text:
What happens to a detective in Scotland Yard who cannot move any further?
A detective might be stuck in a position which he cannot leave since he doesn't have an appropriate transportation ticket. What happens to this detective?

Is he removed from the board?

OR

Does he stay in this position until the end of the game? This would imply then that no other player could go to this place (since Mister X would lose and since the detectives are also not allowed to occupy one place with more than one figure).

I could not find an answer in the rulebook so far but maybe there are some indicators in the rulebook or in the rulebook of related games, such as New York Chase.

From the rules here

What if a detective is unable to move any more?
the game goes on and the rest of the detectives try to catch Mister X.

The rules also say.

The game is over if the detectives are no longer able to move. This
situation is reached at the latest at the 22nd move, but can be
reached earlier if detective are left with ticket they cannot use (bus
or underground). They are immobilised at the last point moved to.

And from another source here

If a detective no longer has any tickets or can't move from his
current station with the tickets he has left, he has to sit out.

I've not found anything about removing the piece from the board so rules about not having a space occupied by more than one figure would still apply.  In general when playing a board games it's better to assume that if the rules don't says something happens its probably doesn't. If a piece was supposed to be removed from the board its likely this would be stated.
There is a previous boardgames SE question here "Can Mr. X move into or through a detective occupied field?" It is argued that they would lose automatically and is the accepted answer.
Contrary to that, there is this thread on BGG which has argument that as a player not enter an occupied space that this also applies to Mr X. and it would be impossible for them to do.

Unfortunately, the rules quote is still ambiguous. "the rest of the detectives try to catch Mister X" could be taken as saying that the detective who cannot move cannot catch Mister X even if Mister X moves to their location.

@PhilipKendall The first quote does say "the game goes on", implying that the usual rules are followed. It doesn't say anything about removing the figure from the game, so that can't be inferred. The second quote says "if ... can't move from his current station", also without saying they'd do anything other than, well, sit there.

However... As far as I can tell, the rules also don't actually forbid X from moving to the position of a detective. It only says detectives win if one "succeeds in moving onto [X's position]" (first link), or "finishes his move on the same station as Mister X" (second link). But letting X do that would allow an easy win for him, he'd only have to shadow the detective just before him in turn order, and no detective could ever move to his position.

@PhilipKendall: There is no rule that suggests that Mr. X can ever move onto a detective without losing, nor that the detective would need to "do" anything in order to win.  In the other hand, if detectives ran out of taxi tickets on squares 9, 10, and 33 while Mr. X was on square 2 or 20, I think Mr. X would win because there would be no way for detectives to ever prevent him from bouncing between those two squares.

I've added another rules quote that a detective is "immobilised at the last point move to" if unable to move.  and links to another SE question and BGG threed on mr x entering space occupied by detective.


text:
What is this 2 player pegboard game?
When I was young in the 1960s, a friend had the following game (my memory is rusty so take this description with a grain of salt).  It was a small square pegboard, with two sets of pegs (silver and gold), one for him and one for me. The interesting part: his job was defense (to protect the center) and my job was offense (to get to the center). I forget the moves, but somehow we could take each other's pegs until someone won.
Can anyone identify this game?

Or perhaps another in the TAFL family of games, like  Alea Evangelii.  you can see other TAFL games here

Looks like it's Breakthru.
Breakthru is a modern game based on historic Tafl games, released in 1965.

Can you provide some more information about the game and why you think it was this?

I remember the defense pieces forming a circle around the center. Plus the game came out in the mid-60s which is when I played it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I buy development cards?
I have already bought 3 emerald development cards and I have 3 emerald tokens. I would like to buy a card which costs 3 emeralds. Do I need to pay with my tokens, or is it OK to have this with my development cards, so in the end it was for free?

I don't think this is quite a duplicate, but the question is very similar to this one and and the answer can be found here: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/32613/splendor-can-i-use-gem-coins-instead-of-development-cards?rq=1

Yes you can use your development card bonuses and not use tokens.
My answer to a similar question is here which covers the exact rules.

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


text:
Do you receive the Mortgage value of a property every turn?
My cousin mortgaged his property and he says every time it’s his turn he has to receive the mortgage amount on back of his card.
Eg: Illinois Ave Mortgage is $150 , he claims he gets $150 every time it’s his turn.

That is some creative banking. If that was the rule. Why would you ever develop your property. Mortgage all and break even in two turns.

The mortgage value of each property is typically a bit higher than the rent price with 1 house. If the game worked this way, mortgaging a property would effectively get you a 50% refund on the property purchase price, a free house (even with no monopoly), and someone to land on your property every round. Mortgaging a property should be a last resort, not a surefire winning strategy. Your cousin is nuts.

It's not just every time it's his turn. He can get $150 on everyone else's turn too. As the rules say, "Unimproved properties can be mortgaged through the Bank at any time."

Were you playing this game on 1 April, by any chance?

Thanks. That’s what I told him and he claims he is supposed to get that much every time it’s his turn.

Does this work with houses in real life too?

That's not how a mortgage works in Monopoly or real life!  A bank does not give you a perpetual income and ask you pay that amount plus 10% back once.  A Mortgage is a one-time loan based on the property value.  It is not a perpetual income.
The rules you need are all here. There is no reference anywhere that you get a mortgage value every turn.

MORTGAGES: Unimproved properties can be mortgaged through the Bank at
  any time. Before an improved property can be mortgaged, all the
  buildings on all the properties of its color-group must be sold back
  to the Bank at half price. The mortgage value is printed on each Title
  Deed card.
No rent can be collected on mortgaged properties or utilities, but
  rent can be collected on unmortgaged properties in the same group. In
  order to lift the mortgage, the owner must pay the Bank the amount of
  the mortgage plus 10% interest. When all the properties of a
  color-group are no longer mortgaged, the owner may begin to buy back
  houses at full price.
The player who mortgages property retains possession of it and no
  other player may secure it by lifting the mortgage from the Bank.
  However, the owner may sell this mortgaged property to another player
  at any agreed price. If you are the new owner, you may lift the
  mortgage at once if you wish by paying off the mortgage plus 10%
  interest to the Bank. If the mortgage is not lifted at once, you must
  pay the Bank 10% interest when you buy the property and if you lift
  the mortgage later you must pay the Bank an additional 10% interest as
  well as the amount of the mortgage.

Also think of the effect this would have on the game.  No one would ever lose.  Turn one I buy a property,  I then Mortgage it and I've an income every turn meaning I can't go bankrupt.  Every player would have all their properties mortgaged getting richer and richer so it would never end.


text:
Is there a list of cards for Machi Koro 2?
I am thinking about acquiring Machi Koro 2.
My problem is that in my country I can only get the original, Machi Koro 2 has not been officially released here, so I would have to import it.
I have heard that the second version is better, but it would be more expensive for me to buy it.
I did some research and apparently, there is not a big difference between the cards on the original MK with expansions and MK2 aside from the landmark cards. I was wondering if someone has a full list of cards of Machi Koro 2, so I can compare the two and see if with some paste-ups I can use the cards from the original Machi Koro, with expansions, to play Machi Koro 2?

I have both games and I don't think you can easily change your Machi Koro 1 into 2.  I would look a tabletop simulator or go to a local gaming store to try out the game.

I've included a list of the cards and quantity of each. All a total of 106 cards. You can download the rulebook from their page.

cards
qty

Sushi Bar, Wheat Field, Vineyard, Bakery, Cafe, Flower Garden, Convenience Store, Forest, Corn Field, Hamburger Stand, Family Restaurant, Apple Orchard, Mine
5

Flower Shop, Business Center, Stadium, Furniture Factory, Shopping District, Winery, Food Warehouse
3

Landmarks: Airport, Amusement Park, Charterhouse, Exhibit Hall, Farmers Market, Forge, French Restaurant, Launch Pad, Loan Office, Moving Company, Museum, Observatory, Park, Publisher, Radio Tower, Soda Bottling Plant, Shopping Mall, Tech Startup, Temple, TV Station
1


text:
Terminology for game with open information and fixed environment
Is there a technical term for games that are identical apart from player actions each time? No variability at all? Games like Chess and Go, as well as more modern games like the Gipf project games? But the term would need to exclude variable set up games like Mapmaker, variable player power/setup like Santorini or random draw games like Dominoes, Bridge or Ingenious

Perfect Information is likely what you're looking for: the top result from a Google search on "open information games".

I’m voting to close this question because it's far too basic, being answered by the most obvious Google search of the question terms.

@ForgetIwaseverhere except perfect information does include variable set up games like Santorini or Mapmaker.

What's wrong with, the rather obvious, fixed setup perfect Information games then? It's not like major categories aren't already subdivided into minor categories in every discipline of knowledge known to man.

@ForgetIwaseverhere well nothing. Except it is not very concise. Looking down you link it would have to be Fixed setup, complete and perfect information games. As perfect does not have to be complete.

Symmetric Perfect Information Game should cover it. But it looks like it's up to you to coin a new term for this phrase. (good question, btw)

@ForgetIwaseverhere Questions shouldn't be closed just because you can find the information on google easily. If one person has the question it is likely others have it as well. There is nothing wrong with easily answered questions being left open on this site.

@JoeW: That varies by site; so don't state it as a general rule. If my opinion is not agreed with by the members of this site, my close will be rejected.

@ForgetIwaseverhere And I am speaking for this site. There is no reason to close a question because it can be found on google and that would need to be applied to a lot of other questions on there that can be answered with a quick google of the rules.

In mathematics, the terminology perfect information game refers to a game in which no information is hidden from any player.  Chess and Go, for example, are perfect information games.
Note that perfect information just means that no player knows anything that another player does not.  Hence games with an element of randomness may have perfect information (for example, Backgammon or Sorry! might be considered perfect information games with a great deal of randomness).  Of course, this depends a bit on what one is trying to prove or describe—there are papers which exclude randomness from perfect information games.
I don't know of any standardized language in mathematics to describe perfect information games without any randomness (either in setup or gameplay).  However, it seems reasonable to add an adjective.  I would describe a game like chess as a non-stochastic perfect information game, in contrast to stochastic games.  The phrase "non-stochastic perfect information game" only appears twice on the internet, as far as I can tell, so I guess it is up to you to popularize it. :D

Perhaps "combinatorial games" to exclude games with randomness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory

Abstract Strategy Game
From BGG:

Abstract Strategy games are often (but not always):
theme-less (without storyline)
built on simple and/or straightforward design and mechanics.
perfect information games.
games that promote one player overtaking their opponent(s)
little to no elements of luck, chance, or random occurrence

This is probably where I started with my attempt to find a simple term. But the category includes things like Azul (randomised draws), War Chest (variable player power and setup) and Mapmaker as mentioned in the question. Maybe the multi-term approach from the comments is the way to go.


text:
Texas Holdem confusion on winning hand in recent game played
[Player 1] has an A♠ & a 2♥ as their hole cards. [Player 2] holds a 3♣ & a Queen♠.The community cards are as follows : 3♠,J♦,J♣,8♥,8♦
Please explain to me why player 1 thinks he beats player 2 on a high card when player 2 clearly has a 2 pair (3's & J's)?

While we can´t read minds, in this game player 1 wins because the best hand either player can make is two pair with Jacks and 8s (all from the community), so winner gets decided by the remaining high card. And player 1's Ace is higher than player 2's Queen.
Player 2 having 2 pair doesn't help him win; Player 1 also has 2 pair by using only the community cards; and that's a better 2-pair than player 2 can get from his hand cards. (Which means player 2 also gets the better 2 pair from the table)

Thanks Erik for the clarification, I guess I learned something new. LOL

to clarify you make the best 5 card hand you can from the 7 you have available.  You don't have to use both of your hole cards.  you can use one or even both.  You might see in poker slang this situation being referred to as 'counterfeiting.    The pair of 3's was counterfeited by the 8s.    So the best 2 hands were AJJ88 and QJJ88.   The pair of 3s did not matter.

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


text:
Dig deeper card Zombie Kittens
If I draw an exploding kitten while using the dig deeper card can I just put it back in the deck and keep the next card or do I need to immediately show the exploding kitten card and resolve it?

Reading the rules of this game it feels the intention is that you should be able to ignore exploding kitten drawn first but the use of the word 'draw' seems to suggest you don't.
From the rules here with emphasis mine

If you draw an Exploding Kitten and you don’t have a Zombie Kitten
(or have one and choose not to play it), you are Dead.

So you die if you draw an exploding kitten.   The rules clarification for Dig Deeper says

Draw the top card from the Draw Pile, look at it, and decide if you want to keep it. If so, put it in your hand. Otherwise you MUST
draw the next card in the Draw Pile no matter what it is

Whilst it feels like this card should be able to skip the exploding kitten the use of 'draw' suggests not.
Compare this to rules for See The Future -

Privately view the top 3 cards from the Draw Pile and put them back in the same order. Don’t show the cards to the other players.

That card it explicit that you are not drawing, you are privately looking at card s.
If Dig Deeper said 'privately view' the top card and either draw that card or draw the next then I would say you could skip and exploding kitten. However the syntax of the rules does not say that so the exploding kitten would take effect.
However, to contradict this interpretation there is another note

This card is a great way to mess with the heads of other players. If
you decide not to keep the top card, everyone will drive themselves
crazy trying to figure out why you didn’t want it!

Looking at the rules Exploding Kittens seems to be the only bad card,   I'm not sure why you would skip taking any others.   It seems like a very badly worded rule if the intention is that you can ignore the drawn card but the syntax used infers if would still take effect.

Yes, I messaged the developers directly and they responded "I don't see why not ¯_(ツ)_/¯" so I guess it's left to how you interpret it. It's much more fun to play with being able to put that exploding kitten back and drawing the next card. Of course if you draw the exploding kitten as your second card you MUST resolve it.

A publisher told a customer that they could interpret something how they liked?!  That’s an interesting one!

All non-exploding kittens are good, but some are better than others, so someone might skip the first card trying to get a better card.


text:
Can a player take one resource card using year of plenty development card?
A player has 6 resource cards.
If they play a year of plenty development card then they should pick up two cards. This means they would need to discard 4 cards if robber is activated by another player.
Can they choose to only take one resource card from the supply?
What if there is only one resource card in the supply? Can they use year of plenty to pick up that one card?

Is there a misunderstanding of timing of when to play a development card?   I can't think of a reason why a player would go from 6-8 resource cards and put them selves at risk.   Are you playing the card as soon as drawn or keeping it until a player chooses to use it.   I can only see your situation occurring if the card if played immediately which it doesn't have to be.

Two answers say it would be a bad time to use the card. And while normally true, I can think of two potential exceptions: 1) You know you'll want to play another Dev card on your next turn, and you want to be sure to have certain resources. 2) There are very very few of one type of resource in the supply, and you want some of them before they are gone.

The year of plenty is played on your own turn (at any point during your turn, so before rolling the dice, before trading, before building). So playing it when you don't need the resources at that point might not be advised.
Following the rules that can be found at catan.com:

Year of Plenty: If you play this card, you may immediately take any 2
Resource Cards from the supply stacks. You may use these cards to build
in the same turn. [bold added]

So the big take away from this is that you MAY take any 2 cards. This means it is not mandatory.
The wording on the card is as follows:

Take any 2 resources from the bank. Add them to your hand. They can be 2 of the same resource or 2 different resources.

This indicates that you always have to take 2 resources.
Advice:
Don't use the year of plenty card unless you can use the resources you get.

Not sure if the logic here is complete. Yes, you may take 2 cards, which means you don't have to; you can take 0 or 2. It doesn't say you may take just one. Not saying it couldn't be that way, but the rules you quote don't make that clear.

@Samthere, I edited my answer with the card text itself. The rules and the card don't really align.

You must take either 2 cards or 0.  You cannot take 1.
The game rules have extended text for the card, which generally trumps the text of the card itself:

Year of Plenty: If you play this card you may
immediately take any 2 resource cards from
the supply stacks. You may use these cards to
build in the same turn

They say you "may" take 2 resources, so the ability is optional, meaning you may also not take 2 resources (i.e. you could take 0).  But it does not say "up to 2", so 1 resource is not an option.
There is a rules exception for how to handle resource shortages in production ("If the shortage of resource cards only affects a
single player, give that player as many of these resources as are
left in the supply, and any extras are lost").  However, under a strict reading of the rules, Year of Plenty is not "resource production", so this exception does not apply.  Thus, if there is exactly one resource of any type left in the supply (an incredibly rare situation), you cannot take it with Year of Plenty.
Year of plenty probably ought to say "up to two", but that is not how it is worded in the rules, and changing that behavior would be a house rule.
Strategic note: using Year of Plenty to take resources that you aren't going to immediately spend is almost always a poor use of the card.  The advantage of Year of Plenty is that it gives you 2 wildcard resources that aren't in your hand from the perspective of 7s and the robber.  Playing Year of Plenty when you have 6 cards in hand and not immediately making a purchase or trade is a poor use of the card.

TL;DR answers:

Can they choose to only take one resource card from the supply?

No.

What if there is only one resource card in the supply? Can they use year of plenty to pick up that one card?

Yes.
Details
Can't choose to take only one if you can take two.
This is just straight card text. Card text only allows for "take any 2 resources". So the player cannot choose to take just 1.
Can take only one if there's only one to take.
In the case of the resources being exhausted, I'd say the general rule for resources being exhausted should be followed: since only one player is taking resources, that player takes what is available. So if there's only one resource card left in the supply in total and you play Year of Plenty, you take just that one.
EDIT: Catan Studio customer service confirms via email:

Wow, where are all the other resources? In everyone's hands? That seems weird. :)

At any rate, you take what is there, even if it is one card

The general rule (i.e., the rule for the more common case of a resource being nearly exhausted and then coming up on the production roll) from the FAQ:

production: If there are not enough resources of a type for all players, nobody gets any.
(*) exception: if only one player would get this resource, he gets what's available.

This interpretation/conclusion has come up before on this SE:

If the instructions are impossible to follow, then you just do what you can. The same would go for playing a Year of Plenty if there's only 0 or 1 resource cards left in the resource piles.

That FAQ answer specifically talks about the production step from normal spaces, so I don't think the rules explicitly support this, but I would still play it this way :D


text:
Can I move gardener to plot containing 4 bamboo?
Is it possible to go on purpose with the gardener on the tile which has already grown 4 bamboos on it? The reason for this is that I want grow bamboos on the adjacent titles of the same color which are irrigated and have 3 or less bamboos on them.
It is nowhere specifically written that this can/can't be done, so I am interested in your opinions.
Thank you for your opinions.

As far as I understand, you can do it, because it´s not forbiden.

It is not forbidden.
From these rules

Important: Sections never grow in non-irrigated plots, even if the
gardener finishes their move on the plot or on an adjacent plot.

Also

The gardener and the panda can cross or end their movement on the pond.

The rules are explicit that the gardener can move to spaces where bamboo will not grow but it does not affect growth on adjacent irrigated plots.
If these are allowed then it would follow that moving to a plot containing 4 bamboo shoots is also allowed even if bamboo can not grow there.


text:
Do you get extra trains for ending the game?
In Ticket To Ride, A player triggers the end of the game can do so with 0 trains in their supply. Do they then get to use the extra trains from the box to take their final turn?

No, Each player can only use the 45 train cars in their supply. If you have no train cars left on your last turn, then you can't claim a route that turn. [ticket-to-ride]

This sounds a bit like a rule someone teaching the game has made up to give them an advantage.  As said already the rules are clear on how many trains a player has in each version.

Genuine question: which line in the rules made you think this was an option?

@PhilipKendall I think the real question is: what line in the rules answers this question?

It should be emphasized that different versions and maps of the game may have players use different quantities of trains.  For example the UK map has players use only 35 trains each.  Most use 45, but it is always worth confirming during setup.

No. Each player can only use trains of their own color, and there should be none of that color in the box (except colors which aren't used because there are less than the maximum number of players).

Many of the versions I have had a few spare trains of each colour included in the box but you are correct in your answer.

Ah, those are called spare parts for a reason :)

I now feel obligated to go and count all the trains in my copy...

@PhilipKendall, just wait until the next game when you meticulously arrange them nicely in three groups of 3x5 trains at the start. Makes any extras or missing ones evident. Isn't that what everyone else also does, right? Right?? :)

Specifically, the rules mention during setup that each player takes 45 train cars in their color. Those are the only pieces available for the player to use. The rules also mention that there are 45 train cars of each color packaged in the box, plus a few extra replacements in each color.


text:
Carcassonne- bridge to abbey tile?
With Carcassonne, can I place a bridge on a field that ends on an abbey tile used to fill up a hole (see link ) without any bridge on the abbey tile ( which shouldn’t be there anyway)?
The tile can be used to fit a hole and closes everything (roads, cities etc.) But I am not sure if this works the other way around. Normally you cannot put any tile next to this one, since the condition is that all neighboring tiles are already there before you can place this abbey tile. Is it then valid to place a bridge on a neighboring tile, so that the bridge will end up at the special abbey tile?

Looking at the rules for the expansion "Bridges, Castles And Bazarrs" here it says: -

You can place one bridge on the tile you just placed, or on a tile
touching the tile you just placed. When placing a bridge, you must
place both ends in a field, and it must be placed facing either
left-to-right or up-to-down (it cannot be placed diagonally across the
tile). Once placed, a bridge remains on that tile until the end of the
game.
You can place a tile so that a road ends against a field, but you must
place a bridge that continues the road on that same turn. You can use
multiple bridges in a row along the same road, but each tile can have
a maximum of only one bridge on it. Bridges can be placed on tiles
with meeples on them.

There is no restriction given based on type of tile, ie no restriction is given against building on a cloister/abbey provided it's not breaking any rules above.
On page two of the rules an example is given which explicitly uses a cloister tile.  Again showing there is no restriction against this.  Again provided you are not breaking any other the other rules stated above.

If you look at the rules for Abbeys which are here they say

The abbey completes the side of each tile directly adjacent to it.

So If a bridge were places leading into the Abbey it would count as the end of the road, completing it that side.   There is nothing in the bridge expansion to say this isn't allowed.   There is nothing in the Abbey expansion to suggest this wouldn't be OK.

Thank you. But I mean, what if there is an abbey tile (see link ) without any bridge on there.. The tile can be used to fit a hole and closes everything (roads, cities etc.) But I am not sure if this works the other way around. Normally you cannot put any tile next to this one, since the condition is that all neighboring tiles are already there before you can place this abbey tile.

ah so that's from a different expansion!  always good to put all this info in the question

Ok, I will update my question, thanks for your advice

edited answer too.

If I read Bridges, Castles and Bazaars footnote 2, it says: As with normal roads, each end of the bridge must continue a road segment (or bridge) already in play or must be adjacent to an empty place for a tile. (12/2014). That would mean no bridge can be played adjacent to an abbey tile if abbey tile..

The full annotated rules do not cover this.  https://s3.amazonaws.com/geekdo-files.com/bgg145108?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22S-CAR_v7.4.pdf%22&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJYFNCT7FKCE4O6TA%2F20221212%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20221212T145615Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=e0c516da4d1d35825f36b0b67b0a1d64063e7b14146f37bf9a156c73d6a1ebe4
It's a great question. Maybe contact the publisher if not happy with my answer?


text:
Can I use multiple joker tokens in one buying a development card action?
If I have two jokers can I use them as two colours on one purchase, or only one at a time? If multiple are okay, do they have to be for the same colour or different okay?

From the rules

Buying a development card  To purchase a card, a player must spend the
number of tokens indicated on the card. A joker token can replace any
color. The spent tokens (including any jokers) are returned to the
middle of the table.

The rules mentions the plural form of joker and each joker is evaluated on its own -> you can use two jokers in one buying action and use them for different colours.


text:
What do you do with unused well tiles after your turn?
What do you do with the tiles you pick up from the well and can't use? I know they count against you, but do they go back into the well or do they stay into your hand?

They stay in your hand. I'm not sure if there are any official rules available online, but the drawing-from-a-common-pile mechanism, shared by many games (e.g. Scrabble, Ticket to Ride) permanently puts tiles/cards in your hand. If it were differently for Triominos, the rules would explicitly mention this.

A copy of the rules is available here: https://www.kookaburra.com.au/documents/instructions/ZCW4451_11.pdf

They Stay in your hand.
Triominos rules:

If you cannot or do not want to put down a matching Tri-omino, you
MUST 'buy' a Tri-omino. You may then play this 'bought' tile in the same turn. You may do this a maximum of three
times per turn. For every 'bought' Tri-omino you must subtract 5 points from your score. If you 'bought' 3 tiles and
.have still not been able to put down a matching Tri-omino, you pass and end your turn. In this case an extra 10
points have to be subtracted from your score-25 points in total. The next player goes.

Deluxe TriOminos rules:

PICKING FROM THE “WELL”: If you can’t make a match, pick from the “well” (remaining Tri-Ominos
that are face down). Keep these Tri-Ominos separate from the other Tri-Ominos in your hand until you pick a
match. For each Tri-Omino picked from the well, the scorekeeper deducts 5 points from your score. After the
deduction is made, the scorekeeper adds the total sum of points from the matching Tri-Omino to your score.
If you can’t match any Tri-Omino in your hand and there are none in the well, ten points are deducted
from your score and play continues.

Not sure this answers the question; nothing indicates they are asking about starting a new game.

@BradC, thanks, I mistakenly thought the OP askes about unused tiles in the end of the round.  Fixed the answer to address tiles you pickup in the middle of a round when you can't play any tile in your hand.

If you have any unused tiles at the end of your turn, you can either keep them in your hand or return them to the well. If you keep them in your hand, they will count against you at the end of the game. However, if you return them to the well, you may be able to use them on future turns.

This answer would be improved by citing the rules that support this conclusion.

@doppelgreener The rules that support this conclusion can be found in the game's instructions manual. The manual states: If you can’t make a match, pick from the “well” (remaining Tri-Ominos that are face down). Keep these Tri-Ominos separate from the other Tri-Ominos in your hand until you pick a match.

If that's the rule, please [edit] your answer to quote the exact rule. Page numbers help complete the citation.


text:
Euchre, four handed, nines through Aces
What is the probability in 4 handed Euchre, with each person getting 6 cards, and my having Jack of clubs, Jack of spades and ten of clubs, that any of the three other hands will have 3 or 4 clubs against me?

1 in 6.
Since you're asking about the the possibility of four clubs in another hand, I'll go ahead and state the unstated assumption: you mean that you don't have any clubs other than the Jack and Ten in your hand.
9,T,J,Q,K,A in four suits: 24 cards
Six cards dealt each player: 24 cards
To figure the odds, counts the number of ways to deal what you see and the number of ways to deal the target arrangement. Then divide the latter by former.
Deal what you see
Deal yourself JC, JS, TC and 3 of the other 17 non-clubs.
Number of ways to do so: C(17,3) = 1,330
Deal the other three hands: C(18,6)*C(12,6)*C(6,6) = 17,153,136
So the number of deals that result in you getting JC,JS,TC and no other clubs: 11,664,132,480
Deal the same, but with 3 or 4 clubs in a single other hand
The number of ways to deal JC,JS,TC and no other clubs to you and three or four other clubs to one of the other players:
Deal your hand: 1,330
Then either

deal three clubs exactly to one player: C(4,3)*C(14,3) = 1,456

or

deal four clubs to one player: C(4,4)*C(14,2) = 91

For a total of 1,547 ways to deal 3 or 4 clubs to that player.
The deal the other hands: C(12,6)*C(6,6) = 924
= 1,901,139,240
Figure the odds
The odds are then 1,901,139,240/11,664,132,480
This comes out to about 16.3% or 1 in 6


text:
2 Mayors in a city...how to score?
We just finished playing a 2 person game of Carcassonne with the Abbey and Mayor expansion. We ended up with both mayors in one city. One of us was able to bring in an additional meeple. Does that one meeple break a tie in a huge city with multiple pennants? I know we can’t put two mayors in one city, but if they’re joined together it gets tricky. How does this city end up scoring?

If player one has a meeple and a mayor and player two has just a mayor, then player one will win, as player one will have N + 1 strength vs player two's N strength, where N is the number of coat of arms (i.e. pennants) in the city.
From the rules:

The strength of your mayor is equal to the number of coats of arms in the city it occupies. If two or more players have meeples in the same city, it is scored as follows:
●Each normal meeple has 1 strength.
●Each large meeple has 2 strength.
●Each mayor has strength equal to the number of coats of arms in the city. If there are no coats of arms, the mayor has 0 strength.
When scoring a city, each player adds the strength of their meeples in the city. The player with the highest strength scores the points for that city. In case of a tie, all tied players score full points.

Note that "coat of arms" is the 2014 rules term for "pennant".  See When was "pennant" renamed "coat of arms" in Carcassonne? for more.

From the "Abbey and Mayor" rules

Each mayor has strength equal to the number of coats of arms in the city.

so if player A had 1 mayor in a completed city and player B has 1 mayor and 1 meeple the size of the city and number of shields is irrelevant.
Player B has one more strength and score all the points for that city.


text:
Can I ignore parts of words to make valid words?
In scrabble can you form a word ignoring the last letter of a word on the board.
Ex.  REEK is on the board
Then I add T, to form TREE, ignoring the K.
It looks like this on the board:
TREEK

Could you explain why you think this might be valid?

No
Every word you form has to be a valid word, including all letters immediately to the left and right of the letters you put down or immediately above and below. Or both - e.g., a single letter could "connect" two existing words, one horizontal and one vertical, forming 2 new words. Unless the players agree on a dictionary that has "TREEK" in it, your example doesn't work.
More critically, let's say the K was a blank used as a K. You can't put down a "T" and then say "I want to turn that 'K' into a 'D' to make 'TREED'." Once a blank is set as a particular letter, it is treated as that letter for the rest of the game.


text:
Game flicking chequers knocking opponents off
My brother and I play this game using 8 white checkers and 8 black checkers on opposite sides of the board. We take turns flicking the checkers across the board to knock the opponent's checkers off the board. Once all the opponents checkers are gone, you win that round. We called this game "Chinese Checkers", but apparently Chinese Checkers is a different game using a star shaped board rather than a square one. So, what is this game supposed to be called?

Do you have any reason to believe this game has a name other than "The Game Some Guy And His Brother Made Up One Rainy Afternoon"?

I don't remember making it up, don't remember learning it from somewhere either, I just feel like I always knew this game

@PhilipKendall doesn't that describe all games? Something some guy made up one day?

yeah it was my question I posted

My username is "Some Guy" lol

I just googled "flicking Draughts game" and the first result was a wikipedia page on a game called Chapayev
Details from the article include:-

The game requires a checkerboard and checkers, eight pieces of each colour.

Which matches your question.

During the first round, white pieces are placed on the first row, and
black on the last.

Which fit requirement of "checkers on opposite sides of the board"

A player takes their turn by flicking one of his pieces with the index
finger to shoot it at one or more of the opponent's pieces.

Which again matches your description

The game continues until only one colour remains on the board, winning the round.

Which matched the victory condition you describe.

The game sounds like an attempt to play Crokinole without a proper Crokinole board.

With either two players or four players split into two teams, your goal is to shoot (or really, flick) discs into the center hole or higher scoring regions of the board, while also attempting to knock out the opposing team’s discs.

Without the center hole and pegs the game will naturally degenerate into simply attempting to flick the opponent's discs out of play.
Although not well known outside of Canada, Crokinole is a perennial favourite of kids and adults alike in Canadian summer cottages and games rooms.
Here is a review video for Crokinole by Shut Up And Sit Down

Good answer not sure how to handle this with the other question that was also asked

@JoeW: I didn't see another question. If there are two very similar questions, moderators can merge the questions together. I've raised a Moderator flag to suggest that.

I just noticed because I recognized the other question from the title before it got changed.


text:
Clarification on 7 Wonders Pantheon Ra Steal Wonder Power
Checking on a detail on Ra steal wonder power. So, you snag a wonder of your choice. Do you then place it amongst your unbuilt wonders? In other words, I assume  it is not correct to place it into play for free.

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

You place it amongst your unbuilt Wonders without constructing it.
In the rule book for 7 Wonders Duel Pantheon on page 12 the instructions for the Ra power card state:
"Steal an opponent’s Wonder which has not yet been constructed; it is added to your own Wonders."
To add to your own Wonders means to place it with your Wonders and it becomes one of your unbuilt Wonders. It does not say to construct that Wonder (for free or by paying it's cost).


text:
Identify this word association card game please!
This is a purchased card game with special cards. It can be 2-4 players I think.
Each card has a word on it like BLUE. There is a common discard pile like in Rummy. Let’s say the top card is the word BLUE. The next player has to choose and play a card from their hand that relates to the word BLUE somehow. For instance if they had the word SAD, this relates to the word BLUE. Then the next player has to play a word relating to SAD.
What is this game called?

You might be thinking of Linkity.  It plays as you described except each card contains a single letter, not a full word.  When you play a card, you announce a word that starts with that letter.
So in your example, the starting player had a "B" card and began the round by playing it and announcing "BLUE".  Then another player responded with their "S" card, announcing "SAD".
Note that play is simultaneous: all players compete in real time to find the next association as quickly as possible.


text:
Is table talk acceptable in tournament play?
I'm interested in playing boardgames competitively. I want to know if there are any unwritten rules or written rules when the stakes are high.
I'm really concerned that cross talk (conversation between two players) can promote collusion in a multiplayer game. What are the common rules on table talk for tournaments? Can you point me in the direction of good resources on tournament etiquette or examples therein? For instance, poker tournaments have their own traditional social mores (most of which I don't know or understand). Are there any similarities to board games?

I imagine that tournament regulations would be the arbiter of what, if any, kind of tabletalk is allowed.

Some games (e.g. 30 Seconds, Diplomacy) are about talking. Some allow trading or negotiation (Catan). In some games, all players have access to the same information while in other games one or more players have more information than others. A good answer would have to account for all these factors and I think it would be too broad to try and put everything in a single answer. Maybe try to look into a single game first?

Your answer is going to depend not only on the game itself but the tournament also. As they get more serious the rules get stricter. What may be acceptable at a casual tournament may not be at a pro tournament.

Thank you for your comments. From what I've read so far the rules are specific to each tournament, it depends whether it's Catan, Chess or Scrabble. I'll get there and find out for myself. Thanks again.

The question may be too broad for the SE format, but you can try a forum like BGG for help.

Find a game you are interested in and then repost for that game

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


text:
What's up with the New X-Wing Core Set? 2015
The Force Awakens X-Wing core set is currently shipping now. There are new paint schemes for the X-wing and TIE fighter miniatures. The fantasy  flight website reveals this:

The Force Awakens Core Set introduces rules for playing with your Resistance and First Order forces alongside the game’s three existing factions, and that means you can look forward to giving Luke Skywalker an Integrated Astromech, flying your swarm of TIE/fo fighters alongside “Howlrunner,” and shutting down focus tokens with Carnor Jax , only to Juke your opponents.

When can I get this?
Does anyone know the changes to the rules?

Could you try and refine this down to an actual specific question? It's a bit unclear at the moment what you're actually asking.

I don't see the problem with this question (although it was more clear before the edit) and it shows the asker did some research before resorting to Q&A. @leaflifelayf asks for a release date and a complete list of changes.

As for when & where, I'll leave you to Google-search that one, but the details of what's changed are actually really cool!
No rules changes, only additions
The biggest thing to know about the new Core set is that there are no rules changes, no new templates or dice. There are a couple of new maneuvers for the ships like the new Tallon Roll, but they're just like the additional actions introduced in expansions like the SLAM or Cloak rulings: just adding more flavor and options for ship and squadron design.
This is not your father's TIE fighter or X-Wing
"your father"... see what I did there??
The TIE Fighter included in the original Core set is the TIE/ln starfighter (the original TIE from Episode IV), but the TIE Fighter included in the new Core set is the TIE/fo starfighter, the version from the new Episode VII movie coming in December. Likewise, the X-Wing in the original Core set is the T-65 starfighter (commonly called an X-Wing due to the "X" shape the S-Foils make), while the one included in this new Core set is the T-70 starfighter also from the new movie. The stat lines, point costs, upgrades, pilot skills, and pretty much everything else are slightly tweaked to make these new ships distinct and different from their Original Trilogy counterparts without invalidating the originals in game play.
If I own the original Core set, should I buy the new one?
In my opinion, it's worth having two core sets just for the extra dice and templates, and this is a great way to get those and some of the new ships as well. If you already have two of the original Core sets, it's up to you as to whether it's worth buying this Core set, or just buying the individual ships when Wave VIII comes out.

X-cellent... I was considering buying a second core set before hearing about this release, so this was perfect timing.  Argh, it looks like I missed out on Force Friday, I knew it was available somewhere but it wasn't at the big box store I went to. Oh well, I'm forced to wait.


text:
How is infect a fair mechanic?
Thee infect mechanic from Scars of Mirrodin has never seemed fair to me in any way.
All of the game's win conditions have always been equally difficult to achieve: dealing 20 damage, milling an entire library down, or meeting the conditions for one of the other win cards, like Battle of Wits, etc. All of them take a fair amount of time, none are much faster than the others really.
But with infect, you only have to deal 10 damage. It renders the normal life totals pointless. I have trouble thinking of it as some special win-condition when all it really means is that "dealing 10 damage is enough to win," and you can just ignore life totals.
I don't see how infect is considered fair or balanced. Can someone maybe give me some insight as to why it doesn't get more backlash from the community?
Prior to Scars of Mirrodin, there were so few creatures with it that it was hard to achieve a victory that way. Scars of Mirrodin changed that, hence my present confusion.

Infect is from the Scars of Mirrodin block. And only from that block.

Sorry, that's what I meant. Editing.

It's just that regarding your last paragraph, there was no Infect printed before Scars, or after.

Yes there was. See serpent generator and crypt cobra. Same thing in principal.

The very important difference between Infect and triggered abilities that give poison counters is that the latter are not affected by pumping the creature. Those abilities and Poisonous are basically worthless.

Good point! Again hadn't thought of that.

@murgatroid99 Keep in mind, it was a card with poisonous that completely and utterly broke Two-Headed Giant.

Infect isn't just "dealing 10 damage is enough to win". It's "dealing 10 damage with creatures with Infect is enough to win," which means that you have to go all-in on Infect to do well with it. This means that Infect decks are very creature heavy and are very vulnerable to board wipes; a single Terminus can set you back several turns.
Infect creatures are also generally easier to remove than other creatures. A total of 4 Infect creatures have abilities that make them more difficult to remove: Blightsteel Colossus, Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon, Tel-Jilad Fallen, and Toxic Nim. Every Infect creature can be removed with Path to Exile, and most can be killed with Lightning Bolt.
Plus, besides Blighted Agent, Infect creatures can be blocked like any other. My 2/2 Infect for 3, like Contagious Nim, still trades with your Grizzly Bears. And that extra mana can make the difference. By turn 4 or 5, the player not playing Infect should have creatures that are bigger than the player playing Infect. And attacking into a group of larger creatures still ends up with your creatures dead, even if they did have Infect.
Overall, cheap Infect creatures with cheap pump spells can get close to victory shockingly fast. But they can also be stopped by cheap removal and countermagic.

Blightsteel Colossus is a special case: it costs so much that Infect decks don't play it; instead it's mostly played as another win condition in decks that can cheat creatures onto the battlefield, and those also play other ridiculously powerful creatures like Griselbrand, Iona, Shield of Emeria, and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn.

(When was blightsteel colossus aforementioned? Just curious if I'm missing something.) Also, thanks for the answer, I suppose this is a fairly valid point.

Oh, right, I reordered the answer

Yup. It's really only access to powerful pump spells that makes Infect viable in Constructed at all. They're rather below-curve otherwise.

@Aerovistae The other way to look at it is just that if it were as overpowered as you suggest in the question, no one would bother attacking for normal damage. But pretty much the only decks that kill with infect in Modern are affinity (which also kills with normal damage) and the dedicated infect deck.


text:
Can the Wrack offer an impossible deal? Can the offer change?
In Cosmic Encounter (Eon edition), the Wrack's power is to offer a deal to the other player in an encounter, rather than fighting. If the opponent refuses, the Wrack "tortures" the opponent: for each token the Wrack has committed to the encounter, it may send one of its opponent's tokens or cards to the warp or discard pile, respectively.
It's not clear from the description on the power card itself, but the Wrack must follow through completely: the Super Flare allows the Wrack to stop the proposal/torture and go back to normal encounter resolution.
That lack of clarity makes me question two other things about the power:
1) Can the Wrack offer a deal (intentionally or not) that the opponent is incapable of accepting? A simple example would be "give me the Attack 40 and I'll give you a Compromise" where the opponent does not have the Attack 40. Further, if it's unknown whether the opponent can fulfill the deal, can they dodge the process by (truthfully) stating that they cannot fulfill it?
2) Can the Wrack change the deal? This would seem to be essential for the process, given the iterative way it's described:

On each torture you put any one of his tokens into the warp, or one of his cards (drawn at random) into the discard pile. If at any time he accepts the deal, stop the torture...

The opponent can clearly do whatever math is necessary before the Wrack starts removing anything (though it's true that which cards will be discarded is an unknown); combined with the fact that the Wrack can't stop without being Super, there's not much point in actually repeating the process as opposed to doing it all at once if the deal can't change on each step. However, the existence of the Super Flare makes me question that interpretation, because based on a straight reading of the power card:

If he refuses it you may torture him once for every token you have in the challenge.

(emphasis mine), it sounds like the Wrack is choosing at each step to perform the torture, and I would have thought that the ability to stop was built in.

First, let's make sure we are using the actual Eon texts (the ones given in another answer here are not the originals, as evidenced by the references to "ships" and "encounters"). Here are the originals:

You have the power to torture. As the offensive or defensive player, after alliances are formed, you may describe to your opponent a deal (see rules). If he refuses it you may torture him once for every token you have in the challenge. On each torture you put any one of his tokens into the warp, or one of his cards (drawn at random) into the discard pile. If at any time he accepts the deal, stop the torture and conclude the arrangement. If he never accepts, you have lost the challenge and he has won. Follow through with the outcome normally. If initially you elect not to torture, proceed with the challenge normally.
Super: You may stop torturing at any time before your limit is reached and continue with the challenge normally.

To answer your questions:

Nothing here says the deal has to be reasonable, or known to be possible. Wrack is not the Mind, so how could he even know with any certainty which deals are possible and which ones are not? While it might be easy to think that it's "unfair" for Wrack to dictate an impossible deal, this is not actually a problem. It's important to remember that if the opponent does not, or can not, accept the deal, then Wrack loses. He loses the challenge, loses his tokens, and (if he is the offense) loses the rest of his turn. He even loses the chance to get rid of a bad challenge card. A Wrack who constantly offers impossible deals is not using his power optimally.

The torture is iterative, but this doesn't mean Wrack can change the terms. The guys at Future Pastimes did (and still do) enjoy designing aliens and writing game text to be as flavorful as possible. The reason Wrack tortures one token at a time and gives the opponent another chance to accept after each token is for theme, drama, and tension. The logical thing would be for the victim to make the decision immediately and either accept all or none of the torture, but it doesn't always go down that way, as we will see in a moment. The definitive answer to this question was given by designer/editor Jack Kittredge in Encounter magazine, volume 1 number 6, on page 10:

from Dr. Robert Destro, Willingboro, NJ:
I have a question about the Wrack. Can he change his deal between token removal? ...
Ed: ... No, the Wrack can't change his deal because if he could he would propose something horrendous the first few tortures, and then become more reasonable toward the end. It is up to him to come up with something reasonable to start with. Rationally, the victim should consider it and accept or reject it right away and live with the decision. But there is a certain pressure once you actually lose a token or two that is hard to take. You do want the torture to stop. So I've seen a few deals at first rejected but then accepted after a torture or two.

There's probably an element of salesmanship skill here, too. If you are the Wrack, ideally you want to propose a deal that is good for you, torture a token or two, and then have your deal accepted. Some taunting, threats, chiding, pointing out unpleasant realities etc. along the way could theoretically help that happen.

Perfect. The quote from Encounter in particular is exactly what I was looking for.

I found proper wordings for the abilities.
Wrack power is:

You have the power to Torture. As main player, after alliances are set
  but before cards are selected, you may use this power to offer your
  opponent a deal, following the regular rules for making a deal. If he
  rejects your offer, you may torture him once for each ship you have in
  the encounter. On each torture, you may select one of his ships to
  send to the warp or draw one of his cards to send to the discard pile.
  If he accepts the deal at any time, the torture stops and you conclude
  the deal. If he never accepts, you lose the encounter and he wins,
  with normal encounter resolution for you both and allies.

Super flare:

You may stop the torture at any time before reaching your limit and continue the encounter normally.

1) Yes, but it is not important. That situation isn't very different to offering something ridiculously unprofitable.
2) No. The process is iterative, because it gives the oponent time to rethink their decision (which resembles torturing a lot). Also when you torture them in a way they did not expect, they could break the process then. Moreover it gives an option to use the flair.

This didn't feel completely right to me, and so I checked my old Encounter magazines. There is an answer about deals which lets deal makers specify a range of cards, so I guess the "40 for a compromise" deal is legit. +1

"That situation isn't very different to offering something ridiculously unprofitable." It seems importantly different to me: instead of offering someone two bad choices, you have taken away the choice entirely. So, to be clear, since the rules on deals are silent on impossible deals, there is no prohibition on an impossible Wrack offer, and an inability to deal/acquiesce to Wrack's demand is completely equivalent to refusal?

@Ivar If you're going to be making edits, please make them more substantial than correcting a single word in each. If a one-character adjustment that wasn't impeding legibility is all that there is to be made, it's preferable to not make an edit at all.

@doppelgreener should I correct typo's in new post or only if there are many

@IvardeBruin If there is only a single inconsequential typo, leave it be. If there are many genuine improvements that can be made, e.g. many typos, make those improvements. That "please make at least 6 characters' worth of changes" restriction on suggested edits was there to train us to make substantial improvements or forgo making changes at all since it's not important enough to see the answer bumped.


text:
Does Lady Vix's Level Up force her to lose her current face-up Item?
Last night, while trying out the expansions for Boss Monster, my opponent triggered Lady Vix's Level Up ability and stole my Cheat Code. However, she already had a face-up card that she wanted to keep face-up (she mainly wanted to take Cheat Code from me, not use it for herself). This is where a discrepancy came up.
According to Lady Vix's Level Up, she must take a face-up Item Card and place it face-up in her scorekeeping area, but there is nothing explicitly stating that she is able to have two Item Cards face-up as a result. In contrast, the additional Boss monster for the Alien Artifact treasure in this expansion has a Level Up that explicitly states he is able to have two face-up Item Cards for the remainder of the game, so this seems like an ability unique to him.

Lady Vix
  Bandit Queen
Level Up: Take a face-up Item from a Hero in town or another player. Place it face up in your scorekeeping area.

When Lady Vix's Level Up is triggered and the player is forced to take an Item Card, is the player also forced to turn their existing face-up Item Card face down to make room for the stolen Item Card? Or is the player able to use two Item Cards during that turn?

If a player has two Item cards face-up in their scoring area and no ability allowing more than one, the player chooses which one to turn face-down.
See the image of the Tools Of Hero Kind expansion rules here, which says in parenthetical

You choose which item to keep face-up

when speaking of a player with more than one face-up Item card.


text:
Does "Income tax" count as a Curse or Bad Stuff that will remove "Chicken on your head"?
If I choose to lose my headgear due to Income Tax, does that qualify as an event that would take the chicken with it?
The cards say:

Income Tax:
  Discard one item of your choice.
  Every other player must now discard an item or items, totaling at least as much value as the item you discarded. If they don't have enough to pay the full tax, they must discard all their items and lose a level.
Chicken on your head:
  -1 to all die rolls. Any Curse or Bad Stuff that removes your Headgear will take the chicken with it.

I dunno, I think the Munchkin rules are pretty clear here. Whoever owns the game has the correct rules interpretation :P

The IRS definitely count as both a Curse and Bad Stuff, overtaxing hardworking people just trying to put food on their families.

Yes.
The question boils down to: Does "that removes your Headgear" mean "that specifically instructs you to remove your Headgear", or does it mean "that causes you to remove your head gear".
Since no cards specifically instructs you to remove your headgear —they instruct you to lose it— I would favour the looser interpretation.
This is supported by a an official ruling (in reply to this).

Any Curse or Bad Stuff that removes your Headgear will take the chicken with it.
This means that any Curse or Bad Stuff that (a) specifically targets Headgear or (b) has the effect of removing the Headgear you are wearing, whether specifically targeting it or not, will remove the Chicken.

Since Income Tax is a Curse that has the effect of removing the Headgear you are wearing (even though it doesn't specifically targeting it), it will remove the Chicken.

There's a relevant SJG forum thread with a clear answer from the then-Munchkin line editor*, Andrew Hackard, here:

Any Curse or Bad Stuff that removes your Headgear will take the chicken with it.
This means that any Curse or Bad Stuff that (a) specifically targets Headgear or (b) has the effect of removing the Headgear you are wearing, whether specifically targeting it or not, will remove the Chicken
[...] This IS an official ruling.

In it he says that any Curse that "specifically targets headgear" and OR "has the effect of removing it" will take the Chicken.
Income Tax doesn't specifically target headgear, so you couldn't lose it on the first arm, but it is lost on the second arm (as is explicitly confirmed later in the linked thread in discussion of the seventh item).

* He later left SJG, came back a few years later and became Munchkin Czar (a title of his own devising).

The way I read the Chicken rule you quoted, if you have to pay Income Tax and wind up naked and losing a level, that takes your headgear, hence removing the Chicken.  However, as Malco pointed out, according to the official Munchkin rules, whoever owns the game has the correct interpretation in the case of a rules dispute.
The question arose in comments, however: what if the player has enough to pay the tax, but chooses to include his headgear as part of the payment?
To me, the Chicken is a curse of sorts, so getting rid of it shouldn't be that easy.  Unless you can't make the tax amount without discarding your headgear, you can't choose to get rid of it.  The Chicken only goes with the headgear "if a Curse or Bad Stuff removes it" -- not if you choose to fulfill a requirement by discarding your headgear.

What if I give it up as my elected payment though?


text:
Does exiling a creature after it has been destroyed or dealt lethal damage still count as if it "died"?
I'm actually working on an alternative card set. While designing tribal mechanics, I have encountered a problem with a single thing: does a creature exiled after being destroyed (instead of being put into graveyard) still counts as if it "died"?
So, let's imagine a situation:
Sengir Vampire deals damage to target 3/5 creature. Then, to finish the creature I cast Pillar of Flame... so, instead of dying (being put into graveyard) the creature gets exiled.
If Sengir Vampire dealt damage to a creature finished with Pillar of Flame, will he get +1/+1?

No, Sengir Vampire does not get a +1/+1 counter.
A creature dies when it moves from the battlefield to the graveyard. So, there are two different possibilities here. If the creature goes to the graveyard and then moves to exile, then it counts as dying. However, if it goes to exile instead of the graveyard, then it does not count as dying.
In your particular case, Pillar of Flame says

If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead.

The use of the word "instead" indicates that this is a replacement effect. So going to exile replaces going to the graveyard. Specifically, rule 614.6 says

If an event is replaced, it never happens.

The event of the creature dying is replaced by exiling the creature, so it never died.

Your answer is correct, but a note about Magic Terminology and the rules: There is no way for a creature to be exiled after it goes to the graveyard. Creature cards can be exiled from the graveyard, but they are not creatures. Creatures are only permanents on the battlefield. This is an important distinction for novices who try to use an "exile target creature" effect on cards in the graveyard.

See the wording of Haunt for an example of a triggered ability moving a creature from the graveyard to exile that does not explicitly make the permanent/card distinction. This is standard wording.

Actually the wording of 702.54b and 702.54c does make the permanent/card distinction. Permanents are never in the exile zone, only cards. 702.54a takes the shortcut of "it" referring to the permanent as a card in the graveyard. However, I completely overlooked Haunt when I made my point about creatures can't go to the graveyard and then immediately move to exile. Retracted!

Haunt isn't the only example of such a thing happening. It was just the easiest to find. My point is that the distinction between creatures and creature cards is made in the rules, but not in ability templating, which uses the "it" shortcut instead.


text:
Voracious Wurm and Trostani, Selesnya's Voice: Which trigger happens first?
Here's the situation:
Trostani, Selesnya's Voice is in play (Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, you gain life equal to that creature's toughness). Then, Voracious Wurm is cast (Voracious Wurm enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the amount of life you've gained this turn).
Which trigger happens first?

Gain 2 life, then the wurm enters play with 2 +1/+1 counters, or
The wurm enters play with 0 +1/+1 counters, then gain 2 life

If they were both triggered abilities, you'd get to pick the order to put them on the stack; see for example http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7355/ or http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/11223/ (it's a fairly common question).

Voracious Wurm has a replacement effect that modifies how it enters the battlefield; thus, it would come into play with 0 +1/+1 counters, and you will gain two life.
If Voracious Wurm had a triggered ability (such as "When ~ enters the battlefield, put X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the amount of life you've gained this turn"), however, you would be able to place the triggers on the stack in whatever order you choose, meaning you could gain 2 life and put 2 counters on, or put 0 counters on and gain two life.
Relevant rules:

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered
  abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she
  chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and
  resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities
  that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process
  repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no
  abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.
614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply
  continuously as events happen -- they aren't locked in ahead of time.
  Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and
  completely or partially replace that event with a different event.
  They act like "shields" around whatever they're affecting.
  614.1d Continuous effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield . . ." or "[Objects] enter the battlefield . . ." are
  replacement effects.

So, without the word "When" it is a replacement effect, but with "When" it is triggered? Is this the only difference?

@bengoesboom CR 614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.

@bengoesboom CR 603.1 Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as "[Trigger condition], [effect]," and begin with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." They can also be expressed as "[When/Whenever/At] [trigger event], [effect]."

replacement effects can also often be spotted by "instead"

Voracious Wurm's ability isn't a triggered ability. It's a replacement effect.
Instead of putting the Wurm on the battlefield, you put the Wurm on the battlefield and put counters on it, as one action. Only then do you check for triggers, like Trostani's ETB life-gain trigger.


text:
Can I redirect a spell to another type of target in MTG?
M12 features the card Redirect, which allows you to choose new targets for a spell. Innistrad introduced the card Into the Maw of Hell, which deals 13 damage to target creature.
Can I redirect the damage from Into the Maw of Hell to target player with the spell Redirect or must the type of target (in this case creature) stay the same?

If you like Redirect, try Spellskite. :)

You can't redirect Into The Maw of Hell to a player.
Redirect allows you to choose new legal targets for a spell.  As such, you must choose one valid target land and one valid target creature for Into The Maw of Hell to (newly) target.  If (for instance) there is only one creature in play - yours - you could Redirect Into The Maw of Hell such that it destroyed a different land, but you would still have to keep it targeting your creature, because there are no other available legal choices.
The relevant section of the Comprehensive Rules (and the most relevant paragraph highlighted by me):

114.6. Some effects allow a player to change the target(s) of a spell or ability, and other effects allow a player to choose new targets for
  a spell or ability.
114.6a If an effect allows a player to "change the target(s)" of a spell or ability, each target can be changed only to another legal
  target. If a target can't be changed to another legal target, the
  original target is unchanged, even if the original target is itself
  illegal by then. If all the targets aren't changed to other legal
  targets, none of them are changed.
114.6b If an effect allows a player to "change a target" of a spell or ability, the process described in rule 114.6a is followed, except that
  only one of those targets may be changed (rather than all of them or
  none of them).
114.6c If an effect allows a player to "change any targets" of a spell or ability, the process described in rule 114.6a is followed, except
  that any number of those targets may be changed (rather than all of
  them or none of them).
114.6d If an effect allows a player to "choose new targets" for a spell or ability, the player may leave any number of the targets
  unchanged, even if those targets would be illegal. If the player
  chooses to change some or all of the targets, the new targets must be
  legal and must not cause any unchanged targets to become illegal.
114.6e When changing targets or choosing new targets for a spell or ability, only the final set of targets is evaluated to determine
  whether the change is legal. Example: Arc Trail is a sorcery that
  reads "Arc Trail deals 2 damage to target creature or player and 1
  damage to another target creature or player." The current targets of
  Arc Trail are Runeclaw Bear and Llanowar Elves, in that order. You
  cast Redirect, an instant that reads "You may choose new targets for
  target spell," targeting Arc Trail. You can change the first target to
  Llanowar Elves and change the second target to Runeclaw Bear.

The answer to your specific example is no. Since Into the Maw of Hell cannot target a player, you cannot redirect it onto a player. HOWEVER the answer to the general question is yes, you CAN redirect a spell from one type of target to another type, if the original spell can legally target that object.
Consider the card Hero's Downfall which can target a creature or planeswalker. You can redirect that spell away from your planeswalker without needing to target another planeswalker, and instead target a creature.
If you choose to redirect, the new target(s) must be legal at the time you decide how to redirect. Neither player is allowed to make illegal choices. The one slight caveat there is you may redirect a counterspell onto the redirect itself, if it could counter an instant, since while redirect is resolving, it is still a spell on the stack. The countering spell immediately has an illegal target after redirect finishes resolving and is put into the graveyard.


text:
Blackjack: Why use a Suit Aware card counting system?
In my recent study of card counting systems, I've run into a few systems that are "Suit Aware." A couple of examples include the KISS 2 and KISS 3 methods.
Specifically, in the KISS 2 system, the values assigned to each card are as follows:

A,7,8,9 = 0
2 = 0/+1
3,4,5,6 = +1
T = -1

Depending on the color of the suit, the 2s are counted differently. You would add +1 for a red suit (Hearts or Diamonds) but would not add anything if the 2 was a black suit (Spades or Clubs).
I can't find nor think of any reason this is efficient in Blackjack card counting since the suit of the card has no meaning in a traditional Blackjack game. Does this perhaps have something to do with possible side bets a casino might do in a Blackjack game to match a suit to the dealer's shown card? Any explanation as to why you would want to use a Suit Aware card counting system is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Could it be an "easy" way of adding 0.5?

Not really "easy", but with slightly different mechanics. Decisions would most likely be made based upon certain thresholds, so 0.5 doesn't help at all (or always), unless you draw anopther one. The 0/+1 system has the same meaning overall, but for a single card it's different.

I think I understand a bit better now. When using 0.5 in something like an 8-shoe game, I can see why using 0/+1 instead of 0.5 might make remembering the numbers easier and the division for a true count simpler as well. Maybe it's because I'm new to card counting, but I would prefer staying away from a suit aware system so I don't need to concentrate as much on the cards and focus more on interacting with the dealer and other players around.

My comment was in no way an answer, just an observation. Others might be able to shine some light on this matter.

After doing a lot more research and sometimes even stumbling across answers for this while looking up other topics, I found a few good reasons why someone would use a suit aware system. I had way better results found when looking up the more well-known Red Seven counting system rather than the KISS II and KISS III methods which are not as commonly known as the Red Seven.

The Red Seven System
For those interested, most guides explaining how and why you should use Red Seven makes a point of boasting about its ease of use combined with its professional edge you would usually only see in more complicated systems.
Red Seven Card Value Assignments:

2,3,4,5,6 = +1
T,A = -1
Red 7 = +1
Black 7 = 0

Effects of Removal
To appreciate what a Suit Aware system is trying to accomplish, I'd like to introduce EoR or "Effects of Removal." This table represents the effect each card has on the player's advantage if it is removed from the deck. The table values represent how the player's advantage % is affected in a single deck game of blackjack. (It will be a little different in an 8-deck shoe game but this single deck chart can be used for example). The values of this table was taken from the online book, Modern Blackjack (https://www.qfit.com/book/)

2 = +0.38
3 = +0.44
4 = +0.55
5 = +0.69
6 = +0.46
7 = +0.28
8 = 0
9 = -0.18
T = -0.51
A = -0.61

The most common and easiest card counting systems such as Hi-Lo and KO tend to assign a value of 1, 0, or -1 to each card. This is mainly for ease of use and are known as level 1 systems.
Hi-Lo's card values are:

2,3,4,5,6 = 1
7,8,9 = 0
T,A = -1

Aimed more towards simplicity, the easier level 1 systems ignore the fact that a 5 taken out of the deck gives almost twice the advantage of a 2 being taken out of the deck. Level 2, 3, and 4 systems exist that take these ratios into consideration and assign point values that have more correlation with the effect of removal value each card has. For example, Revere RAPC is a highly complicated system that focuses more on the accuracy of EoR card values at the risk of having more player errors.
Revere RAPC Values:

2,7 = 2
3,4,6 = 3
5 = 4
8 = 0
9 = -1
T = -3
A = -4

You can imagine that human error tends to be much higher in this system, especially when compared to something easier such as the Hi-Lo.

Advantages of Red Seven or other Suit Aware Systems
Now with a firm understanding of Effects of Removal(EoR), we can see how a Suit Aware system may help. The goal of a Suit Aware system is usually to keep things at a level 1 difficulty level while adding in a bit of advantage that only more complicated systems would use. In fact, all suit aware systems I've found online claim to be level 1. Another interesting trend is that they are all Unbalanced systems which tend to be easier for many players because it does not use division to find a true count of the cards remaining. By using a Suit Aware system, you keep the simplicity of only adding and subtracting 1 to the count, but get the advantage of not adding +1 for every 7 in play. (More relevant to the 7's EoR value).
Another interesting bit I found on some Blackjack forum posts, is that using 0.5 for a value of 7 instead of +1 or 0 depending on the suit actually decreased the accuracy of the Red Seven system. I believe these tests were run using simulations in the CVData app but can't say for sure.
Personally, in conclusion, I would still prefer a level 1 or level 2 balanced system. I'm just more comfortable with starting at 0 and having to divide rather than starting with a large negative number that unbalanced counting systems have to use. Nearly all famous Blackjack experts strongly suggest its not about which counting system is the best but about which system you are most comfortable with.
If I find any other helpful or interesting information, I'll be sure to update my post here. Thanks everyone.


text:
Implement unique occurrence against each other
I am trying to develop a card game, in which I have a situation like I need to present cards against each other in such a way so that they have never played with each other. So in general, I will have two different stack of cards, and they will be presented with each other. So it could be like
 A  B  C  D
 H  U  O  P

Any one of the card will be swiped away from infront of any letter, say user remove H from infront of A, the U will be presented to A, then U swiped away O will be presented.
In above scenario H, U, and O have played with A, so in future they should never play with A.
How to implement this.
Any light, anything that can help me, would be highly appreciated.
For more clarification, see image below

Thanks.

When you say "in the future", are we talking "for the rest of this game" (meaning they H/U/O could play with A in a future game, just not for the remainder of this one), or "in any game" like the changes that happen with Risk/Pandemic Legacy, where there are permanent changes made to cards in any given copy of the game?

You could place player markers on the cards for each interaction.

@DavidCEllis "in the future" means in next game play, in this game there will be a single card remains, which will become winner. Player can start another game with having same packs of cards, but we need to make sure the cards which had already played with each other doesn't come infront of each other, we are saving the mapping of play between cards, which card played with which one. See my update.

I think there are a few options for this, depending on the permanency of the effect:
Marker cards
Track the opposing cards that your card has faced on an object (e.g. Another card with the same title but instead of game text or an image it just has a list of the other cards and checkboxes, or just a section of each card that you mark).
Tracking sheet
If you use a separate object for tracking, like a score sheet or even just a piece of paper, it would be easy to track the cards you have played and the cards they have played against.
There are still two major problems here:

If the effect is permanent, you're eventually going to be unable to play a given card against any other card, placing a fixed lifespan on a copy of the game.
You're attempting to track a many-to-many relationship between cards, so depending on the size of your set this could be an extremely difficult task without some sort of spreadsheet or app or database to help.

Thanks @DavidCEllis. Yes I am aware of condition 1, and too we are using database to save the occurrences. The main problem I am facing is the logic to filter out the one which played. Anyway thanks.


text:
Word of Command recursion
Let's say I cast Word of Command, and during its resolution I see that my opponent has a Word of Command in their hand, and I decide to cast it (as my spell that I make them cast due to my WoC, let's call it WoC1) targeting myself. Who controls the resolution of the second WoC, let's call it WoC2? Them or me? Do I have restrictions on what I can do to cast the spell I would choose for WoC2, since I'm not myself but I'm myself controlling myself through control of my opponent, and WoC1 and 2 would impose restrictions on how I can cast a spell? Let's say the only cards left in my hand are lands and Lightning Storm, can I or my opponent discard lands while it is on the stack or do I still control my opponent? Can my opponent counter Lightning Storm?

I would like to point out that you don't discard lands during the resolution of Lightning Storm. Lightning Storm has an activated ability that functions while it is on the stack.

The rules don't actually address how multiple player control effects interact, so strictly speaking, it's ambiguous how this works. Logically, the player control effect created by Word of Command 1 encompasses the entire resolution of Word of Command 2, including the effect that has your opponent make decisions for you while playing the card for WoC2, so you will make those decisions. However, once you have played that card, no more player control effects from WoC1 apply, so if that last card is a spell, your opponent will control you while it resolves.
As for Lightning Storm, Word of Command specifically says that you control your opponent while casting the spell and while it is resolving. In between those two times, no player control effect is active, so either player can make their own choices to activate Lightning Storm's ability.
To sum up, with the ambiguous part in bold:

You cast Word of Command 1. No player control effects apply, and you make your own decisions.
Word of Command 1 resolves. You choose for your opponent to cast Word of Command 2. While casting it, you control your opponent and choose what mana abilities they activate.
Word of Command 2 resolves. You control your opponent while this spell resolves. You choose the Lightning Storm to cast. While casting it, your opponent controls you but your control effect is broader, so you have overall control. You choose what mana abilities to activate and what the spell's initial target should be.
While Lightning Storm is on the stack, no player control effects apply, and each player can choose to activate Lightning Storm's ability.
Lightning Storm resolves. Your opponent controls you while this spell resolves. There are no meaningful choices to make while the spell resolves.

Thanks! Follow-up: Word of Command's rulings state that you can't force a player to play a card not in their hand. Does this mean that we can't make the opponent crack a fetch or cast Sylvan Scrying and play Panglacial Worm or WoC them while the have Past In Flames active to use their graveyard, or Flashback cards?

I could also see WotC ruling that looping control effects force a draw, the same as mandatory loops do.  I think that giving the first player total control like you suggest is more likely, but that both are plausible.

If you read the text of Word of Command, it specifically says that you choose a card from their hand and play that card. Doing other things, like activating abilities of fetch lands or casting cards from graveyards, are not covered by that instruction. However, if you cast a spell that results in them searching their library, you should be able to make them cast Panglacial Wurm at that time because it says that you control them during the resolution of the spell without putting any restrictions on that control.


text:
Starfarers of Catan game mechanics
I'm looking to speed up turns and overall gameplay in Starfarers of Catan without reducing victory point milestones. Is it feasible to play the game without event cards if the black ball is given a value of 2? This would reduce emphasis on cannons (and hence, sideline pirate lairs until near the end of the game-probably), but would there be any perceived detriment to gameplay?

I recommend checking out Catan: Pirates and Explorers expansion. It adds a lot of what Starfarers has is terms of hidden new tiles to explore before you can settle them.

You could try it. It probably wouldn't fundamentally ruin the game. It would reduce the randomness. Depending on your group's preferences that could be a good or bad thing. Overall the event cards are more or less breakeven, so removing them wouldn't slow the game down much, and would reduce the reading and decisions encountered in the game, which would probably speed it up.
Normally the black ball sets the base speed to 3 (regardless of what the other ball is); that makes the average base speed 3.5. The second change you propose, to use 2 for the black ball, would raise the average base speed to 4. Not a huge difference and again, unlikely to break the game. And faster movement would get ships to colonizable planets faster.
Cannons would indeed lower in importance, and they're arguably already a lower priority than other uses.

My proposal was to speed the game up. Your answer hints at this.

You should edit your goal into the question, perhaps.


text:
Orléans: endgame - beneficial deeds and development track
Recently played Orleans with a board gaming group here in Japan and ran into something interesting with the rules.
We first played it a month ago, but this month when we played it, they told me got the rules wrong the first time. Specifically, it was claimed that:

the person highest on the development track gets all of the citizens from the unfinished beneficial deeds at the end of the game.

Can someone show me where in the rule book this is? In the rules from BGG, I see

The game ends after 18 rounds. Before you proceed with the scoring, the player who has built the most Trading
  Stations receives the remaining Citizen Tile. If there is a tie, no player receives the tile.

But does this mean all of the citizen tiles or just one?

The player would just receive the one remaining citizen tile that isn't on the game boards.
The game comes with 14 Citizen Tiles. In the rulebook under setup, section 8 (labeled page 12):

Place 13 Citizen Tiles on the marked spaces on the game board and the “Beneficial Deeds” board. Put the remaining tile on the table.

The part we are concerned with is the last sentence, where there is one Citizen that doesn't go onto any board space. On page 19, under final scoring:

..the player who built the most Trading Stations receives the remaining Citizen Tile.

So the player who built the most Trading Stations gets the Citizen that was left off the board during setup.

In relation to the rule regarding the person highest on the Development Track getting any Citizens tiles from the Beneficial Deeds board, it doesn't exist. Those Citizen Tiles stay on the Beneficial Deeds board and do not get scored at the end of the game.

Interesting... there may be a mistranslation in the Japanese rules in that case (English native speaker here -- first time I translated the rules on the fly; second play a month later and they tell me there's some sort of rule like that. Seemed off).

Supplemental information: the Japanese rules were indeed mistranslated (http://www.arclight.co.jp/ag/index.php?page=errata&code=LG-0127 ). The page explains that it should be just the one ( as the German and English rules state)... but in their printed version it stated all.


text:
Lords & Ladies: Gossip Card Timing and Servant Actions
How does the timing work when playing gossip cards on servants with actions? More specifically, I targeted a cook with Forbidden Love which was immediately confirmed by another player. In reaction, the player wanted to use the Cook's ability which allows him to switch gossip cards with another player, which would then remove the cook from play.
Under the "Confirming Gossip" section on pg. 9 of the rules, it states:

If Gossip is confirmed, the Gossip card's action is immediately taken by the player it has been played on.

However, under the "Additional Servant Rules" on pg. 8, it states:

One time powers can be used anytime in the game but the servant is then fired...

So how is this resolved? It seems to me that the player would not be able to use the Cook's ability until after the gossip had been resolved, which would give each of the gossipers a gossip token. The player I targeted feels that he should have been able to interrupt the gossip action and use his cook's ability, effectively removing his cook from play, switching hands with a player, and preventing anyone from getting gossip tokens.
Is there an official ruling for the timing of these actions?


text:
Does "Sacrifice a creature" trigger "sacrifice this creature"
When choosing a creature to sacrifice (originated from a "sacrifice a creature" instruction), if the creature that is being sacrificed has "sacrifice this creature (for whatever result)", does it trigger?
Does it make any difference if the target creature is a forced sacrifice instead of a volunteered sacrifice?
Example scenario:
I play Altar's Reap to draw 2 cards and target Bile Urchin as the sacrifice. Does this trigger Bile Urchin's "Sacrifice Bile Urchin: Target player loses 1 life."?
I may have thought about this for too long and confused myself, so a little clarification would be great.

It will not. Sacrificing is a cost paid for the effect to go on stack. Just like you can not spend 1 mana on different costs, you can not spend 1 creature on different costs.
If you wanted it to work the way you described, the ability should be a triggered one, for example it could read: 'When this creature is sacrificed, ...'.
(Also, keep in mind that sacrificing is not targeting anything. Untargettable creatures can still be sacrificed)


text:
Can I use one spell multiple times
If I have a card like Lightning Strike (that costs 2 mana) and I have 6 mana, can I use the card 3 times?
In an online Magic game I played, I had this specific card also. When I casted it, it asked me how many times I wanted to use it. To be honest, it sounds like this would make the card too overpowered so I wanted to know for sure.
If the answer is yes, please explain me exactly how it works. E.g. which spells can do it and which can't? Can the effects be divided with each cast?

As spell casting is a core mechanic of the Magic game, it appears that you haven't read any rules.

What was the spell? Was it by any chance something with X in the cost?

"it asked me how many times i wanted to use it" - It may be that you had some other effect that allowed you to copy the spell being cast.

To do what you want you could use Djinn Illuminatus

screen shot or it didn't happen

Well it happened.aand i do get the rules and hats totaly dosent make sense according to it.thats why im asking.well i guess its a rubish game

@EliZo12 What software online were you using to play this game? If it was the official Magic the Gathering Online, it's doubtful this happened the way you described. If it was something else not official, perhaps it simply doesn't have rules validation and this functionality is built in to accommodate spells which copy other spells. Perhaps it was just a virtual gameboard which assumes players will follow the rules when playing their cards.

If it doesn't say somewhere you can, then you can't.
Unless either the card itself or something else in play says "...you can cast this/that multiple times..." then you can't.
Either you're misinterpreting what happened in that game, or that game is not made to play with the same rules as Magic.
Seriously - best rule to go by - Unless it says you can, you can't.

While correct, this answer doesn't really answer the fundamental misunderstanding the question shows. OP doesn't seem to know what the rules say about spell casting in general.

@Hackworth That's the point. The rules of MTG are permissive rather than restrictive. The rules of MTG do not allow you to cast a spell twice. Therefore, you can't.

@Rainbolt That doesn't address the issue. If the OP doesn't appear to be someone who read the rules and then is asking about something he couldn't find in the rules. He doesn't appear to have knowledge of things like the rules saying you can cast a spell or how you do that.

@Gendolkari Since none of the answers thus far actually quote any rules, I recommend you (or Hackworth) write your own answer with rules quotes and some kind of explanation as to how those rules specifically forbid you from casting a spell twice. I would be happy to be proven wrong here, because it would benefit the site to have an answer with rules.

@Rainbolt I think you misunderstood me (and Hackworth)... I never said that the rules specifically forbid casting a spell twice, or that you are wrong for saying that the rules are permissive, not restrictive. What I was saying is that this particular answer isn't helpful to the OP, who appears to be not familiar with the basic rules.

No, you can't cast it multiple times.
After the spell is resolved it is put into your graveyard (the discard pile).
There are some spells that, for example, return to your hand so you can cast them again. But all such exceptions are written on the spell card itself.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to say "discard" here. Discard specifically means hand to graveyard, so spells definitely don't get discarded when they resolve.

@Jefromi You're propably right. My vocabulary got a little rusty. I changed that.

The rules only give you permission to cast a spell when you have priority and to cast spells from your hand.
One of the first steps in casting a spell is to take the spell from you hand and to put it on the stack.
Once you start casting a spell you can't do anything else until you finish casting the spell (that is putting the spell on the stack, which is different to having the spell resolve).
Then the spell is on the stack, it is no longer in your hand for you to cast again.


text:
Optimal Dimensions for a Checkerboard-style board?
Let me clarify.
First off: I have a sheet of paper, 8 1/2" by 8 1/2". What are the optimal dimensions (<# of squares> by <# of squares>) of a checkerboard-patterned board that I could print on this sheet of paper?
Second: I'm creating a board in an image editor. The squares can be any dimensions (<# of pixels> by <# of pixels>). What are the optimal dimensions of the squares themselves, and what is the optimal dimensions of the board (<# of squares> by <# of squares>)
By optimal, I mean the most amount of squares that still looks aesthetically pleasing.
Also, I am open to different suggestions on what kind of "tiles" to use (i.e. squares or octagons or etc) and to what the dimensions are and sizes are. I merely chose checkerboard-style (square tiles) due to its ease of creation.

Are you also using checkerboard style pieces?

@freekvd I'm not entirely sure what kind of pieces I'll be using at the moment; assume the pieces are circular and lack any sort of detailed markings, so they can be any size in reference to the checkerboard-style squares.

I don't think 'optimal' is easy to answer without getting into personal preference. There are certainly minimal and maximal sizes. A good example of a very small grid would be Halma (or Go). A good example of a large grid would be human chess. As long as you can make out the pieces and see the whole board. So it depends on the size, complexity, variation and even degrees of freedom in movement of your pieces.
Also squares might not be your best option. Go uses rectangles, so that when you view the board at a normal playing angle it looks like a square grid.

The reason why I'm using squares for the board is because I'm not using a static board - each board is created from a valid combination of four sub-boards, which can be arranged horizontally, vertically, or in a square. Also, I'm open to other suggestions for board-creation; I merely used square tiles because of the ease of making a checkerboard-style pattern.