text:
What should a spherical grid on flat board look like?
In a game I have an idea for, players control satellites in orbit around Earth.  In order to make orbits easier to abstract to the tabletop, I would like these satellites to move in a semi-random way around the board:  Each satellite moves a set number of spaces, but in a random direction each turn. (Or perhaps if you spend some fuel, you can choose the direction)
I think this is good, however, I want a board that looks like a sphere, because a plain square, hex, or triangle board would spoil the visual appearance of being above a sphere.
Ideally, each place in this pattern would have 6 adjacent places (for a standard die), and there should not be any "edges" - you should be moved back to the centre if you keep moving in one direction.  (This last feature is unlikely to be completely possible, I'll probably have to add a rule to avoid actually going off the edge.)  My first thought was that this would be a spirograph of some sort, similar to this:

However, while this has the right appearance, it isn't suitable for a game board because its squares disappear to nothing near the edges and the centre.  It also uses 4-sided spaces, going against my desire to use a d6 for determining directions.
Unfortunately, I haven't had any luck designing or finding a better solution.  Could anyone help me to find such a board/pattern?

If you want 6 neighbour places, then you'll need hexagonal cells. If you want the edges to wrap you can do that on a flat board, but it will represent the surface of a toroidal shape.

I'd appreciate it if the downvoters commented why they downvoted?  I'd love to be able to improve.  As far as I can tell, my question follows all the rules for this site - the only thing I can think of is maybe it's a better fit for puzzling SE?

I didn't downvote, but did you read What types of questions should I avoid asking?

This is the closest thing I know of that uses hexagons (d6 movement) but also looks like a sphere: https://web.archive.org/web/20220401131637/https://pub.ist.ac.at/~edels/hexasphere/ — note that it was an April's Fools Joke because their design would not really cover an entire sphere. But you don't need an entire sphere, only the front, and I think the design in that diagram might fit your needs.

Why would things in orbit move in a random direction in the game?  Things in orbit follow a totally set trajectory (as long as you take into account minor gravitational influence from other celestial bodies) until there is a collision or they apply thrust.

@Zags I want to simulate objects in more than one orbit, with each turn simulating a couple of weeks.  Over that length of time, satellites may as well move randomly. (I know they do not, but a higher level of accuracy would likely be far too much for the complexity level I want in this game.)

Your spirograph looks extremely similar to the boards used in spherical go. This is a spherical grid with two poles:

Properties:

Every intersection has 4 neighbours.
If you start on an intersection and follow a path from intersection to intersection, always leaving an intersection by the edge opposite to the one you entered, then you'll go through every edge exactly once and through every intersection exactly twice and end up where you started.
If you ignore distance distortions, the inner pole and the outer pole are completely symmetric.

On https://www.govariants.com/ you can select "badukWithAbstractBoard", "Circular", and then adjust the number of nodes per ring and the number of rings.

Go is played on the intersections, not the squares.
You get 6 directions of movement if you allow moving along the 4 edges and along the 2 radial diagonals:

For the solution of allowing movement in six directions, the final design should probably feature additional lines for the radial diagonals - this might make the spiralizing lines harder to see. Since the six-direction soft requirement comes from wanting to utilize a six-sided die, the original poster or others willing to utilize such a concept might consider to switch to a four-sided die instead in favor of a more easily readable board.

As much as answers consisting of links are discouraged here, this is the most complete answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections
You could have two discs, one for each hemisphere, and colored marks to help find where you go onto the other one (if you go off one hemisphere on the red mark, you enter the other hemisphere on its red mark). Or you could use one disc, but then the outer edge represents the point antipodal to the center point (traditionally, the North Pole is at the center, and the South Pole is the singularity, and yes, one point gets smeared across an entire circle) and points close to the singularity will be distorted accordingly.
BTW, if you want to tile your board with hexagons, you pretty much have to have twelve of the spaces be pentagons.

What you have are two problems, first tiling a hexagonal grid onto a sphere, and second, projecting that sphere onto a flat plane in a way that preserves some appearance of a sphere.
The first is not fully possible, as the closest approximation of a hexagonal grid on a sphere needs 12 pentagons at the vertices of an icosohedron (this is detailed in Sahr, K., White, D., & Kimerling, A. J. (2003). Geodesic discrete global grid systems.).
If you are set on a hexagonal grid system as the basis you will need to work around this limitation.
Alternatively adjusting the plan for a hex grid to something like a triangular grid would allow for a D6 to be divided into two sets of 1:2:3, and the tiling becomes simpler (although you do need to adjust the tiling slightly to account for your final projection)

Once you've worked out the issue of which tiling you want to use you're left with a much easier task of selecting the projection that best matches your vision.
The above Mollweide projection works relatively well with a triangular grid, but it may also be useful to consider options that produce a projection with squared edges like a Wulff net, or Peirce Quincuncial projection.

You could still use your spirograph with a few modifications.

Add an outer and inner circle. They represent the danger zones. If we think as the center of earth, the lines can't go anyway to the center fully. Think of the red rings as danger zones. Too close and you will crash into earth. Too far away and it will fly away.
Add blue circles that to the top of each of your small diamond shapes. They could be the stable orbit and/ or launch distance.

Just a quick paint demonstration

I like this solution, because it looks spherical AND allows for a simple deorbiting mechanic, which I hadn't worked out how to implement yet.  But I probably won't use it because of the 4-sided nature of the spirograph's pattern.

@Infinite_Maelstrom the spirograph is providing 4 directions, the blue circle are adding another 2 for a total of 6 as requested by the question.

Ahh I see.  that would work too, I might try it.  I almost have a solution thanks to all the help I've recieved here, I'll probably post it as an answer after I test it in a few games.

You can get something that roughly approximates spherical geometry with a diamond of hexagons (given that you want 6 adjacencies), where movement "wraps" east to west and "reflects" north to south. Specifically, orient the hexagons with one side vertical. Going east or west off of the side of the board puts you on the other side of the same row. Going e.g. south-east off of the side of the board puts you on the other side of the next row down. Going south-east off of the bottom hex puts you on that same hex, but moving north-east.
With this movement setup, not all paths will pass through the center, but they should all loop back on themselves.
There are other variations that could achieve similar results. For example, you could remove a few rows from the top and bottom of the diamond, and then when you go off the grid to the north or south, you go half way around the top row (including east-west wraparound) and switch the north-south movement direction. You could even do that with a rectangle of hexes. The primary point here is the east-west "wrapping" movement and the north-south "reflecting" movement.

A path across the polar point should not go back over itself facing the opposite direction, if the intent is to model an orbit around a planet.

It's an approximation. There is no perfect mapping here, and this is one that I thought would be easy to deal with in gameplay. There are variations that work here too: you could truncate the diamond at the top and bottom, and work out where you end up when you go off the top. The more hexes you have in those rows, the harder it is to keep track of what ends up where. Or maybe if you would go off the top, you instead switch the direction and move in that direction. I think gameplay testing would be needed to determine the best setup here.

Its a complex issue with many attempts to solve it. There is no solution that gets all the wanted features together so its a matter of trade-offs.  Red Blob Games is talking about several options that could do the job, in my opinion the one that fit best is the Flat rendering:

a hexagonal grid everywhere, but the underlying behavior is approximately a sphere.

Basically, a hexagonal grid with "teleports" which connected as shown in the triangles mini-map and the sphere.

You've been around here long enough to know what Stack Exchange thinks of answers which don't make sense without reading an external link :)

@PhilipKendall, you right, Thanks for letting me know I need to edit my answer, is this addition make sense:
Basically, its a hexagonal grid with "teleports".  Teleports are connected according to the triangle mini-map.

This is just a description of the implementation details of the suggestion in your other answer. Why is it a separate answer? Also, to clarify, are you suggesting that the hex grid on the physical game board have the overall shape of an unfolded icosahedron?

@murgatroid99, no, those are two different solutions. You just comment on the other solution that it is putting a tile grid on an actual sphere instead of putting a grid onto a physical flat surface.  This solution is putting a grid onto a physical flat surface. So I dont get why you think those are the same solution.

@murgatroid99, I suggest that the hex grid on a physical game board with teleporters in the right locations have the overall shape of an unfolded icosahedron.

The two answers link to the same webpage, and they are describing two parts of the same overall design: subdividing a sphere into hexagons and pentagons, and rendering part of that grid at any given time as a flat grid. Also, I want to note a significant point in the second paragraph of the "Flat rendering" section: they keep it looking flat by rearranging triangles the player can't see to prevent the pentagons from being visible. You can't do that on a physical board.


text:
What are budget options for decks competitive in local standard tournaments?
With Wizards of the Coast pushing the format again, building budget-friendly decks to compete in the local scene becomes relevant. How can one approach the construction of budget decks for competitive local play of Standard (Friday Night Magic tournaments)?

"Competitive" and "budget" are somewhat contradictory requirements. The most competitive cards are usually the least budget-friendly, precisely because everyone will want them and drive the price up.

@Hackworth while that's true, the cost of MtG cards is much more determined by whether they are popular in Commander and Modern than in Standard which does give a potential niche.

The question was flagged as opinion-based, the mater is not opinion-based, though. There is data that shows competitiveness in a deck, and budget-friendly, although relative, is not opinion-based as well. How can I better approach the question so that it can be reopened?

I have to agree with Pietro here, this question was wrongly closed as opinion based. There are reams of data on the strengths of particular decks and the costs of the cards those decks use over time, that makes the answer to competitive and budget very much data driven. It could have been closed as needing details (and this was my close reason, no idea of what the budget is was given) but that's a different close reason entirely.

An attempt to write a somewhat timeless answer, rather than one which just happens to give an answer for Standard as of March 2024.

As much as possible, you want a mono-coloured deck. Basic lands are free, dual lands are not.
It's a somewhat timeless truth that aggro decks are cheap. Normally that means mono-red aggro/burn but can also mean something like white weenies or occasionally mono-black.
Look at MTG Goldfish's list of standard decks and see what's out there.

As of March 2024, this includes a mono-red aggro deck which comes in under $100 and has 5% of the metagame; some builds of the deck can be significantly cheaper. The disclaimer here is that cheap decks do tend to have an inflated metagame share precisely because they are cheap.

Generally red aggro decks are lower cost than other deck types while still being able to compete. Taken from the standard meta list published on MTGGoldfish as of the writing of this answer, mono red aggro is the only deck in the top 50+
that costs less than $100 in paper and is still meta relevant at around 5.5% of the meta.
For even more of a budget, there's a list for those too. Budget decks won't be as good, usually, as the more meta defining ones, but they definitely can stand up and put in a decent showing.

I have no affiliation with MTGGoldfish, they just tend to have pretty good and accurate resources in my experience.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the game check how many creatures you have before a boardwide effect changes those creatures toughness? (MTG)
Say I have Kaervek, the Spiteful and Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder on the battlefield and I cast Sibsig Muckdraggers, creating 9 1/1 thrulls that immediately die to Kaervek's effect.  Would the game force me to sacrifice Endrek Sahr in this case, and if so, would I be able to put him back in my hand with Sibsig's effect?

How triggered abilities work
First of all, what's important to handle a lot of the things in question here is how triggers and state-based actions work. A simplification of the relevant events is:

if something meets an ability's trigger condition, that ability triggers (but is not put on the stack yet)
state-based actions are checked
triggers are put on the stack

The relevant rules for this order are:

117.2a Triggered abilities can trigger at any time, including while a spell is being cast, an ability is being activated, or a spell or ability is resolving. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.") However, nothing actually happens at the time an ability triggers. Each time a player would receive priority, each ability that has triggered but hasn't yet been put on the stack is put on the stack. See rule 117.5.
117.2d State-based actions happen automatically when certain conditions are met. See rule 704. They’re dealt with before a player would receive priority. See rule 117.5.

What happens for this scenario
With that out of the way, here's what happens in your scenario, assuming nothing else other than what you described happens:
You cast Sibsig Muckdraggers, which triggers Endrek Sahr's first ability, which is put on the stack and will resolve to create 9 0/0 tokens (they would be 1/1 tokens, but their P/T get modified by Kaervek). This triggers Endrek Sahr's second ability, which is not put on the stack yet. State-based actions put the tokens into your graveyard (where they cease to exist), then Endrek Sahr's second ability is put on the stack and resolves, which will also put Endrek Sahr in the graveyard.
This is further emphasized by one of Endrek Sahr's rulings:

When the second ability resolves, Endrek Sahr will be sacrificed regardless of how many Thrulls you control at that time, even if it's less than seven.

Finally, Sibsig Muckdraggers will resolve, and them entering the battlefield triggers their ability. Now that this ability is put on the stack, you must choose a target for it, which may be Endrek Sahr (since that creature is in your graveyard).
So yes, you would have to sacrifice Endrek Sahr, and you will be able to put it back into your hand afterwards.

Thank you for your help!  I did not know that order you described at the beginning, this is a huge help,.

The fact that a trigger such as Endrek Sahr's doesn't care about the change in creature count between triggering and resolution, is the main reason why "intervening if" clauses exist... yes?

@KarlKnechtel Well... most abilities care about the game state as it is once the ability resolves, such as when gaining life for each creature you control. Intervening if clauses are used when the trigger and the resolution requires a certain state to be true, whereas the absence of such means the ability will try to resolve no matter what. I don't have any insight on development in this regard, but from observation, I can take guesses as to why some cards have intervening if clauses when others don't - mostly it's to prevent weird or overly powerful things from happening.

I meant in terms of mechanics rather than power level; the intervening if clause causes the card to work differently than if it weren't there, and specifically is designed to allow for the possibility of something relevant happening between triggering and resolution. But sure, I guess e.g. Endrek Sahr could have been writtten so that it also gains life for each thrull upon triggering (in addition to the self-sacrifice), and this would not require an intervening if. And in the currently discussed situation, it would not gain life, because the thrulls are no longer there at resolution.

I think it's likely more that they wanted to be able to write conditional triggered abilities, and the "intervening if" wording was the simplest way to do that. Then they had to find a simple and intuitive way to handle those conditions, and checking both as you put the ability on the stack and as you start to resolve it ended up being the best option. In a few cases it is used awkwardly for mechanical reasons, and sometimes they use a different wording to get different functionality, but most of the time it's just a direct expression of a condition.

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


text:
Myrkul, Lord of Bones interaction with exile
Myrkul, Lord of Bones says "whenever another non-token creature you control dies, you may exile it. If you do, create a token that's a copy of that card, except it's an enchantment and loses all other card types.
With Athreos, Shroud-Veiled, I can put coin counters on creatures and "whenever a creature with a coin counter on it dies or is put into exile, return that card to the battlefield under your control."
Similarly with Kaya the Inexorable, ghostform counters give non-token creatures "When this creature dies or is put into exile, return it to it's owner's hand and create a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying."
If I control all three of these cards and one of my other, non-token, legendary creatures with a coin counter and ghostform counter dies, what happens?...
I'm assuming I have to choose between the two counter's triggers and can't get a spirit and the creature on the battlefield, but can I choose one of those triggers and get the enchantment?
If my opponent had something like Grave Betrayal which says "Whenever a creature you don't control dies, return it to the battlefield under your control with an additional +1/+1 counter on it at the beginning of the next end step." would I be able to exile it, get the enchantment, then they get the creature?
Sorry there's a lot of confusing questions, thanks for the help in advance.

Hello and yes, that is too many questions in one, with many different answers depending on what you want to know most. Please try to focus on one interaction.

In this particular case, I think this basically boils down to mild variations of one kind of interaction, so I think it's basically fine for one question.

OK, the part about the legend rule should probably be removed or separated out into a different question. It doesn't actually make much of a difference here because it turns out not to be relevant to the situation described, but it's still a separate issue which should be addressed separately.

My apologies, I'll make another question concerning the legendary rule. Thanks for the feedback!

You only get one of the effects, except that you always get the Spirit from Kaya's ability.
The most important rules for this are 109.2, 400.7, and 400.7e:

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t refer to a specific zone or include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.
400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. This rule has the following exceptions.
...

400.7e Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone.

When the creature dies, each of these abilities can find it in the graveyard. Each of them then tries to move it out of the graveyard. Myrkul tries to move it to exile, Athreos tries to move it to the battlefield, and Kaya tries to move it to your hand. Whichever one of those happens first succeeds, but then it's no longer in the graveyard, so the other effects can't find it, so they can't move it. Kaya's ability is different just because it tries to do two separate things: move the card, and create the token. Even if it can't move the card, it still makes the token.
It's also important to note that because of rule 109.2, each of these abilities only care about creature permanents on the battlefield moving into the graveyard (or exile). So, Athreos's and Kaya's abilities don't trigger again when Myrkul's ability moves the card from the graveyard to exile. So even though they mention exile, they don't actually see the card in exile if it moves there that way.
Fortunately for you, since you control the triggered abilities, you get to choose the order they go on the stack. So, you get to choose which one happens.
Grave Betrayal works the same, except that the abilities are controlled by different players. In that case, the abilities go on the stack in APNAP (Active Player, Non-Active Player) order: in turn order starting with the current player. That means that Grave Betrayal's ability will go either on top or on the bottom of the stack, depending on whose turn it is. If it's on top, the opponent gets the creature, otherwise one of the other abilities works instead.

So let's say I choose Myrkul's ability. Are you saying that even though I would then exile the creature, the Athreos ability can't also work because it technically goes from the graveyard to exile?

@NCz correct, when the card moves from the graveyard to exile (for myrkul) or the battlefield (for athreos) the other ability doesn't follow it into the new zone, it's on the stack and tries to move the card, but since the card is no longer where that ability expects it to be, it fails and does nothing.

Bummer, but thanks for all the help!


text:
What happens when the Discard Pile is flipped and a Skip Card appears in UNO Flip?
Playing UNO FLIP!, we flipped the cards (the cards on hand, Draw Pile and Discard Pile) and now a yellow Skip Card appeared on top of the Discard Pile.
Should the next person's turn be skipped or not?

No, you don't take any actions based on the card you see after a flip.
Here's the full rules of what happens when you play a flip card:

Flip Card - when you play this card, everything flips over from the Light Side to the Dark Side. Once the Flip card has been played, flip over the Discard Pile (the card just played will now be on the bottom), then the Draw Pile, then everyone’s hands must flip to the other side. This new side will remain in play until another Flip card is played, changing it again. This card may only be played on a matching color or on another Flip card.

No mention of skipping or reversing or taking any other actions based on what card is on top after the flip.
The face-up card on the discard pile simply determines the next legal play:

Whether playing the Light Side or the Dark Side, on your turn, you must match a card from your hand to the card on the top of the DISCARD pile, either by number, color or symbol (symbols represent Action Cards; see FUNCTIONS OF ACTION CARDS).

So the next player either plays a yellow or skip card (matching the top card), or  a wild.

In addition, the rules for each of the action cards (ie a skip) begins "When you play this card" - a card appearing on top after a flip hasn't just been played.  Also worth noting that after the first flip, every flip thereafter will result in a flip card being on top (until the draw pile runs out and the discards are shuffled), and you wouldn't then infinitely keep flipping them, in the same way you don't skip.

The UNO Flip! rules (from 2020) now clearly state what to do.
When the deck is flipped:

you do NOT have to take the action, and
the player who played the flip card calls the color.


text:
Merging two sets of three to clear a joker in Rummikub
In Rummikub, can I merge these two sets of three together to clear the joker?
On the table:
Red 9, Red 10, Joker, and
Red 11, Red 12, Red 13

Yes you can.
This will result in a valid meld of 9,10,11,12,13 and a cleared joker to be played to a different meld.
Rummikub rules describe 4 ways to clear a joker, your situation is the 4th.

Actually it depends on the rules. The rummikub rules section regarding how to take jokers are different in post-2017 version of the game. The pre-2017 version is much less permissive than the more recent one.


text:
Stacking on a Wild Reverse Draw 4 Card in UNO Show 'Em No Mercy
We are a few people who are playing Uno Show 'Em No Mercy and we can't agree on if you are allowed to put a Wild Draw 6 Card or Wild Draw 10 Card on a Wild Reverse Draw 4 Card?

You can stack another draw card as long as the draw value is equal to or higher then the last one. In your example both of them work as they have a greater value then the Wild Reverse Draw 4 Card.
UNO Show 'Em No Mercy Rules

Stacking - If someone plays a Draw Card (+2, +4, +6, +10) you can
“Stack” the penalty by playing a Draw Card from your hand of equal or
higher value. If you do, the card you played adds to the total penalty
for the next player. For example, if someone plays a +4 card on you,
and you can play a +6 on top of it, the next player is now forced to
draw 10 cards (unless they can play a Draw +6 or higher, then it goes
on to the next player). This continues until someone can’t play a Draw
Card that equals or exceeds the value of the last card played.
That player then takes the full penalty of all stacked Draw Cards. Ouch!


text:
Ticket to Ride Europe: Can owner of Smyrna station claim the routes Palermo to Constantinople?
Can the owner of the Smyrna station claim the routes for the destination ticket Palermo to Constantinople?

A Train Station allows its owner to use one, and only one, of the routes belonging to another player, into (or out of) that city to help him connect the cities on his Destination Tickets.

The yellow player could claim either the Smyrna-Constantinople or the Smyrna-Palermo route with their station, but they could not use it for both. Additionally, the route needs to have been built by another player so if it's completely unused then they could not.


text:
In Spades, bid + partner's bid exceeds 13
In Spades, how to score if the total bid of me and my partner is over 13?
For example, if I bid 10 and my partner bids 5, can we score even though we can only get 13 tricks?

That would only happen if you and your partner had to bid simultaneously, without either knowing the other's bid. But one partner will always know their partner's bid ahead of time, and can bid accordingly.

See more at https://spades.co/how-to-play-spades

A bid in spades is for the number of tricks the team will win, not the player. And the bid is capped at 13. If you bid 10, that's a bid for you and your partner to take 10. Your partner cannot then bid 5 for your team, since you have already bid 10 for the team.
From these rules:

Bidding Order: Starting with the player to the left of the dealer, each player bids on the number of tricks they believe their team can win during the round. Bids can range from "Nil" (winning no tricks) to "13" (winning all tricks).

Does that mean someone can bid 13, forcing their partner to go nill and possibly throw the hand to lose both bids?

@JoeW, yes. bidding 13 means your partner must bid nil.  Usually this bid will result in a -230 points for the team.

That would be an invalid bid and your partner would only be able to bid a max of 3. The total bid for a team cannot exceed 13 which is the number of possible tricks. The total bid between both teams can exceed 13 on the other hand.
If a bid of 15 was allowed the only possible outcome is for your team to go set as that bid is impossible to acheive.


text:
Wild Reverse Draw 4 Card as final card with two players in UNO Show 'Em No Mercy
In UNO Show 'Em No Mercy with 2 players:
If you play your last card and it is a Wild Reverse Draw 4 Card.
Is the game over or does the action from the card immediately force you to draw four cards?

You have won the game.
From the UNO Show 'Em No Mercy rules:

Winning:
When a player plays their final card, they win.


text:
Terrain Cards and Locomotive Cards in Ticket to Ride The Heart of Africa
In Ticket to Ride The Heart of Africa you must have more than or an equal number of terrain cards to play over another person.
If one person has 3 terrain cards face up and I have only 2 terrain cards face up, but I hold a wild card, can I play the route doubling my points?
Or can I only play based on the number of displayed terrain cards?
To me the logic is you can only play if you have and equal number or more terrain cards as the opposing player and Locomotive (wild) cards cannot be counted toward your displayed terrain card face up count.

Yes you can use locomotives to reach the number of Terrain cards shown by an opponent. Indeed this exact situation is shown in the rules.
Heart of Africa Rules

Using Locomotives as Wild Terrain cards
During his turn only, a player may opt to use some of his Locomotives as
Wild Terrain cards instead of Wild Train cards. Each Locomotive played this
way is worth 1 Terrain card of the player’s choice. All locomotives played as Wild Terrain cards must be discarded. They go on
the Train discard pile.


text:
Stacking Reverse Draw 4's in UNO Show 'Em No Mercy?
So according to Cool Old Games the new UNO Show 'Em No Mercy game allows for stacking Draw Cards.
Someone asked a question in the comments there and I have been wondering the same.
It seems clear to me that you are allowed to stack Draw 2, Draw 4, Wild Draw 6, and Wild Draw 10 cards.
But can you stack Reverse Draw 4 cards as well?
And if so, would the reverse effect activate?
Perhaps someone who owns the game and has access to the manual can chime in.

Yes, I would say you can, since the Wild Reverse Draw 4 Card is (as you can tell by its name) a "Draw card".
The UNO Show 'Em No Mercy Rules states:

Stacking –
If someone plays a Draw Card (+2, +4, +6, +10) you can “Stack” the penalty by playing a Draw Card from your hand of equal or higher value...
For example, if someone plays a +4 card on you, and you can play a +6 on top of it, the next player is now forced to draw 10 cards (unless they can play a Draw +6 or higher, then it goes on to the next player)...

Wild Reverse Draw 4 Card -
Reverse the direction of play, then the next player in the new direction must draw 4 cards and lose their turn.
With just two players this card skips the other player and makes YOU draw 4 cards!
You may use the stacking rule to send the penalty back to the other player.

“With just two players this card skips the other player and makes YOU draw 4 cards! You may use the stacking rule to send the penalty back to the other player.”
Meaning you must play a Draw 4 card or higher to avoid drawing 4 cards.


text:
Can you overbid in Monopoly as a tactic?
So during Monopoly, my sister decided not to buy a property and it was auctioned. My brother had no more than $300 and I had around $700. He kept raising the bid even though he couldn't pay and I didn't know since he wasn't showing his money.
He backed out after he made me raise my bid to $550, despite him only having $300, and I lost a lot more money than I had to because he tricked me. Is that legal? It doesn't explicitly say in the rules that you can't trick players by bidding more than you have but it feels illegal to me.

Related (basically the inverse of this question): https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/53998/9999

You may bid more money than you have in cash, but this is very risky because you are obligated to pay it if you win the auction.  This may be a reasonable play if you can afford it by mortgaging property and/or selling houses, especially to drive up the price for your opponent.  But be careful not to bid more than you can pay after mortgages and sales, as if you win the auction and can't pay your bid, you go bankrupt.  In particular, if you bid more than you can afford, you opponents can all just let you win the bid, at which point you go bankrupt and the property you just bought would go up for auction again (in addition to all your other properties).
Whether or not a player is allowed to hide their money is a separate question: Is the amount of money each player has in Monopoly public knowledge?
Source: excerpt of my own answer to a related question

While the rules don't say it I think it is fair to say you can't bid more then it is possible to pay just to cause others to pay more

@JoeW you can but if you win the bid you lose the game

@Jungkook There is a difference between overbidding by mistake and overbidding on purpose to make someone else pay more.

@JoeW Of course it's fair.  The risk is that you win the auction and go bankrupt.  If the other players have a good ballpark idea of how much wealth you have, bidding more than you can pay is a very risky strategy, but there's nothing "unfair" about it.

@Kyralessa I disagree that is is fair to knowingly and repeatedly bid more then you can afford to cause others to pay more.

@JoeW Such a strategy is not against the standard Monopoly rules.  Instead of repeatedly stating that you find it unfair, please explain why you find it unfair.

@Kyralessa Because the player that is overbidding is lying about what they can afford and how much money they have? Because they are taking advantage of a player who may not realize what is going on? Judging from the question it appears it causes some confusion and hurt feelings.

In the question, it appears the issue wasn't so much the player overbidding as the player hiding his money instead of displaying it on the table.  In official Monopoly tournaments this is not allowed.  There's nothing unfair about bidding up an auction beyond what you can paid, but there does seem to be something unfair about hiding one's money unless everyone agrees to it at the outset.

@Kyralessa Not sure how you are getting that when the title calls out overbidding and the question body talks about a player bidding more then they can afford to pay.

"My brother had no more than $300 and I had around $700. He kept raising the bid even though he couldn't pay and I didn't know since he wasn't showing his money."

If OP had their money on the table as required, OP could have reasonably determined when they had overbid, letting them "win" the auction but possibly losing the game (if Brother didn't have additional properties to mortgage to cover their bid). The overbidding was fair; hiding their ability to back it up was not.

@chepner I don't believe that the amount of money a player has is public knowledge.  See https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/57494/9999

Yes, that's why I only said the money has to be on the table, not that the OP had to reveal the exact amount.

The difficulty in banning overbids is that a bid may be perfectly reasonably predicated on selling/exchanging other properties, selling Get Out Of Jail Free cards, and doing deals on future rents, if it happens to win. These don't have a fixed valuation and so determining if a bid is an overbid becomes a matter of "is this bid reasonable?" rather than "is this bid payable in cash?". (Again, dangerous play if all opponents agree to reject the sweet deals offered to them, in order to bankrupt the overbidder)

The bigger problem here isn't the auction. It's that your brother didn't have his money in view, so you couldn't even guess how much he had. Tournament rules disallow this, though they don't require the player to disclose the exact amount of cash they have, nor to organize their cash in a way that this is easy to determine.
I could add that technically you would have been able to figure out exactly how much money he had by keeping track of all his transactions, but I don't blame you for not doing this. I certainly would not be able to do it. Still, you can often estimate it; if they mortgaged properly recently or sold a house, you know they're not exactly flush with cash. And if you can see their properties, you can add up their values and get a rough idea of how much the player has spent over the course of the game.
But I think the best solution is to agree to keep all money in view and to allow overbidding. If your opponent tricks you by overbidding when you can see more or less how much money they have, that's on you. Instead, turn the tables and make them pay an enormous debt!

The rules do not say anything about bidding more then you can afford however I think it would be fair to say you can only bid what you can pay. That being said there is also nothing saying you can't sell houses/hotels or mortgage property in order to pay for your winning bid.
In situations like this I think a simple solution would be to require everyone to show how they will pay for their bid when making it. It can either be the needed cash or what will be sold/mortgaged in order to pay for it.
https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf

If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction
to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid
in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player,
including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed
price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price.

Can people explain what is wrong with this answer?

This answer advocates a house rule.  In general, house rules are frowned on in Monopoly because they tend to make the game last much, much longer than normal.  Even if this particular house rule doesn't cause that problem, you're pushing for what you vaguely feel is "fair" even though there's nothing in the actual rules forbidding overbidding.  But more importantly, the actual question that was asked was whether bidding more than you can possibly pay is legal, and to that, the answer is yes.

@Kyralessa The rules don't cover overbidding on purpose and I would question that asking people to only bid what they can afford making the game last longer. I would also question the idea that many people purposely overbid to try and make people bid more as I have never seen it happen or even though about it until now. Also if you look at my answer history for monopoly you will see I have plenty of answers on house rules making a game take longer.

@JoeW: Freedom is to be assumed as the default, unless the rules forbid it. Live with it.

@ForgetIwaseverhere That doesn't mean that you can overbid for an amount you can't pay, and not sure why you decided to comment on an answer that is over two years old.


text:
Is a Wild Card considered a color match when drawing cards after a Wild Draw Color Card is played, in Uno Flip?
When the "Wild Draw Color Card" is played, the next player must start drawing cards.
If they draw a "Wild Card", does it qualify as the selected Color?

No. A Wild Card has no color. It can be played on any card regardless of color, number, or symbol, but it doesn't have a color itself.
From the rules:

you must match a card from your hand to the
  card on the top of the DISCARD pile, either by number, color or symbol [...] Alternatively, the player can put down a Wild card (See FUNCTIONS OF ACTION CARDS).

The "Draw Color" card specifies that the target draw cards until they draw one whose color is the named color.


text:
In Ticket to Ride UK: Do you need to complete both routes indicated on a destination card?
In Ticket to Ride UK, there is a destination card from Glasgow to France that has two routes to France. The points on the card are 19.
If a player completes both routes to France that are indicated on this destination card, would the player receive 38 points?
Or is the player required to complete both destinations for 19 points?

You only have to make the required connection (Glasgow to France) once for 19 points. Like all destination tickets; a single ticket cannot be scored multiple times, even if you connect the locations via multiple routes.
The reason that the ticket shows multiple routes is because France is a country, as opposed to a city. In the base Ticket to Ride game, destination tickets are only between two cities. But in this expansion, some of them include a country instead of a city. The country behaves differently because there are multiple spaces within that country. So instead of having to connect a specific place to another specific place; you just have to connect a specific place to one of those 2 places within France.
This is mentioned somewhat in the Ticket to Ride: Marklin rules:

Some Destination Ticket include the name of a city and a country name. Each route leading to a country
  is a dead end and cannot be used to link two cities.

It's also in the rules for TtR:Switzerland: " To complete a city-to-country ticket you must connect from the city name on the ticket to one of the countries listed on the ticket. [...] The points earned at game's end are those of the highest scoring connection completed from among the possible country destinations marked on the ticket."

You only need to connect the two locations using any route in order to claim the points. Once you've connected the two locations, the Destination Ticket is considered complete and you can claim the points at the end of the game. A Destination Ticket can only be completed and scored once, even if you complete it multiple times through different routes.
I believe this is cleared up in the rules for the Heart of Africa expansion, which has a similar situation with Madagascar:

Madagascar is represented by 2 locations on the map; Tickets to Madagascar can be completed by reaching either of these 2 locations, even if the other location isn’t reached.

This could also be applied to France in the United kingdom expansion. The question about the Glasgow-France ticket has also been asked over on BoardGameGeek and answered the same.

I don't think this is actually clear based on the base rules. In the base game, as it says, a destination ticket includes the name of two CITIES. And the drawing on the card shows those 2 Cities and the shortest way they could be connected generally. But here, we have 3 spots shown on the card, not 2; and it shows a country instead of a city.

Yes, if I read it correctly, the second half that you edited in is what really answers the question. I don't think the question was ever asking about if you have to specifically follow the city-to-city routes that are shown on the destination tickets.

@GendoIkari Yeah. It didn't occur to me that there would be any confusion relating to connecting both routes. In my head, that was covered by the first portion of my answer, wherein you only need to connect the two locations to score points, regardless of how you connect them. Thanks for the comment that led to the improvement.

so if you complete both routes from Glasgow to France, you get 38 points?  In T-T-R Switzerland there are a few cards with multiple city to country routes, each of which have their own point value shown on the card.  So the player collects the points associated with each completed route.  But this card shows only one point count, not separate ones for each route to France.  Thanks for your help.

@MaryAnn No. You'll only score the points one time for a total of 19 points. For Destination tickets that only have two locations to connect, you don't score points for each time they're connected. You only score them once.

I don't understand your first (bolded) sentence. There are three cities on the card, which two do you need to connect?

@MaryAnn There are only two locations on the card: Glasgow and France. You only need to connect those two locations.

@MaryAnn I think you're getting hung up on the picture. The Destination Ticket requires you to connect two locations. As long as you do that, regardless of how you do it, you score the points on the card. In this case, there happens to be two different ways to complete that Destination Ticket: the east and west points for France.

The problem is that the picture on the card is NOT clear by itself. It shows 3 locations on the card; you need the rulebook (the heart of Africa rules really) to understand that 2 of those locations both count as "France", and it doesn't matter which one you connect to.

@GendoIkari I disagree. The card says to connect Glasgow to France. The picture is inconsequential in how a player does this. If every Destination Ticket in TTR had no picture, it wouldn't change the locations that need to be connected. The picture may not be clear, but it doesn't need to be. I agree that the ruling in the Heart of Africa Expansion on Madagascar provides the clearest way to treat this case.

@SocioMatt If every card had no picture, it would be fine. The problem is that all the other cards have a picture that shows just 2 locations; the 2 that need to be connected. This card breaks that convention by showing 3 locations; of which 2 of them are alternate options within France.

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


text:
In Ticket to Ride, how do you overcome bad initial tickets?
I've played fewer than a dozen games, but have noticed that I can now guess with about 75% accuracy whether I'll win or not just based on my initial 3 tickets drawn.
If I have a long transcontinental route and a shorter one which partially overlaps it, I'll probably win (if I discard the 3rd card).
Same if I have two medium routes that together make a long transcontinental route.
On the other hand, if I have 3 very short routes, I'll probably lose. It's even worse if the 3 short routes don't come close to overlapping or stringing together.
What strategy can be used to overcome initial bad tickets?
Any rule alteration suggestions for reducing this effect?

If you are interested in a semi-official house-rule you might import the change from the 1910 expansion.  Draw 5/keep 3.  When pulling a new Destination ticket, draw 4/keep 1.

@PatLudwig do you mean draw 5/keep at least 3, or draw 5/keep exactly 3?

@DJMcMayhem - at least 3

I have won games with a bad initial draw by simply forgoing tickets. This really works best when you have two tickets that are only worth 4 - 5 points.

Keep the lowest value tickets, return the highest.
Ignore the tickets completely
Immediately aim for as many five and six train routes as possible.
If you can hit the stretch of three six train routes across the top of the US or a the bottom, that might lead to the longest route bonus.
Be willing to 'waste' a turn, perhaps two, per player breaking/blocking them using one,  two if you must, train routes. Watch the San Francisco, Portland and Seattle section for easy opportunities to block; Houston works well as well here.

+1. If you're not going to win with positive/constructive play, you leverage the nature of route cards and win with negative/destructive play. Ruin the opportunity of other players to complete their routes.

In that situation, I would recommend getting rid of one of the three, and then drawing additional tickets immediately.  These additional tickets will either give you your corresponding transcontinental route to put you in the situation you like, or give you a bunch more short routes, some of which likely correspond with the ones you already have.  If none of them work, keep one, and then draw additional tickets again.
You want to do this early, because it is possible that you will end up needing to not go for one of your short routes at all.  While it hurts to lose points from a ticket, it can be offset if you complete enough other ones, and it is better than just completing some disconnected short routes and then relying on a lucky ticket draw at the end of the game.

I'm assuming American version. I have had this happen to me multiple times and by following this strategy I can usually win or come close. The worst it ever got was once I ended up with 8 Tickets none of which crossed the continent and I fulfilled 6 and managed to block enough people to pickup the win. It's doable just not easy.

Drawing additional tickets early is a good suggestion, but I wouldn't recommend drawing them immediately. I'd suggest drawing a bunch of train cards before drawing more tickets. That way you know what colors you're strong in when deciding what routes to take. You could argue the reverse, i.e. get the routes first so you know what color cards to take, but I find that doesn't work as well. First, you may not get the colors you need. Second, you're going to tip off your opponents, because they'll see what you're taking.

As for a strategy to overcome this, it seems like that you're using only one strategy which is based on completing a long route, with overlapping tickets, as the main method to gain points.
Something you may be missing is that if your tickets are only short routes, you can finish them easily and them spend the rest of the time doing two things:

Claiming 6 train routes
Preventing your opponents from completing tickets.

Something to try next time might be then to start on your hardest route, but watch for a clear destination from an opponent.  Then spend some time blocking him.  There are a few key routes that are not only worth points, but also are hard to go around.  You will need to pay attention to which colors your opponents are collection as well as where they're building their trains, so it is a more difficult strategy to pull-off, but it can work well.  I've seen several games where the only people to complete routes were people with small ones, and therefore the small routes tickets won.
Since you also asked for an alternate house-rule, one that adds fun is to draft the starting cards.  Everyone draws three, picks one, passes the rest left, then people pick one of the remaining two and discards (face-down) the last one.   You get to select from more cards (2 of 5) but you also get an inkling of what your opponent(s) may have.

Very interesting idea passing discards - reminds me of the card game Hearts, where passing is by far the most interesting aspect of the game.

There's also "keep two very low scoring routes and ignore them, instead focussing on stopping your opponents" which is sometimes effective. In games where I've won doing this, I generally only draw face down cards. Then, watch the cards your opponents pick up to predict what their route might be. I've only done this in 2/3 player games where it's easier to block entry in to major cites like New York.

I've seen games won with as few as two total tickets, even if they're small and not near each other. In those cases, the strategy generally was to make one long transcontinental route (often through Canada or along the Gulf Coast, picking up many 6-train connections) that covers both tickets, getting many points from the connections and the longest continuous route bonus. This hinges on being able to do this quickly and somewhat clandestinely, but if you're able to visualize the ideal place for each of your trains at the beginning (with a contingency plan or two in case you get blocked) and draw your cards for the long term (i.e., taking colors you don't need right away if you'll need them for one of the routes you want later), this can be done.
If you and the people you're playing with don't object to blocking for the sake of blocking, some tactical play when you're low on trains can also go a long way to helping you by hurting your opponents.

There is a perfect route that takes up almost all the twelve point and up tickets. the only catch is you have to be willing to forgo going to Miami. The route is as so- CAL-VAN-SEA-PORT-SANFRAN-LA-PHO-SANTA-DEN-KC-STL-CHI-PIT-NY-MON with a divert to NAS-ATL. This route takes about 38 trains, give or take, and almost guarantees a completed route if you draw at games end.

Lovely. Unfortunately other players are also trying to make routes, so you can't guarantee this early on. Much better to pick up more destination cards to determine where you need to go, than assume your destinations beforehand.

The problem of three short routes is fairly easy to fix; you should try to make them part of a total of five or six. That means redrawing destination routes at least once early on. You'll sacrifice a turn, but it will probably be worth it. That is, you should try to transform your hand into two good routes and two or three short (additional) ones. If the second draw is bad, better luck next time.
The hard one to play is three long, unconnected routes. Then you will probably have to throw one away (hopefully you don't have two to Miami), and hope that you can you can fulfill the two that you keep.

I could be wrong, but every time I won (2-3 players) I won by taking a lot of 3 or less train paths, because of how efficient they were.
I could draw 2 cards I needed, and next turn play them with no problem, and finish tickets relatively quickly.
I usually go from Seattle to Chicago via Houston, avoiding Miami, (the game makes it so difficult, yet worth so much) going up to New York, and making a left turn. This can be done relatively quickly, except for San Francisco to Los Angeles, and is very connectable with everything.

This isn't the best way to make points for yourself, but this is a good way to block other people from making points. And Ticket to Ride is a "curved" game, so what matters is how well you do on the curve. Strangely enough, it might be easier to get longest path when you can place "randomly" and aren't tied down to long destinations. An upvote for a good and interesting point.


text:
replacing a Joker in Rummikub
Lets say there's a set: 2,3,4, joker. Can I take the joker to make a new set like 7,7,7 without replacing the joker with a 5 since there will still be 3 tiles in the first set?


text:
American checkers largest possible number of legal move choices from any board position
I want to know what is the maximum number of legal move choices from any board position, in the game of checkers, assuming official rules.
I'm creating a program that plays checkers, and for performance reasons, I need to know in advance the largest number of legal moves. I expect it to be quite low, like under 50, but just making a guess is not an option for me.
I searched for this, but couldn't find an answer. Maybe I missed something.
Edit:
Thinking for a moment, I think (one of) the largest theoretical number(s) of legal moves might be where all 12 pieces are kings, like in the position W:WK5,K6,K7,K8,K13,K14,K15,K16,K21,K22,K23,K24:BK30, which has 42 legal moves. That position is not valid and is not possible to occur. I'm more interested though in the largest possible moves from a valid checkers position. An upper bound might be fine.

I think it would be helpful if your post reminded us of the capturing rules in American checkers without needing to follow the rules link. In particular, it seems that kings cannot capture any distance along a line like in other versions of checkers.

How do you count branching capturing of stones? I'm sure that if you can arrange the board in such a way that you can capture all stones at once, there will be more than 50 possible moves that turn simple because of the different ways you could fork the jump

https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/18949/checkers-draughts-capture-all-pieces-in-1-move might be related

@Zibelas I knew about that post. In American checkers, one can capture at most 9 pieces and in that position, if I'm not mistaken, white has 9 possible moves (capture choices).

Considering the fact that the number of possible choices for the largest capture is 9, the largest number of moves should come from positions with no captures available, where there are as many kings as possible.
I just self played from the initial position a game where white has managed to create 7 kings, leaving it 7 * 4 = 28 legal moves in this position W:B28,K32:WK6,K7,K8,K14,K15,K16,K22.
If there exists a sequence of moves where white creates 8 kings and places the 8th king on square 23 before the 40-moves rule kicks in, then white would have 8 * 4 = 32 legal moves.
Going even further, if white creates 9 or 10 kings and places them in the same fashion, except for 9th and 10th kings somewhere on the edge, then white would have 8 * 4 + 1 * 2 = 34 or 8 * 4 + 2 * 2 = 36 legal moves.
If I can prove that white or black can never create more than 7, 8 or 9 kings from the initial position (because the other side is forced to capture), then I would have an answer.
36 moves seems a reasonable upper bound, since that would mean that the other side has only captured 2 pieces, which looks impossible. Even capturing only 3 pieces seems impossible.
My own answer doesn't satisfy me much, so I'm still looking for facts.

I am not asking if you have seen it, but have you heard about an American checkers game where the opponents work together to get each of their 12 playing pieces made into 12 kings?

No, I haven't heard about something like that. But as far as I know, it's impossible to not lose at least a few pieces due to forced captures.

There is a thread called "How many kings possible is it to have on the board at once?"  There are links in there about the supposed proved moves, but when I clicked them, the links no longer work.


text:
Should players recount their moves during deliberation in Werewolf? What if no werewolves?
I've only played about 10 games of ONUW and during deliberation on who to vote out, a trend emerges: we often discuss what we did and try to deduce who is who.
Say there was a Seer, Troublemaker, Robber, and Village Idiot, each one would tell everyone else which cards they looked at/swapped around, so much so that by the end of the deliberation, we usually have all of the players correct. Is the game meant to be played this way? Is there any benefit to a villager telling a lie?
What if no player has a werewolf (say they're all in the middle). Is there a way villagers can even win the game? A villager must be voted out (unless there's a draw?).

There is a benefit to a villager holding back information, or telling a lie. The benefit is that if all the villagers immediately and automatically tell the truth, then the werewolf can use the information to his advantage. For example, if no villager claims to be the Seer, then the werewolf can safely say that he was the seer. If, however, people are reluctant to claim things, then if the werewolf claims to be the Seer, then the real Seer can speak up and call out his lie.
Another thing I've seen done is the troublemaker telling a lie about which players he switched. For example, I'm the troublemaker, and I switched players A and B with each other. I suspect that player C is the werewolf. I say "I switched players A and C". Player C, who really was the werewolf, believes me, and says "well in that case, I was the werewolf to start, so now player A must be the werewolf!" Then, when I reveal the truth that player C is was NOT actually switched, we all know that player C is the wolf, he just admitted it!
It is also not clear from your description what a werewolf does in your games. If "everyone tells the truth", and everyone is believable, then what does the werewolf do? If someone says that he was a Village Idiot, how do you know if he's telling the truth, or if he is actually a werewolf who is lying?
If there is no werewolf, then the villagers win by not killing anyone. The only way to do this is to not give more than 1 vote to any player (for example, each player votes for the person on his/her right). Often players will agree to vote this way if they are truly convinced that no one is a werewolf; but if they do so, and there actually was a werewolf, then the werewolf wins.
So yes, it is normal to discuss what each person did, and who each person is. But the werewolf will almost always be lying, which means that you can't know for sure if any 1 person is telling the truth or not.

I guess recounting steps is the way to play and finding out who is lying is what makes it difficult.

I pulled this exact stunt - not knowing I was being such a clever puppy. When recounting the events  came around to the Seer, I made some comment or joke - a distraction just long enough to give a Seer time to speak up. When no one claimed to be Seer, I claimed it myself, and got off scott-free.

In addition to the answer above: Yes, the way to figure out what exactly happened is to openly discuss what each played did during the night. But as the players share their information, this could lead to one of the players finding out they were the werewolf. Him openly sharing their information would then have led to a loss, because he helped the others figuring out that he is the werewolf.
In my experience, sharing bits and pieces of information is useful, but never placed all your cards on the table unless you are very very sure you are not unmasking yourself.

It is generally to the villagers advantage to be honest, as between their collective information, they can usually pinpoint the werewolves.  The werewolves have three typical strategies to combat this:

Camouflage as a villager.  Have a story that is innocuous or actually backs up someone's story.  For example: a villager claims to be the robber.  Then you (the werewolf) claim to be the seer and confirm that they are the robber.
Have a coherent story that contradicts a villager story and argue it out.  For example, a villager claims to be the seer and that they saw you were a werewolf (which is true).  Then you (the werewolf) claim that you were the seer and you saw they were the robber, so they probably stole a werewolf card and are trying to get a villager killed.
The best is to manipulate the share of honest information to get a specific person killed.  For example, you (the werewolf) claim to be the troublemaker and claim having switched a human with the person you know to be the other werewolf.  The other werewolf can have an unconvincing story, leading people to believe that they were originally the werewolf, but if they also believe you, then they will kill the person you claimed to have been on the other end of the swap.  Since you were not actually the troublemaker, this person is still a villager and the werewolves win.

Adding roles that want to die, such as the Tanner and the Minion, can make this easier for people who have trouble lying since these roles are intentionally trying to be unconvincing in their stories to attract votes.
If all players get one vote, no one dies.  In this case, if all people were villagers, the villagers win.  However, if there were any werewolves or a minion, team werewolves win.  Also, all a werewolf has to do in this case is vote for a different person than they are supposed to and someone has two votes and dies.
Advantages to the villagers for lying or withholding information are in a couple places:

If you got swapped with a werewolf (say by the troublemaker), you won't know you have something to hide until everyone has shared their information.  Thus, you have an advantage to sharing information later.  This is more important in games with more swaps, such as with the Village Idiot.  The counterpoint to this is that if people have conflicting stories, whoever spoke first is usually seen as more credible, so there advantages to both speaking early and speaking late.
Lying about what you did early on can cause people to give up information by making them think their role has changed even when it hasn't.  This is especially good with the Troublemaker as you can make a werewolf or minion think that they are a human and give up who the other werewolves are.
It's usually a repeated game.  If the villagers do too well every game, you will have a hard time playing as a werewolf.

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


text:
Do other wolves wake up during the werewolf phase in ONUW?
Do all werewolves awake during the werewolf phase or only characters explicitly titled "werewolf"? Does Mystic Wolf wake up? What about Dream Wolf? I would think yes because otherwise how would you know who is on team werewolf, but I'm also lead to believe no because Dream Wolf doesn't wake up.

Other than the Dream Wolf, all wolves wake up at the start of the Night phase. That's what makes the Dream Wolf special. The Daybreak rules, in describing the roles, make this clear:
Alpha Wolf:

At night, the Alpha Wolf wakes with the other Werewolves. Afterwards, the Alpha Wolf wakes up separately.

Mystic Wolf:

The Mystic Wolf wakes with the other Werewolves. Afterwards, the Mystic Wolf wakes up separately.

Dream Wolf:

The Dream Wolf does not wake up with the other Werewolves.


text:
One Night Ultimate Werewolf: If your card is moved, whose team are you on?
I've been playing One Night Ultimate Werewolf (ONUW) for a few years, and I'm afraid we've been doing it wrong.
I play so that if you're a Werewolf at the start of the game, you stay on the Werewolf team even if your card is moved. Thus, if you discover your card was swapped with a Villager, for instance, you would want to convince people to vote for your card so that a villager is killed and you (the Werewolf) wins. Is this wrong?

Note that you also can't look at your role card after the night phase ends. So in general, you won't know if your roll was switched. (Someone could say that they switched your card, but you don't know if you can believe them).

What would be the point of switching role cards, if that were the case?

Well, the way we played it, the trouble was we didn't know where the Werewolf cards wound up, so if a Werewolf discovered that their card was moved, they would try to make everyone vote for their new card, which was a villager, to win the game.

It is very wrong.
The rules are clear that you act whatever you had, you are whatever you have:

After the night phase, your role is the card that is currently in front of you, which may be different than your original role.

with emphasis added

Thank you for that clarification! I am terrible at reading instructions XD

You are the role/side of the card that you end up with at the end of the game once it is revealed. I have listed the rules for the robber as an example.
In your example if you are able to discover your card is now a villager because of information gained from other players you would want to sell out a werewolf so they get killed and the villagers win because you would now win with them.
Robber Rules

At night, the Robber may choose
  to rob a card from another player
  and place his Robber card where
  the other card was. Then the
  Robber looks at his new card. The
  player who receives the Robber
  card is on the village team.
  The Robber is on the
  team of the card he takes, however, he does not do
  the action of his new role at night.


text:
Three Men's Morris ordered variant with FIFO pieces
I had an electronic game several decades ago where I could play Three Men's Morris. After placing three pieces, I would click on one free spot and my earliest-placed token would move there; the computer would do the same. A player wins when three pieces form a row.

The difference from Three Men's Morris: in Three Men's Morris, after three turns, I can move any piece. In this variant, I have to move them in the order I placed them.

I've been looking for the name of this game. I started with tic-tac-toe, then I realized that Three Men's Morris is the name when pieces are placed again. I searched for "ordered", "numbered" and first-in-first-out (FIFO) and could not find it.
In Wikipedia, the game is called Extended tic-tac-toe:

like the three men's morris game, each player has three pieces, but when moving pieces, players must first move their first pieces, then the second pieces, then the third pieces, then the first pieces, and so on. This game is harder than both tic-tac-toe and three men's morris, but the first player has a way to win by taking the edge first. Alternatively, by taking the center or corner first, the game will be drawn.

But when I search for "extended tic-tac-toe" online, I don't find this game, only tic-tac-toe with larger boards, several boards, or 3D versions.
Does this variant of Three Men's Morris have a specific name?

What you are describing sounds exactly like Three Men's Morris.  What part of this game is different from Three Men's Morris?

Sounds a bit like this https://www.whatdowedoallday.com/nine-holes-game/

@Zags In Three Men's Morris, after three turns, I can move any piece. In this variant, I have to move them in the order I placed them.

@Zibelas Yes, it's similar, except that in my variant, we have to move the pieces in the order they were placed. I checked the other games linked at the bottom of the post and they are different from this variant.

Do you remember if the game had diagonal lines?

@KMR I cannot remember, I think not. The rules of the game allowed diagonal lines: if I had three pieces on a diagonal, I would win.

If you are looking to play the game online, I made a web based implementation. You can play against an AI or another human in the same computer at https://alijdens.github.io/three-tac-toe/


text:
Fling's interaction with Rekindling Phoenix
So I've tried this twice now.
I cast Heartfire targeting an enemy creature, sacrificing a Gutterbones as part of the cost; the Gutter then ends up exiled for some reason.
EDIT
Turns out I was targeting Misery's Shadow, which caused the exile.

I think we'd need to see a screenshot of the board state to actually address this. Nothing in the card Fling or Rekindling Phoenix mentions the exile zone at all, so the most likely explanation is that some other card caused this.

The Phoenix had a finality counter on it, and/or your opponent had Gisa, Glorious Resurrector or similar creature on board that causes creatures to be exiled instead of dying.

@Hackworth or similar enchantment (Leyline of the Void) or artifact (don't know one off the top of my head)

@PhilipKendall Stone of Erech, theres also rest in peace, misery's shadow, Valentin, Nemata, Liesa, even brittle blast since its arena

"but thought I'd ask" - what is the question?

What did Heartfire target? I assume you cast it on your turn two to kill their turn one or turn two play, but we can't see whatever card it is, because it's in their graveyard under the March Toward Perfection.

Sorry I forgot to screenshot her graveyard, and I don't remember what it was, but I'm sure I can reproduce it. Seems to be related to being a private match, because I couldn't reproduce it using the tutorial wisp thing.

@DarkNeuron Could the creature you targeted have been any of these?

Yes, now I'm embarrassed. It was the shade.

No need to reopen this then. Thanks @Hackworth

@DarkNeuron you're welcome and no worries, happens to everyone.

@Hackworth surely it doesn't matter that one of those creatures was targeted, even, just that the opponent controlled one?

@KarlKnechtel it doesn't matter that it was what was targeted, but because it was targeted by a spell that removed it it hid the creature when looking at the board state which is what caused the confusion.

There was probably some other effect involved which caused the exile. There's a lot of cards that exile things that would die or otherwise go to the graveyard. Cards like Rest in Peace and Leyline of the Void see play in some metas Stone of Erech is in sideboads in others, Kumano Faces Kakkazan is in a lot of red aggro decks, though your phoenix would have to take damage for it to trigger.
This probably isn't a bug, even happening multiple times the cards that exile are common and used enough, you probably just didn't notice the effects already in play that were going to make the card exile, without seeing the board state there's no way to be sure.

I thought the same, and I checked the entire field every time. I played against a friend, and I know their deck pretty well. They have no such exile effect, nor do I.

If it happens again, please grab a screenshot of the board at the time and add it to this question - it can then be reopened.

It was Misery's Shadow

@DarkNeuron makes sense, you may want to edit your edit to the question about that then?

Done @Andrew. Removed excess ramblings.


text:
How does the master key disrupt card work in Vaults?
In Vaults, there is a card with the following wording:

Place this key on any crew, they may crack any vault this turn

Does this mean that I can use someone else's crew to crack open a vault for myself?

did you try to find the answer in the rules? If so, can you cite the part in the rules that talks about the subject?  Link to the rules:
https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/105724/rulebook-version-14

I did. It does not anywhere mention anything about who the effect applies to.

No.
If you intend read Master Key to allow that, that would also mean that any player could use any other player's crew on any crack phase, since the rules use language similar to the text you quote for Master Key -- that is, they always reference "a crew" and never "one of your crews" when talking about cracking, which is clearly not the way the game works.
But also note that if you allow it, the "someone else" player is the one who would get the vault, not you, which makes the question of trying that alternate reading moot.
Rules:

After cracking, the vault becomes the property of the player that cracked it.

"After cracking, the vault becomes the property of the player that cracked it.", yes so I cracked it with someone else's crew, so it should become mine, no?

@kersarling, No, not by the rulebook. See also the second (the main) paragraph if you want to pursue that logic. The crew cracks the vault; the crew gets the spoils.


text:
Bridge: Feedback on questionable convention card
Sorry in advance if such questions are not allowed. I specifically want feedback on whether there are any inconsistencies / misinterpretations in my approach, and whether I need to add anything else for this to constitute a legal convention card. I am attending an international competition (held by China's CCBA) for the first time.

Raw OCR:
DEFENSIVE AND COMPETITIVE BIDDING
OVERCALLS (Style: Responses: 1 / 2 Level; Reopening)
level overcalls promise 8 HCP while 2 level overcalls promise 10.
Both overcalls are used with (not necessarily good) 5+ card suits.
(1m) -
- 2m is a valid 2 level overcall.
No weak overcalls in the reopening position are allowed.
INT OVERCALL (2"*/4th Live; Responses; Reopening)
Equivalent to INT opening but promises stopper in overcalled suit.
No weak overcalls in the reopening position are allowed.
JUMP OVERCALLS (Style; Responses; Unusual NT)
Pre-emptive - that is, 6 cards for level 2, 7 cards for 3, etc., ≤10 HCP. 2NT overcall is equivalent to 2NT opening.
No transferring is done with jump overcalls.
Reopen: No change
DIRECT & JUMP CUE BIDS (Style; Response; Reopen)
(1m) - 2m and (1m) -
- 3m are valid overcalls, not cue bids.
(1M) - 2M is equivalent to a takeout double with 15+ HCP.
(1M) - 3M is not allowed.
VS. NT (vs. Strong/Weak; Reopening; PH)
2 level overcalls are natural - 10+ HCP and good 5+ card suit.
3 level jump overcalls are standard pre-emptive: see jump overcalls
(INT) - X is equivalent to opening INT (1NT) - 2NT is not allowed.
VS.PREEMTS (Doubles; Cue-bids; Jumps; NT Bids)
Doubles are takeout doubles with 15+ HCP: see takeout doubles
2NT overcall is equivalent to 2NT opening with 18+ HCP.
(2X) - (3X) is not allowed. Overcalls are 12+ HCP and good 5+ suits.
VS. ARTIFICIAL STRONG OPENINGS- i.e., 1% or 2% Standard defences still apply. Doubling a strong 1C is not allowed.
We do not interfere with 2C.
OVER OPPONENTS' TAKEOUT DOUBLE
Pass is weakest. Any other action increases your HCP lower bound by 1.
Otherwise, nothing changes. Forcing bids are normally still forcing.
LEADS AND SIGNALS
OPENING LEADS STYLE
With 4 cards or more, lead the top card if there are ≥ 3 honors or AK, and lead the lowest card otherwise.
With 3 cards, lead top card with the top two cards connected (e.g., QJx, 76x)
Else lead second highest with no HCP in suit, and otherwise the lowest card.
With a doubleton, lead the top card.
When in doubt, lead with the safer major.
LEADS
Lead
Ace
King
Queen
Jack
10
Situation
AK(+) / ≥3 honors with A / Ax
KQx / ≥3 honors with K without A / Kx
QJx / Qx
J10x / Jx
109x / 10x
9×
98x /9x
X followed by connected card, and then a smaller card OR Xx OR xXx, where no card is strictly above 10.
SIGNALS IN ORDER OF PRIORITY
Partner's Lead
Declarer's Lead
Low like high hate.
Low like high hate.
Suit 2 Ambiguous signals are Ambiguous signals are
3 probably not signals.
probably not signals.
Low like high hate.
Low like high hate.
NT 2 Ambiguous signals are Ambiguous signals are
3 probably not signals.
probably not signals.
Discarding
Low like high hate.
Ambiguous signals are probably not signals.
Low like high hate.
Amolzuous sianals are probably not signals.
Signals including Trumps):
Playing low from connected cards is not assumed.
DOUBLES
TAKEOUT DOUBLES (Style; Responses; Reopening)
Promises 3 cards in each of the 3 unbid suits / 4 cards in each of 2 unbid suits / 5 cards in the only unbid suit and 12 HCP / 10 HCP if partner promises 12.
OR 17+ with a good 5-card suit (follow up with suit)
OR 17+ balanced (follow up with NT)
SPECIAL, ARTIFICIAL & COMPETITIVE DBLS/RDLS
Doubles under (not including) 2NT are all takeout doubles except for
(INT) - X which is equivalent to opening INT.
Redoubles towards non-penalty doubles signify at least 2 HCP above the established HCP lower bound (or 8 HCP, if there is no such bound).
Example. 1H - (X) - XX is 8+ HCP, and 1H - 2D - (X) - XX is 14+ HCP.
Doubles on CAPP 2C overcalls on 1NT are negative (Stayman).
W B F CONVENTION CARD
CATEGORY: i.e., Green / Blue / Red / HUM / Brown Sticker: Red
PLAYERS：陆畅 Chang Lu，唐铭泽 Mingze Tang
SYSTEM SUMMARY
GENERAL APPROACH AND STYLE
Chang is generally aggressive and Mingze is more conservative.
Pre-empting style correlates heavily with vulnerability.
With favorable vulnerability pre-empting can deviate by 2 HCP
Or 1 card.
The system is highly natural, with minimal artificial bids.
INT opening - good 14 HCP to 17 HCP.
2/1 FG.
1X - 2NT is force to game.
SPECIAL BIDS THAT MAY REQUIRE DEFENSE
2m / 3m overcalling 1m is not a cue bid, but a regular overcall.
2M overcalling 1M is equivalent to takeout double with 15+ HCP
SPECIAL FORCING PASS SEQUENCES
None - we do not use forcing pass.
IMPORTANT NOTES
If unsure, we assume a bid to be natural.
PSYCHICS:

OPENING
1%
19
14
INT
20
20
20
24
2NT
320
3NT
400
4.
4A
4NT
5%
50
TICK IN
ARTIFICIAL
MIN. NO. OF CARDS
3
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
DESCRIPTION
12-21 HCP. Prefers longer minor.
3-3 is 1C but 4-4 or above is 1D.
12-21 HCP. Prefers longer major.
5-5 or above is 1S.
Good 14-17 HCP and balanced.
OR ≤ 3 HCP in third position.
≥22 HCP OR can play 3NT.
6-10 HCP.
Minimum quality: QTxxxx
Same as 2D.
Same as 2D.
20-21 HCP and balanced.
≤10 HCP, min quality: Qxxxxxx
Same as 3C.
Same as 3D.
Same as 3H.
There is no minimum quality.
Has 9 sure winners but lacks control.
Also promises a good 6+ suit.
≤10 HCP, has another 4-card suit
OR has 8+ cards in that suit.
To play.
To play.
RKCB. Wants NT slam.
To play.
To play.
RKCB eliminating H. Wants slam with trump.
Same as 5H.
RESPONSES
IC - 1D is ART GF and interested in 4-4 major.
Im - 2NT is ART GF and aims for 3NT.
1M is standard 1/1, 1D - 2C is standard 2/1.
1m - 2m is F3m with 10+ HCP, 5+m.
Standard 1/1 and 2/1 still apply.
1M - 2NT is ART GF and aims for 3NT.
2C is major Stayman and 2S is minor Stayman.
2D, 2H, 2NT, 3C, 3D, 3H, 4D, 4H transfer to the next bid.
3S is 15+ and wants 6NT or above. 4NT is RKCB. 2D is <8 HCP, 2M is natural with 5+M >8 HCP.
2NT is >8 HCP otherwise. 3NT is hopeless ≤2 HCP.
3D/4D is 3/4+ D pre-emptive and 5D is to play.
2NT ASK for HCP (28) and quality (AK/KQ/AQ).
3H is 3+ H pre-emptive and 4H is to play.
2NT ASK for HCP (≥6) and quality (AK/KQ/AQ). 3C is major Stayman (≥4 HCP). 3D, 3H, 4D, 4H transfers.
3S is 10+ and wants 6NT or above. 4NT is RKCB.
4C is 3+ C pre-emptive and 5C is to play.
4H is to play.
Pass (to play) promises control in two suits. Else 4C/4D.
4D promises ~6 HCP (~2 tricks) and no voids / singletons.
Any response except ?C to play is high level bidding
Respond with RKCB (see high level bidding).
Respond with RKCB (see high level bidding).
(Ignore king in trump suit since trump is unspecified.)
SUBSEQUENT ACTION
1C - 1D auctions sequences proceed like 1/1.
1m - 2NT starts cue bidding at the third level.
Any four level bid after 1m - 2NT is natural to play.
1M - 2NT proceeds the same way as 1m - 2NT.
INT - 2C - 2D - 2M is 5+ M. Do not Stayman with 4-3-3-3. 2S is replied with 2NT (15-bad 16) or 3C/3D/3NT (good 16-17).
3S starts cue bidding of any round control in level 4.
Subsequent action is natural.
2D - 2NT - 3C/3D/3H/3S is
No-No / Yes-No / No-Yes / Yes-Yes
COMPETITIVE & PASSED
HAND BIDDING
2/1 by passed hand is 10-11 HCP.
This applies to 1C - 1D auctions.
Passed hand bidding 3S is natural.
2NT - 3C - 3D - 3M is 5+ oM. Do not Stayman with 4-3-3-3.
3S starts cue bidding of any round control in level 4. 3C and above does not have an equivalent for 2S - 2NT.
4C can be responded with 4C (pass) / 4D / 4H / 4S.
4D can be responded with 4H / 4S / 5C/ 5D.
HIGH LEVEL BIDDING
Any level 4 bid is a cue bid signifying second round control, unless explicitly otherwise.
Any level 5 bid, unless explicitly otherwise, is RKCB eliminating aces in that suit.
If a level 5 bid is m trump, it is to play, and if it is M trump, it is invitation to small slam.
4NT calls are always RKCB (1/4, 0/3, 2, 2Q), except QI in INT sequences.
4NT RKCB in NT contexts are replied with (1/4, 0/3, 2).
5NT calls are always ASK for partner's non-trump K location.
(Call the lowest K location or return to trump suit (NT in NT context) if not available.)

Sorry in advance if such questions are not allowed. I specifically want feedback on whether there are any inconsistencies / misinterpretations in my approach, and whether I need to add anything else for this to constitute a legal convention card.

Please edit all clarifications into the original question. Comment threads are ephemeral, and may be deleted at any time.  I suspect this question is currently far (far) too broad, and likely to get closed on that account. If you can narrow things down to a specific feature you think may be questionable, and clarify as to what Law Authority you are playing under (ACBL, WBF, EBU, or some other), that will make the question much more tractable for this site.

Edited, thank u for ur time

Still far too broad. This is just "review my card plz" which is both a significant task and does not help anybody else in future at all.

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.

Specifically, what are your concerns? Quick review (NOT an answer): it looks more detailed than many CCs at top-level events, and many quirks are spelled out clearly.  I would have no issues understanding it as an opponent (though you might get a lot of questions, because of those many quirks.  But I ask a lot of questions).

The only people who can effectively answer solely "is this acceptable" are the organizers of the tournament.  If you have concerns, submit it to them.
Unless you have specific questions that can be answered from regulations or from "would I as an opponent understand this sequence, or would I throw the CC on the floor as useless?", only the tournament has any authoritative say.


text:
Are there any Gatherer rulings with an “if somehow” that can’t ever be met?
I’m hope this isn’t too obscure. It came as a curiosity. Just how precautionary is WOTC on gatherer rulings?
I’m talking about Gatherer rulings phrasings on cards such as Spark Double like:

If Spark Double somehow enters the battlefield at the same time as another permanent, it can't become a copy of that permanent. You may choose only a creature or planeswalker that's already on the battlefield

Rules Lawyer

If you somehow control a creature that's attached to another permanent, that creature can stay attached. It can attack and block, even if another creature is carrying it. Similarly, if you control a permanent that isn't an Aura, an Equipment, or a Fortification, it can stay attached to whatever you manage to get it attached to. Strange. (704.5p)

One thing to remember is that Gatherer rulings - and in particular the exact wording used in rulings - are pretty arbitrary. The wording used for a particular ruling, and even the presence or absence of a ruling, is just what Wizards' editorial department felt like that day. I wouldn't read anything into whether "somehow" is or isn't in a Gatherer ruling.

Not an "if somehow" ruling, but this rule currently has no way of happening: "104.3f If a player would both win and lose the game simultaneously, that player loses the game"

I've looked through a lot of cards that have "somehow" rulings on Gatherer, and they range from "easily achieved" to "incredibly convoluted". Some of the ones that require a bit of work include:

Abilities that rely on a previous choice, and a ruling that says "if somehow the choice was not made". For example, the third chapter ability of Medomai's Prophecy refers to a card name chosen by its second chapter, which could be nullified by countering the trigger of the second chapter.

Crystalline Resonance has two rulings about turning into an Aura while somehow already being attached to a creature, or a planeswalker while somehow already having loyalty counters, but you can make both of those happen (e.g. by copying a Gliding Licid, and by turning a Gideon planeswalker into a creature then using Fate Transfer to shift the loyalty counters across).

I thought maybe Gaea's Revenge would at least be an example where the ruling was impossible at the time (2010), since it referenced "somehow" having a green Equipment where the first such example was Wolfrider's Saddle from Core Set 2020, but 2008 brought Shadowmoor and with it Painter's Servant.

Predatory Urge has a ruling if it somehow becomes attached to another creature while the tap ability it bestows is still resolving, but Aura Finesse among others allows for instant-speed Aura moving.

There is one card that requires a lot of checking of corner cases, but whose "somehow" still proves doable:

Hungry Lynx has protection from Rats which includes "Auras and Equipment that are somehow Rats" and "spells that are somehow Rats".

There are some Kindred Instant spells with Changeling (thanks, Blades of Velis Vel) that will count as Rats, so that second "somehow" is definitely achievable.
The question then is whether it's possible to have an Aura or Equipment that is somehow a Rat. Let's go through the possibilities:

Licids and Reconfigure creatures like Simian Sling stop being creatures (and hence lose their subtypes) when they become an Aura or Enchantment, so even granting one of them Changeling wouldn't cause them to ever be a Rat once they've attached to something (although relevant to Hungry Lynx, their abilities are activated while they're still creatures so if you make them Rats then you can't directly attach them to the Lynx).

Per rules 301.5c and 303.4d, if an Aura or Equipment is also a creature, then it immediately detaches itself (and in the case of Auras, goes to the graveyard) as a state-based action, so you can't animate one and then turn it into a Rat.

Finally, though, it is possible to have a Kindred Equipment like Diviner's Wand, and through the use of Artificial Evolution change its type to "Kindred Artifact - Rat Equipment", thus making it unable to target Hungry Lynx. Similarly, Artificial Evolution can change Lignify's subtype as it resolves, proving that we can have a Rat Aura.

So, in the end, I believe the answer is no - every ruling that uses the word "somehow" appears to have a situation where it can happen, as obscure as it may be.

If I could +2 I would for all your work. I somehow :) thought they would make these rulings without thinking of all the specific edge cases, but you’ve shown they really have all the edge cases in mind already


text:
Stalemate in Catan
My friends and I tried to come up with some variation of endgames where no player can reasonably make progress. Our discussion came down to almost all players having no settle spots remaining, and the person with Longest Road has to have almost no viable settlements, but blocks every other players' settlements.
Here are all the points to be considered:

5 victory points
Longest Road
Largest Army
Cities (any settlement that has been placed can be assumed to be convertible to a city over infinite turns)

Of course, the game need not be what reasonable players would do, I just want to see if it is theoretically possible, and couldn't find anyone discussing this. For context, we are playing on the standard board with 4 players.
EDIT: I guess we do have one variation, but I'd love to see if there are more realistic setups ending in stalemate!

Yes, it is possible to wind up in a game state where it is impossible for any player to win. Consider the following board position (assume non-red players haven't built any roads beyond their initial placement, which don't really matter):

Each player has only 2 settlements/cities, and cannot build any more for the rest of the game - red has used all their roads but has no access to a buildable location, while all the other players are boxed in by red's roads.
Red could get 4 points from cities and 2 from the longest road, but they would require drawing victory points and knights to win, which is not guaranteed. Furthermore, we can distribute the outstanding 7 points unaccounted for by the board state (5 victory points cards, 2 largest army) among the remaining 3 players, and have none of them reach 10 points as well. There are many distributions of the knight and victory points cards that will result in no one ever reaching 10 points from the pictured board state.
By limiting everyone to only 2 cities, there can only be a maximum of 25 points total scored by all players over the course of the game (2 points x 2 cities x 4 players + 2 longest road + 2 largest army + 5 VP cards), which are easily distributed among 4 players so that no one reaches 10 points. In the absolute worst "farthest from victory" case, three players score 6 points and one scores 7.
It would be rather difficult to get into a stalemate scenario naturally. It would basically require players making no attempt to expand rationally, and for one player to spend all their roads without ever reaching a buildable location. It would also require a rather unlucky distribution of the VP and knight cards.
A few notes on what guarantees or rules out a stalemate: Any board state with at least 37 points total must have at least one player with 10 points. 9 of these points from the Largest Army, Longest Road, and VP cards are "guaranteed" to be given out at some point, so all we can do is limit the number of points from settlements/cities to under 28 total - this means we can have no more than 13 cities total. It is possible for one player (but no more) to get 4 cities and for there still to be a stalemate - this would leave three players with 3 cities each, one of which has Longest Road, one which has Largest Army, and one of which has 2 VP cards, while the remaining player has 4 cities, and the remaining 3 VP cards are distributed one apiece to any of the 4 players. This "closest to victory" stalemate yields scores of 9, 9, 9, and 8, which is the maximum possible stalemating total of 35 points (since there's no way to hit 36, as any additional settlement would eventually be upgraded for an additional point - there's no way to score a 36th point without allowing a 37th).

Maybe we need some option to deconstruct a road (with more payment, of course)?

@PaŭloEbermann: I'm unconvinced. This is a highly implausible map for players who are actually trying to win the game. Even if we presume that Red controls all of the wood and brick on the map, and that nobody else has enough alternative resources to make sea trade viable (which requires very poor initial placement by the other three players), Red's decision to thoroughly block everyone in (instead of doing a little early blocking, then building to the southeast to enable more settlements) is completely nonsensical play.

@Kevin To add to your comment, Red could've built the last two roads on the edges downward along the coasts instead of going to green and blue settlements. This gives him two places for settlements and later cities, which gives him the victory together with the longest road. So yes, it's a purely hypothetical scenario which won't happen if players are actually trying to win.

@Malcolm Indeed, on top of that, the 5 road hairpin loop red has built in the middle of the board serves no purpose whatsoever - it doesn't block anyone from settling, or prevent them from reaching any settle-able locations. If a game of Catan actually wound up in a stalemate, the players almost certainly brought it on themselves.

"the game need not be what reasonable players would do" guys. OP isn't asking for a realistic outcome, just a possible one.

@MichaelW. They're pointing out that it's unrealistic to explain why Paulo's suggestion isn't really necessary, not to critique the answer itself; that's why Nuclear Hoagie pointed out an aspect of his own answer.

This reminds me of the great Donald X quote when asked about how to handle a situation where Dominion devolves into a stalemate because all players made intentionally dumb decisions that cause no one to be able to win: "I guess everyone keeps playing until they starve to death. Always play in a 24-hour restaurant, that's my advice."