That's because Kenny Uston fought and won a state court case against them. But they can shuffle up after every deal.

@TimLymington: If casinos were "even money" against a handful of "best" players and favorites against everyone else, they'd be ok.

@TomAu well that's how many policies are created

@EpsilonVector: Basically, it's not illegal, but they can still kick you out for it.

Card counting ISN'T illegal. (Unless you use a "device" such as a computer to do so in Nevada, which is a felony under Nevada law.)
Card counting is frowned upon because it violates the UNWRITTEN "law" (that the casino is supposed to have the edge). From the CASINO's point of view, it is a case of "if this isn't illegal, it ought to be." Hence they take measures such as barring, or harassing card counters, which go to the border (and sometimes beyond) the law. But Nevada courts do tend to side with the casinos for economic reasons.
If a player played "Basic" (optimal) strategy, and "flat bet," (bet the same on every hand), the casino would have an edge of about 1%. What card counters do is to watch for a handful of situations that come up occasionally, where the player is favored. Then they "jump" their bets by five or ten times to take advantage of these situations, and bet a "basic" unit at other times, shifting the odds in their favor.
A variation of this is "team" play, whereby a team of counters will "spread" among the tables, watching for favorable situations, and making a minimum bet of say, $10 a hand. This is a form of "trolling." When the cards get "good," they will signal a well dressed team mate called a "big player" to come to "their" table, and make "outsized" bets of $50 or $100, or even $500-$1000 (these situations are rare enough that you will seldom have two "good" tables at a time). This strategy calls for the big player to "table hop" in a seemingly random fashion (but actually based on signals from his teammates).
Needless to say, "trolling" and "table hopping," whether or not for the purpose of making money, while not illegal, are socially gauche. So casinos will eject players for that kind of behavior alone, whether or not connected with card counting. (And the assumption is that most people would not engage in that kind of behavior unless they are card counting.)
Card counter Kenny Uston won a court case in New Jersey that prohibits Atlantic City casinos from barring or harassing card counters. They are allowed to take "defensive" measures such as shuffling up after every deal.

I heard that the house edge on a person playing by basic strategy was much lower than that; an eight-deck game with no additional rules benefiting the player (like hitting split aces or dealer must hit soft 17) has a house edge of about .65%. This is further reduced with fewer decks in the shoe. But, the house still wins the longer you sit; you're expecting to lose a nickel a hand betting $10. As entertainment goes, not bad.

@KeithS: The house does have an advantage over the player on PLAYING. But card counters overcome this advantage by betting big on certain "good" hands and betting small on (most other) "bad" ones. That's the point of counting cards. Meaning that if card counters were forced to "flat bet," they would lose.

I understand that. My point was that you said there was a 1% house edge against a player using only basic strategy, which is a little high.

@KeithS: It used to be more like 0.6%. Then the casinos reduced the payouts on blackjack from 3 to 2 to 4 to 3, in some cases even 5 to 4, which took their edge above 1%.

This is probably a silly question (and I realize that I'm a year late to the party!)... but where are these numbers coming from? Somehow, I have come to believe that the house edge is like 4-5%, which is obviously way different than what you two are saying!

@TheChaz2.0: The historical house edge is 4-5 percent against the "average Joe" (who plays poorly). It is some fraction of 1 percent (depending on house rules) against a "skilled" player who plays optimally but doesn't vary his bets based on card-counting. That's just a theoretical construct. It is negative against a skilled card counter who varies his bets. So "bet management" is a key skill in the game.

Card counters exploit a flaw in the game implementation which is not actually part of the rules of the game. The rules of blackjack say nothing about dealing multiple hands from the same pre-shuffled stack - but that's exactly what makes card counting possible.
This flaw (and thus card counting) can actually be neutralized in two ways:

Shuffling manually after each hand - but that slows down the game and thus reduces casino winnings on the game that already gives them a rather small house edge. Not gonna happen.
Continuous shuffling machines - but players and dealers hate those, claim that they destroy the atmosphere, etc. Some casinos use them, but most seem to prefer making a fuss about card counters.


text:
Do creatures come into play tapped if they come into play at the same time as a card which says "Creatures come into play tapped"?
An example situation :
Living Death resolves while there is a Urabrask the Hidden in my graveyard and another creature in my opponent's graveyard. Urabrask says "Creatures your opponents control enter the battlefield tapped."
Will my opponent's creature come into play tapped if it enters the battlefield at the same time as Urabrask?

No, your opponent's creatures will not enter tapped.
The ability "Creatures your opponents control enter the battlefield tapped" creates a replacement effect on creatures entering the battlefield. Rule 614.4 says

Replacement effects must exist before the appropriate event occurs -- they can't "go back in time" and change something that's already happened.

Since your Urabrask wasn't on the battlefield before your opponent's creature entered, it's ability does not effect that creatures.

One exception: 614.12 allows for effects to come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it), allowing for Akoum Refuge first ability to work. That exception does not apply here.


text:
Can I cast cost-less cards like Living End with Dream Halls?
I think the title is self-explaining :)
Can I cast cost-less cards like Living End with Dream Halls by discarding a black card ?

Yes.
Living End has a mana cost of "unpayable".
Dream Halls introduces an alternative cost of "discard a card that shares a color with the spell".
total cost
= (mana cost or alternative cost) + (additional costs and cost increases) - cost reductions
= discard a card that shares a color with the spell

117.6. Some mana costs contain no mana symbols. This represents an unpayable cost. [...]

117.6a [...] If an alternative cost is applied to an unpayable cost, including an effect that allows a player to cast a spell without paying its mana cost, the alternative cost may be paid.

Just in case there's any doubt, Living End is black.

204.2. An object with a color indicator is each color denoted by that color indicator.

(It had a characteristic-defining ability when it was printed, but it now has a color indicator. Characteristic-defining abilities work in all zones, so the answer would have been the same before the change.)

What is the colour indicator? The black frame?

@JonathanHobbs, A dot next to the types. Compare http://magiccards.info/fut/en/78.html and http://magiccards.info/mma/en/97.html


text:
Laquatus's Champion and Torpor orb
I have a Laquatus Champion who entered the battlefield while there was a Torpor Orb on the field (and thus it's first ability didn't trigger). What happens when it then leaves the battlefield ?
The second ability reads "When Laquatus's Champion leaves the battlefield, that player gains 6 life." But which player gains life is chosen in the first ability (in this case it never happened).
My guess is the ability doesn't trigger/can't resolve and nobody gains life, but I'm not sure.
PS : a similar situation may happen if all players have shroud when the Champion comes into play.

You are correct that nothing will happen. The Champion's abilities are what are called Linked Abilities, and the second one depends on choices made from the first one. Since nothing was targeted by the first ability there is nothing for the second one to reference.
Think of it like Fiend Hunter since the first ability didn't exile anything there is nothing for it to return when it leaves the battlefield, the Champion works the same way but with life.

607.1. An object may have two abilities printed on it such that one of them causes actions to be taken or objects or players to be affected and the other one directly refers to those actions, objects, or players. If so, these two abilities are linked: the second refers only to actions that were taken or objects or players that were affected by the first, and not by any other ability.

I concur. You cannot choose the targets of an ability that never existed long after it would have been created. As such, you do as much as possible, which is nothing.


text:
In multiplayer, in which order are replacement effects from different players applied?
In multiplayer, in which order are replacement effects from different players applied ?
Here's the situation : This is a 3 players game.
I control a random creature. Both my opponents control a single Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet. I cast a Damnation killing all creatures. Each of my opponents will get a token from the other player's Kalitas dying. But who will get the token for my creature ?
I'd say the replacement effects are applied in turn order, so the next player will get the token, but I'm not sure.

The order in which replacement effects are applied to an event is chosen by the player or controller affected. In this case, the event in question is your creature dying, so you choose which replacement effect applies first, and which opponent gets the token.
The specific rule that covers this is rule 616.1:

If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object’s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).


text:
Does the spell cast with Yahenni's Expertise resolve before state-based effects are checked?
The recently revealed card Yahenni's Expertise states:

All creatures get -3/-3 until end of turn.
You may cast a card with converted mana cost 3 or less from your hand.

The situation is this:
There is one 2/2 creature on the battlefield. I cast Yahenni's Expertise, then chose to cast Living End with the second effect. Will the 2/2 creature die from the Expertise before the Living End resolves? (and thus be brought back to play by Living End). Or will it die after the Living End finished resolving?

Your 2/2 will be returned by Living End.
The "cast a 3cmc or less card for free" is part of the resolution of Expertise, not a trigger like other cards/abilities (like Cascade).  Even though you cast it as part of the resolution, the free card does not immediately resolve, instead it is put on the stack. At that point SBA are checked and then it can be responded to.

The Gatherer ruling for Living End states "This has no mana cost, which means it can’t normally be cast as a spell." Can Living End even be cast using Yehenni's Expertise?

I guess if you can cast Living End off of Cascade, this would work the same. The both say "cast the spell without paying its mana cost."

Even the Suspend ability on Living End has that "play it without paying its mana cost" wording.


text:
Merciless Eviction, how far does all go?
Got Merciless Eviction from a booster, and it states that you can choose one and then exile all artifacts, creatures, enchantments or planeswalkers. Does this mean that all instances in graveyards and in players' decks actually get removed as well as cards on the battlefield?

No.
Unless the rules text specifically mentions cards in another zone, only permanents (cards on the battlefield and tokens) are affected by spells and effects.
Rule reference:

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn't include the word "card," "spell," "source," or "scheme," it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.


text:
Use of the special power "Diplomat" against another player not yet entered the game in Smallworld
If you're playing a race with the special power "Diplomat" during the first round, are you allowed to declare peace with a player that has not yet entered the game?

I found an answer to this question in an answer to a similar question:

Q: Is a race with the Diplomat power allowed to nominate a player, who has just declined or who has not yet had a turn (and therefore has no active race) as an ally?
A: Yes indeed, the only restriction in the choice of an ally is that you cannot choose a player if you just attacked his active race.

Sure. There is nothing in the rules to suggest that the race you choose needs to have units on the board.


text:
Does the "Urgent wish for children" card in Caverna allow construction of all types of dwellings?
The B side of the "Wish for children" card titled "Urgent wish for children" requires you to build a "Dwelling" prior to family growth. Dwelling is written with a capital D on the card. Does that mean that you are required to build the regular dwelling priced at 4 wood, 3 stone that gives you 3 goal points or are you allowed to build any of the different types of dwellings?

I don't think the capital D in "Dwelling" has any significance.  In the rule book Dwelling is always capitalized.  I would think that you could build any of the Dwellings.  If you couldn't, I think there would be a specific explanation in the rule book.

There are 6 different types of Dwellings.  Every Dwelling provides room for one or two dwarfs. (P. 15)

If Dwelling is always spelled with a capital D in the rules we can't possibly differentiate the dwelling priced at 4 wood, 3 stone that gives you 3 goal points and the general class of Dwellings though.

Just found this under the description of the Couple Dwelling that definitively answers this question in the positive
"The Couple dwelling provides room for 2 Dwarfs. You can get these Dwarfs one at a time with a Family growth action. (Even if you build this Furnishing tile on the “Urgent wish for children” Action space, you may only grow your family once with that action.)"
So yes we can assume 'Dwellings' to mean all types. Interestingly i also just learned that you can only use the 'dwelling for 2 wood and 2 stone' quest once.

where do you get that you can only do the dwelling quest one?? I don't see that... :(


text:
Why am I seeing the same 3 Spider Solitaire games today that I saw 2 days ago
For the third time in 5 or 6 games today and yesterday I am seeing the same Spider Solitaire layout that I saw two days go. These three games all had very unique patterns, and took a large number of moves to solve, nearly 5,000 the second time on one because I had one move wrong early on that took a while to identify. Does anyone know how this happens? I'm running 64-bit Windows 7.

The random number generator could have been seeded with the same seed, which would cause the same sequence of random number to be generated. The RNG in Microsoft's C library repeats every ~32,000 numbers (which is pretty abysmal), so there's effectively only that many seeds.
Different seeds:
>perl -E"say srand; say join ' ', map int(rand(52))+1, 1..10;"
1819759215  # The seed
41 35 23 9 35 2 41 11 50 51

>perl -E"say srand; say join ' ', map int(rand(52))+1, 1..10;"
994223390
47 13 12 51 35 7 37 42 11 2

But what if the same seed was picked the next day:
>perl -E"srand(994223390); say join ' ', map int(rand(52))+1, 1..10;"
47 13 12 51 35 7 37 42 11 2


text:
Can you counter a Loyalty Ability?
I am confused by this rule:

606.1. Some activated abilities are loyalty abilities, which are subject to special rules.

Now that seems to imply that a Loyalty ability is an activated ability which means it can be stopped by something like Stifle or Squelch.
Is this correct?

Yes, it's correct. The rule you quoted implies that loyalty abilities are activated abilities. And since there is no rule that makes an exception for loyalty abilities, they can be countered like any other activated ability.
Remember that countering an activated ability only stops it from resolving. The costs paid are not returned. So the loyalty counters added or removed are not restored.

My friend put it best, "This made no sense until someone said it outloud."


text:
Life Link on an opponents creature by enchantment
With cards like spirit link does the controller of the spirit link gain the life or does the controller of the creature that is dealing the damage gain the life?
The card is worded so that it says "...whenever enchanted creature deals damage, you gain that much life." does this mean you as the controller of the creature or the controller of the enchantment?
Life link is very clear. It says the controller of the creature, but does spirit link not give the creature life link?

You on a card always means the cards controller, or owner if it has no controller.

109.5. The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.

303.4e An Aura's controller is separate from the enchanted object's controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn't change control of the Aura, and vice versa. Only the Aura's controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with "gains" or "has"), the enchanted object's controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

Spirit Link does not grant the enchanted creature Lifelink, which is a Keyword ability.

702.15a Lifelink is a static ability.

702.15b Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much life (in addition to any other results that damage causes). See rule 119.3.

119.3f Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller to gain that much life, in addition to the damage’s other results.

It has a triggered ability that triggers whenever the enchanted creature deals damage.

112.3c Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[Trigger condition], [effect],” and include (and usually begin with) the word “when,” “whenever,” or “at.” Whenever the trigger event occurs, the ability is put on the stack the next time a player would receive priority and stays there until it’s countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”

This is an important distinction, because if the controller of Spirit Link has less life than the Power of the creature, it can deal sufficient damage to kill the Spirit Link's controller, causing them to lose the game as a state-based effect before Spirit Link triggered ability will gain them back the life they lost.

104.3b If a player’s life total is 0 or less, he or she loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

800.4d If an object that would be owned by a player who has left the game would be created in any zone, it isn’t created. If a triggered ability that would be controlled by a player who has left the game would be put onto the stack, it isn’t put on the stack.

The other important distinction is that granting a creature the keyword ability Lifelink causes the creatures controller to gain the life. (as you pointed out)

I was still a little confused about who controls the enchantment so I though I would add this:
303.4e An Aura's controller is separate from the enchanted object's controller or the enchanted player; the two need not be the same. If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn't change control of the Aura, and vice versa. Only the Aura's controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Aura grants an ability to the enchanted object (with "gains" or "has"), the enchanted object's controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

@Pow-Ian, good catch.


text:
Is a 'Can't be countered' ability the same as 'protection From' or 'Can't be targeted?'
Abrupt Decay, Loxodon Smiter and other Return to Ravnica cards have an ability that reads '{card name} can't be counterd by spells or abilites'. Does this mean it is not a legal target for a counter spell?
this rule:

112.6f An object's ability that states it can't be countered or can't be countered by spells and abilities functions on the stack.

Simply states those abilities function on the stack, it makes no mention of giving the spell with the ability protection from spells.
So can they be targeted by counter spells?

This blog post from a judge says they are legal targets. http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rulestips/2012/06/a-spell-that-cant-be-countered-can-still-be-targeted-by-a-counterspell/

Yes, Abrupt Decay and Loxodon Smiter spells can be targeted by spells and abilities that would attempt to counter them.
When the spell or ability that would counter AD or LS resolves, the instructions of its effect are performed as normal except for the instruction that would counter AD or LS. That one is skipped.

609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

Protection prevents

Damage
Enchantment/Equipment/Fortififcation
Blocking
Targeting

"Can't be countered" prevents

Countering

As you can see, there's no relation whatsoever. Something with protection can still be countered. Something with "can't be countered" can still be targeted.

Simply states those abilities function on the stack

Abilities of permanent cards normally only work when the object is on the battlefield [CR 112.6]. But you can't counter something on the battlefield. This rules makes it so LS's ability works when it needs to work.

it makes no mention of giving the spell with the ability protection from spells.

And nothing else does. It does not have Protection.

"Can't be countered" spells are still legal targets for counter-spells.  They just won't actually get countered
and this was already answered earlier today with the gatherer Rulings from Render Silent

4/15/2013     A spell that “can’t be countered” is a legal target
  for Render Silent. The spell won’t be countered when Render Silent
  resolves, but that spell’s controller won’t be able to cast spells for
  the rest of the turn.

and here's another ruling which will help illustrate the difference between illegal targets of a spell and can't be countered

4/15/2013     If the spell is an illegal target when Render Silent tries
  to resolve (because it’s been countered by another spell, for
  example), Render Silent will be countered and none of its effects will
  happen.

Is that a ruling for render silent only or for all counter spells?

@Pow-Ian it applies to all counter spells


text:
Do Status Effects End In Mansions of Madness?
We played Mansions of Madness for the first time this weekend and I was surprised that fire was so devastating.
When a status effect is placed in a room, like fire, does it ever end without an 'action'?

"I was surprised that fire was so devastating" - I'm sure that's also been said outside of a boardgaming context. ;)

No. The keyword in the rules (found here) is "ongoing." Status effects do not end until an action is taken to end them.


text:
Mascarade - When must you swap your card?
In the game of Mascarade there is an note on page 5 of the rule book that reads:

WARNING !
If a player has revealed their card during the turn of the
  player immediately before them (by having called the character
  announcement of the player to their right, or by having been revealed
  by the Inquisitor), then the player cannot announce that they are
  their revealed character. The player will be forced to swap their card
  – or not – with that of another player.

It seems fairly straight forward that you must swap your card with that of another if you just revealed your card in the previous turn.
So in a 4 player scenario what happens when one player 'announces' they are the king and two others 'claim' to be the king? do both of the other players have to swap on their following turn or only the very next player?
Here is a visual:
the players are arraigned as such:
      1
   4     2
      3

And player 1 announces they are the king. Players 2 and 3 claim to be the king as well.
Now from the way I read the note on page 5, player 2, who's turn it is next, is required to swap their card. They can not 'announce' to be the card they just revealed. So where does that leave player 3? If player 2 does not swap with them, then player 3 knows what card they are and essentially gets to announce with perfect certainty.
Is this the correct interpretation?

The short answer is yes, this is the correct interpretation of the rule (as Andrey has already pointed out). Player 2 can choose to switch with Player 3, or decide not to and accept that the consequence is a free use of their power. Player 3 doesn't have to switch.
My gaming group decided that in a four person game, this was a little frustrating if you're Player 2, since in some cases you have to switch to prevent somebody from winning even though the card you'd be receiving isn't useful to you. For these smaller games, we've been playing with a house rule that if your card has been revealed since your last turn, you must switch cards. This leads to slightly longer games, but it seems to work well in making sure the game runs more smooth (paradoxically by insuring it is more complicated because of more switching).
However, this house rule doesn't tend to work as well in games with 6 or more people (and this game is meant to be played with up to 8). It tends to just drag the game out. Additionally, this rule doesn't work well with people who do not play a lot of board games, much for the same reason; it appears to add an unnecessary obstacle to the game, only causing games to take longer. So there is a balance in using this house rule to ensure that the game is fun.

There is always a responsibility of the players to swap with players who know their cards.  The reason that rule exists, is because there would be no one in place to run "defense" against player 2.
Player 3 does have someone to interfere; player 2. So no one gets a free ride as long as player 2 plays correctly.

so player 2 is forced to swap with player 3? It does not seem to specify that they have to. I understand it would make sens to do so, but there is nothing compelling them to.

No one is ever forced, but there is an opportunity, that is enough

So by your logic, Player 2 as indicated int he rules must trade, and the only 'good' trade for them would be with player 3? what if player 3 had the cheat and 2 coins? Obviously they do not have a reason at that point to swap.

You are never swapping, you are always maybe swapping.  So if player 2 thinks his card is good he could keep it.  Now 3 has to decide "did 2 make a defensive or offensive move?"  That is pretty much the whole point of the game.

I will say that if the rule isn't that both players following player one have to switch their card, that utterly breaks the game in two player game.
It allows one player to win as soon as he gets a bit of a lead in gold, a turn and a bishop.
Let's say player 1 has a bishop as his protected card. He can put a hand on his left hand card and say "I am a bishop". The other person can allow this, which gives his opponent 4 differnece.
Alternatively he can put a hand on one of his cards and declare himself fool - which will cost both players 1 gold. Then player two has to swap one of his cards.
Then if you go with the rules suggested by the other comments, the other player can just repeat "I am bishop" - and he can keep doing that until he wins.
If we say every one who had their card revealed needs to swap it in the next turn as part of a cost for calling others out, then player one will also have to use his turn to switch something leaving player two the next one with a chance to do something - and that kinda fixes the game.

This seems to be more of a comment on the rules then an answer to the question.


text:
How big is the Settlers of Catan board?
I'm considering buying a small table, and I want to be sure it'll support all the games I might want to play on it. Sadly, however, I don't have access to Settlers and all its expansion right now.
An article about making a custom Catan board suggests that the base game should fit within 18" by 24", but that doesn't include the sea border or any of the expansions or extensions.
What is the physical size of the Settlers of Catan board when set up?

...with the 5-6 player extension?
...with the Seafarers expansion?

...and the Seafarers 5-6 player extension?

...with the Cities & Knights expansion?

...and the Cities & Knights 5-6 player extension?

...with the Traders & Barbarians expansion?

...and the Traders & Barbarians 5-6 player extension?

Roughly 15x16" for the base game.
roughly 15x20" for the 5-6p expansion.
About 17x28" for framed base game with C&K, and another 3.125" for 5-6p.
Seafarers can be considerably larger... up to 24x36"
I've not bothered with Traders and Barbarians, so I cannot speak to it.
Note that the travel version (which is base game only) fits nicely on an airline tray table.


text:
What are examples of Go played on non-flat surfaces, like on a sphere?
I know there was some thought put into how Go looks or feels like if it's not plaey on a flat, rectangular surface, but the surface of a 3-d object like a sphere or a donut. I'm mostly interested in:

How is the grid mapped to the surface, so that every node has 4 neighbors (the number of neighbors is important for how hard it is to capture stones)?
What does the absence of a border and corners mean for the game?
What are variants that are actually taken seriously as a game and played, and not only seen as obscure applications of weird topologies?

The typical way to get these topologies using a square surface is by joining edges up: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface#Construction_from_polygons I don't have enough experience of go to tell you if that would work.

see also for the topological problem: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/470352/how-to-put-roughly-equidistan-points-on-the-surface-of-a-sphere-each-with-4-nei/470371#470371

Once you eliminate corners and sides, it's not Go anymore.

@ForgetIwaseverhere I guess it becomes Went, or perhaps Gone.

I started writing another comment, but it got too large, so I'm putting this as an answer instead.
Your other question suggests that you're envisaging playing go on the surface of an actual sphere/torus. In particular that question mentions that you want "all nodes more or less equidistant".  Searching on the internet, I didn't find much evidence that this is how go is played on other topologies.
There are a few reasons why I doubt torus/sphere go has been played on actual spheres or tori. Firstly - who has a suitable torus lying around that they could use? Secondly - getting the stones to stay in place would be awkward, and examining the position would be even worse!
Instead I suggest that the usual* way to convert a flat board game into one on a sphere/torus/Klein bottle is by imagining that the edges are joined up.  For some diagrams of how the edges of the board should be joined see here.
I found a few references to playing tic tac toe and gomoku (5-in-a-row) on different surfaces, and one to playing go.  All of these assumed a standard square grid with the edges defined to be connected in some way.  The main differences from standard go seem to be:

Fewer corners and edges: A cylindrical board has just two edges, and a torus or Klein bottle surface game has no corners or edges.
The lack of corners and edges makes it harder to create immortal groups.

I did also come across a game of go on a cylindrical surface which was not just made of a standard board with edges connected. Each point still has four liberties, but the regions between edges are not all square:

*I'm not sure a 'usual' actually exists here, but this is at least the usual way to draw diagrams on these surfaces in mathematics.

If you play on a standard board, but consider all edge points to wrap around to the other side, you've got a torus. Imagine taking a sheet of paper and rolling it into a tube. Now, take the two ends and bend the tube to connect them. The paper would tear/crumple, but you've got the idea.

@Dane That's right. However if you add a twist before joining the first pair of edges then you get a Klein bottle. Have a look at the wikipedia link to see the other surfaces you can make.

It's probably worth pointing out that you can't actually make a Klein bottle-it's a shape that needs four dimensional space. But in theory you would get a Klein bottle!

I found this program that a guy at university made to abstract Go to any topology, using any number of vertices as well, it is called 3D Tashoku Go. Other than as a curiosity I haven't seen anyone take play in this way as a serious variant of Go.
Just changing the size of the grid leads to games that feel very different from a standard 19x19 game.
You shouldn't let that really dissuade you from exploring weird variants of Go, the game was originally played on a 17x17 board and I've seen people play on up to 31x31 on KGS at times.
These games are vastly different strategically. At 23x23 and greater the rush for the corners and sides feel less important than the fight for the center. Life is easy to be had and the game feels fairly relaxed and open.

Looks like he's not active anymore, but the kgs archives still have game records for user beerslayer, who played almost exclusively 37x37 games.

I tried to play a lot of 37 x 37 games on KGS. People would always resign or escape 100 moves in, so I never got a feel for it.

The implications in the game are that board boundaries are used by players for defensive purposes (corner and side enclosures).
The game usually starts with corner approaching moves because turns spent in the corner are more point efficient as they protect more territory with fewer moves (with the help of the board boundary).

Although not strictly a new topology, I often play where the regular bound board is present, but on top of that draw n lines diagonally through points, connecting them. Through having a bottom left to top right, and a top left to bottom right diagonal go through the centre point. Through having 3 to 5 of these pairs of lines, they significantly change the strategy, also making it more interesting to amateur players. Of course this has significant FTA(first turn advantage), which is another reason its useful with large skill differences.
Finally, with the few diagonal lines running along the board, connect these lines at the edges so that they are continuous, while the normal vertical/horizontal grid is bound.
NB:Alternative rule: Territory only needs to surround the regular vertical/horizontal lines, not the diagonals.

So a number of nodes have 6 liberties?

It is like a regular Goban, except with an "X" cross through the middle points, and this X is fractal, with multiple diagonals. Points that are crossed by no diagonal have 4, points crossed by 1 diagonal have 6, and points at the intersection of the two diagonals(like the centre of the X) have 8 liberties.

I recently developed a new type of spherical Go game with different topologies. Although this board game is still in its early stages, it offers a vast expanse of unknown game space to explore. Prior to my experiment, the typical approach was to use a conventional grid-like topology. However, I introduced the concept of Archimedean solids to this domain. As we know, the ancient Greeks were aware of only five Platonic solids, which is a mathematical theorem. However, the vertices of these Platonic solids are too few to make the game interesting. Therefore, I explored the table of Archimedean solids—an extension of Platonic solids—and found the snub dodecahedron particularly interesting. It most closely resembles a sphere and features 60 vertices, 150 edges, and 92 faces, totaling 302 game elements, which is complex enough. This shows the potential for possibilities, where we can incorporate vertices, edges, and faces—all these geometric elements—into an engaging game space. After weeks of research, I discovered a unique board topology that naturally accommodates all 302 elements while still adhering to the traditional Go game rule set.

To ensure the complex board is easily recognizable, I studied the symmetries of the solid and ultimately devised a solution. The design features four distinct 'continents' distributed across the sphere, separated by 'oceans'. In the diagram above, I used a specific color to identify one continent. However, globally, there are four symmetrical axes, which influenced the layout shown in the diagram below. This symmetrical arrangement not only enhances visual clarity but also underscores the strategic possibilities inherent in the game's topology.

It should be noted that the terms 'continents' and 'oceans' are purely symbolic labels within the game's design. They do not directly influence gameplay decisions, similar to the origin and star points in traditional Go. These labels serve merely as visual aids to help players navigate the complex topology of the board.
The rules have been slightly modified in terms of area calculation; in this version, pentagons and triangles contribute differently to the final game results. This adjustment accommodates the unique geometry of the board, ensuring that the varying sizes and shapes of the regions are accurately reflected in the scoring.

The final diagram illustrates how the seven black stones are placed to form a shape that possesses sufficient liberties to survive. This configuration is the minimal in the game.
Please check with this https://github.com/spherical-go/polyclash

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


text:
Which games are most rewarding to review?
I play Go online and have by now quite a few sgf's of past games available which I could review. I'm however lazy so I certainly wont review all or even most of them. So which ones can I learn the most from reviewing? Ones against stronger players or against weaker ones? The ones I lost or the ones I won?

TimK highlighted the most important aspects already. I would put some additional emphasis on two things:
First, games which featured a shape that was of particular interest to you. Maybe some unusual corner sequence? Or a tsumego that went really strange in the game? Have a look. This even applies to blitz games.
Secondly, games in which you do not know why you lost
Those are particularly interesting. After fuseki (for instance), you honestly think you did okay, but the game has a bad feeling to it, and you notice how your opponent has so many nice moves available, while you somehow see no good moves for yourself! How could this happen?
Typically, these games show a flaw in your internal thought process and basic understanding of the game. Review those with a (much) stronger player. Now two things can happen.
Either his ideas will hit you and you suddenly get it. That's nice, you should remember the issue he explained.
Or, you will regard his advice as only so-so, not bad but also not particularly good - and this shows exactly what is wrong with your thought process. It means you lack correct judgement in a particular area. Try to grasp his ideas and appreciate them until you incorporate them in your thought process. This means your general understanding of the game will increase, which is the topmost important obstacle when you 'hit a wall' in improving.

You should review games where you really put some thought into your moves.  If you play a quick game without thinking much, the mistakes you find will just be oversights and carelessness.  If you review games you've spent some time on, or better yet have a stronger player review them, then the mistakes are more likely to be real holes in your knowledge, or moves that were smaller than you thought.


text:
Help me refind this 3d go variant - pieces can be stacked in a pyramid fashion
Quite a while back I stumbled upon a 3D variant of the game go. What I recall of the rules:

designed to be playable without extra equipment beyond go board and stones
played on a 9x9 grid
stones can be stacked by putting one piece above/between 4 pieces, forming a little pyramid
capturing stones works within one plane as normal, except that stones under other stones are pinched and can't be captured

The whole ruleset is online somewhere. However my google fu is weak and with the terms go, weiqi, baduk, 3d and pyramid I had no luck. I also found no mention while skimming this reddit or this entry in the sensei's library.

This sounds to me like it is taking some inspiration from Mahjong solitaire. This may or may not help your googling efforts, but "mahjong" will potentially drown out any go-related results.

It sounds like it might be Margo, except that Margo is played on a 7X7 grid, not 9X9. Per the linked website by Cameron Browne:

Two players, White and Black, each have at least enough marbles of
  their colour to cover the board.
Start: The board is initially empty. White places the first piece at
  any board point, then Black may elect to swap colours in lieu of
  making the next move (swap rule).
Play: Players then take turns placing a piece of their colour either:
             1) at an empty board point, or
             2) stacked on top of four existing pieces (of any colour).
Players may not pass.

The capture rules sound like what you describe, and I think the "pinched" stones at the bottom of "pyramids" are what the rules refer to as

Pinned Pieces: When a group is captured, any of its pieces pinned by higher-level enemy pieces remain in place. For example, move c captures the following White group but leaves two pinned pieces.

yes, that's it. misremembered a few aspects.


text:
Do Pack Rat copies give devotion?
If I make a copy of Pack Rat using its ability, does that copy retain the mana cost, and thus increase my devotion to black by one?
ie. I have nothing on the battlefield but one Pack Rat and some swamps. I discard a card to Pack Rat to create a copy of it. Is my devotion now equal to 1 or 2?

Yes. Each of the Pack Rat copies will have a mana cost of 1B, which counts for devotion to black.
Most tokens (like Elspeth's Soldier tokens) don't have a mana cost because the effect creating them doesn't specify one.
Pack Rat, however, creates a token that is a copy of the card, meaning that it gains all of the original card's "copiable characteristics":

706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object's characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The "copiable values" are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by "as . . . enters the battlefield" and "as . . . is turned face up" abilities that set characteristics, and by abilities that caused the object to be face down. Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

I asked that question at FNM last week (about [mtg:Artisan of Forms]) and was told the exact opposite. Glad to hear my initial hunch (which I sought to confirm) was correct.


text:
Is it possible to destroy Dragon Mantle without the owner successfully activating it?
I was playing last night, and the following situation arose.
I had a creature out with Dragon Mantle on it, which allows me to spend a red mana to give it +1/+0. My opponent wants to swing in with his larger creature, but doesn't want to have his large creature die to me pumping up my small one with Dragon Mantle. He's holding a Destructive Revelry. Is there a time he can play it such that I fail to pump my creature?
My understanding is that

If he plays it before I start pumping, I can pump in response and I will succeed as my pumps will resolve before the enchantment is destroyed.
If he plays it after I start pumping, my pumps are already on the stack and will still resolve after the enchantment is destroyed. (I am not 100% sure about this)

Is this correct? Are there situations where he can succeed? (i.e. if the wording on the enchantment was slightly different)

If he doesn't mind waiting until next turn to attack, he should destroy it at the end of your next turn. Then on his next turn he will be able to attack assuming the board state has not change significantly since then. Alternately, he can play Destructive Revelry before his attack phase, and only attack if you decide not to use the ability on Dragon Mantle.

He cannot prevent you from pumping it. As you say, you can either pump on your own or pump in response to the destruction, either way the pumps will resolve and his creature will die. The only way to prevent this is to kill the creature it's attached to.
If the enchantment was to read "R: Enchanted creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn as long as ~ is attached to it" then things would work as your opponent would want. Obviously this isn't the case, and I am not aware of a card that functions in this way.
Similarly, if he has priority and you have not pumped yet, he can prevent you from activating it with a card like Krosan Grip.

Why is this the case? When a creature disappears, its abilities on the stack disappear too, right? Do the abilities stay around because the creature is still there and they're still valid, even if the creature will lose the Dragon Mantle-given ability before its effects resolve?

@Jonathan Hobbs, Re "its abilities on the stack disappear too, right?", Not at all. "112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. [...]"

Both are correct. If you pump it all the way (no mana left), he can respond to it and destroy the creature. Every time you pump, the ability goes on the stack. If you react with a pump to a pump (before the firest pump resolves), it stays on the stack.
The best way to play this is pump 1 time, and let it resolve. Then pump another time, let that one resolve. If someone tries to burn the creature you can respond with the rest of the "pumps". This is your way to retain your creature.
If you say, "pump x times", it goes on the stack x-times, and they resolve one by one. After every pump that "resolves", your opponent can respond, so in that situation, your opponent can successfully destroy your creature (if the toughness is less or equal to the damage of course).
Your second understanding is correct. If the ability is on the stack, and the Dragon Mantle is destroyed, the abilities (pumps) are still on the stack, so they still resolve as long as the targeted creature is in the battlefield. If your creature left the battlefield before resolving, the remaining "pumps" fizzle.

The pumps don't give you any toughness in this case, so playing around burn is a bit moot.

Destructive Revelry would destroy the Dragon Mantle enchantment, not the creature. (If the opponent had a kill-creature spell, they could cast it any time and the creature would die.) There's no point in pumping one point at a time; the only time the creature is in danger of being destroyed is when it's blocking the opponent's large creature.

Also, in standard tournament policy, 'pump X times' is considered a proposal for a shortcut, not putting X activations on the stack without passing priority.  (On the basis that making people sit there declaring each one individually in order to play 'correctly' is a stupid waste of time.)

Of course "pump X times" is a shortcut. What's relevant is that it's a different shortcut than what Ivo Geersen says it is. It's a shortcut for pumping and letting resolve X times. There's only one instance on the stack at a time. This means that if the opponent responds, only the mana already spent up until that point is wasted since the shortcut was shortened (interrupted).


text:
How do zombies win in Last Night on Earth: Timber Peak?
My friends and I played Last Night on Earth extensively. Games were always very close, and tough for both sides. We liked it so much we got the Timber peak sequel/expansion.
However, we find now that the heroes are having a ridiculously easy time.
After about halfway through the game, the heroes become so powerful they are literally running into hoards of 5+ zombies, and killing every one without a wound.
I'm starting to think we are missing a trick or new rule, as I can't believe other people would consider what we've seen as balanced. The only buffs to the zombies are generally to fight cards, and only after they wound. Problem is, after a certain point, it becomes almost impossible to wound a hero.
Yet the heroes now get triple bandages, triple ammo, triple gasoline, police shotgun, very powerful upgrades like winning on ties and extra fight dice. The Ed Baker guy, who can take 4 wounds, and starts off with an upgrade, always becomes an unstoppable tank every game.
I once had 6 zombies on him, and I was only able to roll to see if I might win once, and needed a 6.. but if I had got a 6 he could have made me re-roll it..
Anyone got any tips/strategies for how zombies might win in Timber Peak?

I don't actually own Timber Peak so I can't help you from experience but I did find the following comment from this post on BGG relevant.

I found that zombie tactics in TP are different from LNOE. Without going into detail, I'd say the zombies require a bit more subtlety than in the earlier game.

So to answer your question: If your gaming group is really use to vanilla LNoE they may need to adapt a different play style for Timber Peak.
The rest of the thread on the above link might also help answer your question.


text:
How to win with Greyjoy in Game of Thrones board game?
Seems like Greyjoy have a massive disadvantage. No special orders, so no mustering. When the cards for possible mustering or bidding on the tracks came up, other players declined those options. So as Greyjoy, I had no possible way of replacing any losses. Whilst my neighbours kept mustering more and more units. Resulting in an inevitable overwhelming attack. Am I missing something?
I know they have an early advantage, the +1 sword and win on combat ties, but this is eclipsed by the fact others can field more, and stronger, units.

Remember you can't muster more armies than your supply limit, so if you keep your opponent bottled up they can't use any mustering points. You can also use raid orders to prevent them using the special consolidate power order. If a Westeros Mustering card is drawn then it is resolved, it isn't optional.

Maybe we were just unlucky, we got to turn 7 without hitting a Westeros mustering card. I like the idea of repeatedly raiding their castles to prevent mustering, however the person next to Greyjoy gets their turn first, so then can raid my raid by another adjacent order. Trouble with bottling is Greyjoy are already wedged between two opponents, so can't really focus on both. I don't like how Greyjoy start off the weakest, but in a position that makes them an obvious target for 2 opponents.

Is a version 1 issue? I'm sure they have special consolidate.

to quote all of the cheerleaders in the world, "be aggressive, b e aggressive!"

The Greyjoys are a challenging house, and require a really aggressive play style. Out of the 6-player games I've played, the Greyjoys have won the least often, but not by a huge discrepancy, so take hope! There seems to be 2 working strategies, both based on the close relationship the Greyjoys have with the Lannisters.
Lannister Bloodbath
Screw the Lannisters early. With the support ships and larger army you start with, paired with the card that adds +1 to each ship, you're basically guaranteed two early victories over the Lannisters. Use these as best you can, because if you aren't in an advantageous position after that, you've lost. You should move into the Riverlands, stopping the Lannisters from growing early. Keep your ships present to support and harass, which helps stop the Lannisters from recovering. Take the Twins, at this point you should have 3 castles and a good control over the mainland.
Things to Avoid

Harrenhall. The cursed castle is cursed in this game as well. Taking it almost always means you're overstretching, leaves you exposed to Lannister, Stark and Baratheon attacks.
The Starks. They aren't a threat early. Don't waste time and precious momentum moving north, preparing for the Starks, etc.
Relaxing. If you do win the initial push, you need to keep up constant fighting to get your first cards back and finish off the Lannisters with them.

Outcome
After 2 or 3 turns, either you are hopelessly crippled, or the Lannisters are.
Uneasy Alliance
If the thought of essentially being out of the game after turn 2 sounds too risky, strike an alliance with the Lannisters. This is easier to do if the Tyrells are likely to be aggressive, as the Lannisters to not want to be stuck between you two. Give them the riverlands, make sure you keep the twins and your starting castles, and turn your attention North. You have a better claim on whiteshore and those Westernmost castles than the Starks do, use your early strength and sea support to take and keep them. Establish a strong base in the North, then decide whether to take Winterfell, turn to the Eeyrie and center of the Board, or betray the Lannisters.
Things to Avoid

Trusting the Lannisters. Don't attack them early because you need a quiet border, but at some point one of you will break the truce. Accept it and be ready.
Harrenhall. Once again, a cursed castle. Not worth it, it doesn't give the Lannisters anywhere else to go and encourages betrayal. Leaves you open to the Starks, puts you in contact with the Baratheons when you don't really need another front.
Raiding too far south. Sometimes you can encourage the Lannisters to stay faithfull by raiding the Tyrells. But it takes a lot of resources and stretches your navy thin with ultimately very little in it for you. And that sneak attack all the way to Highgarden that nobody expects because ship travel is so OP? Never, ever works.

Outcome
Slower game, expect a slog-fest with the Starks, a lot of back and forth pushing. You probably can't ever knock them out of the game, just contain them. Last few turns will be extremely aggressive and bloody. Pray that the Tyrells and Lannisters stay enemies.

Excellent answer, thanks. What I suspected. Relies on some key moves, and a bit of luck, or rather hoping others do/don't do certain things.

Yeah, definitely relies on luck/person-reading-skills, depending on what you want to call it. Also, if both the starks and Lannisters hate you, you lose

They both did last game. They were a couple, so weren't going to go for each other. I lost very badly :(

Yep, not much to do there. Convince Tyrell and Baratheon that that Alliance is a threat, and try to make it a 3 v 2 I guess is all you can do.

To the contrary. In the games I've played, Greyjoys win about 1/3 of the time. Though, I admit, it is most probably because their aggressive play style makes them more attractive for the experienced players of the group to enroll (given you didn't select houses at random).
Your strengths are:

Arguably the strongest cards of all houses
You start with the Valyrian Blade
You start with two ships
The Lanisters don't have good counters
Your capitol is almost untouchable

Your weaknesses:

You run out of power tokens faster than others
You don't have a ★ action

Let me expand:

Arguably the strongest cards of all houses

Victarion (3) is ~ win a navy battle
Balon (2) is ~ win a battle
Theon (2) is actually a (3) and 1 sword when defending a castle. That brings a lot of utility to an otherwise offensive deck. You will often use this when an enemy tries to take back theritory or when push comes to shove after you had a terrible early game for one reason or another.
Lots of (1) cards just have 1 sword or 1 fortification icon. Dagmar (1) has both! Asha (1) has +2, +1 if you are not being supported in this combat. This is pretty nice, especially when you go deeper into enemy grounds and run out of other cards. If you win by a hair's breadth (which you might actually pull off early game as you have the Valyrian Blade), your opponent goes from crippled to completely irrelevant. If you lose - at least your units don't die, unless you face an overkill.
Aeron (0) is simply amazing. To balance his ability, they had to make it cost 2 power tokens. Which is also one of the reasons why lack of power tokens is your greatest weakness (especially early game). The general use case is - this and a future battle have big ramifications depending on which cards both of you chose. Your opponent has to make the guess, while you get to pick the better option after the fact. Also, it's a hard counter to Lanister's Tyrion (1), which is an otherwise outstanding low level card.
Admittedly, Euron (4) is probably the weakest (4) card in the game. But a (4) is still a (4). It's better to have your very strong card just not be incredibly strong than to have a lower end card that is honestly a garbage filler.

You start with the Valyrian Blade

This is one of the things that at the same time enables and forces you to be agressive early on.

It enables you by effectively giving you a +1 in all battles and +2 in one battle per turn. Incredibly advantageous when the troop count is low as your armies are often tied.
Forces you because while your cards might look imba while holding the Valyrian Blade, things are not that black and white if you don't. The most likely reason to loose it is during bidding. The further turns progress, the greater the chance bidding has occurred and the greater the discrepancy in power tokens grows (most probably not in your favour).

That said, in the event that very early (1st or 2nd turn) bidding takes place, don't panic. It might be beneficial. Other houses don't find the Valyrian Blade that useful. Everyone wants to bid on the Raven track. In my experience, bidding 3 on the Valyrian Blade and 2 one the Raven leaves you still owning the Blade and winning or tying 4th place on the Raven. Getting a ★ command is just perfect for you as it gives you that much more offensive power and its absence is your other big early game disadvantage. That said, you wont be able to use Aeron (0) and following biddings completely screw you over.

The Lanisters don't have good counters

Not entirely true. It's more that you have convincing lead the first battles and then they have the strength to punish you after you lost your more valuable cards/they get more power token advantage. They can almost nullify you if you make blunders.

Tywin (4) can be used in initial defense as well as when pushing back due to the fact that he increases the power token difference. Counters are your (4) and (3) cards (this includes Theon (2) when his effect applies). Balon (2) is a hard counter. Aeron (0) as well, assuming you have the power tokens to pay. That means a total of 3-5 of your cards...
Ser Gregor (3) (three swords) is usually used in the follow up push back. If Lanister manages to pull him early on and wins, you either made a huge gambit or a huge blunder. Both cases - you are heavily screwed. Good news - the same counters as with Tywin (4) apply (even more so).
The Hound (2) (two fortification) is often used as the buy time and don't suffer loses in the initial push. Ideally, you would want to trade this off for one of your (1) cards, but unless you are feeling lucky, it's likely he will trade it off for one of your stronger ones.
Jaime (2) (one sword) is the average run of the mill (2) card. If you can trade it for a (1), you are in a good shape.
Ser Kevan (1) is tricky. His effect doubles the strength of footmen when attacking. Theon (2) is a hard counter. If it is the case that he attacks with just one footmen or for any other reason the Valyrian Blade advantage is sufficient, trading a (1) for this leaves you in a good spot as well.
Tyrion (1) is an amazing card. However, in Greyjoy - Lanister conflicts, its power is greatly reduced. Firstly because Aeron (0) a hard counter (Tyrion (1)'s effect is played first), secondly due to the Valyrian Blade, any of your cards is likely to be sufficient. That said, Tyrion (1) is still a main axis around which most of the mindgame/overmindgame/gambling/bluffing/tides of the push - pull conflict are resolved.
Cersei (0) is discard garbage. If Lanister somehow manages to use it against you early on, you made a huge blunder.

Your capitol is almost untouchable

In order for someone to be able to attack Pike, he first needs a ship in Ironman's Bay. This is almost impossible as you have great navy due to (1) your cards, (2) the Valyrian Blade, (3) starting with two ships.

That said, lets look at Greyjoy's strategy.
In GoT in general, each player has two neighbours. Most of the time he should truce with one and fight with the other. The reason you would choose to get Starks as an ally:

There is greater distance between you. Therefore (1) backstabbing is harder, (2) it's harder for you to blitzkrieg.
Starks are the only house that have enough space in a 6p game to do their own thing for the first many turns, thus the incentive for backstabbing is lower.
We already established that your deck kind of counters Lanister's. While Stark's doesn't directly counter yours, it has great defensive cards that let him fight on his own ground without loses almost indefinitely, thus  nullifying your blitzkrieg capabilities.

In my experience, most of the times Starks will agree to be your ally. In that case, you have to agree to give them Moat Calin and territories between the river and The Narrow Sea. From observations - the more experienced the Stark player, the earlier he will backstab you (especially if you get favourable victories with the Lanisters). Newer players tend do  capture neutral zones well into the middle (or even later stages) of the game.
That said, in the rare event that Starks don't want to place nice, a few things to keep in mind:

Your cards, combined with the Valyrian Blade are still insanely powerful.
Don't extend in Northern ground. As already stated, Starks can keep a fight going for a long time. It's unlikely you will get that much value and you will open yourself for other houses attacks.
Instead - contain them. The points of interest are Sunset Sea and Moat Calin. Having a ship in Sunset Sea constantly threatens an attack in Bay of Ice. If you get a ship in Bay of Ice, not only do you completely shutdown attacks coming from one side, but you also threaten Winterfell. Moat Calin is pretty important and will likely go back and forth. Baratheon's claims on The Narrow Sea is a huge factor.
Things to do as you are not attacking Lanisters: Claim the neutral ground that you would have offered Starks. Help Lanister with Tyrell. While that might not seem advantageous, it pays off. Getting ships in The Sunset Sea (which Lanister has to allow you for you to fend off the Starks) and in The West Summer Sea provides you a ton of mobility and options. This gives you (1) great opportunities to backstab the Lanisters (2) makes you a huge pain in the **s for the Tyrell (3) even gets you access to Martel for quick grabs when the possibility arises as you can be sure they wont be able to seek vengeance due to sheer distance.
The number one thing to do when allied with Lanisters - plan when to backstab the Lanisters ☺. Pyke, Flint's Finger, Seaguard, Riverrun and Lannisport gives you a total of 5 points. With ship support from Ironman's Bay/Sunset Sea/The Golden Sound, they are almost untakeable. You just have to stay strong as the game progresses, occasionally going back and forth to Moat Calin/Harrenhal when the time is right. If you have a ship in Bay of Ice or The West Summer Sea, the possibilities are endless. Note that this is a general strategy, no matter if you are in alliance with the Lanisters or the Starks.

Just to attest to the amazing military power of Greyjoy, let me summarize a game I played just Yesterday:
I was in alliance with the Starks. Due to favourable play of cards, I managed to take The Golden Sound and Lanniport very early on. The remaining Lannister forces were pushed to the middle of the map, unable to take back territory.
Witnessing this massacre, the Starks attacked me immediately at Flint's Finger. In hindsight, I should have seen that coming, but I was not expecting betrayal this early on from an otherwise peaceful house. With my deck running thin due to the previous conflicts with Lannister, I lost sea battles at Sunset Sea and Ironman's Bay, forcing me to retreat my navy to The Golden Sound. His plan was to take Pike with the forces from Flint's Finger and the support of two ships in Ironman's Bay.
He almost succeeded. There was a vote on the Influence Tracks that turned very positive. I retained the Valyrian Blade and got tied with the Starks for the 4th place for the Raven. Seeing that the Starks will have an insurmountable advantage if I get destroyed, the owner of the Iron Throne agreed to resolve the parity in my favour. With me having a ★ and him having none, I had just enough strength to fend of the attack. He knew this so he called it off, but didn't retreat as he was planning to attempt  it again with reinforcements next turn.
This was ultimately his demise, as I managed to attack his two ships from The Golden Sound with support from Sunset Sea. He lost his ships as he had nowhere to retreat.
There was significant land fighting going between me and the Stark. I made a blunder and lost almost half of my land army. However, my deck got replenished and I managed to completely push him back with 3 knights and significant fleet. I've taken the Bay of Ice and could easily take Moat Calin.
I could see how the incredible mobility and support of the ships could allow me to fight both the Stark and the Lanister on two fronts having half the land force of any of them. A true testament to Greyjoy's unmatched military prowess. Wait, what...
During this entire time, the Lanister that was broth to the brink of extinction has been growing stronger by almost completely avoiding fighting. With noone wanting to go to the no man's land to finish him off, he was claiming castle after castle and mustering an ever so big army. Baratheon was almost destroyed by Martell. And Tyrell was part of this conflict, exchanging blows back and forth with Martell. The perfect situation to give breathing space for Lanisters to come back.
In fact, the Lanister had 6 castles! But I was not worried. His army was spread all over the map and I knew I could easily take all sea castles one after another. And in fact I have just given the attack orders. However, being first, Lanister attacked King's Landing (which at that time was Tyrell's possession). Tyrell made a very obvious blunder as he had a card strong enough to fend off the attack and knew what Lanister was going to play. Yet he lost.
Had the game not ended prematurely, I would have been in terrific shape. With Starks constantly threatened to lose Winterfell by my ship in Bay of Ice and five castles next to the shore, my only weakness was my low land army count, which wasn't that significant and was going to be turned around with the next mustering.
So with blitzkrieg and early backstabing at the start and fighting on two fronts with half the army of any of my opponents, I was still very likely to win at the end.
Yes, a lot of things could have happened differently. Yes, your opponents could have played better. But note that everyone, even the complete tryhards don't play optimally. GoT, unlike chess or bridge, doesn't have a ton of books, research and people devoting their lives. Being so lengthy and having such complex rules, it only follows that even the more seasoned of players have played a dozen of games tops, often times against less experienced friends.
When you say they are weak, just remember that they are the house able to pay the iron price no matter the odds!

If you got here - congrats! Thank you for your time, I hope you found this educational or at least entertaining to read.

Really good read. It's such a shame that the only viable strategy for Greyjoy is basically screwing everyone over and acting like a barbaric tribe, whereas other houses have a decent position to try a more diplomatic/honorable victory. You loose less friends that way...

I was able to win at turn 7 with seven castles playing the Greyjoys.  My tactic was to attack the Lannisters early and keep pressing them, while making a pact with house Stark.  Then on turn 7 I attacked Stark to take the last castle to secure the win.
Sure, I screwed my buddy, but it is a game of thrones after all.  I even forgot to use the +1 from the sword the first couple of turns...

The Greyjoys are a difficult Great House to play, however, I still think they are easier to play than the Lannisters, who even with special orders, are at a MASSIVE disadvantage against you, unless they ally with the Starks before you do.
My strategy would be as follows.
Move 1 ship from the port to Ironman's Bay. If Mobilization card is played, recruit 2 ships. In one turn, move them both to Ironman's Bay, where your second attack order is placed. Attack with 2 of them the sea besides Lannisport, move 1 to the sea at the edge of the map to the left, and leave 1 in Ironman's Bay.
At the sea battle, play Aeron Greyjoy. That way your use of Victarion is secure even if Tyrion card is played. In 90% of cases, you will easily seize that sea. Next turn, march on Lannisport with your one Knight, and use Balon Greyjoy, since this time he most likely won't use Tyrion even if he has him (in that case, switch to Euron, and you almost always win anyway).
However, once you finish off the Lannisters, do NOT seize any other castles. All of your enemies will be wary and likely to attack you, so keep a low profile and never, ever exceed 4 castles, 3 is best. Leave Moat Cailin and Flint's Finger to the Starks to appease them, since they will be the most likely to betray you (which will be secured by your 1 ship at Sunset Sea). If you take more than 4 castles while fighting with the Lannisters, leave some of them - you don't want to attract enemies, and you don't have much Power tokens to spare or enough armies to maintain them without overstretching. From now on - defence, support, mustering, crowns, until the last turn, putting your troops in the meantime to seize 3 castles in one turn.
While betting, keep your position at the Iron Throne last (never bet on this one), you can also let go of the sword, since you are no longer as aggressive as in the beginning (2-3 power tokens on that, no more), and spare as much tokens as you can on the Raven.
It is also a good idea to strike an alliance with Martells at the beginning of the game, since they are far enough to be totally okay with this, and they will be very useful in stopping Baratheons. Other players generally agree to ally agains the Baratheons, since it is the most over-powered house in the game, and they very often win if other players don't conspire against them.
The reason I believe attacking the Lannisters early is better than waiting, is that they are so close to you that they usually attack you anyway, and Greyjoy deck is less powerful if you are defending, instead of attacking. Plus, the longer you play, the more Starks will be closing in, so fighting your closest enemy without the wolves on your back is always better.
EDIT:
Actually, if the Mobilization is played, you can place both ships at the Ironman's Bay directly, without wasting march order.
Also, as a disclaimer, of course it is no sure-fire way to crush the Lannisters early. Any plan can be foiled through sheer bad luck, but in my experience it is the best way to win the game. If you wait too long, you might survive to turn 10, but with little chances of winning. A defeat at turn 10 is every bit the same as defeat at turn 4. This approach is way more risky, but most of the Greyjoy victories I did or witnessed followed more or less this pattern.

Greyjoy is actually the strongest house in 6p games.
According to https://www.thronemaster.net, Greyjoy's win rate is 23.8%.

Just to add a bit of context. It seems Greyjoys do well when the full 6 players are involved. Maybe the game was balanced with 6 players in mind. But when you drop the players, Greyjoys seem to be at a distinct disadvantage. In 5 player games, they drop to 4th. And in 3/4 player games they are >3rd/>4th.

@Coran To add further context, with first edition rules (which Thronemaster's version was originally based on) Greyjoy isn't even playable in 3-player and 4-player games, and the map itself is fundamentally different between 5-player and 6-player games.

@goldPseudo, those are the stats of the second addition rules.