text:
What is the penalty for bidding out of turn?
In duplicate bridge, what is the penalty for someone bidding out of turn?  Specifically, opening the bid by accident while sitting to the right of the dealer.

Be specific: a a pass, a *bid, or a double or redouble? Three different rules apply (30, 31 or 32 respectively), one for each circumstance.

The 2008 Rules are here, with this situation covered on pages 42-44 (plus Rule 23 possibly): http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf

Here is a summary of the relevant rules that @Pieter Geerkens linked to. I am leaving out some of the more sophisticated points, for example, the fact that an artificial/conventional pass call is treated as a bid for the purposes of these rules. The guiding principle is not to punish the out-of-turn bidder, but to make it impossible for the offending team to benefit from the information improperly exchanged. That's why many of them refer to Law 23, which allows a TD to further adjust the score if it is determined that the offending team gained an advantage by the improper call.
In most cases, a bid on LHO's turn is treated as a change in call, which is treated separately. In practice this is a difficult mistake to make--you don't usually make two bids in immediate succession.
Pass out of Turn

If no player has bid yet, offender must pass at next opportunity.
After any player has bid, offender must pass at next opportunity; in addition, if offender passes at his partner's turn to call, offender's partner may not double or redouble.

Bid out of Turn

If offender bids on RHO's turn, and RHO passes, offender must make the same bid, but there is no other penalty.
If offender bids on RHO's turn, and RHO does not pass, offender may make any call. If the call is the same "denomination" as the original call (same suit or NT), offender's partner must pass at next opportunity. If the call is any other denomination, offender's partner must pass through the entire auction, and if offender's team defends, lead restrictions will go into effect (more on that in a bit).
To explain the differences above: If partner bids 1C, and I get excited and bid to 2C before RHO passes, no harm done. If partner bids 1C, and I hasten and bid 2C, and RHO says, wait! I wanted to bid 2H, and I say OK, fine, 3C, that's not a very big deal. But if I say, wait, based on opponent's 2H bid, I want to bid diamonds instead... that conveys a huge amount of information about my hand to my partner, and allowing partner to continue to bid would be unfair.
If offender bids on partner's turn, partner must pass through the entire auction, and lead restrictions may apply here as well.
Lead restrictions: If a specific suit is named, declarer can require the offender's partner to either lead, or not lead, that suit at the player's first opportunity. A prohibition to lead the suit lasts as long as that player keeps the lead. If no specific suit is named, the declarer can prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit.

Double / Redouble out of Turn

In all cases, opponents have the choice to allow the double or redouble to stand. In this case, there is no penalty.
If offender doubles on partner's turn, partner must pass through the auction.
If offender doubles on RHO's turn, and RHO passes, the offender must make the same double or redouble, and offender's partner must pass at the next opportunity.
If offender doubles on RHO's turn, and RHO does not pass, the offender may make any bid, but offender's partner must pass through the auction.

Ha! You beat me by 90 seconds; Well done. I did include Rule 23 as well though.

Here are the relevant rules for the various scenarios under your questions:
LAW 30 - PASS OUT OF ROTATION

When a player has passed out of rotation and the call
is canceled, the option in Law 29A not having been
exercised, the following provisions apply (if the pass is
artificial, see C below):
A. Before Any Player Has Bid
When a player has passed out of rotation before any
player has bid, the offender must pass when next it
is his turn to call and Law 23 may apply.
...

LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION

When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially
or has passed partner’s artificial call (see Law
30C) and the call is canceled, the option in Law 29A not
having been exercised, the following provisions apply:
A. RHO’s Turn
When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to
call, then:
1. if that opponent passes, offender must repeat the
call out of rotation. When that call is legal there
is no rectification.
2. if that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble,
offender may make any legal call. When
this call
(a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of
rotation, offender’s partner must pass when
next it is his turn to call (see Law 23).
(b) does not repeat the denomination of his bid
out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation
was an artificial pass or a pass of partner’s
artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26
may apply, and offender’s partner must pass
whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).
....

LAW 32 - DOUBLE OR REDOUBLE OUT OF ROTATION

A double or redouble out of rotation may be accepted
at the option of the opponent next in rotation (see Law
29A), except that an inadmissible double or redouble
may never be accepted. If offender’s LHO nevertheless
calls, see Law 36. If the call out of rotation is not accepted,
it is canceled, the lead restriction in Law 26B
may apply and:
...
B. Made at RHO’s Turn to Call
If a double or redouble out of rotation has been
made when it was the offender’s RHO’s turn to call,
then:
1. if offender’s RHO passes, offender must repeat
his out-of-rotation double or redouble and there
is no rectification unless the double or redouble
is inadmissible, in which case Law 36 applies.
2. if offender’s RHO bids, doubles or redoubles, the
offender may in turn make any legal call, but offender’s
partner must pass whenever it is his turn
to call. See Law 23 if the pass damages the nonoffending
side.

LAW 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender
could have been aware at the time of his irregularity
that this could well damage the non-offending side, the
Director shall require the auction and play to continue
(if not completed). When the play has been completed,
the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers
the offending side has gained an advantage through the
irregularity*.
* As, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.


text:
Exchanging items during movement phase
In Arkham Horror is it possible to exchange items during the movement phase? What are the rules? (people on same place?)

Basically, if you pass through the same location as someone else, you can give up or receive items from them. As long as it's not combat, there are no timing requirements. This is described on page 23 of the rulebook. The rules for trading items are quite generous:

Investigators have the ability to trade Common Items, Unique Items,
  Spells, and Money, as long as they are in the same street area,
  location, or Other World location. They can do this in any phase, and
  do not need to end their turn in the same area in order to do so.
  However they can not trade items during combat.
Allies, clues, and trophies may not be traded.

Note especially that for gameplay reasons you can trade Spells, but not Allies or clues. From a thematic perspective this has always seemed a little counter-intuitive to me (You teach someone else the spell, and then... forget it? "But of course my friend can't go off with you!" "Yep, I have a clue, but I simply can't tell you about it.").

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Arkham: Harvey Walters Sanity loss for tome or elder sign
Does Harvey Walters prevent the loss of one Sanity when he:

uses an elder sign?
succeed in reading a tome?

Which part of The Dunwich Horror Rulebook (page 10) apply?

The Strong Mind ability only applies to involuntary losses. Voluntary expenditures to gain some benefit (such as casting a Spell) are not affected.

To read a book gives some benefit (such as clue token or spell) so Sanity loss is not prevented?
To use elder sign doesn't give a benefit to the character himself (he  seals a gate and removes a doom token) so Sanity loss is prevented?

I'm gonna throw some text at you (emphasis mine)
From the text on Necronomicon:

Exhaust and spend 2 movement points to make a Lore (-2) check. If you pass, draw 1 Spell and lose 2 Sanity. If you fail, nothing happens.

From the text on Elder Sign:

When sealing a gate, lose 1 Stamina and 1 Sanity and return this card
  to the box. You do not need to make a skill check or spend any Clue
  tokens to seal the gate. In addition, remove one doom token from the
  Ancient One's doom track.

From Harvey's Strong Mind ability:

Strong Mind - Any Phase: Harvey reduces all Sanity losses he suffers by 1, to a minimum of 0.

From the 'Casting Spells' section of the AH rulebook:

Every spell has a casting modifier, and most have a Sanity cost

And finally from the Fantasy Flight FAQ:

Q: Does the Strong Mind ability (reduce all Sanity loss
  by 1) of the professor, Harvey Walters, apply to the casting of spells?
A: No. The professor’s ability works on losses, not costs.
  The same distinction applies to the gangster, Michael
  McGlen, and his ability to reduce Stamina losses.

I can see where'd you be confused due to the wording in the DH rulebook, but Harvey would reduce the sanity loss from both tomes and the Elder Sign. It's a fine line between paying some price in order to activate some ability and losing something due to activating some ability. If the text in question specifically states loss or loses, etc. then damage reduction abilities can be used.
EDIT:
For an additional example of cost vs. loss, consider the card 'Pentagram of Blood' from the Curse of the Dark Pharaoh expansion:

Discard this card and X Stamina to ward your current street.

Or from the revised edition:

Spend X Stamina and discard this card

Loss of staminia isn't explicitly called out in either of those ability descriptions. You could almost break it down as a 'Do X to do Y, then Z'. The necronomicon is '..spend 2 movement...to make a Lore (-2) check...then lose 2 sanity'. This wording structure won't work all the time, but hopefully it'll aid in determining when damage reduction abilities can apply.

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


text:
When during your upkeep can you cast upkeep spells?
Certain spells in Arkham Horror can only be cast on upkeep. One example is "Voice of Ra":

Upkeep Phase: You may cast and exhaust to gain +1 to all skill checks
  for the rest of this turn.

The rules state:

During the Upkeep Phase, each player takes the following actions, in
  order.

Refresh Exhausted Cards
Perform Upkeep Actions
Adjust Skills

The Adjust Skills action states:

Finally, each player may adjust his investigator’s skills using the
  three skill sliders he placed on his investigator sheet during game
  setup. This process, as well as a general description of how skill
  sliders work, is explained in the “Adjusting Skills” diagram.

Casting a spell doesn't fall into any of those categories. I suspect that these are the things you must do on your upkeep, but you can also do additional things, such as cast spells. But the use of the word "Finally" in the Adjust Skills action could mean that this must be the last thing you do during your upkeep, although I don't think that is the case.
Question:
When during your upkeep can you cast upkeep spells? Can I cast them even before the Refresh Exhausted Cards action? In the case of "Voice of Ra" this would allow me to cast it twice in once turn.
Edit
Answers so far have said that casting spells is a mandatory upkeep action. This may be the case, but I still think the rules are ambiguous about that. The rules for upkeep actions state:

After refreshing his exhausted cards, each player must review his
  investigator’s cards to see if any of them have an Upkeep action. Each
  player must perform all Upkeep actions listed on his investigator’s
  cards every turn.

You are not required to cast Voice of Ra every turn. Therefore, Voice of Ra is not an upkeep action. This makes no distinction between optional and mandatory upkeep actions. The text of Voice of Ra however may make the casting of it optional. This too seems a little ambiguous. Even if this is the case, how are spells that are castable during "Any Phase" treated. Can they therefore not be cast during the upkeep (even though upkeep is a phase) because they don't have an upkeep action?
Also, if spells must be cast during the upkeep action, it means you will not be able to adjust your skills before casting. It seems a little strange to me that a spell you are casting this turn must be based off last turn's skills.

Here's a thread on BoardGameGeek where people discussed this very question:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/530872/upkeep-adjusting-skill-sliders-and-casting-spells
The thing everybody agrees on is that spells are cast after the 'Refresh Exhausted Cards' step. Whether or not you're allowed to cast spells after moving skills sliders is debateable. An interesting point that is brought up is that Upkeep spells (at least until the reprint of Curse of the Dark Pharaoh) said

Upkeep: You may cast and exhaust...

compared to other spells which said

Any Phase: Cast and exhaust to....

Which makes me believe that these cards have the following rule from the rule book apply (bolded words are my emphasis)

Perform Upkeep Actions
After refreshing his exhausted cards, each player must
  review his investigator’s cards to see if any of them
  have an Upkeep action. Each player must perform all
  Upkeep actions listed on his investigator’s cards every
  turn. Upkeep actions may be taken in any order the player wishes. Bless, Curse, Bank Loan, and Retainer cards
  do not require an upkeep roll during the first Upkeep
  Phase after an investigator acquires them.Each player must perform all
  Upkeep actions listed on his investigator’s cards every
  turn.

Since the spells have Upkeep: on them, they count as upkeep actions (much like Blessings, Curses, Retainers, and Bank Loans) and have to be used during the Perform Upkeep Actions step, but they have the may qualifier on them they don't have to cast. Fantasy Flight just got lax with the Upkeep spell verbiage in later expansions I guess.
But really, as long as you aren't casting/refreshing/recasting spells during upkeeping you're good.
EDIT:
I should clarify that I'm not really a strong proponent of the specific logic in the argument above, I was just summarizing the thread I linked to. It seems like a nice idea but causes too many issues when you find Upkeep spells that lack the word 'may'.
A similar argument is that you have to use the evade bonus from a dark cloak when making evade checks because there's nothing that says you have the option of not using items. (Example situation: If you wanted to take combat damage and get sent to the hospital without having to make a horror check). I find forcing Investigators to use items in any situation where they could be applicable to be a bit extreme. This would fall under that same category for me. Personally, when Fantasy Flight said

must perform Upkeep actions listed on his investigator's cards

I read it as

may perform any Upkeep actions listed on his investigator's item cards and must perform any Upkeep actions listed on his investigator's non-item cards

since I don't think manditory item use is reasonable. If you believe that item bonuses are non-optional, then casting spells during upkeep would be non-optional as well.
EDIT 2:
As far as the the timing of the actions go (since that was actually what the question was about) the rules say this about the Refresh step (emphasis mine):

At the start of the Upkeep Phase, each player
  refreshes...

and this about the Adjust step (as you've noted) (again, emphasis mine):

Finally, each player may adjust...

This would suggest that, within the Upkeep Phase, nothing can come before the refresh step and nothing can follow the adjust skills step. Thus, spells would have to fall someplace in the middle, regardless of them being mandatory or not. You could however interpret "finally" as simply denoting the last item in a list rather than meaning "At the end of upkeep phase", but I think it's pretty clear that the Refresh step is the very first thing that happens.

If Voice of Ra has a mandatory upkeep action that lets you optionally do something, why is it written as "Upkeep Phase:" as opposed to other upkeep actions which are written as "Upkeep:" or other spells which may say "Movement:" (these dont have the word "phase" in the phase qualifier portion of the text).

@Matt Looking through my set of cards, Voice of Ra says 'Upkeep' rather than 'Upkeep Phase'. Perhaps that specific wording is from the initial printing, or maybe it's a typo on the AH wiki.

Ill assume its a typo on the wiki until I can check my cards

I don't have The Curse of the Dark Pharaoh (Revised Edition) where the rules could be different, and the AH wiki could not have the exact text, but "Denying the Ancient One" appears to be an upkeep spell that doesn't say "You may cast..." http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Denying_the_Ancient_One_%28Revised%29 so I might not agree with the required upkeep action that lets you optionally cast the spell answer.

From the revised CotDP expansion, Denying the Ancient One, Revelation of Script, and Shroud of Shadow say Upkeep: Cast and exhaust. Feeding the Mind says Upkeep: You may cast and exhaust. Not sure what you want to take from that. Fantasy Flight has acknowledged miswordings in other instances in this game, I wouldn't take these cards as exceptions to the rest of the Upkeep spells.

I agree with your interpretation of "At the start..." I looked for that, but must have missed it. I interpret "Finally, ..." to just be the end of a list. It would seem strange to me to only be able to cast upkeep spells using the previous turn's lore, so I will probably play that you can cast them any time after you refresh.

I think it takes a lot of devious rules lawyering to think of casting spells during upkeep as anything other than (optional) "upkeep actions".
If you are really adamant on arguing that they are something substantially different from the other (compulsory) upkeep actions that definitely must happen between refreshing the cards and moving the silders, I think it's difficult to definitively prove to you that spells shouldn't be cast at weird moments during upkeep, enabling strange effects like, as you say, casting spells twice in one turn.
However, the commonsense reading of upkeep, IMO, is that refreshing happens, then most other things (including upkeep spellcasting), then skill adjustment.  Any other interpretation just seems a bit like trying too hard.

+1 for the answer and you can take a sanity token for having reasoned about this question in the most sensible way.

Spells would definitely be classified as "upkeep actions" and would happen in the second step of upkeep that you outlined. You would not be able to cast spells before refreshing exhausted cards (it would be broken, as you suggest). You are free, of course, to cast the spells in whatever order is most effective.

I agree with this simple and concise answer!


text:
Is it possible to play 2-player, 2-character Arkham Horror successfully?
I've tried playing Arkham Horror with 1, 2 and 4 players. I've found that the game seems extraordinarily difficult with less than 4 characters. Simply put, you don't have enough gos to do everything. Gates keep opening, monsters keep appearing, and it only takes 1 curse, a bad monster, or a couple of delayed turns and it's all over. Adding any expansions simply kicks the difficulty up further.
After several frustrating games, I now don't play with less than 4 characters. In a two player game, each of us takes two characters, and plays the game as if there were 4 players. This seems to give a better balance, but is a lot to remember and keep track of.
Has anyone had success playing Arkham with less than 4 characters? In particular, have you managed a reasonable game with two players and two characters (i.e., one character each)? How did you manage it? Did you have to adjust any of the rules?

Yes, We've played this way many times and it works quite well for an enjoyable game.  I highly recommend it.  You don't need to make any adjustment to the rules to do so, just make sure that you keep each character's possessions separate!  Also remember that certain game elements are based on the number of characters, not players.
One variation you might try is to play two people with one character each.  Just skip every other Mythos phase.  Essentially each character gets 2 turns between Mythos phases.  If you do this, consider yourselves to be playing a 4 character game for all relevant settings.  This will ease your bookkeeping headaches although it will also make the game a bit easier.
To address your statement that you find the game difficult under 4 people, you aren't the only one!  Here are the stats from 5200 games taken from the Arkham Horror statistics report.  If your winning percentage doesn't quite measure up to the below, keep in mind that folks submitting their games to this collection probably have quite a bit more experience playing Arkham Horror than most.

Investigators   Win %   Close % Seal %  Combat % Games
1               38%     3%      6%      29%      100
2               52%     4%      25%     23%      606
3               60%     7%      30%     23%      767
4               65%     11%     39%     15%      2,941
5               69%     16%     39%     14%      378
6               67%     16%     43%     7%       387
7               68%     16%     39%     14%      44
8               73%     25%     42%     7%       60

As you can see, as the investigator count decreases from 5, the game gets progressively tougher.  Also you will probably find more success if you are open to the possibility of a combat victory with 1-3 players

Sorry, I realise my question was ambiguous. We do indeed play with 2 characters each at the moment. I was wondering whether it is possible to play successfully with 1 character each (which your second paragraph addresses).

@ire_and_curses Great!  I prefer the 4 character myself unless I'm playing with my wife who is less of a gamer than I. However if I'm playing solo, I tend to do 1 character but only take every third Mythos phase.  That seems to be the "right" difficulty level for me.

Thanks for the stats - that's very interesting. As you say, with less players, there's a much higher chance of having to fight the Ancient One to win.

Fantastic answer - it saved me from having to ask an entirely different question. (I was gonna ask why my group can never seems to lose in Arkham, but I guess it's pretty obvious that it's because we play with 5+ players.) Thanks!

@scraimer - thanks for the kind words.  With 5+ players make sure you are spawning 2 monsters with every gate.  Also, you can look at the statistics report linked above to see which investigators and Great Old Ones might make for a tougher game for you.  If you don't have any of the expansions, I do think the base game can be pretty easy.

Just a strategy suggestion when playing by the rules (one character each, one Mythos phase each turn): you probably might want to almost completely ignore gates, or just seal one occasionally, when this does not detract from other actions, concentrating instead on getting weapons, skills etc. to confront the endgame Ancient One (of course, this strategy is meaningless when the Ancient One is Azathoth).

If you have just two investigators in total, time is of the essence.  There is no time to slack, and every missed opportunity to act is another token on the doom track.  Therefore:

Avoid monsters.  They stop your movement when they engage.  The terror track is less of an issue than the doom track.
Hunt for clue tokens.  As in, try to arrange your movement so that you collect at least one each round, preferably more.  If you can't do that, make a stop in a location that says it has a good chance at clue tokens.  If that doesn't work, then go kill a monster--trophies are clue tokens, and they won't block you next time.
Only enter gates you can seal.  Open gates block other gates and stop the doom track from rising.  If you're sucked through a gate and can't seal it, don't close it either.  Close only in emergencies (too many gates open, AO will awaken).

I'll also try to give a comprehensive list of house rules and changes a fellow player and I've agreed on when playing the full game (all expansions) with just the two of us.  Most of these make the game easier, some arguably make it harder.  We still lose often, but at least we have a fighting chance.

Roll for Mythos.  If you roll a 5 or 6, skip the Mythos phase (no counters move).  This is the one we use most consistently, because there are just too many gates opening otherwise, but it still allows for variation and surprises.
Roll for Doom tokens.  Either this or item 1.  Each time a doom token would appear, roll instead, and discard on 5 or 6.  This is harder than item 1, because Rumors and counters still go at full rate.
Awaken AO = add a doom token.  When the ancient one would awaken due to too many gates open, Innsmouth rising track, too many creatures in Arkham with Terror 10...  Instead add a doom token for each Mythos phase any such condition is in effect.  If the Doom track is full, well, the AO awakens.
Nodens as guardian. (Optional)  Extra clue tokens?  Yes, please.  Plus he directs you to stable locations, often overlooked little gems that you otherwise don't have time to visit.
Lurker as herald. (Optional)  Extra power tokens?  Yes, please.  Just a bit of your soul to go.
Lost in Time and Space = have an encounter.  Have an Other World encounter and take what's listed under 'other'.  When you have just two people, more actions taken = more chance to succeed.  Except if you get devoured.  This happens.
Roll for memberships.  When starting a character, roll for each type of membership, and take one on a 5 or 6: Silver Twilight, Cult of the Thousand, Sheldon Gang.

We usually take 1, 3, 6, and 7, and I think we're at about 60%-70% success rate.  (And enough devoured investigators to fill a graveyard.)

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


text:
Game of Thrones: ship rules
It's really not clear to us how ships work in Game of Thrones

Can you use a ship (an empty one, not carrying land units) to attack a castle/fortress/territory/port?
What happens if you attack such areas with ships and those areas are defended by land units?
If you have ships in a port and the connected castle is conquered, what happens to the ships?

From the rulebook:

No. "Ship units may move into friendly connected port areas or into adjacent sea areas, but may never move into a land area." (p. 15) So a ship alone cannot attack or conquer land. It can support a land attack, though, although the reverse is not true (p. 18).
As indicated above, this cannot happen.
You can capture the ships. "If the land area connected to a Port is successfully attacked and taken control of by another player, that player may immediately replace any enemy Ship units in the Port with an equal number of his own available Ship units (or as many Ship units as he has available, he desires, or is allowed by supply limits). Excess enemy ships are simply removed from the board." (p. 25)

Further to sitnaltax's very good answer, I'm pretty concerned by the line "an empty one, not carrying land units" - Ships do not (and cannot) "carry" any units.
Ship Transport simply creates the effect of making land areas considered adjacent when connected by one or more sea areas containing your ships.

Thanks for answering. What I found confusing (at least in the version I have) is that information about port/ships is scattered in various pages.

In addition to the comment of @DanielLim: and these areas are only considered "adjacent" in the case of friendly (wrt. to the ships) MARCH orders... so no raid, support or card effect count through ships.

So, If I conquer a sea area that has connection to the port, I immediately replace the port ships? I was playing one round, there was 3 ships in the port, but I had the sea connected to it, and the player had been fighting me using port ships ( moving them to the sea and inducing the fight ). it was wrong?

You have to capture the land that the port is connected to, to do that, you would need to capture the sea area connected to the port with your ships and then capture the land by transporting land units over


text:
Are the card backs identical for Once Upon a Time 2nd and 3rd editions?
I was just about to order Once Upon a Time with the extra blank cards pack, when I found out that a third edition of the game had just been released.
Are the card backs the same, so I can mix third-edition Once Upon a Time with the second-edition blank cards pack? I can't seem to find a third-edition blank cards pack.

I can't answer your question directly, but I'm going to guess they're different, based on the redesign information. However, it may not matter. This looks like the 3rd edition blanks pack you're looking for. The release date is October 2012, the same as the 3rd edition release.

Neat, I missed that product!

I don't believe they are the same.  I ordered the 2nd edition expansion along with the third edition base game, and they did not have the same card backs.


text:
When are targets chosen in Final Fantasy TCG?
In the FAQ, some cards, like Hades (1-046U ハーデス) mention a need to have valid targets when the card is used. This entry also implies that some targets may become invalid before resolution time. This implies that targets are chosen at cast time. However, in the official rules, the only place where choosing a target seems to be mentioned deals with thing happening at resolution time (11.11.4.1.1.). Since there's no special rules mentioning it, this implies that choosing a target is just part of the effect and so is done at resolution time.
I don't know how to resolve this. When is the choosing of a target supposed to take place?

This was explained in a tweet from the developer:

Question
「選ぶ」ある召喚獣やアビリティがあります。使う時に選ぶと思うが11.11.4.1.1.以外「選ぶ」を特別扱うルールは見つけることができないので結果の一部として解決時に選ぶべきも思われます。どっちが正しいですか。ルールにその答えがいたならその番号も教えてください。
There is a summon and abilities that "choose". Although 11.11.4.1.1. Other than "choose" a special treat rules also seems to choose at the time of resolution as part of the result because it can not find think that choosing when to use. Which is correct? Please also tell me the number if the answer was in the rules. (Auto-translated through Google Translate)
Answer
選ぶのはアビリティを使用する際になります。総合ルールに明記されていませんので、次の更新の際に追記いたします。ご指摘ありがとうございます。
It will be when you use the ability to choose. Because not explicitly stated in the Comprehensive Rules, it will be appended to the time of the next update. Thank you for your advice. (Auto-translated through Google Translate)

In other words, targets are chosen when the card is used. It has not been added to the comprehensive rules by mistake.

Unfortunately, my Japanese isn't good enough to make sense of the rules. Google translate didn't provide a useable alternative. There is also a rules guide to explain how to play the game that is less technical, and individual card FAQs.
From the rough translation Google provided, I gather that FInal Fantasy TCG plays very much like MtG. Spells/Abilities are anounnounced, costs are paid, and then the spell/ability is placed on the stack. Only after both players pass, does the top of the stack resolve. Since both players have the opportunity to react to the top of the stack, it is possible that the original targets may no longer be valid (if they changed zones).
Wikia.com says:

To play a card or ability, a player announces the card or ability and any targets it has then pays any costs for it. Then, each other player may respond to that card or ability before it has its effect or enters the field, and the first player may respond to any actions the other players take. This is known as "the stack." Once players pass on playing cards or abilities, the objects on the stack resolve from top to bottom - in other words, first in, last out.


text:
What is the maximum allowed number of repeats in a Pokémon deck?
I've realised that, when playing Pokémon, the trick to winning is to evolve your Pokémon.
This takes a bit of luck, in that you have to have the first level Pokemon on the table, then you have to have drawn its corresponding first evolve card, and then you have to have drawn its second evolve card.
So, if I want to create the ultimate Pokémon deck, I'd simply buy 5 water type decks, then assemble a deck containing 25 Totodiles, 10 Croconaws and 10 Feraligatrs. It would make for a less interesting game, but I'm guaranteed to evolve my Pokémon, and my opponent doesn't have a chance unless he does the same thing I do.
I wouldn't be the first person to have thought of this. Is there an official rule specifying the maximum number of any one Pokémon in your deck?

The official website does have the rules, and the maximum limit for any card is 4, unless the format restricts the card further.

1.1 Constructed - In a Constructed event, players arrive at the tournament with a 60-card deck. The cards used to build the deck come from each player's personal collection. Decks may not contain more than 4 copies of a single card, as defined by the card's English title, with the standard exception for basic Energy cards. Some cards may have additional construction restrictions on them, which are treated as exceptions to the 4-copy rule. Matches are played for 6 Prize cards.

The short answer is four cards of each name, for a sensible deck. This is similar to the equivalent rule for Magic: The Gathering. Quoting from the unofficial rulebook:

100.2 A deck for Constructed Play can include a total of only four copies of any card with the same name. Basic Energy cards are an
  exception to this rule. Decks can include any number of Basic Energy
  cards. Decks for Limited Play can include any number of cards with the
  same name.

You can find this four card ruling repeated in many places on the internet, but definitive rules for Pokemon are scattered among the many theme decks, so it's a bit of a pain to find an official ruling. The rulebook I've quoted here, while not official, is reviewed by tournament judges and the Pokemon TCG community as a whole.

For a constructed deck format, the maximum is four cards, except for the newish Prism Star cards (all quotes from the current official Play Pokémon rules):

Decks may not contain more than 4 copies of a single card, as defined by the card’s English
  title, with the standard exception for basic Energy cards. Some cards may have additional
  construction restrictions on them, which are treated as exceptions to the 4-copy rule.

Prism star have a limitation of just one card per deck (this is printed on the card).  "Ace Spec" cards are similar to Prism Star cards.

For a limited format, there are different rules.  For sealed deck (often used for pre-release events), and for booster draft games, you may have more than four copies of a non-basic energy card, excepting again Prism Star cards and similar:

Unlike Constructed, a Limited
  deck may contain more than 4 copies of a single card, as defined by the card’s English title,
  with the exception of cards that are limited to one per deck by card text.

There are some additional rulings that are helpful to know.
Cards that have the same name are the same, even with different abilities.  But when the name is different - the "GX" version, for example, versus regular, or Alolan Rattata vs. Rattata, or similar - you may have four of each.  These are explained in the appendices of the Rulebook.

In the official Pokemon Trading Card Game Rules, it is stated that only four copies of a single Pokemon is allowed within a deck, and that also applies for special energy and trainer cards. However, Basic energy is unlimited within a deck, up to 59 ( because there must be at least one Pokemon in a deck.

Many responses included the answer 4 for any type of Pokemon unless further restricted. One year, many many moons ago, Sneasel, a dark Pokemon, was banned in any deck. The official Pokemon web site publishes the rules for deck building and playing, but an event may also have additional rules and restrictions.
Of course energy is one of the card types that is not restricted, unless it is a special energy. Just for fun I used to make a psychic deck with mostly psychic energy and just 4 pokemon! Because I get to shuffle untill I draw at least one basic pokemon in my opening hand the deck was annoying, but I always had plenty of energy to fuel my clever deck.
So to be a good "Pokemon Trainer" when you play the card game you need to use the right balance of trainer cards in order to draw cards and get to your key evolutions, key basic pokemon, and trainer cards. If you go online you can find the four top decks in the senior division and the junior division of the world championships. You will notice a common ratio of Pokemon, trainers, and energy in these top decks. Try to imitate their ratios and even their decks, especially how and why they use certain trainers and you will be competitive in a local Pokemon league or against your friends. Notice which basics they use that do not evolve, and notice the weakness and resistance they have. Pokemon is a "don't put all your eggs into one basket" type of game, influenced by who gains control first with a key knockout, and by the ability to play an energy every turn or more. (Blastoise was so powerful because of his ability!)

The majority of this answer is irrelevant, and the remainder is a much more chatty version of the existing answers.

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


text:
Retreat in case of slide trap in Dungeon!
In a game of Dungeon! there is Slide Trap in Level 3 which says:
Gain 1 Treasure and move to any chamber on Level 4
What happens when I encounter a monster in the level 4 chamber, attack it insufficiently, the monster hits back, and I have to retreat a step? Where do I retreat?

Since the idea of the retreat system is to prevent you from passing a chamber by not killing a monster, we always play that you must go back the way you came. In case a trap brought you to a chamber you probably had no intention to pass that chamber anyway, since you did not mean to go to that chamber. So passing without killing a monster is not relevant in this case. We allow the unlucky player who ended up in the trap and who didn't kill the monster in the chamber to choose the path of retreat. It's not like it's that much of an advantage since the player never really intended to enter that chamber.
I don't know whether there is any official rule on this matter but this approach seems logical to me.

Now I do not know of an official ruling, but in this instance my group has always practiced that retreat is not the same as return.
That is to say the rules are telling you, that you are to no longer occupy the same chamber/room as the monster, not that you must go back the way you came.
I have not played Dungeon! but I have played New Dungeon which was a precursor to that game.
We always played that retreat simply means you move out of the chamber/room you are in, in whatever direction you fancy.
To pretend for a moment: While you are fighting a monster you are moving all around. Who is to say you are on the same side of the room as you started and near the same door you entered through?

If you may not "go back the way you came", then you can always cross a chamber by attacking the monster, but retreating in a separate direction - which is why retreating should mean go back the way you came, no?

Well retreating is not always going back the way you came. From the first definition google gives us: withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat. So even if you are not going the same way you entered, you are still retreating. We actually play that way. If you lose in a chamber, you go out whatever way you want. Even if that means you are 'crossing' the chamber.

We've encountered this as well. I remember reading that you are supposed to retreat the way you came in. This is probably to prevent players from "retreating" their way through a chamber past a particularly nasty monster to get to the treasure rooms beyond. In the case of a forced entry into a chamber due to a trap sending you there, it doesn't make a lot of sense to retreat back up the slide that dumped you there. We play that if you are forced to retreat because you entered a chamber due to trap, you retreat randomly down one of the passages into the chamber, chosen by die roll.


text:
Can more threats be active than threat slots?
Can there be more than four active threats in play at once?
There are exactly four scouter-shaped slots on the side of the board with which to place threat cards.  There can also be up to four players/characters, and the number of threats in play is implied to be equal to the number of players.  However, I cannot find anywhere where the rules explicitly state that the number of active threats are limited to these four spaces; it would simply be very unusual to design the board to have exactly four of these very deliberately-shaped notches if there was such a common scenario in which they would overflow.
The rules for adding new threats are:

At the beginning of each round, reveal a number of Threat Tiles from the top of the stack equal to the number of players (e.g., in a 3-player game, reveal 3 Threat Tiles), then place those Threat Tiles face up next to the Cell Board.

Does this mean that, if you are playing a 4-player game and do not clear all of the threats in a turn, the uncleared ones linger around and four additional threats appear, exceeding the space on the board?  Or do you fill up to four so as not to exceed the very perfectly-designed card spaces?

I was actually talking to the designer about this a few weeks ago, and I got the impression that "uncleared ones linger around and four additional threats appear." We are all in agreement that the graphic design implies something different.

@TheChaz2.0 So, did you get a clear answer of what the real case is?

@TheChaz2.0 Are you the one who summoned the designer here?  If so, can you persuade them to come back and look at the other question as well?  That one is even more important and ambiguous.

I'll ping him for you

@TheChaz2.0 Any luck?  It'd be a shame to see the bounty go to waste...

Designer here. Uncleared threat tiles remain and 1 new tile per player are revealed, so it is possible to have more than 4 active threat tiles.

Welcome to the site! Good to see designers coming in to provide definitive answers to their games! If you would like, there is another question that was asked recently that you may be able to shed some light on: What is the effect of filling the Dragon Ball Meter?


text:
Help me identify this card game with secret, changing rules
A while ago, I played this card game with a handful of my friends. We used regular poker cards. We started playing the games without being told the rules. The only thing we were told was that it was like UNO in that:

You wanted to get rid of all your cards in your hand
When it was your turn you can put a card down
You put cards down corresponding to their suit and/or number.

Any time we did something wrong we were penalized with a card. The point of the game was to figure out the rules of the game, by seeing how everyone was penalized. At the end of the game, when someone won, that winner got to make up his own rules which would be added to the next game. The rules would not be announced and would have to figured out by everyone who didn't know the rules.
Here are some of the penalties that I remember:

Being an idiot
Asking about the rules
Touching your cards in "Court of Order"

Here were some of the rules (that I remember):

When a Jack was placed, the next card had to be the same suite.
When a Queen was placed, you had to stand up and say "Hail the Queen"

I know there were more rules, but I can't remember them. I also can't remember the name of the game. I want to know what the normal default rules that you start out with, but I can't remember them all/I would like to introduce this game to some of my friends who haven't played it. I would Google it and get information online, but I can't remember the name of the game.
Does someone know the name of the game and/or some of the rules used in the beginning of the game?

Any card game that penalizes touching the cards in any situation (especially dealer's respect) is a game I don't want to be playing. (This is why I don't play Mao, BTW.)

Point of order: it's a point of order, not a court of order.

Sounds a lot like Mao (which I was introduced to as Chairmen).
It's a card-shedding game (i.e. like Uno) with secret rules that can vary by playing group. As the game goes on, more rules are added but not directly explained. The game typically goes on until everyone gives up.
EDIT:
Some sample starting rules might include these ones that are fairly common when I've played it:

Ace skips the next player's turn
Jack reverses the play order
8 allows anyone to play a card of the same suit immediately. Play continues from that person onwards.
Spades must be named out loud
7 must be followed by saying "That's the badger" (after saying "7 of spades" if appropriate)
Kings and Queens must be saluted
You must say "last card" when you have one card remaining
You must say "Mao" when you go out ("Taking the Chairman's name in vain" at any other time faces a hefty three-card penalty)

Do you think there are many resources online about the starting rules?

@RobAveryIV I believe the rules tend to differ based on who you play it with. Part of the beauty of teaching it is that you can add rules that have been good in the past. Different groups of players might have different starting rules! I'll add some example starting rules to my answer, though.

When I played Mao I couldn't see any reason not to try to collect the entire deck, so I just accrued a continuous stream of penalties until people told me I was ruining the game and maybe I should leave.  I was probably being a big jerk, but on the other hand it might be worth giving people some kind of advice that picking up cards is bad before letting them join in...

@thesunneversets That would certainly lead to the following more quickly! The game typically goes on until everyone gives up.

When someone adds a rule about not playing two co-prime cards in a row, you know you need to stop playing.

@thesunneversets: Per Wikipedia, the game's being a "shedding-type" game basically means that new players should know two things: that the object is to empty your hand, and "the only rule you may be told is the one I am telling you now".

@KeithS: When I played Mao, even those two things were not announced beforehand, but they became clear very quickly: every time you violated a rule, someone would deal you a card, while saying (for example) "saying the name of the game" or "failure to say 'two of spades'" or "talking about the rules" or whatnot. I can't imagine anyone failing to understand that the card is a penalty for the action (or inaction) so described.

Yeah, we always said "Penalty, playing out of turn" or whatever when we handed out cards so it was generally immediately obvious what was done wrong. Though "Penalty, failure to say the name." after a spade was played sometimes took a bit.

@Nick - I think I may have introduced that rule at some point!  The oddest game I had, someone tried to stage a coup against the rules as there were more new players than experienced ones.  Very odd.

I was introduced to it when I was asked to run it at a charity casino event. I got to start them off with "penalty for speaking out of turn" followed by "Penalty, failure to play in turn". The players (my computer programming class) had a blast with it.

@RobAveryIV When I was taught Mao I was told the first rule "This is the only rule I am allowed to tell you" by the person who introduced me it - the whole point is to learn the base rules by paying, and being punished for failing to follow the rules you never knew.

There are so many variations of this game each with varying rules, chief among them is "No Discussing the Rules" this has lead to there being many variations of this game. I actually had to break that cardinal rule once with another friend so we could actually play because we had both learned from different sources. It can be an amazingly fun and silly game.

I recommend Mini-Mao, which is exactly like Mao except experienced players don't have to be jerks to new players.

@Stef where's the fun in that! That's what Mao is for

It's probably either Mao or Bartok - I play like this, except the new rule created at the end of each round is announced.


text:
Would a duel model between Khadors' Sorcha and Circles' Kaya seem realistic?
It's for a model painting competition but I don't know if it fits in with any fluff... Opinions? O.o

Asking for opinions isn't really how this site works, I'm afraid.  Could you turn this into a more definitively-answerable question?

I will interpret the question as, is there anything in the game rules that would preclude modeling these two figures in combat with each other.
I have not played this one but given my understanding of what's allowed and what's not from various codex-based miniatures games this seems like a plausible pairing. Sorcha is a warcaster (https://battlecollege.wikispaces.com/Sorscha) and Kaya is a warlock (https://battlecollege.wikispaces.com/mkiiKaya) from armies that can and will clash.
You can find in published blogs first person accounts of battles involving both personalities, supporting the view that the two of them actually meeting in close quarters could happen.

The answer is yes, this would be a fight that could happen in the lore. I haven't read the WarMachine books, but the in-game fluff puts Khador and Circle at odds. Those two armies are pretty good matches for each other.


text:
What are some house rules to improve Pokémon Master Trainer?
This past week's game of the week was the '99 (first) version of the Pokémon Master Trainer board game.
It was not the strategic challenge that I am used to, does anyone have any knowledge of variants to the game?
We personally came up with a few:

Type effectiveness: super-effective attacks do 1.5x damage against
weak Pokémon
Gym leaders: NPCs that are needed to be defeated before
entering new areas
Removal of the Trade Cards: they are horrible and
mean
Raise (or remove) lower limit to enter Indigo Plateau: players
enter the "final battle" far too unprepared

Does anyone else have any other variants?

In my circle we have played that game numerous times.
Some things that worked for us to adjust the 'strategy' of the game are:

EXP and LVL: if you have a lot of D6 lying around ( I buy them 18 at a time from our local dollar store) you can use them to track level on your pokemon. Then each time a pokemon wins more battles than they currently are in level you can roll the die up. Each level adds 1 to their power. We did this to try and balance the fact that it was fairly impossible to beat an elite four battle without having two +5 item cards.
Allow random battles: Instead of capturing being the only option when you land, allow the pokemon to fight. You roll two dice for the 'wild' pokemon and you can fight as usual. If the pokemon is 'defeated' you can place a marker on it. This marker acts as a permanent + or - 1 to catch. This adds a level of strategy because it may make more sense in the red area to try and defeat rather than catch first, however you better be sure you can get back to that square before someone comes in and snatches it up.
Allow rolls to 'ace': If a D6 is rolled in battle and rolls a six it can be rolled again. This helped again get around the fact that you needed +5 items to beat the final battle.

Now these things don't necessarily affect the strategy of the game, but it does lead to a more entertaining game and it does give incentives to use more than one pokemon. We found ourselves using the mystery dungeon or 'evolved combo' pokemon only and that was not fun. The level up system lets you use pokemon that are weak through to the end of the game.
The trade cards though 'horrible and mean' serve a very important purpose. They keep one person with a set of beastly pokemon from ruling the game. Without it you can easily get one person with three of the four mystery dungeon pokemon and that is more unfair than having one snatched from you.

I can't vote this answer up enough, thank you. We were trying to avoid LVL and XP, but your solution is excellent. I've got to do some thinking and discussing with my group about the trade cards; while I definitely see your point about someone getting all of the mystery dungeon pokemon, the more common example that I have encountered is someone losing their only good pokemon in trade for a Magnemite. With the LVLing I could see that being even more detrimental, someone losing their level 5 Dragonite in trade for a goldeen is patently unfair.

yes a bit unfair however there is just as much a chance to get it back the same way. Who knows. My group is not particularly competative. if you think that is bad, look up the game 'the new Dungeon' by TSR. It is old but the basic premise is to get a lot of treasure or beat up and take the treasure of the guy who did. i refuse to play it in my circles anymore because it gets so darn cutthroat near the end.

We don't mind being cutthroat, and I'll definitely have to look up "the new Dungeon". The trade reminds me of the old Gamecube game Dokapon Kingdom, a Mario Party type game, where (in an attempt to retain balance) the game allows the person in last place to run around the board, stealing everything (coins and stars) from anyone they touch.

The New Dungeon TSR 1989 I got my copy at a yard sale about 17 years ago.

If you allow rolls to ace, make the 6 roll still add only 5 - just so that you don't skip all the multiples of six.

I made up some of my own rules to play with my friends, they wanted to game the be more cuthroat, but I had to keep the game somewhat simple without adding more pieces. You can try it out, I haven't been able to try it out too much though.

Pokemon Master Trainer
Caleb's Rules
At the beginning of the game all trainers are randomly given a starter Pokemon. Before trainers show their Pokemon, trainers may challenge each other to a battle. All trainers can either accept or reject a challenge to a battle, but can only participate in one battle. If a trainer wins the battle they are able to add 1 or subtract 1 to their first dice roll. If a trainer loses their Pokemon is instantly revived. Play then goes off the player with the lowest Power Points as usual.
Basic Changes

Rather than 20 Power Points being needed to advance to the Indigo Plateau the requirement is 30 Power Points.

Trainers may only have 6 Pokemon at a time. If they have more than six Pokemon they put the chip aside and can trade it with another Pokemon in their party at any city.

Trainers can have a maximum of 7 cards in their hands at one time. If they have too many at the end of their turn they must give the excess to the player with the least Power Points.

“There's a time and place for everything!” - Dad's stupid advice.

In order to win trainers must beat two Rivals. If a trainer defeats a rival, they take that card and hold onto it. They must then return to Vermilion City and attempt to defeat another rival.

All Trainers have the option to stop on a city, even if their roll goes past the city.

Trade cards give a trainer the option to trade with another trainer anywhere on the board.

Evolution: In order to evolve your Pokemon, you must have the evolution of that Pokemon. You may not play the evolution of a Pokemon without having the Pokemon that evolves into the final evolution.
Example: Bob has a Nidoking and a Nidorino but not a Nidoran♂. So until he catches a Nidoran♂ Bob will be unable to play his Nidoking.

If you catch the evolution of a Pokemon you may put the chip aside until you can evolve one of your Pokemon. This chip will not count to your party of six.

Type Bonuses: When battling a trainer you gain 2 attack power when battling a Pokemon that your Pokemon would be “Super Effective” against. All Pokemon have one type, this has no effect on catching Pokemon.

Catching Pokemon: If a trainer fails to catch a Pokemon on their first try the trainer must then roll a dice, and if the dice lands on a 2 or 3 the Pokemon escapes, and a new tile is shuffled into the spot. If a 6 is rolled the Pokemon attacks the trainer, and if the wild Pokemon has an attack power greater than your lowest attack rated Pokemon it faints that Pokemon.

If two trainers roll a tie one player has the option to swap their Pokemon for a different one. The player whose Pokemon has the higher Power Point count may choose another Pokemon of theirs to battle with and then battling continues. Pokemon cannot be swapped in if they are fainted.

If your Pokemon is fainted in battle you can play a potion to roll for a 1 or 2 to instantly revive them and continue the battle. If a 1 or 2 is not rolled you discard the potion, your Pokemon faints and can choose another Pokemon or attempt to run from battle.

Running from Battle: When a trainer initially challenges you to a battle you are unable to run, however, after the first Pokemon is fainted you may either continue batting or you can attempt to run with a dice roll or a Poke Doll. If you roll a 1 or a 6 you may escape the battle. Trainers that initiate a battle may never run from the fight, and battle only ends for them if they defeat all of a trainers Pokemon or their opponent escapes.

“There's no running from a trainer in battle!” - Every Pokemon game ever.

Assisting In Battle: If two trainers are in battle other trainers may assist in battle if the are at least three spaces away from the trainers in battle. This help can be rejected by the trainer. Trainers assisting another trainer may add one additional Attack Bonus card, and cannot use potions or Poke Dolls to assist a trainer. A trainer in a city cannot help another trainer. Trainers cannot assist Rivals on the Indigo Plateau.

I really like a lot of these suggestions.

A lot of these from from the Johto version of this game, see http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/PokemonMasterTrainerSilverandGold.PDF

No Cinnabar Island 20 point trigger! You need the following Points worth of Pokemon to fight each gym leader:

5 (Pewter City) The leader has 1 random pink pokemon + 1 addition D6
10 (Cerulean City) The leader has 1 random green pokemon + 1 additional D6
15 (Vermilion City) The leader has 1 random blue pokemon + 1 additional D6
20 (Celadon City) The leader has 1 random red pokemon + 1 additional D6
25 (Fuchsia City) The leader has 1 random pink pokemon + 2 additional D6
30 (Saffron City) The leader has 1 random green pokemon + 2 additional D6
35 (Cinnabar Island) The leader has 1 random blue pokemon + 2 additional D6
40 (Viridian City) The leader has 1 random red pokemon + 2 additional D6

To fight a leader, land in that town and pull the specified color Pokemon from the box. You battle as normal with the attack cards and such. The leader, who may be rolled by an opponent (selected the same way you select the final rival), rolls 1 D6 plus the specified number of additional D6s. If you win, you get that city's gym badge. If you lose, your Pokemon is knocked out and the opponent who rolled for the leader draws two items. Either way, return the leader's Pokemon to the box. Run out of Pokemon of the correct color? Use the color above and one less D6, else a color below and one more D6. For more flavor, you can try to make sure each leader has a Pokemon of the appropriate type.
You need the eight badges from defeating the leaders to go to the Indigo Plateau. Before you begin put Gengar, Haunter, and Gastly in Lavender town. If you land there, roll to catch Gastly. Land there again: Haunter, then Gengar. Everyone gets to reference a chart that lists the pokemon in order by attack power and shows what color area you can find them.
In addition, you could add the ability to battle wild Pokemon instead of capturing them. Defeat the wild Pokemon and it goes back in the box and of course is replaced by a face down of the appropriate color.

My Ideas

Full Party Battles: The battle plays as normal until a Pokemon faints, the attack boost cards go with it, then the user of it uses a different Pokemon, and the users can switch Pokemon at any time after an attack and before the next one. The loser gets teleported to the last town/island/city the loser has been to, then he/she rolls a die if he/she rolls a 1 or 2, nothing happens, they all stay KO, 3 or 4, the weakest 50% are healed, 5 or 6, everything is healed.
Double Battles: Only usable once both trainers have at least 2 Pokemon, you use 2 Pokemon at the same time and now you have even less rng with these 2 ideas because of the choices, of course you can do both at the same time.
6 pokemon limit: self explainatory, if you get more than 6, the 7th goes to the side of where your sitting, and you can swap them around, now this actually requires you to keep upgrading to even go to the indigo leauge, so you cant just have 8 pink pokemon and go to the leauge and get rekt hard
Permanent Evoloution: If you get an evolution of something you already have, permanently use the evolved form, youll still get the bonus, and the power points will be normal power points + (previous power points / 1.5)


text:
Where can I find price-lists for Star Trek CCG cards?
I have some Star Trek CCG cards from the Decipher game in the 1990s. I'm looking to discover if any of these cards have economic value.
I've tried looking at starcitygames.com and tcgplayer.com, but neither seems to cover older CCG games. I checked ebay but people's asking prices are varied and I suspect unrealistic. I know Scrye magazine used to list prices but that's out of print.
Are there any online or paper sources for Star Trek CCG card pricelists?

Trollandtoad.com has listings for all sorts of Star Trek singles.  Of course, that is the price they're selling them for, so if you're trying to sell them yourself, you're going to get a lot less than that.  They seem to be selling most cards for less than $5.  Future Enterprise is listed at $40 (and out of stock).

Ebay is a good way to offload cards, although the "value" you get is sometimes questionable. For example, the Future Enterprise can sell for anything from £20 to £40 depending who is watching/buying, but then you might buy 1,000 cards for £12 and get 2 of them (i've recently won a bid for 1,000+ cards for £22, and the only reason I went this high is because I could see a small stack of cards which i have hardly any from that set!).
Bulk sales will sell the cards quicker, and will get more people at least watching, but you will get less in return. I have tried to sell stacks of 200 randoms starting at £2, but had no interest at all - yet a friend sold half-a-dozen 3/4 card lots for £1-2 each, simply because the buyers could see the cards.
If you know your cards, it might be worth splitting them into lots of 3/4 Rares, and start these listed at £1 or some similar value. You again will be unlikely to get their full "value" but will get more from a sizable collection than either blind-bulk sales, or holding on to them for a "rainy day" - because as people have said, they are unlikely to increase in price.
Depending what you have... I might even be interested!! :¬D

For the most part, out of print CCG's have very little value, except if you have a lot and can find someone that wants to buy the whole collection so they can play the game with just what you provide. There is almost no market for single cards for any CCG that isn't played by a lot of people at the current time, so there's no reason for anyone to keep track of prices to sell them individually.
So, in short, no, there are no recent sources for ST:TCG card prices.

While it's certainly possible that there simply aren't recent sources for ST:CCG prices, I'm struggling to understand how there can be no market for single cards.
When you consider other collectible cards, like baseball cards, old cards have value. Thus, even if no one is playing ST:CCG, shouldn't rare or ultra-rare cards have value? Or did you mean that there's no current demand for them?

Even most old baseball cards don't have much value. Unless you are talking about cards from before 1980, only stars' cards really have value, and even then, it is only a few of their cards (mainly rookies). Sports cards are also a VERY different thing than CCG's and other collectible cards, because of that "star power".

There may be some value in ultra-rares like the "Future Enterprise" card, but even then, it is only going to be of any value to someone that wants to play the game. And if they want to play the game, at this point, they probably have EVERYTHING or want to get more than just a few single cards.

Not even die-hard Star Trek fans are really going to care about a few single cards from a CCG that's been dead for ten years.

While I have accepted your answer, please note that there's no need to yell (use all caps) in your comments. It can easily come off as snarky and impolite.

@Craig I personally take that as the market tacitly admitting that there is really almost no collector value for these things and their value is derived chiefly from desire to play the game and power level in the game :)

www.trekcc.org maybe able to help you out, as the game is not dead as others are trying to tell you.

I'm not seeing anywhere that prices are listed. Does this website provide that? And welcome to B&CG!


text:
How can I prevent players from cheating on their stats that carry between games?
I have created a card game that allows players to advance. The problem is that you can keep your stats until your next game (with anybody else). For the life of me, I can't find out how to be able to "prove" that the stats are valid (other than keeping a booklet or something, which I already am doing, but they could just fake what is in their booklet too)? For example, if I'm playing with someone new, how can I ensure that if they say they are on the top tier, they are telling the truth?
I could put in the rules that anybody caught cheating will automatically be downgraded to the bottom tier, or some other penalty, but how do I PROVE that they are cheating? Maybe a different method of going up tiers? Or keeping track of going up tiers?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! I've been racking my brain about this. The whole game revolves around being able to go up tiers, but I don't want people to cheat.

The closest analogy I can think of are roleplaying games. Maybe take a look at how the RPGA does/used-to-do things?

Is this a relatively quick game, so that it's likely people will actually play a quick game with strangers? Or is this a longer time investment thing, more in the direction of many RPGs? If it's a longer game, people won't be playing with entirely new people that often, and the social contract will help you out a lot.

Do not add penalties for cheating. That just adds a price tag to cheating, and if you are willing to pay the price, cheating becomes an "official" option!

Make it so that it doesn't matter if players have faked their profile.
Say having a high ranked profile means that you have access to better equipment (and therefore an incentive to produce a fake profile). You could reduce the impact of this by (say) introducing a handicap for high ranked players when playing against lower ranked players.
If there is a handicap system (or some similar mechanic) that balances the game, it doesn't matter for a casual game if one player has a faked profile, since neither player has an unfair advantage.
I'm also assuming casual games with unknown players would be the main problem, because:

If you repeatedly face the same opponent(s), you'll start to notice them doctoring their profile between games
If you're having a tournament, it probably makes sense for the tournament body to hold the profiles and check them between games.

As an aside, this also opens up your game to other demographics. For example,
on D&D, there are players that would prefer to start at a high level with a bunch of equipment already. Also, if it doesn't matter if the profiles have been built "correctly" or not, then players can fabricate profiles to see how a different set of choices would play out.

This is a very difficult question to answer, and it's probably the reason that persistent, player power modifying changes are not included in most card games.
one possible solution is a central online data store/mobile app
This may be beyond your project, but one solution would be to implement some form of website wherein player profiles can be stored, this website would allow you to keep control of player profiles, and give players confidence that their opponent cannot (at least, legally or easily) compromise the data stored in your database.
Depending on how your system works, registering win/loss may be enough for tracking advancement, in which case players can each register a match and its result (or one player can propose a match/result, which the other must confirm).
If characteristics of the match must be tracked as well (e.g. if casting a certain type of spell increases a certain statistic) this can also be tracked in a similar way, just requiring some more detail on behalf of your players.
All of the above however only solves the problem of individuals trying to cheat. If a pair or group wish to cheat, they could just register alternating wins/losses against each other to advance at a high rate. Diminishing returns could be included to combat this, however it would still not resolve the issue of a larger group gaming their stats in the run up to a large tournament (you can only limit this behaviour so much before you have a negative impact on small play groups who regularly play against each other)
Another option would be to produce something similar to how planeswalker points are handled in Magic: The Gathering, which is that your tournament record is uploaded by the tournament organiser (using software provided by Wizards of the coast, who make MTG, which uploads the list of all players, all matches that took place, and who wins each match). This removes the opportunity for any size group of players to cheat, providing that your tournament organisers can be kept trustworthy (keeping your tournament organisers invested in being trustworthy by giving them a lot of rewards like free promos/product, and then removing all rewards and all ability to organise play where that trust is broken). This would allow you to track player movements in probably the most secure way possible, and does not require the same production of a full featured mobile app that players can (and crucially, enjoy) use to track their play.
I will say one thing however. There is a reason no other card game has an advancement system, and it isn't that no one has thought of it before. It is difficult enough to keep play fair without a system like this which can be potentially gamed for an advantage. Card games (particularly collectible ones) have a big enough barrier to entry already, in that cards can be particularly expensive, having an innate disadvantage from being new BESIDES not owning all the cards is going to have a significant impact on getting new players into your game. Getting new players and keeping them has to be absolutely one of your top priorities, because players leave all the time, and if you don't have a steady stream of new players coming in, you will kill your game stone dead. Nobody plays a game if they cant play it with anyone, and if no one new takes it up, it will fizzle out very quickly.
A better solution is to reward regular players with Aesthetic bonuses, such as Promos, Shiny things, free stuff that no one else gets. This encourages long term play as well (if not better) as tangible game advantage, without discouraging new players (in fact, it encourages them to stick with it)

Agreed.  "Levelling up" is a great idea for cooperative games you play with friends to allow you to take on greater challenges together.  It is a terrible idea for a competitive game you play with strangers.  Punishing people for being new will only make sure that you never have any new players.

Checksums, CRCs, Hashes, etc.
Computer science has a possible solution for this.  In computer science, sometimes you need to verify that some received data hasn't been altered or corrupted.  The simplest way to validate the data is called a checksum.  If I have a sequence of data bytes, say [23, 128, 55], the checksum is calculated by summing all the bytes (23+128+55=206) and for reasons I won't get into, is subtracted from 256 (256 - 206 = 50).  The last byte is added to the data --> [23, 128, 55, 50].  When I receive the data, I calculate the checksum and compare it to the transmitted checksum included with the data.  If they are the same then the data wasn't accidentally altered.
Now this is all heavily math based and obviously wouldn't work with a card game.  However, you could adapt the basic idea.  For example. you could evenly distribute some a set of abstract symbols across all the cards, e.g. take the shapes: circle (C), triangle (T), square (S), pentagon (P), and randomly assign one to each card.  At the end of the game, players count the number of each symbol and tell you (E.g. "My deck has 3 circle cards, 1 triangle card, 5 square cards, 2 pentagon cards, for the value '3C1T5S2P').  You can record the 'checksum' of each deck and verify it if necessary during the next session.
While players could still alter their deck, they can't make any arbitrary change without having to make other changes as well.  For example a +1 sword might have a circle symbol, but the +2 sword is a square.  If they want to secretly upgrade themselves, they'll have to find some square card in their deck and swap it out for a circle to make the checksums the same.  You could greatly increase the difficulty by have several shapes with different colors (for example, circle, triangle, square, pentagon, each which comes in one of three colors: black, green, and purple (these colors chosen to make the game color-blind friendly)).  Now they need to make sure that the color and shapes all match up, but at the expense of having a more difficult checksum sequence to record and calculate.
Since I don't know any specifics about your game, this example probably won't apply very well, but you should be able to adapt it to your needs.  You can read up on the concepts (checksum, crc, hash, etc) on any computer science reference/website/wikipedia if you want more details.  Depending on your game, it may be simpler just to basic deck statistics (number of cards of a specific type).  If decks are small, like fewer than 15 cards, you could just number every card and calculate the sum of a deck.  There are lots of ways you could go about this but the basic idea is to calculate and record a concise summary of the deck characteristics.


text:
Forbidden Pepsi Pogs
I was looking through the Wikipedia page for POG and noticed the following under the "Sets" section.

Pepsi (occasionally referred to as "Forbidden Pepsi Pogs")

Despite having grown up in the 90's with quite the collection of POGs, I'd never heard them called "Forbidden Pepsi Pogs".  I searched Google but none of the results seem to explain why they were referred to as such.
Why are Pepsi POGs referred to as "Forbidden"?

http://www.mondaq.com/x/134424/Patent/Who+Let+The+Pogs+Out+PepsiCo+Takes+Its+Pogs+To+The+European+Court+Of+Justic

This is a neat article.  I think this deserves a real answer, but I'm not up to the task.

The most likely reason is that Pepsi went to court over them
Essentially, Pepsi tried to register a community design  (kind of like a trademark, but for shapes, lines, textures, colors, etc. that are associated with a product), but an organization named Grupo Promer had registered something similar first. The court cases were over whether or not Pepsi's pogs were distinctive enough to be granted their own protection. In other words, could a single company have exclusive rights to a plastic or metal disc included in food packaging? How distinctive would a competitor's have to be before they were unique enough?
From this summary of the court cases:

On 9 September 2003, PepsiCo filed an application with OHIM (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market) for the registration of a Community Design pursuant to the CD Regulation. Grupo Promer then claimed priority for its Spanish design No 157156, which had been filed on 23 July 2003 and which application was published on 16 November 2003. Both registrations concern the design for "pogs" or "tazos": promotional items in the form of plastic or metal discs that are often included in food packaging and are intended mainly for children.
Grupo Promer started an invalidation action before OHIM against PepsiCo's design application, arguing (i) that PepsiCo's design lacked novelty and individual character (on the basis of Article 25(1)(b)) because of Grupo's Promer's earlier Community Design for metal promotional plate(s) for games; and (ii) that PepsiCo's design was "in conflict" with Grupo Promer's prior design (pursuant to Article 25(1)(d)).

As best I can tell, Pepsi wound up losing this case because there wasn't enough distinctiveness in their pogs compared to those of Grupo Promer. The last mention I can find is this from 2011:

PepsiCo then appealed to the ECJ on the grounds that the General Court had incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 25(1)(d) CD Regulation (conflict with prior design). The Advocate General urged that the appeal be dismissed, noting that a significant number of the grounds of appeal actually concerned findings of fact, and these are not suitable for appeal to the ECJ.

Since there haven't been any further mentions of this case, I'm going to assume that the appeal was dismissed.
I should note that this is a very plausible explanation for the term "forbidden pogs", but I could not find the term in any of the legal documents or summaries. There does not appear any documented use of origin of the term.


text:
What is the benefit of being solid with Amnon Duul (Travel Hub)?
I was playing the Firefly board game last night and we realized that we couldn't find any particular benefit in Amnon Duul's bonus for being solid, specifically "You may load any number of passengers and fugitives at Space bazaar, no limit."
We couldn't find any use for said passengers or fugitives in the rule book, the only thing we could think of was if - while on a mission- a fugitive/passenger dies (perhaps due to the Reaver Cutter encounter) you can refill without having to do any misbehaving again.
Can you use passengers and fugitives loaded at space bazaar for anything other than re-obtaining those lost during completion of a mission?

As well as being useful in cases where fugitives or passengers die and you have a job which requires a specific amount of them, there is another case where being solid with Amnon Duul can be handy.
If you start a job like Patience' Ranch Hand Recruitment which states

Pick-Up
Load Passengers, no limit.
Drop-Off
Deliver Passengers. Get paid $300 per Passenger.

but you have some of your cargo hold filled with other stuff (requirements for another job, parts, fuel or randomly acquired cargo) which you are able to offload on the way, then you can top up your cargo hold with more passengers so that you can earn more on completion of the job.

It gets even funnier if you're running two jobs that have "no limit" loads (going in the same direction past the Bazaar). You can drop off a full load at one, jump to the Bazaar and grab a full load for the other. :)

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


text:
Does "an attacking creature" count as "a creature that attacked"?
Say I have Hypersonic Dragon in play and go to combat phase. Dring the declare attackers step I tap and declare Hypersonic Dragon as attacking. After I have declared Hypersonic Dragon as attacking I get priority (as there are nothing else on the battlefield generating triggers).
Now I play Relentless Assault and it resolves. Since this is during combat, there is no additional Combat or Main Phase added, but is Hypersonic Dragon untapped now?
If not, at what point is Hypersonic Dragon "a creature that attacked"? What is the earliest Relentless Assault can be played to get the untap effect?

Hi zo0x - I changed your title to better reflect the question you're asking in the body of your post. The question in your earlier title is easily answered "no" because after combat, there are creatures that have attacked this turn but there are no attacking creatures, but that's not what it seems you're asking about. If my edit was inaccurate, feel free to change it of course!

No problem, I think your reasoning is sound. The way I formulated it could definitely be misinterpreted. Thanks ;)

In my opinion a creature that attacked is a creature that effectively attacked, so basically after combat damage phase. Also, why would you cast Relentless Assault not during the main phase?

Sorry, but I'm really not interested in opinions. And the situation is irrelevant, it is the ruling which is the interesting part.

But to build an example: Say I have Hypersonic Dragon and Zhur Taa Druid in play, 7 untapped lands and 2 Relentless Assault in hand. My opponent is at 2 life with no cards in hand but he has creatures that can block and kill my creatures, should I decide to attack.
With this I can attack with Zhur Taa Druid, play Relentless Assault to untap him, tap him for 1 mana and 1 damage to my opponent, play the second Relentless Assault to untap and ping him for the last one

The Hypersonic Dragon will be untapped.
It is well established that to attack is to declare as an attacker, so a creature that attacked is one that has been declared as an attacker earlier in the current turn.

508.2. Second, any abilities that triggered on attackers being declared go on the stack. (See rule 603, “Handling Triggered Abilities.”)
508.2a Abilities that trigger on a creature attacking trigger only at the point the creature is declared as an attacker. They will not trigger if a creature attacks and then that creature’s characteristics change to match the ability’s trigger condition

The rule and ruling for "put on the battlefield attacking" further supports this:

508.4. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, [...]. Such creatures are “attacking” but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, they never “attacked.”
2011-9-22 Although the token is attacking, it was never declared as an attacking creature (for purposes of abilities that trigger whenever a creature attacks, for example).

508.4. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or
  which planeswalker a defending player controls it’s attacking as it enters the battlefield (unless the
  effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what it’s attacking). Such creatures are “attacking”
  but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, they never “attacked.”

From this rule we can infer that "Attacking" means currently in combat attacking the defending player or planeswalker, while "Attacked" means was declared as an attacker in the Declare Attackers Step.
So if you want to untap your Hypersonic Dragon you can do it any time after the Declare Attackers Step. Note that you will not get the additional Combat and Main Phases unless the spell resolves during a Main Phase.


text:
The cost/benefit of Changed?
In Kingsport, you can become Changed which confers rather a lot of nice abilities. However, I am not sure that the balance is right.  It takes 10 toughness or 2 gates or 1 gate & 5 toughness to get. In addition, it takes around 7/8 turns to get and be ready to use it.  This mean that the benefits are likely to be relevant for the last half-dozen or so turns before the game ends -- the end game basically.  This makes the Seal (part of changed) you get kinda useless since maybe one or two gates might open on its location and chances are small that they will be gate bursts.
Compare this with either the White Ship (link) or Deputy of Arkham (link) which in my not so humble opinion are of equal power to Changed and to each other and are well within reach in early to mid game.
So:

Is my analysis of Changed correct?
If it is broken, how can we fix it?

PS: I get that the last question might pool arguments and discussions. So, please adhere to the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective rules. Thanks!

My group decided on this house rule:  Changed costs 10 toughness or 2 gates or 1 gate & 5 toughness to get.  However, the path to get it costs two move points instead of one and you are not forced to stop on the way. This make getting there much easier while keeping the cost high.  It is not a perfect solution but it makes Changed worthwhile.


text:
What is a solid basic strategy for surviving Ghost Story
Is there a solid strategy that you can apply to increase the chances of a win?

Based on the Eldritch horror and Arkham Horror questions.

Don't let your board fill up.  I'll have to get back to you on 2), because 1) is how my first game ended...

@PaulMarshall: Most of my games end up with town tiles being haunted because most of the taoists are dead.

When you have the choice, put weak ghosts in the corner spaces. This allows the players the possibility of saving time and killing two ghosts at a time.
Use the Buddhas as much as possible. It takes two turns to set them up (with the double-action monk) but automatically kills two ghosts - even big ones that would normally take longer to kill.
Only engage with a ghost if you're sure to kill it or only need one die to come up to the appropriate color. If you rely on two dice coming up your way, you will likely be wasting an action that could have been used elsewhere.

Being a recent player of the game, I would add to this that you should also try to get rid of haunters and tormentors as quickly as possible. This may seem obvious, but if a ghost doesn't have an action that occurs on your turn, there's no urgency to get rid of it unless your board is filling up.


text:
Does exhausting a card with The Force activate its power?
In Star Wars: Empire vs Rebellion, the card "The Force" says the following:

Exhaust 1 ready resource card of your choice of either faction.

Does exhausting the card mean that the power associated with the card gets activated, just like how it does if a player normally chooses to exhaust the card?
I could see it going either way. If the power is activated, then it is strategic to activate powers when the player doesn't want it activated (e.g. activating Diplomacy when they have a good hand). However, I can't see any situation when you would want to exhaust a card of your own faction (why not just exhaust that card normally?).
On the other hand, if you don't activate the power, then it would allow you to disable an opponent's card or strategically flip your own character without activating its power. But I'm concerned that this might make The Force a bit too powerful.
I can't figure it out from the rules (it only defines exhausting in terms of using the powers) and the FAQ doesn't describe it. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Exhausting is a cost to use an ability.  An ability is not the effect of exhausting.  So if some other effect causes a card to become exhausted, it would not trigger the ability.


text:
Would hypnotizing your opponent be against the Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament rules?
In the Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's anime episodes "Return to the Spirit World", Part 1 and Part 2, Professor Frank hypnotizes his opponent, Luna, during a Duel Monsters tournament duel. In addition to having an ulterior motive of getting her to access repressed memories, he uses that hypnotic influence to get Luna to play her cards in a certain way that benefits him.
In the real world, would it be against the Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament rules to hypnotize your opponent during a tournament duel in order to get them to play tactically in your favor? Is there any rule that would actually prevent this*, or would it entirely be a matter of the judge using his discretion to call out bad sportsmanship?

* I'm not expecting a rule that says "You cannot hypnotize your opponents", but am instead wondering if there might be a rule that covers this sort of behavior, like perhaps one that says you can't interfere with your opponent's decision-making.

I bet there is no rule against a dog playing Yu-Gi-Oh.....

@Malco on the internet nobody knows you're a dog.

Even if there's a rule against it, good luck getting a hypnotized judge to do anything about it

From a link on the page that ConMan so helpfully provided:

Penalties are carried out in the event of rule violations which may cause hindrance to others and/or disruption of the event.
  Please note that the penalties listed on this page is not exhaustive, and the actual penalties enforced may vary depending on severity.
The Official Tournament Rules & Regulations will be used as a guideline for Judges to determine the penalties to be issued, including its severity. Heavier penalties may be issued for Duelists caught repeating these violations.
Duel/Match Fixing
Deciding the winner of a match without dueling (e.g. Rock-Paper-Scissors)
  Penalty: Disqualification
Bribery involving money, cards, or any other means
  Penalty: Total Disqualification

Hypnotizing your opponent would most likely be considered a type of match fixing, leading to a disqualification or a total disqualification.
Additionally, note the verbiage I bolded at the top.  Judges are given broad authority to exercise their own judgement in determining misconduct and applying penalties.  The fact that "there's no rule" against hypnotism would not prevent any competent judge from slapping the misbehaving player with a heavy punishment.
Now, if the judge has been hypnotized too...

The main parts of the Tournament Rules and Guidelines that may be applicable in an official match, as far as I can tell, are:

During the duel, all actions taken by either duelist must be made clear and acknowledged by both sides.
[It is considered misconduct to be] Talking and/or exchanging advice/information other duelists, spectators, or other third parties during a duel.

If a hypnotised person is considered to be under the control of the hypnotist, then either it seems unlikely that they are able to consciously acknowledge the actions being taken in the game, and you could argue that they are receiving advice from another person (even if that advice is clearly favouring the opponent).
Additionally, that page notes that duelists must follow any rules set by the tournament organisers, which includes some common rules such as:

Always aim for a fair duel, and for its smooth progression.
Do not play in such a way that would be discomforting to your opponent.

A duel in which one player is under hypnosis is certainly not fair, and is very likely to be discomforting (especially if they are also being forced to remember traumatic events).
Additionally, from a legal standpoint*, a person under hypnosis would probably not be considered to have sufficient capacity to agree to the actions being taken, and possibly even to the tournament itself, and therefore there may be an argument that the game was won through deception, and any gain received as a result may well be fraudulent.
*This is very rough and not made from a particular jurisdiction's standpoint and I am not a lawyer, so don't take what I've said here as any kind of legal advice.

It specifically says "Giving advice during the duel". Giving someone advice before the duel isn't against the rules, and would be rather bizarre if it were (no one is ever allowed to discuss the game with anyone else?)

Good point. So it might make a difference whether you hypnotise them before the duel and tell them what to play, versus telling them what to play during the duel. Which also raises the issue of post-hypnotic triggers and what they fall under.


text:
Can I use Bad Toys on other people's babies?
In the rules for Evil Baby Orphanage, it says for Bad Toys that "you may discard the toy from your Orphanage to cause any Evil Baby to take it's Unsupervised Actions during your Activity Step." Does this mean that I can discard a Bad Toy to make another Time-Nanny's Evil Baby do their Unsupervised Action during my Activity Step? The people I play with have assumed up until this point that you could only do this to your own Evil Babies, but in rereading the rules, this isn't actually clear. In fact, the word "any" seems to indicate that this can be done to other Evil Babies. The ability to cause other Evil Babies to do their Unsupervised Actions seems like a very powerful ability and would drastically change the flow of a game.
Edit:
We discovered that we initially thought it only applied to your own baby because the player cards are worded differently than the instructions. They read: "you may discard the toy from your Orphanage to cause an Evil Baby to take it's Unsupervised Actions during your Activity Step." This was the original cause of our assumption; this doesn't seem to indicate that you could target other Time-Nanny's Evil Babies.

I finally took the time to ask directly on the Wyrd Games forums and someone from Wyrd responded:

Yes, you may discard a bad toy to make any baby in play (including your opponent's babies) take unsupervised actions.

So the answer is yes, bad toys can be used to activate an opponent's Evil Baby's Unsupervised Action on your own Activity Step.

Everyone I have played with has interpreted 'any' as being any baby in play.  Does beget a bit of a question regarding babies in the time stream, but I have experienced consensus on other people's babies.

Indeed, you're now making me second guess if we've been playing it right.  Gonna go check if wyrd has set up a forum yet.


text:
How many trucks can line up in one dock outside a speakeasy?
Each speakeasy has 3 docks (majority, minority, and public), but within each of those docks/bays, how many trucks are allowed to queue?  For example, say there is a speakeasy with 4 minority holders (no majority), can each holder put a truck in the minority (two star) loading dock?
The space on the board between the front of the speakeasy and the placeholders for Men of Action cards is only big enough to comfortably fit 2.  But there is nothing in the rules (as far as I could see) which limited the number of trucks allowed in each dock.

ps I don't know what tags to use.  I did see that "rules" was deprecated, but I didn't know what else to use and I'm not yet of high enough rep to create my own tag for Bootleggers.

Well, I'm going to risk making the obvious answer.  There is nothing in the rules which limits the number of trucks allowed in each dock... probably because there is no limit to the number of trucks allowed in each dock.
Looking at this example paragraph in the rulebook (p11):

b. If the demand has not been fulfilled, the Speakeasy must continue
  buying Crates from the Truck(s) at the Minority Dock, again paying the
  Wholesale Purchase Price to the Crate supplier.  The Trucks are lined
  up in Muscle card order, so Mobsters with higher Muscle cards are more
  likely to sell their Crates.  Any Crates in excess of demand go unsold
  and are lost.

Truck(s) clearly implies that there can be multiple trucks at the Minority
Dock.  All the stuff about lining trucks up in Muscle card order suggests to
me, albeit more vaguely, that there can be quite a few trucks there.  If there were only 2 trucks allowed at the Minority Dock, you'd expect some kind of phrasing such as "the Mobster with more Muscle cards", rather than "Mobsters with higher Muscle cards", wouldn't you?

We did play it as though you could have as many trucks as you like.  But I also spent 10mins during play reading and re-reading the rules trying to find a definitive answer.  I wondered if anyone else ever had the same question.

It would certainly have been nice of them to specify that there is no limit on the number of trucks in a queue... if their decision to allot only two "spaces" to each queue was, as I suspect, purely to cut the costs of printing a larger board!