text:
How can I tell if a card is likely to have "functional errata"?

Apparently there was a period in Magic's history when cards received significant "errata" between printings — not just templating updates or clarifications, but straight-up changes to what the cards do.
The most recent example I can think of is Loxodon Warhammer, which officially has lifelink even though the original printing had the triggered-ability version (like Spirit Link), due to some messiness with the redefinition of lifelink while the card was reprinted. Most of the others are significantly older.
Without looking up every single card a player plays in Gatherer, is there a quick way to figure out which cards are likely to have Oracle text that wildly diverges from what's printed on them? (For example, are there certain old-timey abilities that got errata-ed away en masse?)

Not a complete answer, but this article is interesting and has a lot of big hitters described: https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af127

The past few rules managers have been strongly opposed to functional errata, so there should be few or even no cards left that have functional errata unless the card was actually put in print with the conflicting wording, in which case most recent printing wins.  Illusionary Mask is the last one I can think of and was "recently" returned to its "intended" functionality.  This bit of trivia does nothing to help you identify them without the oracle of course... but it does mean the list is pretty small.

There aren't many cards in magic that have actual so-called "power level" errata that fundamentally changes what they do, with the exception of the ones that were reprinted in physical form with new wording.  However, there are a few things that make you think "Hey I should check the oracle" because it may not be entirely clear how it was updated to work in modern rules.
1) Wording that would generate a really weird replacement effect, may now be a trigger:
e.g.,  Black Vise   There are obvious patterns to a lot of them, like with this one "if during upkeep" will generally become "at the beginning of upkeep" but then there are ridiculous things like Animate Dead that will you never ever "get right" trying to infer current functionality.  So the presence of what would be replacement effects if playing it literally as written is a good cue to check the Oracle.
2) Does it target?  Use of the word target is inconsistent on pre-6th edition cards.  If it just says "opponent" or "player" something you should check if it's "target" or "choose."
3) Creatures with only a "Class" and Artifact Creatures with no creature type.  e.g., if you see "Summon Warrior" it is likely now an "Elf Warrior" or "Goblin Warrior" or whatever as appropriate.  Artifact Creatures cards with no subtype will also have one in the Oracle (mostly "Construct.")

+1 great indications that a card might have errata. You might also want to include that cards printed after 2006 are unlikely to have functional/power level errata and will play as written, "Mark Gottlieb is a strong, strong believer that cards should have functionality that matches their printed intent as often as possible."

No, I don't see how that would be possible by looking only at the card.
The example you cited is an example of the main reason reason why - the old version of Flying Carpet has been perfectly functional and would be today with updated wording. OTOH there are the occasionally uber-complex cards of yore made compatible with today's rules and wording but with the same functionality, so a card's complexity or lack thereof is no indicator.
If you are looking for a list of obsolete terms and common text blocks that have been replaced by new key words, i.e. for functionally equivalent replacements, you could start with the CompRules glossary. Repeatedly used but now obsolete terms and keywords have been preserved and marked with (Obsolete). Many new, currently valid keywords that have been introduced over the years are actually just shorter replacements for commonly used abilities like e.g. Reach, Shroud, Hexproof, but are not so easy to identify without experience.

Even if the older version is still perfectly coherent under today's rules, though, it'd be useful to know something like "They took the 'bury' clause off of a bunch of faux-Equipment cards during the Sixth edition changeover." General patterns that tell you whether a card is likely to have been affected. I don't know if those patterns exist or not, that's why I'm asking -- but I think just saying "The old card could still be playable" doesn't answer that.

@AlexP You specifically asked for cards that had their functionality, not only their wording changed, because I would wager that the majority of all cards got such an errata at some point. There is no functional difference between for example "bury target creature" and "destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated", so I assumed it was out of the scope of your question.

I think we're talking past each other a bit. Please re-read my comment: I'm talking about removing an entire functional clause, not changing the wording of "bury."

@AlexP Then what is wrong with the original, first paragraph of my answer? There is no such list AFAIK, and for the reasons I mentioned, you won't be able to deduce whether or not a functional errata has happened to any given card without looking at its current Oracle wording, because there is no pattern I'm aware of. Significant changes of functionality are pretty rare anyway, exactly because you can't deduce them from the card alone, unlike mere wording changes, and usually happen for balance reasons, see for example the Phyrexian Dreadnought odyssey.


text:
How can I learn about and keep track of major Magic tournaments in my local area?
I've been interested in going to a large Magic tournament for a while now, though whether I can go and how far I could travel varies week by week.
I know how to look up the Grand Prix schedule and SGC tournaments. But I keep being surprised by other events — such as TCGPlayer tournaments, a different SGC formats, even PTQs, — only finding out about them when it's too late to make plans to go.
How can I make sure I'm aware of big tournaments near me with more lead time? Is there a resource that can show me tournament schedules from more than just one sponsor?

The official M:tG site offers a store and tournament locator. Just enter the name of the town you want to look up, and it will show you upcoming, official tournaments in that town and in an area around it.
Of course, this can only cover sanctioned tournaments that WotC knows about - for unofficial tournaments, your best bet is probably to get in touch with the local player base and store owners.

I went and messed with the filters a bit. I'm not clear on how you'd construct a search that finds GPs and the GP-like events hosted by SGC and TCGPlayer (which are sanctioned by the DCI) with that tool.

Basically you would have to look for them on the internet (most have Facebook pages). Also ask other people you know who play Magic.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I modify an existing deck for a wide-open environment?
Say you've got a fairly competitive Magic: the Gathering deck you really like. It's likely to be tuned to the particular environment it developed in, whether that's what's most popular among your friend group or the metagame at your local FNM (or this month's big-tournament metagame, for that matter -- netdecks are a popular thing).
A lot of MTG play is informal play between relative strangers. It's not "Vintage" because you're not playing with decks designed to win Vintage. You can sit down for some "casual play" at a convention or game store and see everything from an old Lorwyn-era Standard deck to Legacy-grade Countertop to a cross-set mono-green beatdown deck -- and you'll get to play some pretty dang serious games against them.
Clearly this is an environment that favors breadth over really specific answers and hosers and threats. As an example, Gut Shot is a pretty widespread card in M12-Scars-Innistrad Standard because it deals with turn-1 Delver or Stromkirk Noble; it's rather a crap choice against an aggro deck using cards like Loam Lion, Vampire Lacerator, or Goblin Guide, though. Lightning Bolt, in contrast, is a card that is almost never considered useless.
What approach should you take to improve the breadth of a deck for this kind of never-know-what-you're-going-to-face environment?

IMHO this is the ultimate broad and ill-defined question. You are asking for a deck that's both competitive and casual, and that has an answer for every conceivable archetype in every format. My opinion: IMPOSSIBRU! Besides, the premise of your question is flawed. You cannot play a deck outside of an environment. Whatever decks are possible make up the environment, even if it's larger than Vintage.

I think it might be possible to usefully discuss techniques of broadening your deck for wider environments - I can think of a poor but relevant answer, so the many MtG players here could easily come up with a better one.  I say let it ride until we see if good answers happen.

I think perhaps you are asking the wrong question.
When I was going to an event for casual play, I'd normally bring more than one deck and I'd either ask for an opponent for a specific format or else ask the other person what format and break out the appropriate deck.  Obviously, I didn't carry a deck for every conceivable format, but if I brought my current standard deck, and an extended deck, and a "completely-casual-deck to play against beginners" I'd be able to find something "close enough".
If you really want just one deck to take to take to a gathering, then I would make a fast, solid aggro deck with some removal but no specific hosers (except just maybe in sideboard).  I would go with aggro over control or combo for a couple of reasons:

It always exists in about the same form in most formats, where control really needs to be tuned to the metagame to work right, so it can be broadly competitive.
You are describing a fairly casual environment of pick-up games.  Of course any competitive player would be happy to face combo or control, but it frustrates and surprises a lot of casual/new players.  So, for the sake of everyone having fun, I tend to run aggro in pick-up games and save combo/control for more competitive environments.

When building this deck to take to such an open environment, I would avoid anything that was designed as an answer to a specific threat (one with nothing for instance saw tournament play due to the metagame at the time, but it was an answer to one specific threat type).  I would also look more than normal at cards that could have multiple purposes (green has often had cards that would act as a creature, or kill an artifact).  Of course, such versatility often comes at a cost in terms of mana, but in that type of environment (might face anything, but generally on the casual side) that might be a fair trade off.
Finally, you can blunt a lot of the "random-deck" problems by playing multiplayer.  Even if you don't have an answer to a major threat, another player at the table probably does.

I think I need to rephrase the question. I'm not looking for "one deck to rule them all". I'm looking for "Here are some ways to make a deck less specific." Your point about aggro just working against more stuff with minimal modification is a good one!

I edited and expanded now that I better understand the question.  But I stand by the core of my answer: Your best bet is to carry more than one deck to an event like that.  If you really want to carry just one, I would go with aggo.

Thanks! Any advice on how I should edit my question to make it clearer / more useful / less vague?

In this particular case, I just misread the question the first time through.

One way of dealing with a great variance of decks is to ignore them. Make a solid combo deck with some protection (counters/discard) and you'll beat most decks. Especially since they won't have the correct sideboard against you in this wide format. This will for sure make a competitive deck if you want to win, but the games against the casual players won't be much fun.
I say the best way to enjoy games of magic against with such a variance of opponents is to have several decks. That's because I think it's most fun when playing pretty even decks, at least so even that both players have a chance of winning.
Edit: Making a deck that tries to handle every possible deck in a special way will just make it kinda bad against everything and you'll get beaten by all good decks.

As you probably know a common trail of thought when building a deck is: "This deck has a really good match up against X, Y and Z. Deck A completely crushes me but trying to fix it will worsen my chances against the others so I just have to hope not to face any A's". My point is, worrying to much about other decks might dull your deck more than it's worth.

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


text:
What's the strategic advantage of building around alternate win conditions?
In MTG, there are several ways to win that don't involve damaging your opponent. The most prominent is milling (running an opponent out of cards to draw), but there are also special cards like Felidar Sovereign, Laboratory Maniac, Battle of Wits, and Barren Glory that introduce unique victory conditions.
I understand why these decks can be fun: it's a novel experience to build and play a deck with an entirely different goal, and figuring out how to achieve some of those goals is a pleasing deckbuilding puzzle. What I'd like to know is something else entirely: when is prioritizing an alternate win condition actually strategically advantageous?
Specifically, it seems like, short of all-in-one-go combo, pursuing these goals involves actively sacrificing tempo and card advantage. Take mill cards like Glimpse the Unthinkable, for example: the card mills a significant chunk of an opponent's deck, but it doesn't actually influence the board state in any way; in the vast majority of cases, making your opponent put ten cards from her library into her graveyard has no affect on her board presence or ability to make subsequent plays (in some instances, it actually helps her, too).

What factors affect the viability of a deck built around an alternate win condition?
Is it ever feasible (like, you-could-take-this-deck-to-a-tournament feasible) to build around an alternate wincon in something that's not just a pure combo deck?
How can one offset or avoid the natural card and tempo disadvantage baked into most of these cards?
When is it practical to include an alternate wincon as "Plan B" (or C, or D, &c.) in a deck with a damage-based Plan A?

If you can get the necessary cards, then mill is generally a little better in Limited, since the decks are smaller and the tempo is slower. But in Constructed formats, I don't know that mill strategies are really playable.

@JSBᾶngs I see what you mean from a card-availability perspective: most formats have enough mill cards that you can draft a mill deck as a "garbage man" (take the cards nobody wants) strategy.

A key piece here is that cards like this provide just what you stated - an alternate win condition.  If you make a deck that relies solely on them, you're just making your life harder, but making one that could hit either could be interesting.  Totally separately, lots of these cards see play in multiplayer.

@IanPugsley I'd love to see an answer on that topic. I added a question to speak to it more directly.

@IanPugsley There was a popular Vampire-deck that was playing aggro but as a part of that deck they included Dark Depths for being used with Vampire Hexmage. Though I think it eventually evolved into a pure combo deck excluding the aggro theme for more tutors and stuff because it was better.

@AlexP So to sum up are you basically asking why Spike would play an alternate win condition?

I would consider infect an alternate win condition and that is played a decent amount

I think there's a very simple answer to this question, which perhaps hasn't been concisely stated yet:
Most people's decks are tuned to beat decks trying to win in the "normal" way.  If your deck is trying to win in an unusual way, many decks will not have any good answer to that.
Suppose you're playing a Battle of Wits deck.  A lot of decks won't be packing sufficient enchantment removal to reliably take out Battle of Wits when you cast it - because, in general, enchantment spot removal is not a high priority for winning games of magic.  Which means that, assuming you can survive long enough to find and cast your key card, you win easily.
Or suppose you're playing a deck which has an effective way to gain infinite life.  A lot of decks will be trying to win via the standard route, of dealing 20 damage very fast.  If you can simply gain life faster than they can deal with it, their finely-tuned damage dealing deck is almost certain to have no plan B for dealing with your unusual game plan.
Contrary to other answers to this question, I don't think "the element of surprise" is a key feature to the effectiveness of "alternate win condition" decks... at least not in the sense of your opponent going "huh? What's this deck trying to do, I don't understand...?!".  I think it's a metagame question, pure and simple.  No deck, even after sideboarding, can have effective answers to every other possible deck in the game of Magic.  As such, sensible deckbuilders will build their deck planning to win against the decks they are most expecting to face.  Your opponent may have worked out exactly what your alternate win condition is inside of the first 5 minutes of your match; but that doesn't mean they will have a good way of dealing with it in either their maindeck or their sideboard.  And you may be able to steal quite a few wins against supposedly "better" decks that way.
Never underestimate the power of the metagame.  See for instance the recent World Championships, where Team Channel Fireball brought a Tempered Steel deck that was generally considered to be unplayable because "it rolls over and dies as soon as anyone plays Slagstorm" [or something like that, I'm relying on my memory here].  But as it happened none of the "good" decks at that tournament were packing Slagstorm, and so TCF put 4 players into the top 8 with an identical "B-list" deck.  I don't think you can say the principle of playing to win not just the game but the metagame isn't sound!

Great answer! About "Fireball Steel": It's a bit trickier than that, IIRC. Tempered Steel was considered weak to Ancient Grudge and Slagstorm. TCF played a flavor that avoided going "all in" as fast as possible in favor of playing cards like Origin Spellbomb to get around Slagstorm.

This answer is great! I agree that not having ways to deal with the deck is the most important benefit. Also having a combo as plan B in you aggro deck gives you a chance to beat that "infinite life deck"/control deck with Moat. Having more than one way to win often gives you more flexibility at the cost of consistency and/or efficiency. The element of surprise is a nice addition too if you have it.

If you play a common deck or a deck with a common theme it's easier for your opponent make correct decisions.
Say I've played against your "Goblin deck" a lot of times. I know what are your most dangerous threats, what creatures I want to kill, what spells I want to counter, how long I should wait before I play my sweeper, what your kill range is, and so on.
So say you bring a deck I've never seen before, and play a bunch of cards I've never played against, I have a harder time to make optimal decisions against you. Do you win by milling or damage? Are you searching for a combo? What's your kill range? Do I want to counter this spell or should I save the counter for your next one? Can I risk playing a creature here?
To summarize, playing an unknown deck/playstyle/wincon will give you an information advantage (unless your opponent does too) to base you decisions on.

That's sounds about right. Example: Say you go against a combo deck, and you have Force of Will in hand, so you have exactly 1 chance to shoot down the combo. Now the question is, for example: Is the combo deck going for a Storm count to cast the finisher multiple times, or is it an infinite mana combo followed by a single finisher spell, like a "draw X cards" spell? In the latter case, it would be enough to wait for the finisher spell to counter it, while in the former case, you have to act a lot earlier, like disrupting a card searcher or mana accelerator.

Great point. The problem, of course, is that this trick is only going to work once in any given play-group.

Excellent point. I feel like it's easier to hide a damage-based combo than a specialty wincon, though. For instance, whenever I've met a mill deck in draft, it was pretty obvious as soon as they cast Curse of the Bloody Tome targeting me (and it comes as a relief, usually, because it's almost like my opponent just gave me a free Time Walk).

@AlexP Yeah, most of the time people do feel that way. There's usually a reason why some decks are well known and other aren't ;). The advantage in knowledge about the decks doesn't help you much if you have a deck that's a lot worse.
But if you manage to come up with a new awesome deck no one has seen before, you're golden :)

Exactly. I won heavily with a tempo-advantage-based artifact deck based around Sage of Lat-Nam... because I did it back in Legends when nobody had heard the word "tempo" yet. Never lost a match at the time; nobody was ready to counter the concept. (It would look pretty slow these days.)

I like your examples a lot, everyone, but I think you're really arguing more for "play a 'rogue deck'" than "build around an alternative wincon".

The problem with most alternate win conditions is that they are easy to remove. "I win" cards are usually answered by Counters, Terror, Disenchants, or a variety of other removal cards. Protecting the alternate win condition can often times be more important than playing it.
I mostly play casual games with a pretty good group of people, some of whom play in tournaments. I have 4 decks that usually depend on alternate win conditions and the main benefit I have seen is that people are less likely to have answers to alt win condition decks (if that win condition doesn't rely on just 1 card). It's fun to be playing toward a different goal than your opponents.
For example one of the decks I play against on occasion has a few indestructible creatures, worship and an infinite life gain combo, and an infinite shuffle graveyard into library ability. This deck has an answer to most things except alt win conditions. If you don't have many decks and more than 1 depends on an alt win condition then the people around you will learn what to expect and can prepare themselves but if you have many decks made to pick from, or play it very rarely, it can throw people off balance.
Andsoyoucode has basically said the above, I thought I could paint it in a different perspective. I glossed over some points because he covered them so well though.
Also, on one or two occasions I have thrown an alternate win condition into a deck with little or no ability to fulfill it. While this is a gambit, it has often thrown an opponent off balance in worrying about a card on the table that is an instant win condition that they completely miss what I am actually killing them with.
I have found that there are 3 basic types of good Magic Players, ones that build great decks, ones that play decks very well and ones that are just plain lucky. Alternate win conditions can fall outside of what a deck can handle, or force a player to adapt to something that they hadn't planned on.
As far as tournament play goes I don't think I would every really take an alternate win condition to a serious tournament. I know a couple of years back though a fog deck that literally forced the other player to run out of cards first through stalemate did quite well in the tournament circuit. All that being said I have played my poison (sort of an alternate win condition) deck in a few 1.5 tournaments (all before infect existed) and for a deck that had zero rares and cost less than $25 buying the cards online as singles, it did rather well, performing most of its kills 4th turn, and stalling until then.
The problem with tournament decks is you only get the "surprise" effect on the first game and the second game they can sideboard in what they need that will probably be better able to handle your win condition.
*I am at work now and will add links and resources when I get home.

As I do not play Standard or Modern, I'm not sure how advantageous building around alternate win conditions is for those formats, but I do know a bit about EDH. In cEDH, almost all competitive decks win by either milling yourself out and casting Lab Man or milling your opponents out and letting them lose when you pass the turn to them. The reason for this is that, most of the time, creature decks that focus on beatdown just can't race these kinds of combo decks.
Most cEDH decks win through assembling an infinite mana combo of some sort. Now, while you could use this mana to cast powerful creature cards like Praetors or Eldrazi Titans, most of the time they're affected by summoning sickness and, although there are ways of giving your creatures haste, cards like those tend to be dead outside of this specific situation. It is preferable that you win on the turn you go off and don't just pass to someone with a scary board, just asking to be Cyclonic Rifted or something.
The only common cEDH combo deck I can think of that wins through creature beatdown is Ruric Thar Stax. Mostly this still involves assembling a Kiki-Conscripts combo, which only works because they have haste, or locking the board down and going for Ruric Thar beats. This only works because either it is unexpected, like Kiki-Jiki, or your opponents aren't able to do anything about it because you played Blood Moon and who actually plays red in cEDH?

I'd tie the alt-wincon into other cards. Do I have a card that mean I get bonuses to creatures from putting large chunks into the graveyard? I'd like to mill for that. Do I have a control card that lets me put the players land on top of the deck, so I can then bin them and set him behind whilst milling?
For instance, card with stats which are some function of cards in graveyards become more dangerous the more milling you do. Cards like: Mortivore and Lhurgoyf
Some creatures gain bonuses or abilities when they attack: Guiltfeeder and Necrotic ooze, or are cheaper to play Avatar of Woe
Some other card will give you extra life, so you can keep milling: Invigorating Falls or Spoils of Evil (whichis more limited, but does give extra mana)
Other times you can pull a card that lets you win earlier than they expect (which will surprise a few people with mammoth decks...), with Mortal Combat
Essentially, tie the player up with other effects and make milling a secondary bonus, that adds to your current plans. Otherwise it's just a one trick pony.

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


text:
What's the order of resolution for "everybody discard" in MTG?
Usually, in MTG, when you play a card that requires multiple players to do something, like "Each player sacrifices a creature", players make choices in "APNAP" (active player / non-active player) order (going around the table in normal turn order if it's multiplayer), and then the effect itself happens simultaneously.
How does this work with hidden information? You'd still choose first, but when do you reveal the hidden information? Take, for instance, an "Everybody discard" effect (e.g. Liliana of the Veil): if I activate the ability, I'm supposed to choose a card first — do I immediately show my card to the other players, or do I set it aside face-down until everyone has made a pick?

Possible duplicate of If multiple players must make a choice, in what order are the choices made?

Not a dupe. This question is about hidden information, not simply APNAP.

You go in AP-NAP order around the table to choose a card.  However, the actual act of discarding is considered simultaneous, which means the chosen cards are still in the hand, a hidden zone, until all are chosen.  It is perfectly fine to, for example, set the chosen card aside face down until everyone has chosen one.

101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes
  any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the
  player seated to the active player‘s left) makes any choices required,
  followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the
  actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the
  ―Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order‖ rule. Example: A card
  reads “Each player sacrifices a creature.” First, the active player
  chooses a creature he or she controls. Then each of the nonactive
  players, in turn order, chooses a creature he or she controls. Then
  all creatures chosen this way are sacrificed simultaneously.
101.4a If an effect has each player choose a card in a hidden zone, such as his or her hand or library, those cards may remain face down
  as they‘re chosen. However, each player must clearly indicate which
  face-down card he or she is choosing.

I had that document right in front of me, too. Research fail! Then again, I think it's good to have this question on the site / google, for posterity.

@AlexP I too searched the comp rules, and concentrated too much on "spell resolution" ... Good find ~@Affe

Hmm interesting. So you could base your sacrifice as NAP on the decision of the AP, since it's not really simultaneous?


text:
Why can't an overloaded Counterflux beat Pyromancer Ascension?

In his write-up of Pro Tour BTG in Valencia, pro player Gaudenis Vidugiris described this game, the last one he played to get to the top 16 (emphasis added):

Round 14 I battled against RWU Twin. Both games I got active Ascensions reasonably quickly and killed him.  Though in the second game he had a Grafdigger's Cage on turn one which slowed me down enough that I couldn’t kill him for a while and even gave him a draw phase where a Splinter Twin would have been lethal.  I actually got two active [Pyromancer Ascensions] rather quickly, but couldn't find a blue card to copy for a turn or two.  Eventually, I found one which dug me into an Echoing Truth and after I explained to my opponent why his overloaded Counterflux couldn't counter all of the Echoing Truth copies he conceded.

What's the rules trick here? How come an overloaded Counterflux can't counter several copies of Echoing Truth?

Counterflux works against a singleton Pyromancer Ascension. With multiple active Ascensions, the copied spells don't go on the stack all at once, so Counterflux can't hit all of them.
I found the answer in the comments section of that article:

Play echoing truth target something, both ascensions trigger.
First ascension trigger resolves, puts an echoing truth copy on top of the stack, so this copy will resolve before the other ascension trigger resolves.

So to show the stack, since it's hard to think about from the wording:
First, cast Echoing Truth. Both Pyromancer Ascensions trigger.
Stack:
PA#1 trigger
PA#2 trigger
Echoing Truth

PA#1 trigger resolves. Stack is now:
Echoing Truth Copy
PA#2 trigger
Echoing Truth

If you cast Counterflux with overload now, it will counter the two spells, but NOT the trigger, because it doesn't counter abilities. So after it resolves, the PA#2 trigger will resolve and create another copy of Echoing Truth. And if you wait until PA#2 trigger resolves, the first Echoing Truth copy has already resolved. No matter what you do, one Echoing Truth will get through.

So, just so we're clear, it would be possible with only one Ascension, right? He can still counterflux one copy+the original but the second copy still happens and resolves?

That's correct.


text:
Can I mix Fantasy and 40k in a game?
I'm trying to get my fiancée interested in playing Warhammer games. She's interested in fantasy and I'm interested in the sci-fi 40k branch of the game, plus I've already got an army in the making. If we got a fantasy army, is there any adapter between the two rulesets?

Unfortunately they are completely different rulesets.  While they have a few similar mechanics(rolling to hit/wound or making characteristic tests), the structure of the games do not synch up.  Turn structure is different. Ranged weapons, saves, movement, and combat are all different.  Applying some fairly common rules in one system to the other can have game breaking results.
Even if you did build a bridge between the two systems the armies would just not play well against each other.  Stats aren't balanced between the two systems.  They have different baselines(Armor saves in fantasy are mostly 6+, if you have one at all, and in 40k 2+ and 3+ are not uncommon).
The closest you could get would be to have one person play Chaos Demons.  The same demon models can be used in fantasy and 40k with the appropriate army book.  It's a little awkward because 40k and Fantasy use round and square bases respectively, but most players would give you a pass in friendly games.

Easy. Pick an 40K army from one of the formats and model your stats off of it, but use Warhammer Fantasy models.
For example if your fantasy army has a lot of melee units, why not model them after tyranids like the hormagaunt? Then just use the tyranid rules and costs, 40k rules, and your fantasy models. Fluffing it up is up to you! "Oh, no he didn't mutate to get his stat bonus, he reached into his bag of tricks!"

I did manage to mix the two, but not in the way you're probably thinking.
I had a WFRP campaign that I sent forward to the 40K time period.
It was quite straightforward to adapt a 40K unit into a WFRP NPC.
Probably not the kind of a solution you were looking for though.
Still, notable because it worked really well.  Very memorable game for all concerned.


text:
Where to find lists of cheap Cubes?
I'm an occasional social Magic player (not crazy about the game). I like playing drafts more than constructed to avoid the arms race, but they're not cheap, and one of my friends had a real problem with buying cards for a while, so I was thinking about putting together a Cube so that when we draft every now and again, no one would have to buy anything. It also seems like it would lend itself well to inexpensive cards, since having a consistent power level would allow competitive games even if that level is low.
However, I don't want to spend much time or money doing so (I'd rather just suggest 7 Wonders or something like that). Is there any resource that has Cube lists, maybe specifically for "budget"/Pauper-type selections that provide a fun experience? I did a cursory Internet search, but all the lists I came across seemed peppered with at least a few cards I know are pricey.

Thanks for asking a question about Cube, I hadn't known this format until now. Sounds like a lot of fun!

Do you by any chance know where to find lists of non-cheap Cubes?  If you do, I'd be quite interested myself in going down the proxy route with them...

The link in @Hackworth's answer has quite a few lists. I just web searched "magic cube list" and got a bunch of stuff from forums on places like MTGsalvation and Wizards.

If you are on a budget, you probably don't want to buy any cards - by definition, for a Cube you need the best cards of all times. The power 9 alone would run you into the thousands of dollars.
You do have 2 inexpensive options:
Cube works with any set of cards, just take the best cards you have. No money involved, only time to decide on the cards. You don't have to use any list, just use whatever you have. Advantage: You learn a lot about your the cards in your collection and you have to make a conscious effort grading their relative power, which can only benefit you as a player.
Second, if you don't mind using proxies, simply take a cube list you like and print proxies of everything you are missing. There are many resources where you can get card scans, or use the Gatherer text for the latest errata. This will take some time to prepare the printing run, and depending on your circumstances, could cost you a few dollars for paper and/or ink. Advantage: You get to play the best cards of all times for crazy powerful decks, should be loads of fun, you (probably) get to know many new cards.

+1 because this is a good answer in general. In my case specifically, I only have 120 cards (traded most for board games when my friend was trying to quit), so I'd have to buy regardless if I was going to use official cards. (Perhaps a large lot of cheap commons would do the trick.) As for proxies, I don't mind, but half the people I play with do. They honestly might not even go for a really low powered cube, but I thought it'd be worth a shot.

Vehemently disagree with the statement that 'by definition, for a Cube you need the best cards of all time'.  There are any number of fantastic pauper cubes out there, and many other cubes that don't need a suite of moxen, duals, etc.  A cube can be expensive, but even an excellent cube doesn't have to be.

@StevenStadnicki That's the original definition for the Cube though. Even your usage of "pauper cube" implies this: a "pauper Cube" is a "Cube" (expensive) for "paupers" (not expensive).

@Hackworth Pauper is a constructed format, specifically an eternal format of "anything that's had a printing at common rarity". A pauper cube is thus a cube consisting only of commons.

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


text:
How many units can support in Starcraft TBG?
Does only the first non-front unit in a skirmish add its support attack, or do all of them? If I've got, say, one scourge (9 attack) and two devourers (+2 support) going up against a single carrier, is the total attack 11 or 13?

All of them. The rules appear to be quite clear on this matter (page 27).

Each supporting unit is then, one at a time, assigned to any of the skirmishes. Every supporting unit can be assigned to the same skirmish, or spread out among the skirmishes in
  whatever fashion the player chooses. A supporting unit adds its support value to the attack strength of the friendly front-line unit in its skirmish.
Important: A player must assign all of his supporting units to skirmishes. That is, every unit in a battle must participate in a skirmish, either as a front-line unit or as a supporting unit.

Page 31

Supporting Units: Each supporting unit in the skirmish adds its support strength (or other effects) to the player’s attack value. A unit’s support strength is listed on its owner’s Faction Sheet.

There is only one exception that I could find, but it isn't related to the number of supporting units. It is related to a support unit being unable to target the opposing player's front-line unit (page 34).

As explained under “Compare Attack and Health Values” on page 31, a supporting unit adds its support value to its controller’s final attack value for the skirmish in which it is participating. However, this is only the case if the supporting unit is capable of targeting the opposing player’s front-line unit in that skirmish. If the supporting unit is not capable of targeting the opponent’s front-line unit, the supporting unit does not add its support value to its owner’s final attack value.


text:
How is a positive horror rating handled?
What does a positive horror rating mean? For example, when a monster has -1 horror rating and my character's willpower is 7, it is reduced to 6. In the positive rating, when the monster has 1 for horror rating, should I add 1 to my willpower?

Yes,
Horror tests are an attribute test, which are defined on page 13 of the rules, emphasis mine.

Occasionally, an investigator must make a modified attribute
  test. Such tests always list a positive or negative number after the attribute (for example: “Test Strength –1”). This number is always added to the investigator’s attribute before rolling the die. In this way, a skill test with a negative modifier is more likely to fail.

Which makes sense. I mean, a woman in rags is creepy, sure, but it shouldn't drive a hardened gangster INSANE.


text:
Why does Online Dominion allow you to reveal reaction cards multiple times?
In the FAQ for Isotropic's online Dominion game, the creator states:

No, you really can reveal a reaction card like Moat or Secret Chamber multiple times. They are designed to be idempotent so there's no point in doing so, but allowing this avoids strange corner cases having to do with Secret Chamber drawing other reaction cards.

What, exactly, are these corner cases?  Can you reveal a reaction card drawn from Secret Chamber, or is there some other strange case drawing a reaction card with Secret Chamber causes?

@ire_and_curses Oh, wow, can't believe I missed that.  Thanks for the edit.

Yes, you can reveal a reaction drawn by Secret Chamber.  For example, the following scenario is perfectly valid (according to BGG's Dominion FAQ)

Be attacked.
Reveal Secret Chamber.
Draw two cards (one Moat), replace two cards.
Reveal Moat to deflect attack.
Reveal Secret Chamber again.
Draw two cards, replace two cards (put Moat back on deck)

Most reaction cards, such as Moat, have no real value to being revealed multiple times during the same trigger.  However, since the rules do not explicitly forbid such behaviour and there may be other edge cases where revealing the same card multiple times has merit, it remains a valid option.


text:
How do game designers come up with suggested (or minimum) age requirements for games?
Is there a standard formula or procedure for determining suggested (or minimum) age requirements for games? Or do a few game designers just sit around and discuss for a few minutes and then just come up with a best guess? What criteria are used, if any?
I ask because we (my Wife and I and son who just turned 7) can't make sense of the age recommendations for some games. The latest was Pandemic, which my son bought with his own money. Required age? 13+. Neither the rules nor the strategy are all that hard. I played a vastly more complicated game (both rules and strategy) as a teenager, Squad Leader, whose recommended age was about the same: 14+. Meanwhile, Rat-a-tat Cat has a suggested minimum age of 6+. Though the graphics of this last game are clearly aimed for kids, the strategy is sophisticated  (think of it as a starter game for poker) and the rules have enough nuance that we kept finding new ways we hadn't got the rules right until the 4th read (though perhaps this could be attributed to poorly written rules).
I would especially love to see answers from professional game designers or people who have discussed this issue with game designers but if none are available I'm happy to hear from game enthusiasts who have thought about this.

Regarding Pandemic, the rules and strategy may be simple enough, but those little cubes also look mighty easy to swallow.  Do you know what'll happen if a 7-year old swallows one?  I sure don't.

Fundamentally, there are three factors to consider:

Reading level required to read the rules.
Thematic & graphical content.
Difficulty of play.

All three are highly subjective, and vary widely by nation, but the least so is reading level.
There are good algorithms for reading level calculation used in education; they generally hold up well. They include specific vocabulary lists, particular sentence structure hierarchies, and subject matter hierarchies. The average high school textbook, for example is usually written to a 6th or 7th grade reading level, as that makes it more inclusive. (It also renders it boring as hell to those with more advanced reading levels.) For American Standard English, MS Word has an evaluator.
Thematic content is much harder, but generally, the 12+ label is for games with no commonly objectionable material. 15+ is usually material that, if in films, might qualify for the PG13 or NC17 ratings now (the old R rating, back in the day). 18+ is used for anything explicitly sexual, and is the only "objective" requirement one - sexual images ("Pornography") are ages 18+ by law.

Can you clarify whether this is personal reflection or whether this comes from being (or talking to) a game designer? Also - about reading: My 7 year old son just a few weeks ago started reading at a level where it would be useful in games. Yet for 2 years he has played games (and well) that require reading  (i.e. Settlers of Catan: Development Cards). He memorizes the way written cards look. Perhaps a game recommendation of 12+ (which is Settlers) really means that at least one person playing must be 12 or over in order to be able to read, understand, and explain the rules?

Details about Settlers of Catan: He started playing shortly after turning 5 but I said we couldn't do the full rules with development cards until he could read. He insisted on doing it anyway around the time he turned 6 and after 1-2 games memorized what all the development cards did, without ever reading them. He remembered which picture did what, and just needed to be explained the rules at most two times for each card. Granted not many kids are such enthusiastic gamers. But I use this to illustrate that reading is not that important for many games, so long as someone is willing to teach.

I think the problem is that you are misinterpreting "suggested age" as "age requirement".  The suggested age implies that anyone who has reached that age can handle it.  Whether kids that haven't reached that age can play it or not is very dependent on the child. Its very typical for kids that do a lot of gaming to play games with a much higher suggested age.

I would add that just because something isn't too complicated or objectionable for young children doesn't mean that they'll actually enjoy playing it (whereas older children or adults would enjoy it).  Suggested age is as much about who the game is targetted toward as it is about whether or not it's "appropriate" or who can handle it.

@joe being an educator working in elementary ed, player of many boardgames, and an amateur game designer. (My released boardgame designs are a campaign supplement to Slag!, and a Hanafuda retheme.)

@JoeGolton I think your other problem is that you're basing everything on your own son. Not all kids are so willing to play games that aren't graphically and thematically meant for kids, and not all parents are as ready to help a kid play a game by reading everything. Those three criteria are completely reasonable, and you shouldn't doubt it just because they're not what makes sense for your son.

I forgot to mention that I've playtested a bunch of stuff. Suitability for children was a common designer question.

@jefromi Both of you have good points about overly weighting my experiences with game going son and patient game-loving parents, and therefore only thinking about the "difficulty of play" factor. Aramis - I think your answer is good but is even better if you establish your credibility by saying in the first sentence, "Based on a few games I've designed and extensive play-testing where suitability for children was a common designer question, here's what I've learned . . ." Does that seem like a good thing to add to your answer?

No, Joe, it really doesn't. In fact, that's one of the things that, in my undergrad, we were taught to treat as a fallacy - anyone whose sources must include their bonafides in order to be credible is probably including them solely to be credible at all.

I'm not getting what you're saying, but this seems like more of a meta thing. So I just posted a question about this on meta. Note that I do like your answer and will likely accept it after waiting a couple more days to see if anyone else chimes in with an answer. I certainly learned more than I expected to when I asked the question.

According to this and this, the government has a role in labeling of products that can be used by children, and that 13 is the youngest recommended age you can put without doing additional testing (though sometimes even that is not sufficient). The lower the age, the more robust the testing required, particularly for things recommended under age 3. The rules were different when Squad Leader came out, which could be why it says 14+.
The general rule of thumb in the industry seems to be to put the highest age you can that you don't think will adversely impact your marketing. For Pandemic, this is pure speculation, but if it were me, I would assume that any parent who's OK buying a game for their family in which you can lose and the world's population will succumb to disease either knows their children well enough to know if they can handle it or doesn't really care about theme in games (either way, 13+ probably wouldn't scare them either). Gamewright's core demographic is parents of young children, and they're sold in more mainstream stores than Z-Man Games (generally speaking), so it would make sense that they'd want Rat-A-Tat-Cat to be listed as young as reasonably possible to actually play the game, even if they aren't getting the most out of it.

Sorry, had to downvote due to the lack of sourcing, but I can easily switch that if this can be backed up.

@PatLudwig I can't find the article, and have no idea how to search for it; if you have query suggestions that won't return every product with a suggested age, I'll be happy to try it. Meanwhile, ASTM F963 has to be purchased, so I can't verify the contents of that, either. I guess the downvote will have to stand unless I can find that site again. I understand your position, though if I was more concerned about reputation than helping the OP, I wouldn't post things when I don't have the source handy, and I don't know that that's a helpful policy on a board game site (i.e., not a hard science).

@PatLudwig Sorry; thought of a query, found the site, fixed. I still think perhaps the attribution thing is worth discussing, but maybe not here; I'll open something on meta.

The actual US legislation can be found at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/legislation.html . In particular it mandates testing for choking hazards and toxicity and the like for "Children's Products" (i.e., products designed and marketed for children 12 years or younger).


text:
Corner variation which is not in Josekipedia
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a 0 4 8 . |
$$ . . . . . 1 5 6 . |
$$ . . . . . . 9 7 . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

My opponent played this sequence. I was sure that I could play a in the game, but it finished horribly. What should I play?

I think this question greatly showed up the potential of collaborative research possible on Board and Card Games. Each answer highlights a few important aspects, and taking all of them into account, we get a very decent solution to the problem. :)

a doesn't look so good, and locally 7 would be better at Q17. Or to put it another way, white should have played 6 at Q17. That said it also depends on the board context, and what stones are around K16.

This question may look simple at first, but refuting the deviation is pretty difficult - there are no original sources on this to my knowledge.
Not answering the hane directly
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a 0 4 8 . |
$$ . . . . b 1 5 6 . |
$$ . . . . . . 9 7 . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

First off, let's try a different answer to white 6. Black could consider playing 7 at a or b, but I believe the result would be bad. It can be considered, though, if the board is right.
Hane at a could lead to a complicated fight, probably involving an exchange, but I could not tell if it is better for either player.
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 3 O O . . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . a . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

The idea of b is to either magari-turn at 3 if white connect on the right, switching to the top instead of the right side all of sudden. This would be very unusual after blocking at 5 initially, and locally white gets a superior result. I presume that (apart from extending on the top) black would like to add a stone at a later to enclose white and get a reasonable outside shape. Either way black is not thick.
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . a 2 O O . . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . 3 . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If white instead opts to push from behind on the third line once more (at a) before returning to play 7, it is better than joseki for black. If white attempts to resist by jumping to a, black will not hane at 3 next, but push through at 2 and cut, involving a ladder.
In conclusion of this section, while an option to consider, I would not regard a different answer to the hane a refutation at all.
Reverting to joseki
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 2 . O O O . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

After the deviation is played out, black could nobi at 1, with white jumping at 2. Seemingly, this is even because we returned to joseki.
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . O O 1 . |
$$ . . . . a X X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

However, instead of the usual move at a, black might consider playing at 1 instead. This leads to a different joseki, with emphasis on territory on the right edge. Losing this option is a loss for black. This in effect means that white's early hane is superior to joseki, which is impossible by definition. Accordingly, returning to joseki is not sufficient as a refutation of the deviation.
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . a O . . |
$$ . . . . . X X 1 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

As a side note, the hane is sometimes played by white in a similar shape precisely when white is afraid of a black hane there instead of the usual nobi at a. This is an (uncommon) joseki.
So sum this up, we still have not found a viable refutation.
Hane
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . b 1 O O O . |
$$ . . . . a X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Another option is to hane at 1. In this shape, white has the options of cutting at a or clamp at b. Hane underneath is impossible since black would be most glad to just nobi-extend.
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 4 2 . . . . |
$$ . . . 1 X O O O . |
$$ . . . . 3 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O a . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

After the clamp, descending at 2 is very dangerous. The sequence to 4 is the basic pattern likely to follow, but the fight is easier for white since black has no good response to a.
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . X O O O . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If white cuts, a fight involving a ladder will follow, possible leading to an exchange, as explained in a different answer. This can get pretty messy if both sides keep playing the strongest moves.
Leaping ahead
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . a 2 . . . . . |
$$ . . c 1 b O O O . |
$$ . . . . . X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Black is not forced to hane, he can consider a keima, too. Usually, white would attach at 2, leaving black with the options of a, b, c or tenuki. Since white was lowered to the second line, I consider this a superior for black.
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . c . . . . . |
$$ . . . 1 2 O O O . |
$$ . . . b a X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

In case white plays 2 instead, bumping against the black single stone, black should consider either covering at a or the strong nobi at b.
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . b . . . . . |
$$ . . a X O O O O . |
$$ . . . c 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

In case black covers at 1, it is difficult to clamp at a, because white lacks an as effective attack on the 5 (instead of 4) black stones.
Crawling on the second line at b once or maybe twice is an option, in both cases probably leading to white gaining sente. Locally, the result is very bad compared to joseki, but white finished in sente twice, which is very valuable, too.
There is also the option to cut at c. This fight should be acceptable for both.
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ . . 3 2 . . . . . |
$$ . 5 . X O O O O . |
$$ . . . 1 6 X X O . |
$$ . . . 8 7 . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

In case black plays strongly, white will aim to exploit the increased cut aji, likely starting with the hane at 2. This way, white gets life while getting enclosed by a thin black group.
However, black can consider different moves (e.g. 5 at 6, or even 3 at 6).
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X a O O O . |
$$ . . . . 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

As per the comments, there is a very strong variation with white cutting immediately. If black cuts at a, it will return to the situation that requires a black ladder.
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . X 3 O O O . |
$$ . . . 4 1 X X O . |
$$ . . . 5 2 . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Without said ladder, black will have to hane from the outside at 2. The sequence to 5 will follow, leading to a fight. Black's shape seems relatively poor so this should be carefully examined before playing the keima.
Conclusion
If black specifically wants to avoid a fight, he can always chose to play the simple nobi (6 in the previous diagram) to revert to the usual joseki.
On the other hand, despite the vast number of possibilities that arise from the keima, I believe this to be the best option in case black wants to resist and does not mind a fight.
So we could say that black has gained far more options than he lost by white's deviation, thus refuting white's move.
However, likely the early hane is a only tiny mistake.

After Black's 1 in “leaping ahead”, P16 reverts to the previous cut, so Black must have the ladder.

With the ladder your O17 proposition is interesting. Note however that after W P17 and B P16, W crawling once on O18 and taking sente is not so bad.

@StéphaneGimenez: If crawling at O18, I would probably crawl a second time to avoid black's bend. Either way is relatively painful for white as black gets very, very strong on the outside, far more than by the usual joseki, while being enclosed too. I cannot tewari-prove this but my understanding is that this is bad for white unless sente is super important (but in that case white has different ways to play that do not make black as thick).

@StéphaneGimenez: About P16 reverting to the cut, I don't think it will really revert because there is one additional push. This makes it considerably harder to attack the 5 (instead of 4) black outside stones. I guess it would lead to a fight that is not bad for black (cut O16, nobi N17, move the cutting stone out O15, hane Q14)

Reply to the first comment: black's bend is just gote. Second comment: ?? Black O17, White P16 clearly reverts to the previous cut… ?

By the way I forgot to mention your first section. P16 in your second diagram is bad advice. Your second diagram is a win for white. Have you seen any joseki book that recommends P17 before White 2 was played?

@StéphaneGimenez: Regarding black's bend being gote: Yeah, I'm not sure, White ended in sente twice so I agree that it may be slow for black to capture the single stone. My idea was that the second push of white is sente, too, and avoids giving black this incredibly strong shape (enabling slight aji of a cut at P16. Maybe it's a matter of style, I really love aji :)

@StéphaneGimenez: About O17, P16: I misread P16 for P17, sorry. This variation didn't come to my mind at all yet, haha. Without the ladder I suppose black has to hane from the outside, white connects, black connects, white cuts at O15. I guess it's an even fight?

@StéphaneGimenez: About the second diagram in the first section: No, I have never seen this variation at all, even less in a book. It was just an idea that came to my mind in case black really really wants the top side all of sudden. I agree that it's better for white in general.

@StéphaneGimenez: I edited the post and tried to implement your ideas. Phew, got quite long.

@mafutrct Couple thoughts: (1) (minor thought) In your 2nd diagram, wouldn't 2 at S17 be better shape for W? (2) I'm surprised you haven't considered the case were B blocks the top immediately (see last diagram in my answer). That's probably the only unique thing left to my answer, so if you incorporated that then I could delete and shorten the answer field a little bit ;)

Your second, third and fifth diagrams assume a white stone at Q17, which wasn't played until white 10 in the original sequence.

@shujaa (1) I don't think so, but I'm not completely sure. Black has moves like R13, Q14 or S14 to exploit the respective weaknesses of either shape. But black is not exactly strong himself in this area since white can try to take sente after black 3, possibly preventing black's extension on top.

@shujaa (2) Oh. Oooh... excellent idea. Haha, I tend to miss obvious shapes, as you can see :) No, please keep your answer, there is no need to include everything in one answer.

@goldPseudo Absolutely, I completely missed out on thinking of a different black 5 and only considered black 7, leading me to miss shujaa's excellent move. In diagram 7, it is intentional though, it's a different situation, arrived at from the usual joseki, to highlight why simply always reverting to joseki would be too easy on white.

First, let's notice that b in the following:
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . a 0 4 8 . |
$$ . . . . b 1 5 6 . |
$$ . . . . . . 9 7 . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

reverts to a well known joseki where 10 is played before 6.
It seems possible for Black to play a, answering the cross-cut with 3 (see below), but he needs a ladder to answer 4:
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 3 1 O O O . |
$$ . . . . 2 X X O . |
$$ . . . . 5 . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O 4 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

So:

If Black has the ladder… Since the previous position (at move 3) is very advantageous for Black, white will most probably clamp instead of cutting (as proposed by shujaa). In this case black can consider playing like this, and add a shape fixing move of his choice (N16 or O15), depending on the surroundings.
$$Bcm1 8 at 1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ . . 5 2 1 O O O . |
$$ . . . 3 6 X X O . |
$$ . . . . 7 . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

Or he might prefer to stick with the standard joseki, playing b.
If the ladder is favorable to white… then a is not an option at all.

Last Remark: In this joseki variation, instead of a or b, N16 could also be a good (and safe) alternative, and there is also O17 (but it requires the same ladder). Tennuki has to be strongly motivated, because white playing b is huge.

If White doesn't have the ladder she should clamp at O17 instead of cutting at P17.

@shujaa: Indeed I missed it, if black then plays P16 the result is not as good as the standard joseki. But black can also try O16, P18, N17, P16, P15, P17, and finish with some shape fixing.

And if Black does have the ladder then it would be more than slightly advantageous for black. Compared to a standard 3-3 invasion and this misplay of white's is much better for black!

I'm pretty sure black should hane regardless because the clamp doesn't work. I remember this shape from a misplayed punishment of a joseki deviation which will backfire badly. If black had to play the nobi instead of the hane, it would be too good for white because black lost the possibility of playined S17 after Q17, which is a different joseki.

After consulting a few sources, it seems what I just wrote is mostly wrong... now I'm really confused, because white's deviation is not supposed to be superior to joseki regardless of the ladder ò.o

@mafutrct by "white's deviation" do you mean playing 6 as indicated in the first diagram instead of at 10? I would be interested if you find a refutation for the clamp...

@shujaa: As far as I can tell, the clamp does in fact work, even though a little different from the usual situation. That's why this can't really be used as refutation, which makes the deviation superior to regular joseki, which is impossible, of course.

@mafutrct Sorry to clutter the comments, but I'm still confused by your statement. It seems to me that W is switching normal move order, but that the real deviation is B playing at A, which is an overplay in the presence of W's corner approach. Eidogo lists black at A as a "mistake", thus it's no surprise that W gets a better outcome. I think that typical joseki is what's shown in the first diagram in my answer below (matches Kogo's joseki dictionary on Eidogo).

@shujaa: Yes, I agree, black's A may well be a far bigger mistake than white's hane. I misjudged it initially.

This is in Josekipedia, just with a different move order. (I don't know how to link to a specific josekipedia variation, but taking the moves as numbered in your question and reordering 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, you can see your marked stone as a bad move, with 2 ways to punish. A hane at P17 is standard for a 3-3 invasion without an approach stone, but you cannot ignore white's stone at R14!
Though it can feel too easy on the corner, P16 is joseki.
White gets a big corner, but black has a nice wall and strong influence on the side.
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 9 . 3 1 7 . |
$$ . . . . 4 X 2 5 . |
$$ . . . . . . 8 6 . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

If, as in @Stéphane's answer, Black insists on P17 it is equivalent to the above (see below), except black's move by pushing prematurely is an example of aji keshi (in fact, almost identical to the illustrative example of aji keshi on Sensei's Library). If Black pushes down instead of connecting then white can cut at P16. Of course, if white does have the ladder than she can cut at P16 immediately instead of the O17 clamp, which is much more painful for black.
$$Bcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 4 . . . . |
$$ . . . 2 1 O O O . |
$$ . . . . 3 X X O . |
$$ . . . . . . X X . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

N.B.: White usually plays 3 (Q17) in my diagram before 5 (S16) just in case black brashly makes the P17 mistake. However, if black already had a partial enclosure with a stone at 017 then S16 would first is correct.
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 7 . . . . |
$$ . . . X . . 1 5 . |
$$ . . . . . X 2 3 . |
$$ . . . . . . 6 4 . |
$$ . . . . . . O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . , . . . |

Here white is alive though the corner is much smaller and doesn't extend as well into the top.

Black also has the option of blocking on the top if White chooses to hane underneath first. The variation below is from Josekipedia and listed as "even", though no source is cited.
$$Wcm1
$$ -------------------
$$ . . . . . . 9 . . |
$$ . . . . 8 7 4 3 . |
$$ . . . 0 . 2 O 5 . |
$$ . . . . . X X 1 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 6 O . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . |

One would wonder here why Black would initially block the right side and then (seemingly inconsistently) switch to blocking on the top. Black should not do so without a reason.

P17 is not necessarily a bad move after 5 - 6 exchange, why do you claim so?

@StéphaneGimenez edited to address the points in your answer. Aji-keshi if B has the ladder, disastrous if W has the ladder.

Now I agree :-)

Regarding your first diagram with the Chinese fuseki: I would be reluctant to say that this is necessarily bad for white. Rather, I would consider the pincer at R12 almost a mistake, because in your sequence white gets an easy life in the corner. The right side is not bad for black, but it looks a bit easy to make overconcentrated (I'd try shoulder hit at Q8). Instead of the pincer, I would rather try black 8 or black 6, trying to enlarge the corner while keeping the white stone from getting an easy base. However, I guess it's playable and I could not confidently call it bad for either player.

@mafutrct Thanks. I took out the Chinese bit--it was tangential at best and you're right, not ideal.

@Gregor to address your last point: there is no inconsistency here, adapting your approach to the opponent's response is part of the game. Locally, taking both R16 and Q17 puts black ahead.

a is not the joseki move b is do tewari black starpoint white kakari black pincer white invade 3-3 black blocks white nobi (move 10) black b then black hane and connect before jump

Welcome! It's not really clear which diagram you're referring to. Could you expand your answer with some diagrams? (You can click "edit" on the other answers to copy their diagrams and paste them into your answer to edit.)


text:
Why does an open pinfu get 2 extra fu added to the score?
In riichi mahjong, a concealed pinfu hand is worth 20-fu if it goes out on a tsumo.  However, a hand with no points that has been opened gets a 2-fu bonus for no reason other than being an open pinfu.  Even if the hand has another yaku to go out on (since yaku is only given for pinfu if it remains concealed), the final score is calculated with a minimum of 30-fu (due to rounding) when going out on a tsumo.
One effect of this is that it is impossible to make a 20-fu 1-han hand, since any hand that goes out with 20-fu would be guaranteed two yaku: one from menzen tsumo (1-han) and one from pinfu (1-han).
Other than that, I can't see any reason why open pinfu should be getting those two extra fu.  Is there any actual reason for it, or is it "just one of those things" that's lost to the history of this game?

" even if it goes out on a tsumo" Wikipedia claims that a pinfu hand can only go out on a self drawn tile. What do you mean by even if

@user1873 pinfu just means it's a no-point hand.  the pinfu yaku needs to be a closed hand on a tsumo, but a hand can still go out as kui-pinfu (open pinfu) with a different yaku.

I wonder is it related in any way by the fact that it is the lowest possible score?

THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE SCORE Many charts won’t have a value for 20 Fu, 1 Han. That’s because you just can’t make a hand that cheap.
What happens if you make an open Tanyao using Shuntsu only, a Ryanmen wait, and win by Ron? Should be worth 20 Fu, 1 Han right?
Actually, such a hand is called “kui-pinfu” or open pinfu, and will be scored as 30 Fu, 1 Han. Since a kui-pinfu is the only way to get 20 Fu, 1 Han, we can thus say the lowest possible score for a hand is 1000 points.
Unrelated to kui-pinfu is the 30 Fu, 1 Han hand won by Tsumo. Such a hand is called “gomi”, because of the payments (500, 300 = 5, 3 = go, mi), and because “gomi” means “trash”.

Wikipedia has this to say, since a no-points hand must be self drawn, add 1-han yaku of self pick to the hand.

The reason why there are no scores in the 1 han/20 fu cell is that such a hand is impossible. The only 20-fu hands are the no-points hand (pinfu, 平和) where the winning tile is self-drawn.However, since a no-points hand must be closed, making the win via a self-drawn tile automatically adds 1-han yaku of self pick to the hand. Therefore, a 20-fu, 1-han hand cannot possibly exist.

There is no very good answer to this question. To directly answer your question: it's just one of those things that's lost in the history of Mahjong. A similar question would be, why is a tsumo-pinfu hand only worth 20 fu? Tsumo is worth 2fu by itself, but for whatever reason, Mahjong evolved so that tsumo-pinfu is only worth 20 (in fact, this combination is the ONLY way to get a 20 fu hand).
One possible reason could be that as Mahjong developed, people liked the idea that the smallest possible hand is worth 1,000 points (30fu, 1han). One can also speculate that it is similar to tsumo, in that open tsumo is worth 2 fu as sort of a consolation for not getting a yaku (though, menzen-tsumo gives both the yaku and the fu, except in the case of tsumo-pinfu).  But other than speculation, there is no given reason for why tsumo-pinfu should be worth 20, but pinfu with some other yaku by ron is worth 30.

The apocryphal historic reason was that before modern riichi mahjong, there were many things that were not part of the game. The base exponent (bazoro) was not included, and points were rounded to tens, not hundreds. There's a style of play that can be called "22-style" (aru-shii-aru) in which the minimum value of a winning hand was 22 points. However, as we know, if a hand has at least one run exposed, a valueless pair, no sets and finishes the last run with an open-ended wait, the hand would score no points aside from the base score (fuutei). So it was decided that an "open pinfu" hand would score 2 points in order to not have valueless hands. There was some doubling, but I am not an authority on what they were, and how different they were from modern yaku, both in scoring and in presence/absence.
Scott Miller did do some research down this field and most likely contacted people from the 101 Competitive League (http://www.101fed.com/). They still play with rules faithfully matching how mahjong was most likely played in Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. However, during and following WW2, the game evolved considerably. As modern riichi mahjong became what it was, the old style got left behind. The 101CL now has a grand total of 18 regular members in 2016 (from a peak of 45 or so in the 1990s), showcasing exactly how unpopular the old rules were to become over time (for fair comparison: JPML has around 650 and Saikouisen NPM has about 400, and there are other pro organizations).
Because of this transition, attempting to catalogue what japanese mahjong was in the sixties was done extremely poorly in a 1964 book whose author I do not care for (E.N. Whitney?), because of the overlapping explanation of old style, modern style, as well as some rules that were still in flux somewhere between. Her paragraphs on furiten are comically imprecise precisely due to this transition. My recommendation to NJ players is to ignore any written reference prior to 1980, as it does no one any good to dwell on the specifics of ancient practices, and not to revive apocryphal yaku from that era.

To clarify this matter, we first have to understand kui-pinfu.
Kui-pinfu happens if one wins by claiming a discard with an open hand with melds and waits to which no fu is awarded, the hand is not 20 fu but counted as a total of 30 fu.
Hence, it is similar to the rule that chitoitsu is 25 fu and not rounded up.
In conclusion, a pinfu is worth 1 han 20 fu + 10 fu (menzen-kafu) if ron and 2 han 20 fu if self drawn(with menzen-tsumo) while a kui-pinfu is always 30 fu.


text:
Is attacking population and influencing hexes done at the end of battle, or at the end of the combat phase?
From page 20 of the rulebook:

Attacking Population: After all battles have been resolved,
  the remaining Ships may attack the population in the hex.

From page 21:

Influencing Hexes: If a hex has no population after all
  battles have been resolved and you have at least one Ship
  there...

Does this mean when all battles have been resolved across the board, or just all battles within that hex?  Or is the timing left to player discretion, so long as it's all done "after all battles have been resolved"?
For example, in a case where the blue player, who has no influence discs remaining, successfully attacks a hex, but loses another hex in a later battle (which frees up a disc), this can be understood three ways:

Battles are resolved completely on a hex-by-hex basis, ending with attacking population and influencing the conquered hex.
Ship battles are resolved completely across the board, then population attacked and hexes influenced on an arbitrary basis at the end of the combat phase.
Ship battles are resolved completely across the board, then population attacked across the board, then hexes influenced across the board, all in descending hex order.

In the first interpretation blue would not be allowed to influence the first hex since the disc would not be freed at all until the later battles are resolved.  However, in the second and third interpretation, blue would be allowed to influence the first hex attacked since the disc freed from the later battle would be available.
How should this be played?

I would say option 3. That seems to follow the Course of Battle as detailed on page 20-21:

Missiles
Engagement Round(s)
Retreat
Stalemate
Attacking Population
Reputation Tiles
Influence Hexes
Repair Damage
Player Elimination

Where 1 through 4 occur for every battle. Step 5 through 9 occur after all battles across the board are resolved with the exception being step 6, since drawing reputation tiles occurs after every battle.
Attacking population and influence hexes doesn't necessarily have to be done in descending hex order.

I was doubting my answer so I started searching, found this comment from one of the play testers, which supports my answer...

According to the Eclipse Official Faq,

Page 21, Influencing hexes: The Influence Discs are placed at the end of the Combat Phase. A better wording for this chapter would be: "At the end of the Combat Phase, if you have at least one Ship in a hex that has no population, remove the previous controller’s Influence Disc (returning it to his Influence Track). After this, you may place your own Influence Disc there. Also, if at the end of the Combat Phase your Ship is in a hex without an Influence Disc, you may place a disc there."

which clearly sets the timing for the remove-and-influence steps of the Combat Phase.  Attacking population, on the other hand, is apparently done on a per-hex basis, according to this post by one of the designers:

Similarly, population cubes are attacked after all battles in one hex are resolved.

Earlier in the same thread, the same designer also states the following in regards to a rare case where order of resolution actually affects gameplay:

If that's needed, resolve the hexes in descending numerical order, just like the battles.

Taking these factoids and combining them with the rules as written, it seems the Combat Phase can be summarized (in a simplified form) with the following two steps, each performed to completion on a hex-by-hex basis:

Resolve battles

Fire missiles
Engage the enemy (repeat as necessary)
Attack population
Collect reputation

Influence hexes (if sector is unpopulated)

Remove old owner's Influence Disc (if present)
Optionally place your own Influence Disc

Regarding the situation in OP, where the ability to influence a hex is dependent on an Influence Disc being freed during the same Combat Phase, it would appear that any Influence Discs freed would only be useable to influence hexes later in the resolution order with any hexes resolved earlier in the order remaining uninfluenced.


text:
Which country's playing cards have CBR as the JQK?
Once 'my friends' played cards with me using playing cards that had CBR as the JQK..
I've always wanted to know why and where the cards originate.
Does anyone know?
Thanks

Tricky. R makes me think of "roi" for king, but the other cards don't match up with the French names or derivatives thereof. Which basically excludes a large chunk of Europe right there.

Honestly I'm just guessing here, but could they be Irish?  Roughly an hour of Googling eventually brought me to these pages, which lists the names of the face cards in Irish Gaelic as follows:

King: [R]í
Queen: [B]hanríon
Jack: Laoch (also [C]uireata)

Damn, you just barely beat me to this. I reached the same conclusion by translating "king and queen" to all the language Google knows how, noting that Irish (Gaelic) matched, then searching on google.ie in Gaelic for "cártaí imeartha", to find the laoch/cuireata part.

I mostly just google searched for pages with various combinations of every foreign translation of the face cards I could come up with (many thanks to Wikipedia). Eventually came to http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/tyalie/damapik.html which I went through line-by-line. Irish was the only one that fit, and I just kept searching until I found a corraborating reference that didn't insist on Laoch (which seems to be the most prevalent) for the Jack.

The problem with this is that the face cards in other languages might not be called Jack, Queen, and King - for example, in French, the word for Queen is "Dame", which means "lady".


text:
Spiral Step game thingy
Probably the wrong forum, but how do you call these spirally things that you put on the top of a staircase and watch it fall down step by step?
Thanks!

What does this have to do with Spiel-des-jahres?

Closing this question, it is asking about a toy, not a boardgame.

I believe they are commonly called a "Slinky".


text:
Specific standard measurements and info necessary for making a standard Shogi set (board and koma)
Anything I figure out I will X out in the list of things I need. Solution will be at the bottom section named "RESULTS".
I've been searching the Googles for a bit now, but I'm not able to find any (english) information on it. I'm planning on making my own board since I am in Mexico, and I can't find anyone selling a Shogi board around here.
Any answer that contains the details of your Shogi set is enough. Just remember, it has to be a genuine Japanese Shogi set, not plastic or anything like that. Basically if you could get these measurements from your personal Shogi set, I would really appreciate it.
So what are the standard measurements for a Shogi board?:
X Width (from black's perspective, left to right of board)
X Length (from black's perspective, top to bottom of board)
X Height (of entire board)
- Size of each square/space (where the piece will be put)
  - Width (from black's perspective, left to right of space)
  - Length (from black's perspective, top to bottom of space)

That's for the board, now I need for the individual pieces as follows, of course we're talking about if the piece was "standing up" in front of us:
X Height
X Width (widest point, bottom)
X Thickness (the whole piece)
X Degree angles
  X The angle from the bottom to the top (81 is the angle I believe)
  X The angle for the little "roof" of the top of the piece

Now, of course, these measurements are different from piece to piece, so the sizes are different, unless I put them on the same group, so you only need to find out the sizes of the pieces listed first:
x King
X Rook, Bishop
X Gold, Silver
X Knight
X Lance
X Pawn

Of course, I would also like the standard size for the komadais, in case there is a standard size. If there isn't, what's the normal average size for it?
These are all the measurements that I need in order to be able to make a full set. They should all be provided in mm/cm, because it's the most exact, and the measurement style used in Mexico.
Now, the calligraphy, of course. A full example of all the pieces in the "Kinki-Sho" calligraphy. Basically, an example of the calligraphy, how it should look, so that I can carve it to the wood. No pieces needed, only the calligraphy for each piece on a white background.
That is all the info I need, if you can provide necessary links I would highly appreciate it.
One last note, the website can be in Japanese, just be sure to provide some kind of translation, or give the info and the link as a reference.

RESULTS:
All the good references that I've found since opening this question:

THE MAKING (１５４）将棋盤ができるまで | サイエンス チャンネル
How to play Shogi(将棋) -Lesson#38- Shogi Board as Arts and Crafts - YouTube
How to play Shogi(将棋) -Lesson#39- Shogi Pieces as Arts and Crafts - YouTube
駒博士のＱ＆Ａ and What is the normal size of shogi pieces

Some things I might have figured out since opening this question:
All the sizes, measurements, specifications, angles etc. I have figured out can be found in this private Gist: https://gist.github.com/3763b7d9d5c1d6a4916f

Wait, I just noticed, why don't you put the results in an answer? They should be there! I thought it was part of the question. :)

@Alenanno I planned on putting it in an answer. But it's not yet complete, I'm not sure of the measurements. However, what I've gathered can be found here: https://gist.github.com/Greduan/3763b7d9d5c1d6a4916f

@Eduan - Putting your work in progress in an answer certainly makes more sense than putting it in the question.

@ire_and_curses You're right, I put the Gist in an answer. :)

Cybot could you provide more details of what you mean? I'm afraid I don't understand. :/ You mean viewing a piece from the front as if it was standing up? If that were the case, do you mean the angle from the bottom to the top or the little arrow shape that it has at the top?

Finally! This answer is now complete! I know all the measurements now! And they all fit, I made sure. You can find the measurements in this private Gist (meaning you can only access it if you have the link).
Here's a full copy of the Gist, no changes made to it:
This is a related question in boardgames.stackexchange.com:
http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/10836/4779

===============================================================================
The measurements for the board:

Length . 33.66cm
Width .. 33.33cm
Height . 30.3mm

Measurements for the squares in the board:

Length . 36mm
Width .. 33mm

===============================================================================
The amount of pieces that I will manufacture:

King ........... 2
Rook ........... 2
Bishop ......... 2
Gold General ... 4
Silver General . 4
Knight ......... 4
Lance .......... 4
Pawn ........... 19

===============================================================================
The exact measurements for each piece.
Measurements provided in this order:

Height, width (bottom), thickness, angle (general, bottom > top),
angle (thickness, bottom > top).

King ......................... 32mm 28.7mm 9.7mm  81° 85°
Rook, Bishop ................. 31mm 27.7mm 9.3mm  81° 85°
Gold General, Silver General . 30mm 26.7mm 8.8mm  81° 85°
Knight ....................... 29mm 25.5mm 8.3mm  81° 85°
Lance ........................ 28mm 23.5mm 8.0mm  81° 85°
Pawn ......................... 27mm 22.5mm 7.75mm 81° 85°

Be sure to understand this is not perfect yet. It's not 100% ready yet. Probably... You can use these numbers and get a working set. But I'm still refining them to perfection.

I don't understand the 85° angle, where is this?

@mart As I see it, it is one of two things (bear with my memory :) ), it is the angle to make the arrow shape. OR, if the piece was laying flat, the angle of the cut (because when the piece is laying flat, the top surface is not parallel to the bottom surface). Honestly not sure which one it is.

For those trying to make their own pieces, I was able to determine all the measurements needed. You can view the OpenScad file with the measurements here:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4761632


text:
Is the "Longest Route" in Ticket to Ride determined by train cars or cities?
This had never even crossed my mind as an issue before, but someone brought it up in a comment on another TTR-related question, and having checked the USA rulebook I'm no longer 100% sure:
When calculating who gets the "Longest Route" bonus card, do you go by number of train cars in the route, or number of links/cities in the route?
I suspect the official answer will be well-known to anyone who plays a lot of Ticket To Ride online, but for those of us who don't... what's the correct interpretation?

The owner of the longest continuous number of train cars is the one who gets the Longest Path card.  (It works just like Longest Road in Settlers of Catan.)
Here is an image provided by Matthew Frederick from his original edition of the game:

He also notes that the online versions provided by Days of Wonder work this way as well.

That's what I always assumed, I'd hate to have been playing the game wrong for all these years!  The other way would create an interesting tension with the natural impulse to build longer routes (because they're worth more points in and off themselves) though.

@thesun, I think that's the point! :-)

It's definitely, absolutely, positively the number of train cars. The Longest Path card itself -- at least in the original edition that I own -- shows an example, noting that Black has 11 and Blue has 8, with the picture showing 11 and 8 train cars. It's also how the Days Of Wonder owned-and-operated online version works.

Pat, I'm not sure on the best course of action (1 - edit your answer, or 2 - make my own answer). Those of us who know the rule can interpret/apply your first sentence (and @Matthew 's comment about 11 cars vs 8 cars) correctly, but "longest continuous number of train cars" is very imprecise. Without citing a bunch of wolfram math definitions, maybe we could say "The owner of the longest simple (non-self-intersecting) route, as measured by number of trains,..." or something like that? It is certainly possible for an 11 car (non simple) route to be "shorter" than an 8 car route.

@TheChaz - it may be worth another question to more strictly define this.  My interpretation would be that you could form a loop (and thus intersect), but the termination of the loop would be the endpoint of the whole chain.

I'd better (re)consult the rules before going further :)

@TheChaz The path can indeed self-intersect; you simply cannot use any train car twice. Loops are fine, and the route need not terminate at the end of such a loop as long as, again, you do not count any train car twice. No interpretation is required as long as you follow that rule. FWIW this is both how the rule was explained to me by the game's designer, Alan Moon, and how it's scored in the official computerized versions, both on the publisher's website and on the iPad and iPhone apps.

@Matthew: That is helpful and definitive. I guess most times that I've played (live or on iOS), it hasn't come up since the winner of Longest Route usually has... well... one really long route!

@TheChaz For those of a more Wikipedian mindset who'd like a third-party reference, here's one of the publishers, Eric Hautemont, answering the question on BoardGameGeek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/19560/longest-path-questionj

Is the route between Pittsburgh and Toronto the same length as the route between Pittsburgh and St. Louis? I mean that rhetorically but seriously.

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


text:
Is it allowed for the next player to take the next tile while the current player hasn't finished his move yet?
A Korean-Japanese player I occasionally play Mahjong with insists that it's okay for the next player to take a tile from the wall and contemplate it while the previous player hasn't yet discarded. She keeps pushing players to do so to move the game along speedily. That obviously clashes with chī and pong calls sometimes, at which point she simply "rolls back time" to accommodate that.
Is this practice actually officially allowed or encouraged, in any of the Mahjong cultures?

As far as I know this is merely a "common bad habit". I vaguely recall at least the European ruleset to state that this practice is not allowed in tournament play - it does give the hasty player an unfair advantage in cases of tile calls after all.

Tom Sloper, an apparently very experienced American player, writes about etiquette. It turns out that "One person's bad etiquette is another person's official rule" - so you have to adapt. There is a huge difference between tournament play and casual games with friends. Also, you need to consider house rules. In the end, there is a definite answer to your question in the rule book, but its usage in practice depends on the circumstances.

DISCARDING AHEAD -- When I play with my Japanese friends, they yell at
  me if I claim a discard and then make the exposure before discarding
  (nobody can play until I discard, and they want to PLAY!). But when I
  play with my American friends, they call me dead if I discard before
  making the exposure. One person's bad etiquette is another person's
  official rule! Why it's a bad habit -- Do it with players who strictly
  follow the rules (like in a tournament) and you'll be called dead.
PICKING AHEAD -- Many American players think "picking ahead" (AKA
  "playing with a future") is the correct way to play. But when these
  players come to a tournament... watch out! Old habits die hard. And
  picking ahead is the surest way I know to get called dead in a
  tournament. In case anybody's been living in a cave, picking ahead is
  a no-no. That other mah-jongg association (I'm not naming names, but
  their initials are NMJL) HATES picking ahead! Read their rulebook and
  yearly bulletin sometime if you don't believe me. Why it's a bad habit
  -- (1) It causes too many conflicts when someone wants to claim a discard. You might think that it makes the game go faster, but it
  really doesn't. (2) Do it in a tournament and you'll be called dead.

He adds a few more points to consider (including "avoid making everyone wait"), it's a very interesting read.

Very nice, thank you. So there's even a name for it... :D

authors: Дмитрий Озерчук


text:
At the end of the game, can you play a route that is longer than your number of trains?
A recent quandary came up with some friends in a game of Ticket to Ride.  If, in the last turn, you have the cards to play a route longer than the number of trains that you have left, can you do so?  Or are you limited by your number of trains?

No, you are limited to the 45 trains you started with.
From the rules, under Claiming a Route (emphasis mine):

The player may claim a route on the board by playing a set of Train Car cards that match the color and length of the route and then placing one of his colored trains on each space of this route

If you do not have the trains available to place on each space needed then you may not claim the route.
This is also how Days of Wonder's electronic implementation works.