text:
How does "must be blocked if able" work with banding?
I control Maarika, Brutal Gladiator, Holga, Relentless Rager (both of which have the text "must be blocked if able"), and Adventurers' Guildhouse. Then, in my declare attackers step, I declare that Maarika and Holga will attack my opponent as a band (using adventurers' guildhouse's ability).
In declare blockers step, assuming my opponent controls more than one creature that can block (e.g., at least 2 Grizzly Bears), do they have to declare at least one blocker for Maarika and at least one separate blocker for Holga? Or can they declare only one blocker that counts as blocking both?
My reading of the bands with other rule (see 702.22) and declare blockers step (see 509.1) suggests they do have to declare separate blockers for each creature with "must be blocked if able". The argument being that the declare blockers step would unfold as follows:

Because blockers are chosen all at once (step 509.1a) and the attacking creatures only count as blocked seven steps later (step 509.1h), the defending player must choose separate blockers in step 509.1a. For instance, if they control two grizzly bears (Bear A and Bear B), they must choose Bear A to block one of the attackers and Bear B to block the other
After steps 509.1b through 509.1g are completed, and Maarika and Holga become blocked creatures (509.1h). Only at this point does 702.22h become invoked, causing both Maarika and Holga to both be blocked by both Bear A and Bear B. The exact wording of 702.22h even implies that it is a triggered ability (that it happens in response to creatures becoming blocked)

702.22h If an attacking creature becomes blocked by a creature, each other creature in the same band as the attacking creature becomes blocked by that same blocking creature.

In summary, the "must be blocked if able" text on Maarika and Holga applies before the banding mechanic kicks in (not until 702.22h is invoked by step 509.1h). I think it would specifically apply in 509.1c, but the wording there is a little unclear to me (its not clear if "must be blocked if able" counts as a restriction here, or if 509.1c only deals with abilities like flying)

Is this a correct reading?

I will note that, to your last point, "must be blocked if able" is definitely a blocking requirement. Restrictions prevent creatures from blocking, requirements force creatures to block.

@mergatroid99 thanks for clarification here

One creature can block both
Your assessment is that, because creatures don't become 'blocked' until step 509.1h, creature B who is banding with creature A doesn't figure out that it's being blocked by a creature blocking A in time for the assessment of requirements during 509.1c.
But the same logic would imply that meeting any requirements in 509.1c is impossible, because at that point in the step no creatures have become blocked.  Therefore step 509.1c must "look ahead" to what creatures will be blocked by the end of 509.1h.
Now, this might not be enough for one creature to block both two "must be blocked" creatures in a band if rule 702.22h (One creature in a band being blocked = all creatures being blocked) is a triggered ability.  But it's not.  Triggered abilities always begin with "when", "whenever", or "at", as per rule 603.1.  Rule 702.22h begins with "if".  That makes it a replacement effect*, which means all banded creatures will become blocked at the same time as the original became blocked, during 509.1h. This means that 509.1c should be able to 'look ahead' to see it just like the original block.
*I'm not entirely confident on this point - the wording doesn't quite match the way I would expect a replacement effect to be worded.  But it's certainly not a triggered ability, which is the main question here.  If it's not a replacement effect, it's some sort of unnamed rules-internal effect that works similarly.

Your point about 509.1c needing to "look ahead" isn't really sound. 509.1b and c examine whether a proposed blocking declaration is valid, and then if it is, the proposed declaration becomes the actual blocks in steps 509.1g and h.

Also, rule 702.22h is not a triggered ability or a replacement effect. Rules in general are not abilities or effects, even if they do use the special words. And "if" is not one of the words that denotes a replacement effect. Those are listed in the subrules of rule 614.1.

@mergatroid99 thanks for clarity on if rules can be replacement effects

Also I don't think it really matters if 702.22h is either a triggered ability or a replacement effect, what matters is that the earliest it seems it can apply would be in step 509.1h which is after the check to confirm that blocks are valid in 509.1b and c

OK, I asked the judge chat and they agreed with this answer's conclusion. I saved the conversation here.

@JamesJackson the fact that the banded creatures become blocked in 702.22h makes them just like all other creatures that becomes blocked in 702.22h.  That is explicitly the purpose of that step.  That is the point I was trying to make.

@mergatroid99 thanks


text:
Par-zero deal with many points for N/S
This question is about the card game bridge :

How many points can N/S have in a par-zero deal ? (Only consider the high
card points)
In a par-zero deal, no player can make any contract assuming perfect play and
full information (all hands are visible).
In most par-zero deals , N/S have at most 23 high card points.
What is the limit ?

            S 973
            H K5
            D QJ864
            C KQJ
  S 2                 S AQJ854
  H T87               H A42
  D T53               D A97
  C 987543            C 6
            S KT6
            H QJ963
            D K2
            C AT2

is an example with 25 HCP for N/S. I found this deal by slightly
 changing a random deal from pavliceks deal finder which was close
 to par-zero.

                  S A75
                  H KJ2
                  D AJ63
                  C 762
   S 986                         S JT2
   H 86                          H AQT9
   D T854                        D 972
   C AQ53                        C T98
                  S KQ43
                  H 7543
                  D KQ
                  C KJ4

is an example with 27 HCP-points for N/S
Even with 28 points, there is an example :

                      S 2
                      H QJ73
                      D KQJ
                      C J8743
   S AQT98                          S 73
   H T9542                          H 8
   D -                              D T98765
   C 652                            C AQT9
                      S KJ654
                      H AK6
                      D A432
                      C K

And finally, I found an example with 29 HCP for N/S

                    QJT9
                    942
                    QJ
                    QJ64
      87654                    32
      A3                       T865
      AKT98                    3
      T                        987532
                    AK
                    KQJ7
                    76542
                    AK

This question tests the limits of what is on-topic for Board and Card Games. While ostensibly about the game of Contract Bridge, it is really about the creation of a puzzle, that by happenstance is about the card game of Contract Bridge. Possibly it is a better fit for Code Golf, as any solution would likely be an exhaustive search of eligible deals. I am interested to see what the community's consensus is about topicality, but am not myself interested in this degree of m-m.

@pieter my definition of on-topic questions is : 1) They have a clear reference. 2) They are not opinion-based. This question can clearly be answered, it does not matter if it is easy. So, I do not see in which way this question could be off-topic.

It seems unlikely that you'll every be able to prove a maximal value of the distribution of points. That's because "points" is not a natural value compared to the question at hand.

In particular, a problem like the "minimum sudoku puzzle" is much simpler, and took quite a long time to tackle. The 4321 Work point count is a very loose estimate, which, as I said, is not intrinsic to the rules of bridge, so it is hard to even know where to start.

@Peter I would recommend instead of updating your question, you post an answer to your question.  Leave the original question as it is, as the original question is solid and good.  Your edit appears to invalidate the one answer, which was a reasonable answer to the original question.

Just click on the "edited" link, find the revision you want, and click rollback.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the OP keeps changing the question to invalidate answers.

A question is off-topic, if the OP updates his own results ?

Here's a deal that my double dummy solver says is parzero with North/South holding 24 points.
          S: KT9
          H: AK942
          D: QT97
          C: A
 S: 72             S: AQ864
 H: J87            H: T653
 D: K84            D: AJ6
 C: JT842          C: 7
          S: J53
          H: Q
          D: 532
          C: KQ9653

I haven't analyzed this deal to see how the sides defeat the contracts.
Note that North/South have their share of the tens, and all of the nines, as well. So this is a good 24.
For north/south declaring. the obvious problem is that north and south's hands have few entries.
I've currently got my dealer search for 25-point examples.
Deal is the dealer than I'm using. I wrote it. It has a double dummy solver built-in. This is the script I'm using for Deal:
main {
   # Require north/south have exactly 25 points and no fit
   reject unless {[hcp south]+[hcp north]==25}
   foreach suit {spades hearts diamonds clubs} {
       reject if {[$suit south]+[$suit north]>7}
   }

   foreach denom {notrump spades hearts diamonds clubs} {
      reject if {[deal::tricks south $denom]>6}
      reject if {[deal::tricks north $denom]>6}
      reject if {[deal::tricks east $denom]>6}
      reject if {[deal::tricks west $denom]>6}
   }
   accept
}

Wow, that deal shows the values of aces. The side with 25 points has no major blockages and the spade ace onside.

I have a dealer which can compute double dummy data. It's right there on my web site. I'll post the code that I used with Deal up in my answer.

You can begin your search with 30 HCP (see edit)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the mass (or density) of the average Jenga block?
I am attempting a project in which a robot needs to carry 5 layers of Jenga pieces around a course, while following a line and without dropping the stacked blocks. Figuring out the static frictional force needed to move the Jenga blocks off of one another requires certain values.
I already have the coefficient of wood on wood, which is 0.35, but I need either the average mass of a Jenga block, or the typical density of the wood used to make Jenga blocks.
Thank you in advance!

Can't you just weigh your Jenga blocks? (If you don't have any Jenga blocks, you'll need to get some to test your robot anyway.)

Quick tip: that formula for friction you learned in school?  It's a lie.  For what you're doing here, it's probably close enough, but don't be surprised if the numbers you get don't match your robot's actual performance.

Well, it looks like that per Hasbro, an official Jenga set is made of Alder, which apparently has a density of 0.38 g/cc, which when combined with the dimensions of a standard Jenga block from this answer of 1.5cm x 2.5cm x 7.5cm, gives us an average of 10.6875g per block for a 28.125cm³ block.
The margin of error on both the density (one site I found had a range from 0.4–0.7 ×10³ kg/m³, or 0.4–0.7g/cm³) and the dimensions of the block due to manufacturing tolerances are enough to be considered significant, so I'd add a nice fudge factor to that before running further calculations.

0.4-0.7 kg/m3 is 0.0004-0.0007 grams/cc. That fudge factor for a 28.125cm³ block is going to be a miniscule one (~0.0011 to ~0.0197 g/cm³). For a tower of 5 layers (15 blocks) that's an estimated maximum 0.2955g difference in weight based on density alone.

Sorry, fixed my unit notation there: it's 0.4-0.7 10^3 kg/m3. That ends up as 0.4-0.7 g/cc, allowing for up to 1.8x the original as a possible value.

I've updated the formatting of your notation slightly. Thanks, that makes more sense out of it.

yeah, if we can get a density of 0.4-0.7 kg/m3 out of something we can use to build Jenga towers, I think the Space Elevator guys want to have a talk about that...

Well that's the density margin of error (from an average density of 0.38g/cm³ or 380kg/m³) rather than the density itself. :)

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


text:
Can the robot play other expansions?
Can the robot used to play the single player variant added by The Gather Storm expansion be used to played with other expansions (or the base game without the addition of the Gather Storm cards), or can it only be used to play The Gathering Storm?

The two other expansions in the first arc (Brink of War and Rebel vs Imperium come with a few additional components that allow the Robot to use starting worlds from those expansions.
There is no official rules for the robot for playing with the Alien Artifacts expansion, however there are non-official rules available on Boardgamegeeks.


text:
Gustcloak's ability vs. creatures with Vigilance
Gustcloak Savior has

Whenever a creature you control becomes blocked, you may untap that creature and remove it from combat.

What about creatures with Vigilance? Attacking does not cause them to tap so they cannot be untapped. Can they still be removed from combat, after they become blocked?

See also: Are (un)tapped permanents still legal targets for “(un)tap target permanent” effects?

Yes, you are allowed to use Gustcloak Savior's ability to remove an attacking creature from combat, even if it is not tapped.
Gustcloak Savior's ability is a triggered ability, that triggers in your Declare Blockers step for each of your attacking creatures that have become blocked. Then, when the ability resolves, it lets you choose whether to have the ability's effect happen. Rule 608.2d says in part

If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible

Rule 609.3 says

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

Since part of the effect can happen (removing the creature from combat) and it will just not do the impossible part (untapping the creature), it's not considered impossible, so you are allowed to choose it.
Then, once you choose to apply the effect, it tries to do both things: untap the creature and remove the creature from combat. Since the creature is already untapped, it is impossible to untap it, so it only does the part that is possible, which is removing that creature from combat.
This ruling has been confirmed by the official Ask A Magic Judge blog, which says

"Untap that creature and remove it from combat" is the action you’re taking, so as long as you perform some part of that action, you can choose to perform the action and remove the creature from combat.

Great question! This is a confusing thing for less experienced players. We know from 701.20b that (emphasis mine)

To untap a permanent, rotate it back to the upright position from a sideways position. Only tapped permanents can be untapped.

This would seem to indicate that we're doing something illegal. However, there is a difference between an effect and a cost. Even though only tapped permanents can be untapped, you can still attempt to untap an already untapped permanent. I tried very hard to find a rule that supported this claim and thanks to the incredibly common terms "tap" and "untap" I simply couldn't find it. But I did find a supporting ruling on a card.
Deadshot is a sorcery that says

Tap target creature. It deals damage equal to its power to another target creature.

And the supporting ruling states:

Deadshot can target a creature which is already tapped as its first target, and it will still damage the second target. This is because it taps that creature as an effect, not as a cost.

So clearly this is saying that an already tapped card can be targeted with intent to tap it and the ability won't fizzle. A lot of the cards do not have that ruling on them, but it clearly still applies. It must just not be a common enough problem to justify a ruling put on it anymore.

The relevant rule is: 609.3. "If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible." It can't be untapped, but it can be removed from combat, so you do the latter.

That's a generic rule, but I seem to recall there is rule that specifically mentions the tapping of tapped permanents and untapping of untapped permanents, I just couldn't find it.

@corsiKa Maybe you're thinking of 701.17?

That's the one I quoted, but I meant there was one that differentiated between attempting to untap an untapped permanent and actually untapping an untapped permanent. It must have been a blog that was using 701.17 and 609.3 as supporting evidence and combining the two or something, because I read the damn thing three times this evening and didn't find it lol.

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


text:
What happens if I kill a creature enchanted with Murder Investigation by casting Flowstone Slide
Murder Investigation reads:

When enchanted creature dies, put X 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens onto the battlefield, where X is its power.

Flowstone Slide reads:

All creatures get +X/-X until end of turn.

Suppose I enchant my 1/1 white Soldier creature token with Murder Investigation and then cast Flowstone Slide with X = 3.  The poor token dies for sure, but would I get 4 white Soldier creature tokens because he was a 4/-2 at the time he was destroyed, or would I get 1 white Soldier creature token because that is the power of the enchanted creature as it last existed on the battlefield?

@Jefromi, you didn't misunderstand, that was a  typo.

You'll get 4 tokens, because that's the power of the enchanted creature as it last existed on the battlefield.
It doesn't die quite immediately upon having negative toughness; it exists on the battlefield for just a moment until state-based actions are checked. The overly detailed sequence of events is:

Flowstone Slide resolves, making it a 4/-2 creature, still on the battlefield.
As soon as it finishes resolving, state-based actions are checked, and since its toughness is 0 or less, it's put into its owner's graveyard.
The token has now died, so Murder Investigation's ability triggers.
State-based actions keep being checked; Murder Investigation is put into your graveyard and the token ceases to exist.
Murder Investigation's triggered ability resolves. Since the object it refers to ("enchanted creature") is no longer on the battlefield, it uses last known information to check its power - and the last known power of the creature was 4, so X is 4 and you get 4 tokens.

And none of those tokens are affected by Flowstone Slide, because they were not on the battlefield when it resolved?

@John Yes, same as creatures played after it are unaffected.

If instead of Flowstone Slide, it was Flowstone Blade's ability being used, only 2 tokens would be made, since SBA occurs between 0 toughness and -1 toughness, correct?

@JonTheMon Yup, SBAs are checked every time anyone would gain priority, e.g. after one instance of Flowstone Blade's ability resolves, and no one can do anything until they're done.

You get 4 Soldier tokens, because the creature had power 4 when it was last on the battlefield.
This is the exact sequence of events when the Flowstone Slide resolves:

Your soldier gets +3/-3 until end of turn, so it is a 4/-2 creature until end of turn.
State Based Actions are checked. By rule 704.5f, the Soldier dies. Murder Investigation's triggered ability triggers.
State Based Actions are checked again (as detailed in 704.3). Murder Investigations is put in the graveyard by 704.5n.
State Based Actions are checked again. Nothing happens this time.
Murder Investigation's ability is put on the stack.
Murder Investigation's ability resolves. Since the soldier is no longer on the battlefield, the ability uses the last known information of the creature. The creature had power 4 when it died, so you get 4 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens.

The important point to note here is that the Soldier token becomes a 4/-2 creature, then the spell finishes resolving, then the Soldier dies. So, there was a time when it was on the battlefield as a 4/-2.
Rule 608.2g says

If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself or a target that's become illegal, the effect uses the current information of that object if it's in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it's no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object's last known information. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it's the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.


text:
What is the 'Liverpool Shuffle'?
Watching A Hard Days Night and they're playing cards in the train. Ringo shuffles the cards and someone (John?) says "Aye Aye, the liverpool shuffle" as Ringo doesn't actually shuffle the cards.
He splits the pack, riffles them (but the halves are a few inches apart), and then puts the two halves back together again.
Why is this called the Liverpool Shuffle?

Ringo... John... You're Paul... are you... --THE-- Paul?

I think this is because Liverpudlians, especially back in the 60s, were stereotypically a bit cheeky (as in, untrustworthy).
John is saying that it's the usual Liverpool way of shuffling so as not to shuffle at all, and likely the cards will be stacked in Ringo's favour.

This is hilarious. Thanks for coming back with the answer.


text:
Should Eldritch Tokens only be used as tokens for the original reason they were placed?
Eldritch tokens are often used for differing purposes and different mythos cards and effects.  Can they or should they be used generically across all active effects?  Here is an example.
The Cthulhu ancient one spawn Eldritch tokens on any sea space occupied by an investigator when a reckoning effect occurs and the ensuing effect is investigators traveling through these spaces get delayed (stopped in their tracks).  One of the mysteries for this ancient one places Eldritch tokens on each sea space nearest each investigator and allows them to test against it and spend clues toward solving the mystery.
Does this then mean every Eldritch token, whether it was placed by the Cthulhu reckoning effect or this mystery now delays investigators, and every Eldritch token is a candidate for being tested against to progress through the mystery, or do we have to have some way to keep track of which tokens were placed by which mystery/effect?  I can see either approach as being easier or harder in both cases, so using the "harder on investigators" reasoning doesn't work.  The sensible storyline approach argues that the tokens should be unique to the mystery/effect that created them.
I lean toward the sensible story approach but it is rather fantastic to consider that so much is going on in this wild flurry of activity that maybe it is worth simply saying an Eldritch token is simply indistinguishable from any other token once it's placed.
Update: The reference guide indicates that

When the active Mystery is solved or removed from play, discard all tokens on it or placed by it. Then draw a new Mystery, placing it on top of any solved Mysteries.

so at least there is some maintenance of the eldritch tokens (pulling them off) as these get solved.  I do not know if mythos cards result in eldritch tokens being placed in locations.

Typically, you use a straight forward reading of the rules/instructions in EH. In this case they indicate that the tokens are interchangable.
The mystery you refer to also clearly states that any Eldritch tokens remaining on the board when the mystery is solved should stay on the board. This rather strongly indicates that (in this case at least) it is intended that all Eldritch tokens can be used to resolve the mystery and that you must abide by the travel restrictions on all the (new) tokens that the Cthulhu AO has.
Also, I'm sure that if the intent were other, they would have included alternative tokens. This also hasn't been mentioned in any errata document from the publisher. So, I'd go with the instructions as written.
Further, this correspondence was received from FFG in answer to the question, which seals the ruling:

An Eldritch token is just an Eldritch token. If placed on the board or a card, it has no inherent effect. They act or affect the game as instructed by any effects that reference them. Players are not expected to remember where any given Eldritch token came from.
An Eldritch token placed by a Mystery is exactly the same as an Eldritch token placed by Cthulhu’s reckoning effect. In such a case, Eldritch tokens on the board represent odd happenings or areas under the influence of Cthulhu.

I added a response I received from Nikki at FFG, figuring it made more sense to place it in your answer than stick it in a comment or add a new answer.


text:
Can I resolve all special effects or just 1 at a time in turn with other players before and after bases score
The rules say that special effects are resolved starting with the current player and in turn clockwise. Can I resolve all of my multiple special effects when it is my turn, or do I only resolve 1, then give the next player a chance to, etc. Also, if I know a player after me has 2 effects, can I wait until he does both and then resolve mine (essentially passing then choosing to resolve)?
Edit: here are snippets of the rules:

When a base has been chosen to score, each player first gets to use any Special abilities that happen “before” the base scores.

I've come to notice the distinction between "special abilities" such as certain actions and minions that can come into play as a base passes its breaking point (but isn't considered having been "scored"). The rules below apply to these cards:

If more than one player wants to use a Special ability, start with the current player and go around the table clockwise until all players pass in sequence (if you pass and another player uses a Special, you can then still choose to use a Special of your own). If your Special allows you to play extra cards, you must play those immediately or not at all.

There are then effects having to do with cards already in play that occur "after" the base scores, as described shortly after:

After scoring, players can use Special abilities that happen “after” a base scores.

After noting this, I'd like to clarify my question to specifically refer to these separate sets of phases, "before" and "after", and ask what people feel is the ruling on whether, starting with the player whose turn it is, they can play more than one card (or in the case of "after the base scores", resolve more than one card's "after the base scores" effect), or whether they must pick one at a time and wait until everyone else has had a chance to do so or pass before taking the second opportunity.
I lean toward one at a time if for no other reason than it seems like an interesting tactical consideration in itself.

I can only answer the second question: If you pass, and someone else plays a Special, then you get another change to play a Special. This is explicitly mentioned in the rules. If you pass and he doesn't play his second special, you're screwed though, so it's a gamble.

Can I resolve all of my multiple special effects when it is my turn, or do I only resolve 1, then give the next player a chance to, etc.

It depends on whether

start with the current player and go around the table clockwise until all players pass in sequence

means

Start with the current player. They may either play a card with a Special ability or pass. Go around the table clockwise until all players pass in sequence.

or

Start with the current player. They may either play cards with a Special ability or pass. Go around the table clockwise until all players pass in sequence.

There's no telling for sure without an official answer (which I can't find), but it seems more natural to me if the players only got to play one at a time.
You are definitely able to play more than one, but I believe you must give everyone else the chance to play one in between.

Also, if I know a player after me has 2 effects, can I wait until he does both and then resolve mine (essentially passing then choosing to resolve)?

You can, but it's a gamble. If you pass, and someone else plays a Special, then you get another change to play a Special. This is explicitly mentioned in the rules. However, if you pass and he decides to pass instead of playing his second special, you won't get to play anything else.

(Note: I have no experience with Smash Up, so I'm only relying on my general experience with orders in rules)
What do the rules explicitly say? If the rules do not mention about in which order the effects should be resolved, then I would say "special effects" most likely means that all the special effects in the chain — whether it is a chain of only a single special effect, or a chain of more than one special effect — of a player are resolved before moving onto the next player. So for example (note that the rules most likely specify if the effects of a single player are resolved in a specific order or not):
The first player has two, the second one, and the third four special effects to resolve. For the sake of clarity, let's say the current player is the first player. Starting with the first player:

The first player solves his first effect.
The first player solves his second effect.
All of the first player's special effects are now resolved, play moves onto the second player.
The second player solves his first effect.
All of the second player's special effects are now resolved, play moves onto the third player.
The third player solves his first effect.
The third player solves his second effect.
The third player solves his third effect.
The third player solves his fourth effect.
All of the third player's special effects are now resolved.
All of the players' special effects are now resolved, play continues normally.

If the rules state that the effects are resolved from the current player onwards, proceeding clockwise, then that means just that: special effects are resolved in a clockwise order, so the effects of a player going after you are and can only be resolved after you have resolved your effects. If the rules state this strictly, then you cannot change the order as you wish (it's a part of the game anyhow).

"It's a hard, linear life in Board Game Town…"

Re "What do the rules explicitly say?", Nothing. The whole playing part of the instruction is implied, so there's no hint from the number of the noun.  "If more than one player wants to use a Special
ability, start with the current player and go
around the table clockwise until all players pass in
sequence".

Okay, well that clarifies it a bit: if the wording is indeed "a special ability", then each player at their turn has to choose between using a single special ability or passing, after which the turn passes clockwise to the next player; after every player has passed in a row (i.e. nobody can any longer use or want to use a special ability) the play continues.

I agree that they all go in one go. It says you play until you pass. If you play a special ability, you still haven't passed yet.

@V-J, No, it doesn't indicate that at all. It doesn't imply anything one way or another. If a player wants to play a special ability is what triggers the special ability "phase". He can definitely play more than one, and nothing says whether he can play more than one at once or not.

@ikegami Yeah that makes sense. Like I mentioned in the top of my answer, I'm not too familiar with Smash Up, so I was applying my general board game knowledge on the issue.


text:
Are there a limited number of counters that can be used?
Poison Spit adds poison counters to other players. If I run out of poison counters, can I keep giving them, ie use other tokens to represent them?

The rules don't cover this, so you have to decide as a group. However, my advice is that there's no reason running out of tokens should limit the effect. You wouldn't run out in a 2-player game, so why should you run out when there are 6 players? If you have to give out 5 tokens and only have 3, how do you decide who gets one? The simplest solution is, as you said, just use something else to track them.


text:
In Arkham Horror, if a monster surge exceeds the max allowable monsters, does the monster that caused the max to be exceeded get discarded?
If I the outskirts is already at maximum capacity, and I have to add 5 more monsters because of a monster surge, do I empty the Outskirts and then add 4 monsters? More specifically, does the monster that put the outskirts "over the edge" get discarded (the alternative being he gets carried over to the next group of outskirts monsters)?

Yes. See this example from the official Arkham FAQ, p.12 (emphasis mine):

In a 3-player game, the  monster limit is 6  and  the  maximum number
  of monsters in the Outskirts is  5. There are 3 open gates on the
  board, 6 monsters in  Arkham, and 4 monsters in the Outskirts. During
  the  Mythos Phase, you draw a location that already has  an open gate,
  so you have to draw 3 more monsters.  You would first draw 2 monsters
  and place them in the  Outskirts. The Outskirts limit would be
  exceeded  upon  placing the second monster, so you would then increase
  the terror level by 1 and return the six monsters in the  Outskirts to
  the cup. Finally, you would draw the third  monster and place it in
  the Outskirts.

I realize now that I worded the question badly. I was actually asking whether the monster that makes the outskirts exceed the maximum allowed is then carried over to the outskirts after emptying it or whether the monster that tips the scales is sent away. I see from your quote that it is sent away. I'll look to clarify the question so people see this distinction from the question.


text:
In Elder Sign, can I free a focused die?
If I focus a die, can I free it and reroll it later in the same turn?
The only reference I see in the rules is the following (with something similar in the faq as well):

Note: A player can focus a die only after a failed roll, and he can focus only once during each of his turns.

This, combined with the "Elder Sign: Omens" iOS game's inability to unfocus a focused die makes me feel it may be set in stone once you focus and bar you from freeing it. Is there any supporting ruling otherwise?

No.  Once focused, a die may only be used to complete a task using its locked side.
This is not specifically mentioned in the rules or the FAQ sheet - however, based on other rulings in the FAQ, it is clear that not being mentioned in the RAW is not considered proof positive that a rule doesn't exist by the creators.  Focused dice are especially limited in usage, and they seem to be intended to be used only in a very specific way.  I believe you should go with the same ruling as the video game.

Thanks for your answer. I added more detail to my post as a result pertaining to what documentation I've found.

@Joey After reading the FAQ, I have completely changed my answer.  It's still up for interpretation, though.


text:
In Robo Rally, does a powered down robot get to earn option cards and repair?
If he is pushed onto repair spaces etc, does he repair and earn option cards at the end of the 5 register phases if he is on an option space?
The rules state:

The robot doesn’t receive or execute Program cards and doesn’t move while powered down, but board elements still affect it. For example, a robot that powers down on a conveyor belt will still be moved by that belt even though it’s not moving on its own.
  Other robots can push a powered-down robot, and the robot can still be damaged (such as by laser fire), Because of that, a robot that’s powered down may receive new Damage tokens during the turn.

The fact that phase 4, the Complete Registers phase, lists "Board Elements Move" as subpart C and yet files flags and repairs sites under subpart E suggests to me that these are not technically "Board Elements". Coupled with the natural telling of the story of robo-rally, that one would expect a lump of metal to be subject to attacks and conveyor belts but not be able to 'pickup' items or make use of a repair site to repair itself (this, versus the idea that a factory arm is doing the repair 100% for it), I lean toward the reading that the robot cannot earn cards or repair while powered down.

It depends on how you view the rules from the original 1994 edition vs the rules from the newer edition.
In the rules for the original edition, you cannot:

A powered-down robot is completely shut down--it can't fire weapons, tag checkpoints, or update its
  archive location, nor can it acquire or use option cards. Powered-down robots don't move under their
  own power (they receive no program cards), but they may be moved by pushers, gears, and conveyor
  belts. They may also be pushed by other robots and shot at by lasers.

This is also clarified in the FAQ from that edition:

Q: What can a robot do when it is powered down?

A: Nothing. A powered down robot cannot fire weapons, receive option cards, tag checkpoints (if pushed onto them), update archive locations (ditto), or use turn programmed cards (for example, Shield). It cannot use any options unless the options specifically say they can be used while a robot is powered down. The robot basically becomes a lump that can be pushed around and suffer damage.

It is reasonable to assume that rules from the original edition are intended to be carried to the new edition unless it's somethign that the new edition specifies (such as the differences in how robots re-enter the board). Based on this, the answer is no, the intent of the rules is that you cannot receive new option cards or repair while powered down.
However, this rule is missing from the newer edition, so by a literal reading of the newest rulebook, without being concerned about the old edition, the answer would be yes. The rules for earning new options simply say that a robot on the correct space earns an option, no exceptions listed for if that robot is powered down. And the rules under powering down make no mention at all about this preventing you from earning new options or healing. The rules do specify that your robot can still be affected by board elements, and lists taking damage and conveyor belts as examples of this. One could say that option and healing squares fall in this category as well.
There's some good discussion on this question here and here, but no official answer given.

I selected this as the answer at first for the literal reading, but am still feeling ambivalent after reading further and considering it, so for now removed the selection. I'll add details to the question to go into further detail.

Actually I'm kind of glad, because I think the first edition gives more clues to the answer. I'll update my answer with more details.

From your snippets, it sounds like the first edition rules also prohibited repairing at repair sites or discarding option cards to prevent damage.

@Joey Yes, I'd agree, especially from the FAQ.


text:
In The Captain Is Dead Episode 2: Adrift, do all systems with any damage gain damage no matter where hostile aliens are?
The instuctions here say

At the start of any turn in which a hostile alien is present, add a damage token to any system that already has a damage token.

Does this mean if an alien is anywhere in the ship, that all systems with damage accrue damage, or only damaged systems in the same room that has an alien?

What that means is that if an alien is in a room with a system that is damaged such as engineering and the teleporter has damage then another damage token will be added to the teleporter. If the comm system also had damage to it but there are no aliens on the bridge then no damage tokens will be added to it when the aliens cause the teleporter to get another damage token. What is happening is that the aliens are just causing more damage in the area they currently are.


text:
Can tokens be converted to different symbols?
Can tokens be changed to different symbols using the arrow power, or can only rolled dice be altered?

I presume the CV tag means we're talking about this game. If so, the question is probably clear to people who know the game.

Yes, that is the game. Did you want me to provide more clarification in the question? I'm used to questions only being clear when I know the general rules of the game being discussed, so wrote it that way.

I was actually commenting as a response to this question coming up as being flagged for being unclear in the review queue. I left my comment to clarify the "cv" tag (which didn't have a wiki entry at the time) to show that this question isn't unclear, we just don't know the game! Sorry for the confusion!

That's one of the things I'm struggling with as a newcomer here... I sometimes have a hard time figuring out what game the question is related to when its title only appears in the tag. This also impacts search results: it's not the case here as CV is the title and the tag but take for instance Arcadia Quest which is the first time I ran into the "issue". Launch a search for "Arcadia Quest" and you get 2 results. By using the [arcadia-quest] tag you'll see that there are in fact 3 questions for this game. I think adding the game title in the subject (or in the body if the title is long) helps.

Symbols are used to purchase cards wherever they come from (Dice or Cards on your CV).
As you can only use each symbol once per turn, the symbols from your cards are materialized using tokens which are just a convenient way to remember that you already planned to use the symbol from one of your cards and to avoid that you use it twice...
The Arrows are explained on page 7 of the rulesbook and nothing mentions the source of the symbol there:

A symbol is a symbol is a symbol ;-)
And you can swap them wherever they come from...


text:
Can minions have negative power?
For instance Mr. Grumpers from the Kitty Cat faction says

Choose a minion. It has -2 power until the end of the turn

Can a minion be rendered with negative power, or is it always at least zero as one might expect in a realistic attack situation--you know, one of Zombies, Pirates, Dinosaurs and Kitty Cats attacking an alien home world.
Glymmer from the Fairy faction has this power

Talent: Until the start of your next turn, either another minion has -4 power (minimum power 0), OR this minion has +1 power.

Can I play Glymmer, and then, on my next turn, use his talent to force another minion to 0 power, then play Mr Grumpers to send him to -2 because there is no "minimum power 0" clause in Mr. Grumpers?

No.
While the core rules don't answer this, it is explicitly covered in the expansions. From the most recent expansion, Pretty Pretty Smash Up, page 12:

The power of a minion not in play is only the number printed on it, but
  once in play its power includes all modifications. Its power may never go below zero.

So if some minion had a base power of 2, then received both -4 and +2 "buffs" would its resulting power be 0 or 2? The rule you quote seems to indicate it would be 2, though had I been asked the question without the rule bold and in front of me I would have said 0.

It'd end up at 0, because the -4 modifier is still active; the minion's overall power just has a floor of 0. The minion is a 0 power minion, based on a 2-power minion with -4. When the +2 comes in, we look at the modifiers on it, and we find a 2-power minion with -4 +2, making it a 0-power minion.


text:
Am I allowed to pass unequipped weapons (or items) to any survivor?
What is the rule regarding passing an unequipped weapon to a survivor that is not in your location?
For example, if I pickup a gun at the police station and want to pass it to another player that has a survivor at the grocery store.  Can I pass the player the card to equip to that survivor? Or would I have to move to that survivor's location?

There are two types of moves that involve giving cards to other players.  They are Hand Off and Request.  The one you probably want is request.

Request: During his turn a player may request 1 or more item cards from other players. Other players may give the requesting player an item card from their hand, if they do, that card must be revealed and immediately played. The requested card cannot be added to the crisis.

Request allows a player, on his turn, to get cards from other players as long as he plays it immediately.  I'm presuming that the card you want to give to someone is unequipped so in your hand.

Hand Off: During his turn a player may have a survivor he controls that has an item equipped hand that item off to another survivor at the same location. When an item is handed off it is unequipped from the survivor that is handing it off and is immediately equipped to the survivor that it is being handed to.

Hand off is basically if a survivor already has an item equipped (i.e. it is "in play" and out of your godly control to move around to other survivors without restriction), then he or she can give the item to another survivor in the same location.
So, yes, you can pass that unequipped card but not on your turn.  You have to wait until that player's turn before they can request it from you to place on that survivor.

Great thanks, that last paragraph answers my question. I find it strange that I can't pass an item in my hand to another player unless they request it though.

I'm sure you can offer it.  I doubt it's a "no telling them what you have unless they guess" sort of thing.  It probably simply meant they can only receive it on their turn.

OK fair enough, I guess it doesn't really break the gameplay or anything like that. I would see the advantage of waiting for their turn in case a player before them needs that item in a desperate situation.  Thanks again. Look forward to my next play :)

I was thinking more it would suck if they had already gone before you and there was going to be a colony phase effect after your turn that would hurt that survivor because you weren't able to give that item to the survivor, but I guess that's the consequence of having used up their turn already and taken their actions. The survivors they control can no longer be changed in any way.  I haven't played the game more than once so don't remember if this is something that can actually happen though (greater chance of bad stuff happening during colony phase because of not having some item equipped).

That shouldn't be an issue, items (equipped or unequipped) don't come into play during the colony phase.  My initial concern was if it make "logistical game sense" to be able to pass cards around to different survivors. Like if I picked up the gun at the police station how does it get to the grocery store. I guess it's more of an immersion issue.

Just to be sure, can you equip to your character and then do a hand off in the same turn if they are located at the same place?

I don't see any mention of a restriction on the order or these actions, so your suggestion seems reasonable.


text:
What penalty should the Dummy receive for telegraphing to his partner after play has started?
What penalty should the Dummy receive for touching cards or moving cards forward?
After play started, when his partner led to the diamonds, Dummy arranged them again in my mind to make sure she knew there were 7 cards. I have also had the Dummy push forward a winning card in a ebu competition. I welcome your answer.

According to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2008), the specific Rights and Limitations of Dummy are listed as Laws 42 and 43. Notable limitations in this context are:

Law 43
DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS
  Except as Law 42 allows:
  A. Limitations on Dummy     ...
     1. (c) Dummy may not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.
  ...
   2. (c) Dummy may  not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand.
B. If a Violation Occurs
  1. Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitation listed in A 1 and A2 above.
  ...
LAW 90
PROCEDURAL PENALTIES
  A. Director's Authority
  The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.

Additionally Law 45 F states:

F. Dummy Indicates Card
  After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not
  touch or indicate any card except for purposes of arrangement, without
  instruction from declarer. If he does so, the Director should be
  summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the
  end of play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers
  the dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged
  by the play suggested.

In a duplicate game, if a dummy at my table touched any ,in any manner other than to play a card indicated by declarer by name or to mark tricks in the prescribed fashion, I would immediately call Director for protection. I want the action to stop and to not be resumed, and the appropriate way to do that is to call Director.
As described by you, both instances of dummy's behaviour are in my opinion clearly in violation of Law 43 A 2 (c). As A Director, I would award an adjusted score (under Law 45 F) if there was the reasonable possibility that damage occurred by any play that might have been suggested by dummy's action. I would then give a stern warning to both members of the offending partnership, and (except for novices), assess an additional half board penalty (under Law 90 A) to the offending player. A repeat occurrence by either member of that partnership in that game would get the offending player an additional full board penalty (again under Law 90 A).

The explicit wording "except for purposes of arrangement" appears to render your proposed penalty in the first case unfair if not illegal; the motive may have been improper, but no director can assume so.

@TimLymington: In tournaments, "except for purposes of arrangement" is only available by requesting, and receiving in advance, permission to do so from the opponents. Failure to request or receive such permission renders the clause impotent. However, from time to time in playing the card called by Declarer, Dummy inadvertently covers another card. It is always appropriate to immediately arrange the cards to reveal the inadvertently hidden card, stating the intent as one does it.

So failure to 'state the intent' (which isn't mentioned anywhere) incurs a penalty? I suspect the problem (besides different standards of formality) is that we are drawing opposite conclusions from insufficient information. Literally all we know about the problem is that one defender believed the arranging was done for an improper reason.


text:
When a pushing enemy moves toward a character, does it stop moving on the first push?
If an enemy that pushes characters moves into his node but still has moves remaining, does it push the character away and then stop moving altogether, or does it continue to move forward?  Page 24 of the rules says:

When an enemy model is moving towards another model, it will stop moving when it is on the same node as its target.

so, I gather that being on the same node triggers all moving to stop, or does the fact he pushes him away make him continue to move.  I would expect it to be the former as the target node is chosen at the beginning of movement, not updated each step.
Update: on page 25 it says

is attack targets all characters on each node the enemy moves into. (Note that it does not target characters on the node on which the enemy started.) If an enemy moves 2 or more nodes, this can even result in the same character being attacked multiple times as the enemy tramples and smashes its way through its hapless victim.

So, does this mean if the enemy is 1 node away from its target but can move 2, it will aim to move only 1 space to the target's destination and then stop after it pushes the target away?
Are the hapless victims that get attacked multiple times only in extreme corner cases where the player cannot choose to have his character pushed to any node other than the one the enemy is trampling toward?  Otherwise I would expect they would simply choose a safe node since it is the player's choice where they get pushed to.
Further update:
On Page 30, a demonstration of boss movement clearly has the boss moving not to the initial position of the target (seems to pick the location after pushing, too). It moves toward and keep moving again after the character has been pushed back.  Unfortunately the player chooses to move the character directly away so we don't know if the boss would continue in that direction or turn and keep going toward the target if he had veered in the push.
and this faq implies the boss picks the target character and for the entirety of its movement heads toward him, no matter how he gets pushed.  See the ENEMY MOVEMENT section under moving toward nearest or aggro and the looped section within.

Looking at page 30, it looks like the movement resolves in the following order:

If the movement contains a push, push everything in the current node
Check direction towards movement objective
Move to the corresponding node and push everything in that node
Repeat

Granted, the rules don't really make that explicit, but they never contradict it either.
If you follow these steps, it is easy for a character to be trampled multiple times, since an enemy will never be in the same node as its target, since it will always be pushed away.
edit: after rereading page 21, I noticed it states:

If the Push icon appears on an enemy’s movement, immediately
  move each character on that enemy’s node onto an adjacent node
  chosen by the players

Which indeed confirms the example on page 30.


text:
Do you have to perform assist abilities?
Most assists are worded as if they are required to be performed.  Do they have to be if at all possible?
For instance, the Backdoor card says

Cancel all abilities on one obstacle for the rest of the game

If I then have only one obstacle left and it's description says that a runner gets 1 HP healed once it's defeated, does this have to be canceled?  The card doesn't say "You may cancel all abilities" but this seems like the sort of thing that would be a deck wide ruling, such as the runner not being required to apply all damage from the cards they play.

If you provide an example of what situation you are asking about it would help answer the question.

Updated the main question with an example

No. You do not have to use your assist cards. They are optional. The text on the cards is what happens if you choose to use them, not rules that enter play once the card is drawn.


text:
In Manila, what are the strengths of focusing on investing in cheap black market wares and controlling the landing outcomes of the punts?
The harbor master is obviously a critical role toward selecting and initializing the punts (boats), and the pirate and large and small pilots are the only remaining fine-tuning mechanisms to the landing outcomes of the boats. The wharf and shipyard bets seem short term incidental, more gambling bets, to me and less longer term ones such as investments in the black market value of the wares.
My general thoughts are to put a premium on obtaining harbor master early as long as the cost is not too prohibitive and to obtain as many shares across the board of wares at 5 pesos, then shift to giving up harbor master and driving up the price of bids (as long as I can be sure I won't accidentally win it), then focusing on being the pilots and pirates as a means to drive the boats to the wharf or shipyard of my preference to stall the game as long as possible and increase the black market value of my shares.  The ideal would be to encumber as many of my shares as possible and use that equity to manipulate the outcome either by being a reasonably priced harbormaster or placing accomplices on the pilot or pirate spaces.
This feels like a solid long term goal with occasional bets on the punts, shipyard and wharf (although these seem much more short term and apparent to everyone in terms of their likelihood, risk, etc, so they are either more long shot or quickly taken when more of a sure thing).
The key to whether this approach becomes viable lies behind whether the cost to be harbormaster justifies the potential gain in the wares. A 5 peso ware maybe reaching 20 pesos becomes a break-even proposal if you pay 15 pesos just to obtain harbormaster and costs of 5 and 2/5 for pirate and pilots make it seem more likely that players who grab up spots on the punts will come out positive more than this strategy might.


text:
In Chicago Express, how important are strategies of tight share bidding and inducing others to develop railroads toward your shares?
Chicago Express appears to be a game with no luck in that there are no dice, no cards drawn. There are minimal random elements such as player seating. My interpretation of the game has been that in order to maximize your cash (to win the game), you generally aim to:

buy shares as cheaply and at as sound an investment price as possible
induce others to build/expand/upgrade rail roads that you own shares in
build/expand/upgrade rail roads that help others as little as possible

Because shares are auctioned and dividends paid proportionately to the point value (akin to the market cap) of the railroad and the shares sold, the game seems very tightly bound to how efficiently you spend your efforts on yourself and how much you get others to dilute their efforts into your shares.  So, If I have a monopoly on a certain railroad, it sounds like I should always build/expand that one (when building and expanding), and when I see a player with only one railroad or an overwhelming interest in expanding that one railroad, I should seek to gain shares in that railroad.
Since your choices and ability to bid (and thus your ability to position your relative railroad ownership versus the other players) diminish immensely once you have no cash, it seems you have to be extremely careful about early bids and should be very willing to pass on expensive auction in order to maintain cash flow and avoid getting, well, railroaded (had to say it).
Other aspects of the game don't seem as crucial to me. Are there elements of how one expands their railroad across the board or builds extra value into their railroads' income track scores that become more prevalent, or is it more that you simply are building/expanding a certain railroad that matters rather than how you're doing it? Do other considerations such as how many potential turns remain for auction, development, or route construction matter much?

I see that there are, so far, 3 "close" votes for my question, and it'd be really helpful to hear feedback on how I can improve this question. I'm trying to give my impression of what I think may be the important strategic considerations and wondering how they stack up. One example of interesting feedback (pointed out to me outside of this site) was that  railroad route construction can be a key element as players with small share aim to hijack the development of a railroad and spend all its resources wastefully just to harm a player with a large share in that railroad.

I'd do the following. (A) No description of Chicago Express; people that need it can't help you. (B) Delete the strategy musings - basically from the middle of paragraph 1 to the beginning of paragraph 4. (C) Unify the three different questions you've asked (one in the title and two in the last paragraph) or ask three separate questions on the site. I think your real question may be "What strategies work well in Chicago Express?" which I think is answerable. But the question you've posted looks like it is meant to inspire a discussion, which is out of scope for the site.

Is a question as simple as "what strategies work well in ____" really acceptable? I feel like the general message in the faq and meta posts is that it is too general.

Maybe not, but then you should split this question into several specific ones. It's also possible that SE is just a bad fit for what you are looking for and you'd be better off at BoardGameGeek reading strategy articles and discussion threads.


text:
Can I trade exhibit items from the Curse of the Dark Pharaoh expansion with other investigators?
Do exhibit items from the Curse of the Dark Pharaoh expansion count as tradable items?

Yea I wasn't sure about how to tag this. It seemed like the convention was to tie it to the base game, not use two separate tags.

Yes, Exhibit items can be traded like other items.
From the Curse of the Dark Pharaoh rules:

The Exhibit Item cards represent the ancient Egyptian artifacts
  brought to Arkham as part of the "Legacy of the
  Pharaohs" museum exhibit. They are similar to Unique Items,
  but have no monetary value and can only be gained through
  Arkham, Other World, and Exhibit encounters.

This states that they function the same as Unique Items, but does not disclude them being traded.
Also from the Complete Arkham Horror FAQ (page 4/5):

Q: Exactly where, when, and what can investigators
  trade?
A:
  They may trade Common Items, Unique Items, Spells,
  the Patrol Wagon, the Deputy’s Revolver, Exhibit Items
  [CotDP], Rail Passes [DH], and Money.


text:
In what ways does the Arkham Horror Toolkit app improve or detract from the experience?
In what ways do people find using the Arkham Horror Toolkit reduces the play time, and how much does it further enhance or detract from the experience? I can imagine one negative is that it simply isn't as fun to tap a screen as it is to draw a physical card and roll dice, but a significant saving in time spent would be nice. Just how much does it make a difference, and are there other benefits or downsides?

This seems like Good Subjective to me; it's asking for specific ways that something affects the game, not for people to make an ultimate judgment about whether it's a good idea to use or not. (I suppose the original form of the question invited that judgment somewhat, but even then there was obviously a decent question here, just a little tweaking required.)

Since I've never used the app before (I have android devices, not Apple) I can only answer from what I've seen with other apps like this and tailor it to what the Toolkit claims to do.
Since it has a full list of every event card and gate card, it does save on the setup of the game significantly.  However, since it doesn't have the Mythos deck set up and tracked, it doesn't help the app very much in that regard.  You still have to pull out cards and, when you're setting up, you might as well pull everything out and set it down instead of leaving just the event cards and gate cards.
It also gives you a dice roller, which I don't see as really a time-saver.  Plus, it feels better to roll dice physically.
The investigator tracking sheet is nice to remember what your current stats are for all of your skills, how many clues you have, how much damage you've taken, ect.  It really clears up the clutter of the board.  Down side?  It doesn't show you everything about your character, so you still need the card out.  And it only tracks your character, not all the others.  You'd need to buy the thing for a lot of people.
Lastly, it gives you maps of each of the boards (so long as you buy them as add-ins).  This helps in reading the board for yourself, but you have to have the board out for you in the first place, so I don't see this as a time saver either.


text:
What spaces are considered not 'in Arkham'
For the action "All Cthonians and Dholes in Arkham are returned to the cup," does this include the outskirts and sky spaces?
Edit: since these creatures cannot fly, this question is more about whether such monsters in the outskirts would be returned, i.e. whether they are considered "in Arkham". Short of finding some rules reference, I would think the fact that gate closing affects monsters from the outskirts would make it likely removing creates "in Arkham" implies the outskirts as well.

From the Arkham Horror FAQ:

The Sky is considered part of Arkham (since it is on the Arkham board)

And

A monster that is arriving in Arkham is moved to the Outskirts if its arrival would exceed the monster limit.

So the sky is considered part of Arkham. The outskirts are never considered part of arkham.
(Also, it is impossible for Cthonians and Dholes to get to the sky)

I'd like to revisit this question. I feel like the quoted text doesn't quite argue that the outskirts aren't part of Arkham and that a directive saying to remove all ___ from Arkham should likely include those in the outskirts. Did you find other supporting rule text to clarify this?

Other rules that reference amount of monsters in 'arkham',  such as the monster limit,  do NOT count the outskirts. I think it is quite clear

I see references to the outskirts separately from Arkham as well such as with gate closings ie "When a gate is closed, all monsters in Arkham, the Sky, and the Outskirts that have the same..."

The FAQ are pretty direct: Q: When a Mythos Card says all Chthonians and Dholes
in Arkham are returned to the cup, does the Outskirts
count as “in Arkham?” A: No. Q: If the number of monsters in Arkham is at the monster
limit, and a monster that is on an expansion board moves
to the Sky, what happens to that monster?
A: The monster is moved to the Outskirts. The Sky is considered
part of Arkham...


text:
Does Flesh Ward prevent Stamina loss from one source multiple times?
The Flesh Ward spell says

Any Phase: Cast and exhaust to ignore all Stamina loss being dealt to you from one source. Discard this spell if the Ancient One awakens.

Is a 'source' considered a physical entity or more so considered an action or event from some entity, i.e. can I use this to prevent stamina loss from a specific monster through several attacks received, eventually evade it (if say I simply had no capacity to have enough successes to kill it), then next turn still avoid stamina loss from it?

Why the note about "this combat"? Flesh Ward doesn't use that wording.

Good catch. My mind was thinking to put that in a different question I posted recently, but I accidentally put it here. I'll edit it.

Page 7 of the Arkham Horror FAQ
says

Q: When exactly can Flesh Ward be cast?
A: When you are told to lose 1 or more points of Stamina,
you may cast Flesh Ward to prevent that loss. For instance, this can work on the Stamina from a single failed Combat check. This does not make the investigator immune to fur- ther harm from that source, it only prevents it one time.

The answer appears to be that 'one source' implies one singular event, like a single attack from a monster.

Yes, and this should be clear from the spell's text. It says "being dealt to you". It can only prevent what's currently being dealt to you, not something that's going to be dealt later.

I don't feel like I have the right sense yet for interpreting these all the time. I could have easily confused this to mean loss being dealt to me for the duration of the game. Sometimes reading too literally gets me in trouble too.

P8 from the FAQ also address this directly: "Q: Can Flesh Ward protect an investigator from all damage caused by a given monster during a whole combat? A: No. (In combat, the “one source” of damage Flesh Ward allows an investigator to ignore is the Stamina loss from a single failed Combat check, not all damage caused by a particular monster for the duration of the combat.)" and backs up your answer.  I did not feel this warrented an answer of my own so hope this addon helps=)


text:
What does an enemy do when the target of its movement is on a space with 3 models?
If the enemy wants to move toward a hero that is already on a node with 2 others, does it stop movement as if it has hit a wall / obstacle or as if there is no node to travel to?
Update:
Page 10 of the rules state

Only three models can share a node at the same time, regardless of how many are friendly or enemy models. If there are already three models on a node and another model moves onto that node, the players must push one of the three models already on the node

So I suppose the enemy does move and then the players select which model gets pushed, however this doesn't answer the question of whether the players can elect to have an enemy be pushed.  Strictly speaking it must be an option but isn't stated that if possible a character should be pushed.  Enemies don't typically push each other but if there is a situation with 4 enemies all wanting to inhabit the same space, it breaks the 3 model rule.  A reasonable reading is probably that the enemy pushes the character if possible and otherwise an enemy, but I haven't found any ruling yet.

If there are already three models on a node and another model moves onto that node, the players must push one of the three models already on the node.

The emphasized text above gives you your answer, the players themselves must decide who stays on the node and who is pushed off so as not to break the 3 model rule.
I would say this is enforced by the wording of "the players must" and the lack of listed priorities anywhere in the rule book for who should be pushed off first. It can be logically assumed that without an order provided, the players can decide an order for themselves.


text:
How do monsters move on local paths to side boards?
How do monsters move along local paths to traverse the side boards in expansion games such as when effects instruct players to move a monster toward investigators?
For instance, a local path connects space 17 and Cairo, and an investigator would effectively be able to teleport from one to the other at no action cost.
Would a monster on space 17 be allowed to, for the cost of 1 move, travel to Cairo (or would it cost no moves)?
The fire vampire moves two spaces toward the nearest investigator, so would an appropriate step count be to move him from Shanghai to space 17, then to Cairo for a total of 2 spaces?

I feel like I answered my own question in considering that I meant to ask whether traveling the local paths cost 1 or 0 moves (as it in a way costs the investigators 0 moves). I clarified a portion of the question, but it does seem to be obvious now that it shouldn't be 0 moves along these paths.

Each location is a space, so regardless of what type of path exists, a monster moving from Shanghai to Space 17 and then to Cairo has moved 2 spaces.

I'd say it doesn't matter what path as long as it's the least number of paths and if it does seem to matter, decide together.  If indecision Lead Investigator would decide.
p8 of reference guide:

"When investigators make a decision as a group, the Lead Investigator
  makes the final decision."

p16 of the rulebook:

"The Lead Investigator decides all disputes."

I would further say that this is an excellent application of the general rule, if there are two paths pick the one that harms the investigators more.  If they're equally harmful, go with the above.  I wouldn't spend too long deciding on "equally harmful" either=)

This seems like a good policy when deciding which victim is closer, at least as far as using the shortest path to a location in order to decide how far a location officially is from a monster. I don't know that it necessarily "harms" the team more necessarily, and picking where monsters go often lies at the discretion of the lead, I believe, when the guiding rules for which direction it moves results in many options. So, in these cases it seems allowable for the lead to pick the path to his greatest benefit.

@Joey It can definitely be overanalyzed=)

As the rules don't state nothing special about monsters and local paths, you don't do anything special.
Monsters treat all paths equally.


text:
Are you required to buy items when you choose the Legendary Object options at the village?
The wording of the rules states that you must either peruse/buy the souvenirs or buy a legendary object, but what if you cannot afford the remaining legendary objects? To the letter of the rules, it would imply that you must only choose this option if you can buy a legendary object, so players should determine what's in the pile of unbought items (easily done) before making that an option. More hand-wavey, we could argue if someone mistakenly doesn't realize he can't afford any of the remaining items, then chooses to buy a legendary object and picks up the remaining cards, he simply is barred from buying anything or resorting to the souvenir option.
I tend to lean toward the more forgiving option which is if a player can't afford anything, he just goes to the souvenir shop especially since the list of cards is public info obtained simply by looking at the players' holdings which are exposed.

I'm not sure of the official ruling, but the way we've been playing it is that you don't have to buy anything, and you've essentially either wasted or turn or simply blocked another person from choosing that option.

According to the rules for Tokaido: Crossroads on the Fun Forge site (emphasis mine)

Now, when a Traveler stops at a Shop space, he must choose between:

Buying Souvenirs (basic game rules).

Acquiring a Legendary Object.

While the base game rules (Souvenirs Only) say

The player draws the first 3 Souvenir cards from the pile and places them face up in front of him. He can then purchase one or more of these cards by paying the price indicated on each card.
Note: A traveler must have at least 1 coin to stop in a Village, but
he is not required to purchase any souvenirs

In the base game it is clearly possible for the player to end up with only Souvenirs they cannot afford, in which case they can purchase nothing, as well as simply choosing to purchase nothing.
It seems fairly clear that the player must first decide which of the two purchase options they will pursue, and having made that decision the other option is no longer available. Having made that choice the same rules would seem to apply in both cases: if there is nothing they can purchase, they are out of luck; even if they can purchase something, they don't have to.
Further, unless you're playing with the 2-3 player variant for Crossroads, all players have perfect knowledge of what Legendary Objects are available to purchase. There are 6, 2 each costing 1, 2, or 3 coins, and any purchased objects are visible in front of the player(s) that purchased them. In the variant where 2 cards are discarded, they will have perfect knowledge after looking at the Legendary Objects once, and the goal of that variation seems to be to slightly increase the risk/reward given the large number of stop opportunities with so few players.

Peruse means to browse or to look at. So you can just go to the shop look at the souvenirs for sale there.
As mentioned by John this can be done to block another player but would be a bit of a wasted move.


text:
If condition cards run out, do investigators not gain the condition?
I believe the reference guide may imply that a card of a certain type, when not found, is simply not obtained. In this case, if it is an Illness Condition, then the investigator simply doesn't gain the condition, I believe, and if it is a case where "an investigator may gain an Illness to etc" then he doesn't have that option to do that etc.
However, what about the Epidemic Prelude card in Under The Pyramids which reads

Then each investigator gains 1 ILLNESS Condition and 1 Clue.

There are only 4 Illness cards, so if I have 8 investigators, do only 4 get the Illness, and do only those 4 likewise get Clues for the Prelude because the text implies the Illness and Clue must go hand in hand (I'm not even sure this wording necessarily implies that, although one could imagine wording it as "then each gains an Illness; then each gains a clue" would clarify they don't go hand in hand)?

If condition cards run out, investigators do not gain the condition.

An investigator can gain a card or token only if it is available.

Source: Reference Guide, "Component Limitations" (page 3)
The Epidemic Prelude's "gains 1 Illness Condition and 1 Clue" is an identical situation as "recover 1 Health and 1 Sanity" or "discard 1 Item and 1 Trinket".
These loses/gains aren't dependent on each other, those are just lists.
If you can't do everything from the list you do as much as you can.
Not recovering health doesn't prevent you from recovering sanity.
Not losing a Trinket doesn't prevent you from losing the item.
Not gaining Illness doesn't prevent you from gaining a clue.


text:
When I search the discard pile, which direction do I search
The reference guide says, under Gaining Posessions and Condition, that when gaining a card with a specific trait:

The investigator searches that card type's deck then discard pile for the first card matching the specified trait and gains that card.

If I cannot find the card in the deck, do I search the discard pile from the most recently discarded card first, or the least recently discarded card?
Usually discard piles are face-up so that the most recently discarded is on top of the pile.
Now, searching is specified as looking through the deck from the bottom up.
Is the bottom of the discard deck the most recently discarded card then or the first one that was discarded?
My inclination is to think that the bottom of the deck is the side that displays the contents of the card, as searching through the details of the cards tends to be easier parsing through the cards from that direction, and this search was likely described to be bottom-up to make it easier to execute.

An official answer from Nikki Valens (head designer of Eldritch Horror):

The investigator will search the discard pile bottom to top. That is, starting with cards that were discarded earliest and ending with the cards discarded most recently.


text:
What's the best way to store Eldritch Horror with all the expansions
I was wondering what the best method of storing Eldritch Horror including all the expansions that also allows for a faster set-up time. Thanks!

"Best"?, might that not be a matter of opinion?

Duplicate of Storage for Eldritch Horror


text:
What does it mean when you prevent a unit from attacking?
For instance, the Illusionist has an ability:

Target unfortified enemy does not attack this combat.

Does that mean it doesn't deal damage, or that it does not participate at all in combat?
IE: Can I still kill this unit even though it isn't attacking?

Of course you can kill it. That's the point of the Illusionist. The ability doesn't say "The enemy cannot combat", just that you can skip its attack phase.
I like to see it as

"Your fellow illusionist cast a powerful spell that makes the monster
  believe you are elsewhere. The monster tries to attack you, but
  instead he attacks an empty space, making his attack so worthless you
  don't even need to block. Now you can strike back and put him out of his misery!"


text:
Amulet of Sun artifact: lasts one turn, or the whole round?
Amulet of Sun reads

If played during the Night, ...

It doesn't say whether it lasts just one turn, or the whole Night (one round). Which is it?

All effects last only until end of turn. This includes the effects of Amulet of Sun.
The rules are unambiguous. From page 5:
1) Artifacts are Deeds.

If an effect tells you to gain a new Deed card (Advanced Action, Spell, or Artifact)...

2) Effects come from Deeds, and last only until end of turn.

Effects
Deed cards... provide a variety of effects that may be used on a given turn.
b. Other effects might allow you to modify the rules for the turn, or to gain something you wouldn't normally be able to gain...
If the effect modifies some values or rules, the change always lasts until the end of the current turn (unless stated otherwise).

3) Amulet of Sun is an Artifact:

Amulet of Sun
Gain a gold mana token.
[Basic]
If played during the Night, forests have their move cost reduced to 3, you can use gold mana, and you reveal garrisons of nearby fortified sites and all ruins as if it were day.
[Strong]
Same as the basic effect, except you get three gold mana tokens instead of one.

nice response, since I will be able to apply it in a general fashion. I didn't catch the deed_card-effect concept so clearly. Thank you


text:
Do characters perform Upkeep actions, such as rolls for Blessed/Cursed, during a final battle?
During an Ancient One final battle, do investigators roll for Blessed/Cursed and any other Upkeep rolls? (Not sure if there are any others that matter, since Retainer is useless then). I find that the rules tend to be a bit vague on this:

At the beginning of a round of combat with an Ancient One, the investigators may refresh their cards, use any character abilities, and adjust their skill sliders as though it were the Upkeep Phase.

I find it strange that "make an Upkeep roll" is not listed in the things that are to be done, and the wording "as though it were an Upkeep Phase" makes it unclear to me whether or not this omission means that it is like an Upkeep Phase, but deliberately lacks this.
This came up when we played against Yig. We all got Cursed when he came out (per his card), but we couldn't figure out if we could roll to get uncursed. We decided the omission and the "as though it were an Upkeep Phase" meant that we didn't. However, we think we might have done that wrong since we got it handed to us even though the Arkham Horror Statistics Report says that he's the easiest to defeat in a straight up final battle (with only 37% fail rate as of this writing).
So do investigators roll for Blessed/Cursed and any other Upkeep rolls during a final battle?

This is clarified/fixed in the FAQ in the Dunwich Horror rules:

Battling the Ancient One
Q: In combat with Ancient Ones, do investigators get a full Upkeep Phase, or is the Upkeep Phase limited in some way during the final battle?
A: Investigators get a full Upkeep phase.

So yes, you roll for blessings and curses.
I can only assume they wrote the original rules the way they did because it's not a normal turn - it's combat, and you don't have any normal turn phases. (No movement, no encounters, no mythos.) So they were perhaps thinking it wasn't actually an upkeep phase, and you simply do everything you would do if it were an upkeep phase. And then for some reason they tried to list the things you do in the upkeep phase instead of just saying "everything". Obviously that was pretty misleading!


text:
In the Final Battle, when you remove doom tokens for rolling successes against an Ancient One do you stop counting successes for that roll?
In Arkham Horror you have to roll a cumulative number of successes equal to the number of players to knock off a doom token from the Elder God's health. If you reach the number of players worth of successes do you then stop counting for the player and move on or do you count the extra successes against the next doom token?
We played it so that you kept on adding them but it meant that we turned Nyalothotep into mince meat quite quickly (One Character was blessed had a fight of 6 a shotgun and Fight +1 skill card though)

You did it correctly. Nyarlathotep is one of the easier ones to beat in combat. With only a -4 modifier and not resistant or immune to physical weapons, most characters will have dice to roll against him. Combined with his attack that could possibly make you lose a single clue token, you generally have an easy final battle

I Just Read the FAQ:
Q: In combat with an Ancient One, how do cumulative
successes in the “Investigators Attack” step work?
A: To defeat the Ancient One, the players must do a total
number of successes equal to the number of players multiplied by the number of doom tokens on the Ancient One.
So, if 4 players are facing Yig (doom track of 10), they
need 40 successes to win. For every 4 successes they do,
they remove 1 doom token to track their progress. If the
investigators get 9 successes in the first round of combat,
they would remove 2 doom tokens, and 1 success would
carry over to the next round of combat.

Fortunately there's no shortage of other counters you can use to keep track of the number of saved up successes (or the fraction of a doom token that's left, if you prefer).

Yeah we just used money tokens to keep track and reset it when we knocked off a doom token.


text:
What happens if a unit recruited with "Bonds of Loyalty" dies due to paralyze?
What does happen?

I can use Bonds of Loyalty to recruit yet another unit.
It can be reused as a normal command token (without the special boni).
It is discarded.
Your idea.

You can use Bonds of Loyalty to recruit another unit with the bonus it offers.
There is a discussion about this question on BGG. The last poster quotes Paul Grogan, who is the maintainer of the Official FAQ for the game and appears to be at least partially responsible for the writing of the rule book. A unit recruited by Bonds of Loyalty cannot be disbanded, but Paralyze destroys the unit and removes it from the game. This is probably the "clever way" that Paul Grogan was talking about of replacing a Bond of Loyalty recruited unit.
From Paul Grogan's post regarding Bonds of Loyalty, emphasis mine.

The other skill is Bonds of Loyalty. ...
First of all, this skill gives you an extra command token. i.e The Skill itself counts as another command token, so you can recruit one more Unit. When you gain this Skill, you add 2 more regular Units to the Unit offer.
The Unit that you recruit into this slot costs you 5 less Influence to recruit. But it doesn't stop there. This unit is so loyal to you, it can be used even in situations when you couldn't normally use Units (i.e when down Dungeons or burning down a Monastery)
The only slight downside of this Skill is that you cant dismiss voluntarily the Unit that you recruit into this slot, so if you use it in the early game to recruit a low level Unit, you're going to have to find a clever way of getting rid of it if you want to replace it.

Paralysis definition from the Rulebook.

If a Unit is assigned damage by a Paralyzing enemy and would be given a Wound, it is immediately destroyed (remove it from the game)

Yep, that's the rules, but according to the lore, you should discard the token :-)

See http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/761808/quick-queries for some useful discussion on this subject.
I would agree with the consensus towards the end of that thread, that if you can find a clever way of getting rid of the unit recruited with Bonds of Loyalty, such as Paralyzing it to death, you can reuse the Bonds of Loyalty, bonus and all.


text:
If I fail to defeat all defenders of a fortified site, does this count as a forced withdrawal?
Discussing combat, the rules (p.9, Combat Outcomes) say

If you failed to defeat all the defenders of a fortified site, you have to withdraw back to the space you were attacking from. If it is not a safe place, Forced withdrawal rules apply.

The Forced withdrawal rule (p.9, *End of the Turn") says

You must end your turn on a safe space.
a) If you are not on a safe space, you must backtrack your move until you arrive at a safe space.
b) For each space you move while backtracking, add a Wound to your hand.

Obviously, the fortified site with enemies remaining is not a safe space, and I am told to withdraw to my original space. On the other hand, the wording isn't explicit that this is a forced withdrawal.
So, do I automatically take a wound for failing to capture the site?

No, you only take one or more wounds if you are forced to withdraw from the space you were attacking from. You are misreading the rule, probably because it is badly worded (too many pronouns).

If you failed to defeat all the defenders of a fortified site, you have to withdraw back to the space you were attacking from.

You must withdraw to the space you attacked from.

If it [the space you attacked from] is not a safe place, Forced withdrawal rules apply.

If the space you were attacking from is not safe, (i.e. contains another character, is on water, etc.) then you must withdraw from that space.
The designer, Vlaada Chvatil has answered this question in this thread, quoted here with out the notes.

Yes, you do not use forced withdrawal when your assault fails. You use it:
1) When your tun ends, for whatever reason, on inaccessible space (most usually because you assaulted or attacked another player form a lake using some water walking skill, but you might also try to reveal new tile when standing on a lake hex, and then finding out you cannot enter it because some high cost terrain, enemy or fortified site blocks your way).
2) When you turn ends on space with another player, and PvP is not allowed for whatever reason (either turned off by scenario settings, or because it is your teammate, or because end of day or end of game was already triggered). Again, this can happen if you assault or explore from a space occupied by another player, and fail to move on.


text:
Is this box an official MTG product? Who are the featured characters?
I got this box years ago from a (then) friend together with their collection of cards (many from 5th edition up to Urza's Saga). It is a flip-top box with a warrior on the top (pictured), the sides feature warriors fighting dragons and other monsters. The back (also pictured) features the Wizard logo and the following text:

Wizards of the Coast and Magic: The Gathering are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coasts, Inc.
Box Illustration by Christopher Moeller. (c)1993-1999 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

It can hold three cardboard theme-deck boxes (the type you also get in fat packs) side by side.
My questions about this box are:
Has this box been part of an official Magic; the Gathering product?
Is / are the warrior(s) characters featured in Magic?

Given that the box has the Magic: The Gathering and Wizards of the Coast logo, it was at least definitely produced as an official MTG product.

That is the Battle Royale box. It's a preconstructed theme deck box from November 1999, and it came with four 40-card decks. It came out during the Masques block, between Mercadian Masques (October 1999) and Nemesis (February 2000).
I can't find any indicators of who the box art depicts. It doesn't seem to be a card art reprint — Christopher Moeller is credited for the box art, but it matches none of his Battle Royale cards' art. It doesn't even match the art style used on cards at the time, and it doesn't seem to depict anything from cards in the box. The official product page (from a very old part of the Wizards site) just calls it the "Battle Royale Box Art". Probably Moeller was just told to paint a bunch of fantasy creatures fighting and they put that on the box.
(Thanks to Jefromi for checking through the card art too, and finding Moeller's art.)

How I found this out, for future investigators: I searched Google Images for "mtg 1999 deck box", since that copyright line means it must have come out in 1999. The results showed boxes of this type were either starters or preconstructed theme boxes. "mtg starter box" didn't get me anywhere. I opened the list of MTG sets, and googled "mtg sixth edition preconstructed box", and then "mtg nemesis preconstructed box" (that box looks nemesis-y), and found photos of a box exactly like that one, and one of them was on a MTG Salvation Wiki page.

Too bad there isn't a 'blood hound' badge for impressive research effort and skill


text:
Should trample damage get through a creature with protection from the attacker?
I had the below scenario happen while playing MTG Arena.
I have a 1/1 soldier token.
I have given it protection from Red, by sacrificing an Alseid of Life's Bounty.
My opponent has a Rimrock Knight equipped with an Embercleave.
My soldier blocks the Rimrock Knight.
Damage still gets through.
I was under the impression that protection from red would force all damage to be absorbed by the soldier.  That was not the case.  I'm assuming this is a bug in my understanding of the rules, as opposed to a bug in Arena?

The trample damage should get through in this situation.
Protection prevents damage, but it does not have any effect on how damage is assigned in combat. The attacking player must still assign 1 damage to the token before assigning any damage to you. The token will not take the damage and will not die, but the rest of the damage assigned to you is not prevented, so it will still be dealt to you.
One interesting note here is that this attacking creature has double strike because Embercleave grants that ability. This means that it will deal damage in both the first strike and regular combat damage steps, and since the damage is prevented by the protection ability, the token will be undamaged after the first strike combat damage step, so the attacking player will need to assign another 1 damage to it in the regular combat damage step.

OK, this conversation has run its course, so I am clearing it out.

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


text:
What happens when I try to exile more cards from my library than there is in my library?
If I use Golos, Tireless Pilgrim's activated ability, which starts:

Exile the top three cards of your library...

when my library has 2 or fewer cards, must I draw all 3 cards (and hence lose the game attempting to draw from an empty library) or can I just exile the 2 cards which are available?

When MTG references a keyword action (a verb with a rule definition, such as "draw"), it refers strictly to that keyword action. Being unable to draw a card loses you the game, but exiling is not drawing.

"Exile was known as 'removed from the game' before it was renamed" - if there's (was) a pseudo keyword, it's take like Scry, and it would've read : '[Take] the top three cards of your library [and remove them from the game]'. - But it isn't one, so inability to take is moot.

You don't lose the game until you try to draw a card that doesn't exist.

104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in their library, they draw the remaining cards and then lose the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Since Golos exiles cards it doesn't lose you the game, but that will probably happen on your next draw step anyway.
You can now exile your 2 cards to Golos's ability:

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

Good answer. Just to make it perfectly clear to someone who isn't fully proficient in the rules, you may want to spell out in your second paragraph that exiling cards from the library is not drawing them (and that's why, as you already wrote, it doesn't lose you the game)

To add to @Syndic's comment, nothing is considered drawing a card unless the keyword "Draw" is involved, even if an effect puts the top card of your library into your hand. If you deal combat damage with Augury Adept, even though the top card of your library was moved to your hand, you still haven't technically drawn a card. If your library was empty library at the time, it would not cause you to lose the game.

The first two answers did a good job of answering your question, but I feel like it is important to point out a misunderstanding in your question.

(...)must I draw all 3 cards(...)

Actions that remove cards from the top of your library are not necessarily drawing a card, even if the cards go into your hand.  It is only a card draw if it's your one card that you draw during your draw phase or a spell or ability specifically uses the phrase "draw (a/X) card(s)".

Fixed it @DavidZ

This reads strangely specific. Is there a card that does that, i.e. that removes one or more card from the top of your library and puts them into your hand in such a manner that, since the keyword "draw" is not used, you don't loose the game if your library is empty?

@Schmuddi There are plenty of cards like that.  Underrealm Lich is a good example where it replaces draws with "Look at the top 3 cards of your library, put one into your hand, and the rest into your graveyard".  It actually makes it impossible to deck yourself while it's on the battlefield because you never actually draw with an empty library.

Thanks. Of course, now that I read the card text for Underrealm Lich, it sounds perfectly natural. Don't know what I was thinking.

You exile all cards in your library (given that you have 3 cards or less in your library). You don't lose the game because the cards are exiled, not drawn.