text:
Why do all Go board sizes have an odd number of lines? Why is a 19x19 board so much better than a 20x20 board?
Here are the number of games played on every different board sizes on DGS (Dragon Go Server):
| Size | CNT    |
+------+--------+
|    5 |   2464 |
|    6 |    466 |
|    7 |  11015 |
|    8 |    434 |
|    9 | 101230 |
|   10 |   1256 |
|   11 |   3166 |
|   12 |    716 |
|   13 |  65205 |
|   14 |    455 |
|   15 |   4656 |
|   16 |    315 |
|   17 |   1145 |
|   18 |     91 |
|   19 | 639319 |
|   20 |    293 |
|   21 |    371 |
|   22 |    104 |
|   23 |    265 |
|   24 |     79 |
|   25 |   3657 |

As you can see boards of odd size are much much more popular than boards of even size.
In total: 99.5% of games have been played on boards of odd size, while only 0.5% of games have been played on boards of even size.
There seems to be something severely wrong with boards of even size...
So my first question is: what is the problem with boards of even size?
I also wondered why 19x19 is the number one most popular size for Go boards...
Just like the accepted answer to this question says, the principal reason that the 19x19 board is considered to be the best is that:

it is the largest board size on which there are more points on the sides (under the third line) than in the center (above the fourth line).

But I found that to be inaccurate! The board size with the best balance between territory (on the sides) and influence (in the center) is not 19x19, it's 20x20.
If Black puts all his stones on the third line, and White puts all his stone on the fourth line, then:
On a 19x19 board:

Under area scoring: Black has 192 points, White has 169 points.
Under territory scoring: Black has 136 points, White has 121 points.

On a 20x20 board:

Under area scoring: Black has 204 points, White has 196 points.
Under territory scoring: Black has 144 points, White has 144 points.

So my second question is: why not a 20x20 board?

Almost all go boards are x by x, where x is an odd number (e.g. 9, 13, or 19).
The point is to have the product yield an odd number of potential points. So that there would be an odd number of points in the game and a clear winner.
(In the Japanese counting style of "points," it is possible for both players to have the same number, but under the Chinese counting style of points plus stones played, the sum of the two players' results will be an odd number.)

Good point. But even under area scoring (chinese) it is possible that the sum of the two players' points is not an odd number, and for the two players to have the exact same score (not considering non-integer komi), if there is an odd eyed seki (though it's pretty rare).

What about Komi?

On an even sized board it is much easier to mirror your opponent's moves (this special tactic is known as "mane go"). Playing the tengen point on an odd sized board is a move that cannot be mirrored.

On an even sized board, White can play mirror Go (it's a good idea only if there is komi), but Black cannot. On an odd sized board either White or Black can play mirror Go. Black can play mirror Go by starting on tengen and then mirroring White's move (it's a good idea only if there is no komi). White can also play mirror Go (it's a good idea only if there is komi) by simply mirroring Black's move immediately, and Black can't just easily foil this strategy by playing on tengen because of the proverb "tengen is a bad move 99% of the time".

So mirror Go might be an even bigger problem on odd sized board than it is on even sized board! But anyway, at professional level mirror Go is known to be a bad strategy.

The 19x19 board is considered the most interesting configuration because of the strategic and tactical scenarios it enables.
$$cm1
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . x . b . x . b . x . . a . . |
$$ | . . . B . B . b . B . b . B . B . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

In the above diagram for example, K16 is a 3 space extension from both F16 and O16. It gives black a strong option on the top side, but still allows white invasions, at b for example. K17 could be considered too. Details on the possible invasions can be found here.
It is also true that the 19x19 offers a good balance between center and sides. Beyond the simple math in your question, you need to factor in that in a real game of go:

black and white are supposed to play the same number of stones
a central area is harder to enclose (4 borders) than a side area (3
borders) or a corner area (2 borders).

Now, once a size has been chosen as the official reference, it becomes de facto the most popular. Same applies to gomoku, ping pong or swimming... Humans might reconsider their decision to trump computers (cf. AlphaGo's achievement), but that's another story.
Historically, I think the board size also has an astrological meaning (e.g. 19x19 is the closest to the number of days in the year), but I am not an expert here...

Just speculation: Boards with even lengths are rarely used because there is no tengen and because handicap stones cannot be placed point symmetrically in a 9x9 grid.


text:
Is cascade triggered by putting a creature into play?
If Wild Pair is on the field when I cast a 5/5, and I use Wild Pair to put Enlisted Wurm into play, does Enlisted Wurm's cascade trigger?

Wild Pair: Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand, you may search your library for a creature card with the same total power and toughness and put it onto the battlefield. If you do, shuffle your library.
Enlisted Wurm: Cascade (When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card that costs less. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom of your library in a random order.)

No.  Cascade triggers when the spell with Cascade is cast.
Casting a spell is different from putting a permanent into play.  Casting a permanent spell puts that spell on the stack.  When a permanent spell resolves, that permanent enters play.  There are other ways of putting a permanent directly into play (like Wild Pair) that do not involve casting a spell.

Cascade does not trigger.
Searching the library and putting the card into play does not equal to casting a spell.
In Order to get the behaviour you're asking of, Wild Pairs triggered ability would have to be worded differently, e.g.:
Wild Pair: Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand, you may search your library for a creature card with the same total power and toughness. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. If you do, shuffle your library.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What boardgame comes closest to the computer game Frozen Synapse?
According to what I've read about Gunslinger it looks like both share similar game mechanics, but not having played this 1982 game I'm not sure. Does it come close to Frozen Synapse ? Or is there another game that is even closer?
Update to be more specific:
First, Frozen Synapse is my favorite PC game. So I like all of the elements of this game that I try to describe in the following, and I am looking for a boardgame that has as many of those elements as possible.
In Frozen Synapse I plan the movement of my guys for the next 5 seconds. On the 2-dimensional map I can program them to turn or move or hold still. They each have an individual view of sight. When they see an enemy they first aim then shoot. The time it takes for them to aim then shoot and the chances to hit depends upon:

their weapon, shotgun being faster than machine gun being faster than sniper rifle, while Sniper rifle has higher chances to hit than machine gun, and shotgun has the shortest range.
wheather they are moving or holding still
whether they are behind covering objects

If two enemy guys happen to see each other at the exact same time, the guy not moving with the faster gun is the killer (no hitpoints - one successful hit means a kill). So there is no luck involved but the winner of a fight is clearly defined taking into account the above factors. Each player plans the actions of their guys simultaniously not knowing what the opponent player might do. The players may test-execute their planned actions. They may even test-plan and test-execute the actions of their opponent to see what would be the outcome altogether. After the players have finished their planning phase their "programs" are executed simultaneously: the guys do their planned movement and fire fights are resolved.
I'm looking for a game that:

offers similar tactics, like which guy with what gun goes where, who covers whom, when to move which guy and when to let them hold still
no luck involvement but a clearly defined action and event resolution like in 1., 2., 3. above
has "fog of war" and individual character sight
has secret planning and then simultaneous execution

Gunslinger seems to be about planning the actions of a cowboy during a shooting in a saloon. It's key to be fast. The players plan the actions in a "split second".

Can you be more specific? From a quick look at that VGG link, it looks like Frozen Synapse is about simultaneous move resolution in a tactical based arena kind of situation? What specifically are you looking for in a "similar" game, and why does Gunslinger sound like it might be it?

Since this doesn't really answer your question I'll post this as a comment: you might want to take a look at the X-Wing boardgame, which uses a similar secret move technique, but misses several of your desired attributes.

Do you mean [star-wars-x-wing-miniatures-game][1]? [1]: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103885/star-wars-x-wing-miniatures-game

That's the one!

@Stonecrusher Just fyi, link syntax in comments is done [like this](http://example.com/) - skip the [1] definition stuff, that only works in answers and questions. :)

Boardgamegeek lets you search by tags, which might help you find something, but you have a long list of demands there. :) Robo Rally might be worth looking into. It doesn't really have the combat elements you're talking about, but it does have the simultaneous planning followed by locked-in execution bit, and it's pretty fun.

VOLT comes rather close to what I've bee looking for, because it offers 3 of the 4 criteria I mentioned in my posting.

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

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


text:
How serious is forgetting my life gain triggered abilities?
I recently started playing a Soul Sisters / Martyr Life deck, and sometimes have problems remembering triggered abilities every time they're triggered.

Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, you may gain 1 life. (1)
Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, you gain 1 life. (2)
Whenever you gain life, you may put a +1/+1 counter on Ajani's Pridemate. (3)

How serious of a problem is it if I forget any of these, possibly repeatedly (depending on environment)?

From my reading of the Infraction Procedure Guide, Game Play Error — Missed Trigger, as trigger (2) is advantageous for me, it's not a warning (or even caution) if I forget them, even if repeatedly. My opponent has the choice of allowing the triggered ability to be put on (the bottom of) the stack when I remember them at some later point in time:

… the opponent chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of the stack. (IPG)

From the wording of triggers (1) and (3), I assume they are considered to have a default action (not taking the life gain/counter), and forgetting about them just means I don't get their effect (Comprehensive Rules 603.5):

If the triggered ability specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually "If you don't ..." or "... unless"), resolve it choosing the default option. (IPG)

Is my understanding of the rules and how they're handled in a tournament correct?

You might want to consider playing a different deck if you find that you consistently miss triggers with Soul Sisters / Martyr Proc.

@HaoYe I'm fairly sure that'll fix itself with some practice. I've started MTG again after several years in December, and only played about five games with this deck so far. However, there's a Modern tournament I'd like to attend in two weeks, hence the question.

You can also try some practical strategies to remind yourself. For instance, make some card-size tokens with the trigger text and a big numerical indicator. Place these in the middle of the battlefield between yourself and the opponent. Since players generally place creatures that entered the battlefield near the center, the added visual cue might help. (and then update the number as you play additional copies of Soul Warden/Attendant)

Your understanding of the missed triggers is correct. Since the required triggered ability (number 2) is only beneficial to you, there is no penalty for missing it.
The other triggers do not work exactly how you think because they are covered by a slightly different part of the rule than you quoted. The first part of rule 603.5 says:

Some triggered abilities' effects are optional (they contain "may," as in "At the beginning of your upkeep, you may draw a card"). These abilities go on the stack when they trigger, regardless of whether their controller intends to exercise the ability's option or not. The choice is made when the ability resolves.

Those abilities always go on the stack and they do not have a default choice, so you must make the choice when they resolve. If you do not, it is a missed trigger like any other.

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


text:
Casual trick taking penalties for illegal plays
I want to know if there is any standard penalty for when someone breaks a rule in a trick taking game, especially failing to follow suit when required.  I know the penalty would depend on the game, but all I could find is this Wikipedia article, which suggested some rather harsh penalties, especially for new players.
I'm looking for more lax penalties for less experienced players, especially for Spades and Hearts.  The best I've come up with is trying to reverse play when possible, but that doesn't always work, especially when the error is discovered many tricks later.

The penalties are harsh because there is no excuse for such errors to be made, even by a beginner, more often than once or twice a decade of frequent playing. The only way to make this point forcefully is with harsh penalties - lax penalties will simply encourage your newbies to cheat with the penalty.

@PieterGeerkens - I disagree. I believe the penalties are harsh because (1) they can be difficult to verify (someone has to pay close attention for plays that invalidate past plays), and (2) they are often difficult, if not impossible to fix.

The reason for the harsh penalty is because this type of mistake is impossible to fix after the fact and very easy to avoid by paying attention. There is not much difficulty in following the suit that was lead

@PieterGeerkens I think you have a very different definition of "casual" than the rest of us, to the point of coming off as a little insensitive. We're talking about people who may not play a lot of games, likely chatting and not 100% focused on the game. I've seen very bright people who do know the game make mistakes when they're not focused (and not because they're trying to cheat); it's surely going to happen with beginners in casual games. Maybe the harsh penalties are still a good idea, but it's not because no one's ever going to make a mistake.

@Jefromi: I can, and have, played kitchen bridge over a few beers with players more casual than myself. However, all penalties were and are always applied by the book because we realized that that was the only way to be fair to non-cheaters. In my books, anyone who claims the rules should not apply to their mistakes because the game is casual immediately comes across as trying to enable cheating, because that is exactly the way an actual cheater would argue. If one would not be thought a cheater, don't sound and act like one. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck.

@PieterGeerkens In other words, you're saying the penalties should be harsh because otherwise some people might cheat, which is completely different from saying that there's no excuse for the errors and that people will make them once or twice a decade. The point about cheaters is still valid (at least in some circles); you just don't have to be so harsh on the people who make legitimate mistakes to make it.

@Jefromi: In bridge at least, the penalties are the determination of a skilled and learned committee as the best balance in both preventing the deliberate misplay to enable cheating, while still enabling a result to be obtained on the hand and attempt to redress damage appropriately. Where one is available, an impartial arbitrator is enabled to prevent excess in either direction. As a skilled and successful tournament bridge player for over 4 decades now, my answer to any question such as this will always be coloured by the absolute intolerance for unethical behaviour in bridge tourneys.

@PieterGeerkens The OP is asking about spades and hearts, and if bridge tournaments have something to do with your answer, I stand by my point about you thinking of casual play very differently from the OP.

How is following suit a hard rule to learn and follow?

Sorry I haven't been online to clarify, but notice my house-rule tag.  Casual does NOT mean tournament-level arbitration.  I'm looking for compromise for new players.  As they get more experience, I would graduate them into more standard penalties.  I'm trying to avoid alienating people just because they are new to the quirks of a different game.

Casual also doesn't mean that simple and basic rules can be ignored, and knowing to follow suit is about as basic as you can get as it is a rule in almost every trick based card game.

Generally when I play games like that and a miss play is caught before the next trick is played then the play is corrected.  However if it is caught later then the player that messed up losses the hand. In hearts for example they would take all 26 points and everyone else would get 0. In a game where you want points they take the penalty for not getting the minimum bid or whatever they bid. This seems to be a quick and fair way to handle miss plays that you can't correct.
It may sound harsh but following suit in a card game should be a very simple strategy.
Only other option is to throw out the hand and redo it.


text:
German Carcassonne fan expansions - available in English?
I was browsing the Hans im Glück website and found two 'official' fan-made expansions for Carcassonne.
The expansions are called:

Die Stadttore (The City Gates)

Der Osterhase (The Easter Bunny)

Unfortunately the site is in German and so are the rules, both for Die Stadttore and Der Osterhase.
Where can I find the English rules?

A quick Google web search reveals this post for the Easter Festival (yes, it's the same author although a different name). The full rules for both expansions can be found in the downloads sections of Carcassonne Central (you'll need to register, but it's free to do so).

Easter Festival - Rules
Easter Festival - Tiles
City Gates Rules - English translation

Those are behind a login, on a site I don't know, and I can't get past the captcha...

@freekvd That registration form is evil indeed. Here is the link to those 3 files, active for 7 days: http://we.tl/pJIIt4uocc


text:
When does my new family member occupy a new room?
I was playing Agricola the other day and an odd situation came up.
I had three rooms with three family members occupying them.  In one round I was able to play these actions in this order:

Family Growth (even without room)
Build an additional room
Family Growth

Now ordinarily when a new room is built, a doubled-up family member would immediately occupy it.  But my reasoning was that my new family member hadn't actually come home yet (as that happens at the end of the round), so the new room I'd just built wasn't yet occupied.
None of the people I was playing the game with had a problem with this (in the end, I didn't win anyway)...but was I right, or wrong?
(I'm aware of this existing question, but I'm asking specifically about whether it makes a difference when these things all happen in the same turn.)

According to the rulebook (pg 9):

After Family Growth, also 1 Minor Improvement (Stage 2): A player may only use this Family growth space if he has more empty
  rooms than Family members. It is irrelevant how the family has grown
  before and whether the Family members are on the game board or in the
  farmyard.

Since you had four family members and four rooms, you couldn't have done your second Family Growth action, even though the new family member had not returned home yet to "claim the room".

Even though family members come home at the end of a round, you still cannot take the "Family Growth" action if you don't have more rooms than family members.
This is pretty explicit on page 9 of the rule book, under "Family Growth even without a room":

Note: If a player who uses this card later extends her home, she may not use the other Family Growth card again until she has more rooms than Family members: the new rooms must first be used for Family members that did not previously have their own rooms.

Even though the new family member doesn't end up in your house until the "Return home phase," you still don't have more rooms than family members, so you can't take the "Family Growth" action. In an ideal world, you would want to do these actions in the following order:

Build and additional room
Family growth
Family growth even without a room

Not quite a reverse order. You would still need the room before the first child.

@MattR Good call. I've updated to correct that.

"In an ideal world"...whereas in the real world, obviously if I hadn't immediately pounced on Family Growth Without Room, someone else would've before it came around again.  But then, if I'd had enough wood and reeds to build two rooms, it wouldn't have been a problem anyway.


text:
Is there a (tournament) standard for character picks?
The Dark City expansion increases replay value for casual play by adding extra character roles. But what about tournament play? Is there a combination of characters that is commonly used in a tournament setting? Or maybe there's a character (or combination of characters) that's banned/excluded from official events?
There already is a (somewhat subjective) question about balance and preference. I'm looking for a source with authority, like a publisher, or (inter)national tournament host, or anything that comes close.

No; FFG don't host official Citadels tournament events (evidence includes this page which lists games supported for store championship events).
The only tournament I could find online run by players was this one, which used only the base game (not the Dark City cards).


text:
Will a creature cast with Dash still return to your hand if it dies in combat?
While going through Fate Reforged, I became a little bit confused by the new mechanic Dash.
For example, if you take a look at Goblin Heelcutter, the ability states as such:

Whenever Goblin Heelcutter attacks, target creature can't block this turn.
Dash {2}{R} (You may cast this spell for its dash cost. If you do, it gains haste, and it's returned from the battlefield to its owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step.)

My question is, since the creature is a 3/2, if it was assigned a blocker and dealt more than 2 damage, would it still return to the owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step?

If it's dead, it's not coming back.
Reminder text isn't actually official rules, but it is there to help you out, and there's a key phrase in the reminder text to help you in this case just from the card, without having to look things up:

You may cast this spell for its dash cost. If you do, it gains haste, and it's returned from the battlefield to its owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step.

If it's not on the battlefield anymore, it can't be returned from there to your hand! So if it dies (or is exiled or otherwise leaves the battlefield) before the end of the turn, whether due to combat damage or a removal spell or anything else, it won't come back.
The Mechanics of Fate Reforged article also mentioned this, among all the other helpful information about the mechanics. It's a good article to read if you want to make sure you understand everything from the new set.

If you cast a creature spell using its dash cost, it will return to your hand only if it's still on the battlefield at the beginning of the next end step. If it leaves the battlefield before that point, it'll just stay wherever it is.

If you want the actual rules, the comprehensive rules mention that dash actually does a few separate things, one of which is the return-to-hand ability:

702.108a Dash represents three abilities: two static abilities that function while the card with dash is on the stack, one of which may create a delayed triggered ability, and a static ability that functions while the object with dash is on the battlefield. “Dash [cost]” means “You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather that its mana cost,” “If this spell’s dash cost was paid, return the permanent this spell becomes to its owner’s hand at the beginning of the next end step,” and “As long as this permanent’s dash cost was paid, it has haste.” Paying a card’s dash cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2e–g.

Note that it specifically says "return the permanent..." - if the creature has left the battlefield already, it's no longer a permanent, so there's nothing to return.

Also note that if the creature gets flickered (or otherwise leaves the battlefield then returns) it is considered a new object and won't return to its owner's hand, it will remain on the battlefield.

@diego really? I didn't know that! Can you cite that in the comprehensive rules?

@chiliNUT Rule 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."

@Jefromi You should also quote 603.7c for why it only returns if it is still on the battlefield: "A delayed triggered ability that refers to a particular object still affects it even if the object changes characteristics. However, if that object is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at the time the delayed triggered ability resolves, the ability won't affect it."


text:
Can Apex Install Non-Virtual Resources via Assimilator?
Apex has the abilities:

You cannot install non-virtual resources.
When your turn begins, you may install 1 card from your grip facedown.

Assimilator says:

[click], [click]: Turn one of your facedown installed cards faceup. If that card is an event, trash it.

Can I install a non-virtual resource face down using Apex's second ability and then turn it face up with Assimilator?
The second sentence of Assimilator indicates that Apex's second ability allows you to install things that you couldn't normally install, such as events.

Yes you can.  First, you can include non-virtual resources in your deck, since there is no restriction on this.  Then, the rules reference says the following on facedown runner cards:

Runner cards that are installed or turned facedown do not have a name, type, or subtypes, and their abilities are not active.

Since you are installing the resource facedown, it is not a resource and thus not subject to Apex's install restriction.
Finally, turning it face up with Assimilator is not an installation, so is also not subject to Apex's restriction.  Support for this can be found in the rules reference:

Turning an installed facedown Runner card faceup does
  not trigger install effects


text:
Multiple riders on the same agenda
In Twilight Imperium 4th edition, a rider is a category of action card that says:

After an agenda is revealed:
You cannot vote on this agenda.  Predict aloud an outcome of this agenda.  If your prediction is correct, [GAIN SOME BENEFIT].

Examples of this are Politics Rider, Technology Rider, and Warfare Rider.
Can multiple players each play a rider on the same agenda?  Can one player play multiple riders on the same agenda?

Any number of players can play any number of riders on a single agenda, provided each is a different rider.  If multiple players want to play the same rider, the player first in speaker-clockwise order has priority.
The relevant points from the rules reference:

Multiple action cards with the same name cannot be played during a single timing window to affect the same units or game effect. Canceled cards do not count as being played.
During the strategy and agenda phases, if there are multiple abilities
that players wish to resolve at the same time, each player takes a
turn resolving an ability starting with the speaker and proceeding
clockwise.  This process continues until each player has resolved all
the abilities that he wishes to resolve during that timing window.

There is nothing in the rules reference that prohibits a player from playing multiple riders specifically.  There is also nothing besides the above rule preventing several action cards being played in response to a single trigger.


text:
R&D's Secret Lair + Ashnod's Coupon
Ashnod's Coupon has the ability:

{T}, Sacrifice Ashnod’s Coupon: Target player gets you target drink.
Errata: You pay any costs for the drink.

Meanwhile, R&D's Secret Lair says:

Play cards as written. Ignore all errata.

Ignoring the fact that R&D's Secret Lair now has errata to make its mana producing ability still work (which is baffling to think through), how does R&D's Secret Lair interact with Ashnod's Coupon?  The issue with Ashnod's Coupon is that the Coupon's errata is printed on the card.  Thus, it is errata (so you should ignore it) but is also part of the card as written (so you should use it).  Which one happens?

This can go either way.  Silver bordered card rulings are complicated (see the caveats below) and Mark Rosewater has issued conflicting rulings on this.

Mark Rosewater's Rulings
MaRo's original ruling on the subject is that the owner of Ashnod's Coupon still pays for the drink:

R&D Secret Lair contradicts itself as it asks you to play “all cards as written” and “ignore all errata”. Ashnod’s coupons errata is written on the card.
This means I can basically rule either way so I have opted to rule in favor against dumb shenanigans. (Note I’m all for regular shenanigans when playing with Un-cards.) Owner of the Ashnod’s Coupon pays for the drink.

MaRo's later ruling on the subject (thank you @Malco for finding this) is that the other player pays for the drink:

If you use ashnod's coupon and you have R&D's secret lab out, who pays for the drink?
They do. Note that they can concede in response to the activation.

Silver Bordered Card Rulings
Silver bordered cards are complicated.  The official magic rules say the following:

Silver-Bordered
Cards in certain sets and certain promotional cards are printed with a silver border. Silver-bordered cards are intended for casual play and may have features and text that aren't covered by these rules.

Wizards does not publish official rulings on silver bordered cards the same way they do on regular cards.  Mark Rosewater (MaRo) is Magic's "Silver Bordered Rules Manager" as mentioned in the FAQs for Unhinged and Unstable, the later of which lists MaRo's blog as a resource for answers to additional questions on silver bordered sets.  While these are official publications of Wizards, they are not included in the regular rules cannon, and so absolutely do not have the same force of authority as the main magic rules or card rulings.
MaRo has said:

One of the wonderful things about silver-bordered cards is that we can do stuff that maybe doesn't technically work but that players would have lots of fun trying to make work.

Silver bordered cards were never intended to have a coherent rules framework.  This is visible in MaRo's own discussion of this situation, where he describes the iteration between these two cards as "contradictory" given the magic rules framework, and his ruling was based on a personal philosophy rather than any logic of the rules.

My Personal Opinion
I believe that the targeted player pays for the drink.
Even in MaRo's original ruling, he claimed that the interaction could go either way.  "Ignore all Errata" is its own sentence, and thus can function as an independent part of the ability: first, play all cards as written, and second, ignore all errata.  Under this interpretation, the errata on Ashnod's Coupon is nullified by R&D's Secret Lair, and the target player will have to pay for the drink.
In this case (as highlighted by MaRo's later ruling), a player can still conceded the game at any time.  Thus, this combo, targeting a sufficiently expensive drink (such as a bottle of 50-year Macallan, retail price $30,000), effectively becomes "Target player loses the game".  This makes it a 2-card 0-mana win combo, which is the simplest first turn win combo in all of magic.  The downside (?) to this combo is that a player does have the option to buy you a $30,000 bottle of scotch to prevent themselves from losing.

"Ignore all errata" doesn't mean "do the opposite of what the errata says".  Even with the latter interpretation, "target player must pay for the drink" isn't a necessary conclusion.

I have cleared out comments related to the authority of the quoted ruling because the answer no longer mentions it.

While R&D's Secret Lair is on the battlefield, you should not ignore the "errata" printed on Ashnod's Coupon. The Coupon's controller still pays any costs for the drink. Mark Rosewater, the official silver-bordered rules manager, published the following ruling:

kingdavidofisrael asked: Does R&D's Secret Lair remove the errata from Ashnod's Coupon, or will I still have to pay for the drink?

R&D Secret Lair contradicts itself as it asks you to play “all cards as written” and “ignore all errata”. Ashnod’s coupons errata is written on the card.
This means I can basically rule either way so I have opted to rule in favor against dumb shenanigans. (Note I’m all for regular shenanigans when playing with Un-cards.) Owner of the Ashnod’s Coupon pays for the drink.

The first linked article, authored by Mark Rosewater and published on the Wizards of the Coast official website contains the following statements:

I wear many hats at Wizards of the Coast, one of which is that of silver-bordered rules manager.
Most of the time, being silver-bordered rules manager is easy—I just get the occasional question on Twitter or my blog.
If you have a question I didn't address, you can write to me at my blog for an answer.

Therefore, Mark Rosewater's role as silver-bordered rules manager is officially sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast, and when he answers ruling questions about silver-bordered cards he is doing so in his official capacity as silver-bordered rules manager. So, his rulings on his blog have the same force of authority that the main rules manager's rulings have on the main game.

You actually found an official reference to the blog.  Good job.  I do not agree at all that this gives the rulings the "same force of authority", but it does mean that they can be considered "rulings" rather than "opinions".

If I ask Magic rules manager Eli Shiffrin a question on social media, the answer is treated as a final and binding ruling on the issue, because he is the highest authority on the Magic rules, and the medium he uses to convey information doesn't change that. I see no compelling reason not to treat silver-bordered rules manager Mark Rosewater's answers about silver-bordered cards the same way.

Malco's answer highlights the danger of using things like social media as a source of authority for things like this.  Social media is very poorly suited as a medium for conveying information that should be presented in a living document (like card rulings).

In typical silver-border fashion, things have gotten a bit contradictory...
A more recent post by Silver-border Rules Manager Mark Rosewater, has ruled in the opposite direction to the other answers (that refer to an earlier ruling):

nicthos asked: Un-question: if you use ashnod's coupon and you have R&D's secret lab out, who pays for the drink?
MaRo: They do. Note that they can concede in response to the activation.
March 10, 2019

So who pays?
As Un-sets are silver-bordered, they are by definition for casual play. So talk with your play group and agree on how you wish to rule this interaction so that it is enjoyable for those in the group. Allow everyone to make their arguments beforehand so that when it comes up in-game everyone is familiar with the interaction and can quickly move on with the game.
Side Note: I suspect that someone will point out this contradiction to MaRo sometime in the future, so expect this answer to be changed again sometime soon.


text:
Do I draw cards from playing Lich at negative life?
I have negative 10 life, such as due to Platinum Angel and I play Lich.  Lich says:

As Lich enters the battlefield, you lose life equal to your life total.
If you would gain life, draw that many cards instead.

Does playing Lich in this situation cause me to draw 10 cards (by means of causing me to gain 10 life and then replacing that with card draw)?

your card link is a search, which specific card do you mean?

@esoterik The autocard doesn't work well right now. There is a card literally called Lich.

but it doesn't come up in the search

IIRC this doesn't work, you can't lose negative life

Nothing happens. You lose 0 life, which is the same as not losing any life. You don't draw cards.
I think what you're imagining is "losing negative ten life" = "gain 10 life".  However, you cannot lose negative life.

107.1b Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero. You can’t choose a negative number, deal negative damage, gain negative life, and so on. However, it’s possible for a game value, such as a creature’s power, to be less than zero. If a calculation or comparison needs to use a negative value, it does so. If a calculation that would determine the result of an effect yields a negative number, zero is used instead, unless that effect doubles or sets to a specific value a player’s life total or a creature’s power and/or toughness.

The first bolded section is pretty clear cut ("You can't [...] gain negative life") but the second part also explains the principle behind it. The principle is that when you're gaining life, you gain +number life, but the calculation sees you would gain -number life instead, so we replace the negative with 0: you gain 0 life.

Interestingly it would be different if it happened to say "your life total becomes 0" instead.

@GendoIkari in that case no cards will be drawn, as the replacement effect is after the life setting; you still do everything in order when resolving the card.

You'd definitely draw 10 cards in that case. Setting life total from -10 to 0 is done by gaining 10 life, which in turn gets replaced by drawing 10 cards.

The question of whether those two replacement effects interact depends on some of the minutia of rule 614.12. I believe that under the current iteration of the rules, doppelgreener is correct and you would end up drawing cards.

The text on the image says "You lose all life. If you would gain life later in the game ..." Even if losing negative life were gaining life, it's not happening "later in the game". The oracle text that you quote consists of two different statements. The EtB effect happens as the spell is being resolved. The gaining life is a static ability of the enchantment, and only applies when the enchantment is already on the battlefield.

I do not believe this is correct. First off the printed text never matters for the proper rules (though I think you just mean it here to provide context). But cards with static abilities can be affected by things that happen “as” they enter the battlefield.

Specifically this might've used to be the case (I'm not sure), but the Ixalan Comprehensive Rules Changes updated how things entered the battlefield. CTRL+F for the heading 614.12, 614.16d. We now take into account what would exist if they were already on the battlefield, so that e.g. Endless One entering with Humility in play won't enter with its +1/+1 counters.


text:
Multiple permanents entering the battlefield simultaneously and “Enter the Battlefield” effects
There are many cards that can put multiple permanents onto the battlefield simultaneously, such as Scapeshift, Living Death, or Pyxis of Pandemonium.  How do these interact with the following types of abilities?

As [this permanent] enters the battlefield...
You may have [this permanent] enter the battlefield as...
[This permanent] enters the battlefield with...
When [a permanent with certain characteristics] enters the battlefield...

Justification
There have been many questions already about particular instances of this situation.  This question is intended to be a canonical question and answer to all questions such as:
What happens when multiple Canker Abominations enter the battlefield simultaneously?
How does Valakut trigger with a card like Harrow or Scapeshift putting multiple mountains into play?
Cards entering the battlefield simultaneously and "Enter the Battlefield" effects
Do creatures that enter the battlefield at the same time see each other enter?
Pyxis of Pandemonium and 'enters the battlefield' abilities
Note to moderators: three of these five questions have already been marked as duplicates pointing to this one.  Can we do the same for the remaining two?

Four of the five linked questions are about triggered abilities, one is about replacement effects. Likewise, three of the templates at the top are replacement effects, and one is a triggered ability. Both halves of the question are a duplicate, and so I'm voting to close the whole as a duplicate. I see no added value from joining together these two categories of questions.

I haven't looked at the possible past duplicates carefully, but I can say that my first thought on seeing this question was confusion - the title says "enter the battlefield" which generally means triggered abilities, while the question asks about both triggered abilities and replacement effects. Definitely makes more sense to me to separate the two. (Yes, a beginner wouldn't see the difference, but fortunately those of us who'll be closing questions as duplicates of canonical questions aren't beginners!)

The key piece of confusion in all of these questions is that multiple objects enter simultaneously. The resulting explanation is fairly simple, even handling both cases.  The replacement efforts also contain the phrase "enters the battlefield".

I think it would be a good idea too keep this open as the canonical question. Many people may not know the difference between the replacement effect and the triggered ability, so they may not be able to find one of the other questions that handles the case they do care about. This also covers the fact that there is a difference in how the two are handled, which other such questions only do implicitly.

@murgatroid99 Right, but when we get a new question that's about one of these two cases, might it be less confusing to point them at a canonical that's about only one of them? Or are you saying you think people might find this one by searching but not the others?

I don't think the confusion potential here is substantial. And maybe a better way of saying what I tried to say before is that someone can find most of these questions if they want to know about either type of ability (because of similar wording) and only this question answers them either way.

I think this is too broad for a canonical question. It is better to have several questions for triggered abilities, replacement effects and then corner cases.

@Pablo There really aren't corner cases, and I think it would be too confusing to less experienced players (who are the ones that would be looking for this) to have it be separate questions.

@murgatroid99 Most of the related questions are already marked as duplicates of this one.  What is needed to make this the canonical question on this subject?

You may not have noticed, but I moved around some dupe targets. Now all of the relevant questions are closed as duplicates of the same question that this question now points to. I don't think there's sufficient evidence that we need a canonical question to cover both triggered abilities and replacement effects, and I think the current dupe target is more than sufficient to handle just triggered abilities.

@murgatroid99 The question these are marked as a duplicate of doesn't address the entire category of enter the battlefield replacement effects ("as this enters the battlefield").  At the very least, this question is not a duplicate of it, since that is a key part of this question and answer not addressed there.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can close as a duplicate of multiple questions. If I could, I would close this as a duplicate of the current dupe target, plus http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/24382/what-happens-when-multiple-canker-abominations-enter-the-battlefield-simultaneou, and probably http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/23970/can-ward-slivers-protection-be-responded-to to handle the difference. But the fact is that the limitations of the system in assigning duplicate targets are not a good reason to keep the question open.

The replacement effects (As [this permanent] enters the battlefield, You may have [this permanent] enter the battlefield as..., and [This permanent] enters the battlefield with) will look at the state of the battlefield before the group of permanents enters.
The triggered abilities (When [a permanent with certain characteristics] enters the battlefield) will trigger for all eligible permanents entering the battlefield.  This is true even if the ability is on one of the permanents that is entering the battlefield.

Examples
If you use Scapeshift to find several copies of Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle, some mountains, and several copies of Vesuva, you will have a group of lands entering the battlefield simultaneously.  Vesuva's ability is a replacement effect, and so can only copy lands on the battlefield before the group of lands enters (so if you sacrificed all of your lands to Scapeshift, Vesuva would only be able to copy an opponent's land).  Meanwhile, Valakut has a triggered ability.  All of the Valakut abilities will trigger for all of the mountains entering the battlefield.  If the Valakuts happen to be mountains as well, such as due to Prismatic Omen, they will trigger their own and each others abilities.
If you use Living Death, any instances of Clone that come back to life will have no valid copy targets and Canker Abomination will be a 6/6, since both of these are replacement effects.  Meanwhile, Goldnight Commander has a triggered ability, and so will give all of your creatures +1/+1 until end of turn for each creature besides himself that entered the battlefield.

Rules Justification
The behavior of the triggered abilities comes from the following core rules:

603.6a Enters-the-battlefield abilities trigger when a permanent enters the battlefield. These are written, "When [this object] enters
the battlefield, ..." or "Whenever a [type] enters the battlefield,
..." Each time an event puts one or more permanents onto the
battlefield, all permanents on the battlefield (including the
newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that
match the event.
603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered
abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she
chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and
resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities
that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process
repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no
abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

The behavior of the replacement effects comes from the following core rules:

608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only
once, when the effect is applied
614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with ... ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield ... ," or
"[This permanent] enters the battlefield as ... " are replacement
effects.
614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the
permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a
general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come
from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and
how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would
exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that
have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1),
continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities
that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule
400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that
would affect it.
614.12a If a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield requires a choice, that choice is made before the
permanent enters the battlefield.
614.4. Replacement effects must exist before the appropriate event occurs—they can’t “go back in time” and change something that’s
already happened. Spells or abilities that generate these effects are
often cast or activated in response to whatever would produce the
event and thus resolve before that event would occur.
101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes
any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the
player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required,
followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the
actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the
“Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.

I don't think 614.12a exactly justifies your conclusions regarding enters-the-battlefield replacement effects. Canker Abomination's ability, for example, involves no choices.

@murgatroid99 "As Canker Abomination enters the battlefield, choose an opponent."  I'm probably missing a rule reference on the replacement effects though.

Oh, you're right. What about Sunburst, then? Your answer implies that it would work the same.

@murgatroid99 Custodi Soulbinders is a better example.  I'll see if I can find the right rule to fit it

@murgatroid99 I think it falls under 614.12, To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield

I don't see how that relates to the Custodi Soulbinders example.

@murgatroid99 "as it would exist on the battlefield" means it is not yet on the battlefield when the ability resolves.  Since all of the permanents are entering simultaneously, then none of them are yet on the battlefield when the outcome of replacement effects are determined.  If you've got a more direct source, feel free to edit it in.

I don't have a better rule to cite, but it would help to highlight (bold) the relevant parts of the rules you are citing and to explain how they justify your conclusions. It can be hard to infer your reasoning from 4 paragraphs of quoted rules text.

The passage of 614.12 you bolded is not relevant. That passage applies to effects such "Lands enter the battlefield tapped". (The bolded passage says you check if it will be a land to see if it will be tapped.) It's irrelevant here since nothing can change the permanent so that "[this permanent]" no longer refers to the permanent.

@ikegami what is the section of rules then that pertains to Custodi Soulbinders not counting other creatures that enter simultaneously with it?  I thought the "as it exists on the battlefield" to be the indication that it is not on the battlefield when the ability take effect

Asking

So far, it looks like it's "common knowledge" rather than spelled out in the rules.


text:
Would I level up if I "automatically defeated" a monster but someone wandered in a monster that killed me afterwards?
This question arises when we saw this in the FAQ:

Q. I used an ability to automatically kill a monster. Another player used Wandering Monster to add a monster to the fight, and then played Transferal Potion to move the monster to himself. He beat it. Who gets the level and Treasures for the monster I killed?
A. You do; you killed it. (This has been ruled different ways at different times, but we got a ruling directly from Steve, so it trumps everything else.) You get your level and Treasures after the whole combat is resolved.

Say for example in Zombies, Player A was a Level 9 Atomic Zombie (and therefore had flaming hands). He kicks open the door to find a Mascot which he automatically defeats with fire. Someone wanders in an Action Hero, which for the sake of argument ultimately kills Player A.
Would the combat resolve as "Player A goes up to Level 10 and then gets killed." or "Player A gets killed and doesn't level up." because of the "after the WHOLE combat is resolved" clause?

The Mascot is defeated, but Player A must defeat (but not necessarily kill) the wandering monster before being awarded levels or treasure (or the win).
Basically, the rules state that after you kick open a door, you give a "reasonable time" to allow other players to intervene.
In the FAQ, the following Q/A answers your question:

Q. Does the "reasonable time rule" apply to defeating a monster
  without killing it, or just to killing it?
  A. Any sort of defeat. If
  you defeat it without killing it, other players still have a
  reasonable time to play an applicable card to frustrate you. However,
  if you removed the only monster from the fight (with Magic Lamp, for
  instance), they cannot play Monster Enhancers or other similar cards
  that affect a specific monster, because there isn't one there to
  fight, and they can't use any special rules for bringing in monsters
  (such as the Shark rules from Munchkin Booty) that depend on having a
  monster in the fight. They can play Wandering Monster to bring in an
  entirely new monster, though, but they must do it at once.

Basically, any ability that will auto-defeat the door mob still grants your opponents a "reasonable time" to respond, in which they can Wander in any monster they choose, which you have to fight just the additional monster.
Per this Super Moderator in the MunchkinForums:

Automatically defeating a Monster removes the Monster. Cards that rely
  on a Monster can't be played, but that doesn't mean that combat is
  over UNLESS the card that automatically defeated the Monster says
  otherwise. This is a situation where cards could be played, but not
  those that affected a non-existent Monster.

As far as why your other outcome couldn't happen, "Player A goes up to Level 10 and then gets killed":
Per the Munchkin Zombies ruleset:

You cannot collect rewards for defeating a monster (e.g., Treasure, levels) in the middle of a combat. You must finish the fight before gaining any rewards.

And finally, this gets spelled out in the FAQ, Important Note #3:

"Killed" means that you defeated the monster with your Level and
  bonuses in combat, or used some card or special ability that
  specifically states that it kills the monster. For this, you get
  levels and Treasure. Some Monsters say that they can be defeated
  immediately, based on circumstances. Unless the card says otherwise,
  this usually means an instant kill of the Monster, so you would get
  levels and Treasure in those situations, too. However, even in a case
  where a single monster is instantly defeated, other players get a
  chance to play Wandering Monster to add a new foe that you must defeat
  before claiming the spoils.

TLDR; defeating (or auto-defeating) a monster does not end combat; the monster is removed, but other players have a "reasonable time" to play any such as wandering monster--if done at once.
Should all additional monsters be defeated (or lamped, etc.), combat is then resolved and you can claim victory with the kill granted by your auto-defeated monster.


text:
In the Pokemon Card Game what is a group of Pokemon called?
There is...

herd of cattle
pride of lions
murder of crows
school of fish
colony of ants

... and a [something] of Pokemon?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it doesn't appear to be about board games, and probably should be on the SciFi and Fantasy SE site.

It's kind of board/card game related, though I see where it doesn't necessarily fall in this case. I took my best shot at the right site - I'll try over there. :)

@EvilClosetMonkey If you are trying elsewhere English Language and Usage would also be somewhere to look

@EvilClosetMonkey I can see how that might fall into B&CG.SE with the card game, I just think from a scope perspective you'd be better off on one of the other two mentioned sites.

@SocioMatt While this question might fit better on one of the other sites that doesn't necessarily mean it is off topic here. It is a question related to a card game which is the main criteria for on-topicness.

@diego That creates a line I'm not sure about. If that were true, wouldn't a question like "What are a group of urak hai called?" be considered on-topic because there is a Lord of the Rings game? Should that be on B&CG.SE? Or down another level, should we be asking whether gravitational pulls of wormholes suck in ships, since that is the premise of the game Gravwell?

@SocioMatt I agree, and that is probably something that should be discussed on Meta. However as it currently stands the definition for on-topic only states that it 'must relate to a game that is on topic', and doesn't have any limiters on how related something must be.

@diego I've added a Meta question dealing with this topic.

Whether or not this is on topic, it's certainly not a game recommendation question!

Question  belongs to English Language SE

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Sci-fi and Fantasy Stackexchange

There isn't one true site for all questions.  There is considerable overlap in the StackExchange network.

@Pureferret wouldn't it be more suitable on an English Language SE?
Sure Pokemon aren't real, but it is a question about the English language, not about pokemon or anything sci-fi/fantasy related.

@Othya ELU sometimes frowns on unusual cases.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not actually about the Pokemon card game.

The updated question that includes 'In the Pokemon Card Game' doesn't really make sense since Pokemon in the card game doesn't really come in groups like they do in the anime or video games. (Unless you want something like 'playset' or 'deck' :)  )

A group of Pokemon is called the same as group of animals.
So for a cattle-like Pokemon it's "herd", for lion-like Pokemon it's "pride", and so on.


text:
Poker hand probabilities in Doomtown:Reloaded
The short version of my question is as follows:
What is the best way to compute the probability of different hand ranks after redraw in poker? Can this easily generalise to a stacked (non-standard) deck?
Doomtown Reloaded is a trading card game in which combat is resolved by hands of poker. Each card has an associated suit and value. Deck construction requires a 52 card deck with up to 4 cards of each suit and value. The ability of your 'dudes' alters the way you construct your poker hand. Some 'dudes' are stud shooters they allow you to draw more cards. Some dudes are 'draw' shooters, they allow you to discard and redraw. You are also allowed to include an additional 2 jokers (which can be used as any suit and value for the purposes of forming poker hands)
Computing how adding stud shooters affects your draw hand probability is relatively easy, however I haven't been able to find a description of how to compute the probability of different hands after redraw.
I want to know how to compute the likelihood of the 10 poker hand ranks (high card -> 5 of a kind) given the deck construction, number of cards you initially draw and number of cards you discard and redraw.

On the suggestion of mergatroid99 I've also asked this question at math.stackexchange.com here

I don't really understand the deck construction rules. Is it a standard deck plus 2 jokers? Can you have 4 aces of hearts (as the deck construction sentence seems to imply)?

The deck construction rules allow up to 4 cards of each suit and value. It's a trading card game where the cards have abilities but also function as cards when contributing to poker hands.
You can have up to 4 ace of hearts for example, up to 16 cards of each value (4 Ah, 4 Ac, 4 As, 4 Ad) and up to 52 cards of each suit. A hand can have multiple cards with the same suit and value, so a hand of Ah, Ah, 2h, 3h, 5h is a flush. Ah, Ah, As, 2d, 2c is a full house.
There are cards that punish cheatin' hands - hands where 2 or more cards share suit and value. But let's worry about that later.

So you can have 4 of the exact same card (Ace of Hearts, for example)? In that case, if you can draw more than 5 cards to start, wouldn't the best hand be at least 6 of a kind (if you're considering identical suit and value) or N of a kind (if you're just considering identical value)? Also, are the Jokers in addition to the other cards or part of the 52?

Yes, you can have 4 Ace of Hearts.
No, the draw hand revealed is the best 5 card poker hand you can make from the hand you draw - as in e.g. Texas Hold em' - where you make a 5 card hand from the communal pool and your hole cards.
Jokers are optional (but common) and are in addition to the 52.

So these hands you're looking for are just the standard poker hands, plus 5 of a kind (which for obvious reasons is not a standard poker hand)?

Yes, exactly. There is also a trump 'Dead Man's Hand' which is exactly As, Ac, Jd, 8s, 8c but if I can calculate the probability of the other hands I can manage calculating that too. Thanks for your interest!

OK, I just want to point out that answering this may be a little complicated. If I calculated this right, there are approximately 10^19 different decks that can be constructed. From each of those decks, there are about 2 million different hands that can be drawn, and from each of those there are even more ways to discard and redraw.

I know. I wondered if there was any understanding of poker hands after redraw that I could lean on. It would really help my understanding of the strength of different characters in the game, plus I'm curious.

Honestly, I would suggest asking this on math.stackexchange instead of here. The meat of this question is some complex, parameterized probability calculations.

Thanks for the suggestion, I've also asked this question at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/988825/poker-hand-probabilities-in-doomtown-reloaded - let's see if we get anywhere.

Creating a computer simulation is probably actually the easiest way to do this.
User 'Big Easier' created such a program and used it to create probabilities for the starter decks, which can be found here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1258645/draw-hand-simulator-preconstructed-decks
He mentioned putting the code on github, but I cannot find it.  Perhaps you could send him a message and get a copy of it.


text:
Can Nisei MK II Be Used During an Ice Encounter?
This is related to: How to use 'Nisei MK II' free 'End the run'?
Say the Corp has a counter on a harvested Nisei MK II.
Example 1:
The Runner encounters Chum and begins breaking Subroutines on the next piece of Ice. Can the Corp spend the Nisei MK II counter before all the Subroutines are broken?
Example 2:
The Runner encounters Tollbooth and pays his $3. Can the Corp spend his Nisei MK II counter before the Runner has broken the Tollbooth's "End Run" Subroutine?

Welcome! I have a couple of suggestions, since it looks like this is your first question on this site.
#1 You've included a proposed answer as part of your question...I would suggest keeping the question contained, and posting your answer as an answer.
#2 This question is really a strict subset of the related question you linked to, and thus a duplicate. It would probably fit better as a comment asking for clarification on one of the answers there.

:) submit-on-enter murdered me

@AndrewVandever I've edited the question to remove "my understanding" clauses. If you still think this can be easily moved to a comment/answered I can do that?

I'm actually sort of on-the-fence about that, since it is not completely identical, just a more specific question. :) So I'll let others with more calibration make the call.

Yes, but after the runner has a chance to break subroutines, and before any of the unbroken subroutines are resolved.
As pointed out in this answer, Nisei's is a Paid Ability. From the rule book:

Cards can also host counters and tokens. Hosted counters or tokens can be spent, or leave play, without affecting their host. If a
trigger cost requires one or more hosted counters, those counters must
be spent (returned to the token bank) from the card that the ability
appears on. (page 22)
Paid Abilities - Some card abilities have trigger costs that a player must pay before the effect of the ability can be resolved.
These abilities are called paid abilities. A card’s trigger cost is
always listed in its text box before the effect, following the format
“cost: effect.” (page 11, sidebar)

As explained in the FAQ's Timing Structure of a Run diagram (last page - phase 3.1) linked from this answer, a Paid Ability can be triggered during the encounter with the ice - after the runner has a chance to break subroutines, and before unbroken subroutines are resolved. Thus, in the chum example it does not give you any special combo to trigger the net damage, even though you can trigger Nisei before the encounter technically ends. There's a good discussion of this here.


text:
What happens with two Pledges of Loyalty attached to the same creature?
This is a similar question, but a slightly different situation, so no duplicate: What happens if I have two Pledges of Loyalty attached to a creature?
Now to my scenario:
Let's say I have two Grizzly Bears with one Pledge of Loyalty attached to each of them. Now my opponent casts e.g. Back to Nature, killing both of my Pledges. I would like to keep my Bears protected, so I cast Second Sunrise during the end step. Note that no other cards were put into any graveyard this turn, so it would revive only the two Pledges. While it is on the stack, my opponent decides to bounce one of my Grizzly Bears with a blue instant of your choice.
Now, the Sunrise resolves, I have to put my Pledges back and since the remaining Grizzlies are the only creature, both have to enchant it as per rule 303.4f. Now, I would think that they would enter the battlefield simultaneously, so no Pledge will be there "first" and prevent the other from attaching.
Is that correct so far?
What will happen afterwards? Will both Pledges be put into my graveyard again? Will one of them, or even both, survive?

I believe the controlling player chooses the stack order in such cases. Stuff doesn't just happen all at once, there is still a stack decided by the player. EDIT: Seems I am wrong according to the first answer.

@CyberClaw: Second Sunrise's effect doesn't put objects on the stack. Instead, it moves all objects from the graveyard to the battlefield as a single action. There is no specific rule illustrating this, as it depends on what the individual spell does. If it would, for example, create copies and cast them, that would use the stack - simply returning cards to the battlefield, however, doesn't. Players only get to arrange multiple objects on the stack that are put there at the same time.

Yeah like I said, seems I was wrong. I recalled somewhere that you'd order them into the stack at your choice on this mass effect cards, but I'm probably mixing it with some other card game, or it's probably some rule that has changed since I stopped obsessing with MTG.

For completeness' sake:

303.4f. If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player’s control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn’t specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects.

All cards returned by Second Sunrise are returned at the same time, so you can choose the Bears as the creature to attach them to for both Auras.
Right after it resolves, you will have a Grizzly Bears enchanted with both Pledges, two instances of Protection from White (and Green) that each don't remove the Aura that grants it.
Now, State-Based Actions are checked - simultaneously for each card, as per the following rule:

704.3. (...) the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. (...)

Since both Auras are illegal at this time, they will both be put in your graveyard as a State-Based Action, even though a single one of them could remain on the creature (which SBAs don't check for).

704.5n. If an Aura is attached to an illegal object or player (...), that Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard.


text:
What is the best way to describe the turn order in Puerto Rico?
Inspired by this question which describes the "snake turn", is there a good label to give the turn order in Puerto Rico, where the first player starts the round, then the second player starts the round, then the third player starts the round etc.
The reason I'm asking is so that I can more quickly get through that part of the explanation of the rules.  We always seem to spend a few minutes explaining that part.

Just say the turns have a 'rotating starting player'.  If you have players familiar with poker or card games in general, you can use the dealer & blinds as an example.


text:
How should I teach someone new to spades how to bid?
Bidding in spades is one of the hardest mechanics to master. The gameplay comes with experience, but sometimes bidding just goes awry. I know how I bid and that I disagree with the way other people bid (usually because it doesn't work).
My general rule of thumb is this:

If you have an Ace in any suit other than spades, count one.
If you have a King in any suit other than spades, count one.
 Subset: If you only have 2 cards in that suit and the other isn't the Ace, count as a possible
 Subset: IF you have more than 4 cards in that suit, count as a possible

If you only have 2 of one suit (other than spades) count 1.
 Subset: Keep track of these spades you would use trumping

If you have 5 spades, count 1. (Beyond those you would use trumping in your short-suit)
Jokers count as 1 (Or Ace and King if no Jokers)

Any thoughts?

My first impression is that your bidding rules don't take the other players bids into account at all. You're going to win extra tricks if someone bids nil. You also need to take into account how many sandbags your opponents have. If your opponents are about to go over, they might be extremely cautious about taking extra tricks, leaving you able to bid aggressively.

Are you truly so very, very, good at this game that you will teach your students good habits and sound technique? If not, perhaps you are better off just letting them play around and have fun. As a Bridge player I see your evaluation scheme as grossly inadequate, but I have only played the related game Oh Pshaw! and not Spades itself.

+1 for Rainbolt. Later bidders should have a good idea how many tricks are going spare and you need good reason (wacky distributions) to go too far from a total of 13. Also your system makes no reference to trying nils yourself, or how the match score affects strategy - eg. if well ahead bid safe, if well behind go for risky nils or bid low and try to sandbag opponents to catch up.

@Rainbolt Thanks for that, I totally spaced on the total number of available tricks and nil bidding. Appreciate it! I always space on nils also.

I thought the normal method was to watch them fail, then verbally abuse them. Rinse/repeat over the course of a few months and they usually end up pretty decent in my experience :D

@Geobits Hahahaha! That comes about halfway through the first game when they start feeling good about themselves

If you are playing with a regular partner, you may introduce some conventions. This includes things like underbidding in front of partner and expecting them to adjust for it.
Many players I see always underbid and prefer to play a bagging game rather than risk getting set. The problem is that by underbidding, you are losing out on all those 10s that you would get if you bid your hand up. And they can make a difference in the end.
A good guide is to count 1 point for each ace and king, and any spade more than 3, and reduce a point if you have only one spade.
Nil bids should always be considered. If you have an ace or a king in a suit of 5 cards you almost certainly won't ever be forced to play it. With 4 you might but it's quite possible you won't. With 3 you'd never normally nil with the ace or king, but might risk it with the queen. With Qx in a suit you don't normally nil, Jx you might risk it.
I used to have a convention with partner that a 5 or 7 bid encourages nil opposite, so with a hand worth 5 but bad nil-cover you bid only 4. In my circles blind-nil was banned.
Back around 2003 I was rather obsessed with spades and was in communication with many of the more "expert" circles. There was one site that hosted "duplicate" spades with a regular weekly tournament. I won it many times.
In later stages we used to play "wiz", a variation where you had to bid your number of spades or nil. Used to play first to 500 which meant games were long and the luck of cards balanced out and it became far more of a skill game. In general I always hated the bagging game, and in wiz, the aim is always to set. bags only come into play if someone has nilled and then you generally concentrate more on covering it, trying to set it or setting the niller's partner rather than avoiding bags.

Turn them loose with a computer simulation at first so they can get lots of hands in. Only after seeing the general structure of play will they understand what to even consider when bidding.
I suggest a computer simulation as it means you don't have to spend time playing with a completely clueless person and they can learn on their own. If you situation is amenable to new people and lots of hands, then just plain old playing a bunch is the answer.

Q432♠ can be bid as 2 tricks depending what seat you are in.  If someone bids 4 or 5 tricks good chance they have 4 or more spades, then I would count Q432♠ as one trick. If you are in fourth seat and the bids are 3,4,2 and your partner bid 4, then count two tricks. You partner is not going to trump your Q♠ and your fourth spade will most likely be a trick. Remember someone is going to trump a short suit more than once before spades get drawn out.  That leaves 11 trumps and you hold four of them.

Tyler Wong wrote a nice basic bidding scheme, it is very basic and does not take into account the bids of the other players.  I think it can be a good start. I would just update the Long trump suit section by counting tricks from the 4th or 5th spade.
Non-trump:

Aces count as 1 trick if the suit is less than seven cards. If the suit is seven or eight cards long, count as 1/2 of a trick.
Kings: a lone king is 1/4 of a trick. 3/4 of a trick if the suit is two, three, or four cards long. 1/4th of a trick if it is a suit five cards long.  If the suit is shorter than six cards, and you have the ace, queen, or jack in the same suit, add 1/4 of a trick.
Queens in a suit five cards or shorter as 1/4 of a trick, unless you have AKQ or AKQx in which case count the queen as 1/2 of a trick.

Trump:

High-ranking trumps: (Ace through Jack) can each be counted as a trick depending on how "protected" it is. If the number of un-owned ranks over a trump card is fewer than the number of owned trump under that trump card, you should count that card as a trick.
For example, Q432s should be counted as one trick: the queen is protected from the ace and king by the lesser trump. (The lesser trump doesn't fully guarantee the Q against an overtrump, but it will suffice most of the time.) A trump set of AQ32s should be counted as two tricks; although there are two ranks above the Qs, there is only one unowned rank, since you own the ace. So you only need two, and not three, smaller trump to protect the Queen.
Well protected trump (e.g., the Queen in Q432) - 1 trick
Mostly protected trump (e.g., the Queen in Q32) - 3/4 of a trick
Partly protected trump (e.g., the Queen in Q2) - 1/4 of a trick

Long trump suit: The more trump you have, the stronger each trump becomes.
Six trump - add 1/2 of a trick.  Seven or more trump - add 1 trick for every trump you have over six

Short non-trump suits: Trump is most useful when used to ruff. Therefore, it is most valuable when you have short or void non-trump suits. For example, if you have no clubs, no diamonds, nine hearts and ♠8765s, you could probably count on at least two of your spades as tricks. In contrast, if you have ♠8765 along with three hearts, three clubs, and three diamonds, you shouldn't count on any of your trump to take tricks.
Voids - if you have a doubleton or singleton in another non-trump suit, add 2 tricks. Otherwise, add 1 1/2 tricks
Singleton - add 1 trick
Doubleton - add 1/2 a trick
These bonuses are only potential tricks because if you don't have any usable trump, short suits won't do you any good. By usable trump, I mean trump that is not functioning as protection. For example, if you are out of hearts, the trump set ♠Q32 is only slightly better than ♠632. The lesser trump can either protect the Q, or they can be used to ruff on hearts, but they can't do both.

If simplicity is important:

Each of those cards is a trick: Aces, Kings, and Queen of spades (9 cards)
Each spade card after the first 4.
Add 1 for having a side-suit void or singleton.
Decrease 1 for having less than 2 spades.

There are no absolute rules for bidding in Spades. Every bid and every play is situational.
The best approach is to view every bid as an exercise in Risk/Reward. Rusk/Reward in Spades is defined first by the score of the game, second by the bid pattern on the hand, and third by one's cards.
This is the opposite approach that is used by most new players.
Then object of Spades is to win the game... not to bid one's hand, make one's bid, bag the opps, set the opps, make a Nil, or cover a Nil.
The above are all tools that we use in order to give us the best possible chance to get to 500 points first.

You are absolutely right, however this is too much information for someone new to the game.


text:
Where is this six-sided die from
Gaming with my daughter's boyfriend, I noticed this die. I asked him about it, but his tl;dr was it was a found die, and he has no idea what it's for or from. Any ideas?

I do note that 3 & 4 are the average of a d6, 6 & 7 are the average of a d12, and 10 & 11 are the average of a d20. But other than that I've got nothing. Google has failed me... or I have failed Google.
Who knows where this die is from?

To be clear, these pictures are both of the same die?

3 & 4 are the middle two values of a d6, the average value of the die roll is 3.5. It doesn't make sense to present two values as the average.


text:
In MTG, when sacrificing another player's creature, who performs the discard into the graveyard?
Dovetailing off this question...
Can I sacrifice a creature that is only temporarily under my control?
...where the answer is, yes, you definitely can.  'Who' discards it?
I'm specifically looking at including Waste Not in a sacrifice-themed deck.
But if I sacrifice another player's creature, does it trigger 'Whenever an opponent discards a creature card...'?  Or would I be discarding it into their graveyard?

Nobody discards it. It gets sacrificed.
Sacrificing doesn't involve discarding. Discarding specifically refers to an instruction to move a card from your hand to your own graveyard:

701.7a To discard a card, move it from its owner's hand to that player's graveyard.

Sacrificing on the other hand is an instruction to move a card from the battlefield to the owner's graveyard.

701.14a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner's graveyard.

Since the sacrificed creature doesn't go straight from someone's hand to their own graveyard, it doesn't count as discarding. The sacrificed creature also dies, which is the term for the event where a creature moves from the battlefield to the graveyard.
Waste Not's triggers don't care about sacrificing. You need cards like Mind Rot or Ashiok's Adept, which actually say 'discard'. Tormented Thoughts could be relevant to you - not because of the sacrifice, but because the sacrifice leads to your opponent doing some discarding.
For the record though: when a creature's sacrificed, it's whoever's controlling the creature that does the sacrificing, regardless of who actually owns that card/creature. Regardless of who actually does the sacrificing, it lands back in the original owner's graveyard.


text:
Can I win with a "you lose" effect on the stack?
Follow on to this question - with a similar setup, but a slightly different aim.
Setup: I have a Bazaar Trader in play and without summoning sickness and an Immortal Coil in hand. Neither I nor my opponent have any cards in their graveyard.
Question: Is there a way for me to win the game by casting the Immortal Coil and then immediately giving it to my opponent?
What I think happens:

I cast Immortal Coil
Immortal Coil resolves
Immortal Coil checks my graveyard and finds no cards

So it puts "I lose the game" on the stack

In response to that going on the stack I activate Bazaar Trader targeting my opponent and Immortal Coil

That goes on the stack too
Stack is now {"opponent gains control of Immortal Coil", "I lose the game"}

Top of the stack resolves and my opponent now controls Immortal Coil
Immortal Coil checks my opponent's graveyard and finds no cards

So it puts "opponent loses the game" on the stack
Stack is now {"opponent loses the game", "I lose the game"}

Top of the stack resolves and my opponent loses

What happens now? Do I win? Or does the other effect in the stack resolve and I also lose?

That's a hard one but it would appear that you would need to have a card in your graveyard for you to win in that situation as the Effect on Immortal coil would resolve before you tapped the Bazaar Trader from what I can see that is... not 100%

@NathanTaylor Nah, he can use Bazaar Trader in response to the Immortal Coin triggered ability going on the stack. As discussed here, it's still a triggered ability because of the word "when", even if it's triggered by a game state.

Altough this has nothing to do with why you would want to cast Immortal Coil at that moment, but if it is on the stack. You could just stack enough damage on the enemy player and let the stack play off. First it would kill the other player off because of the damage, and then the rest of the stack gets discarded because the game ended.

This is not a duplicate. The question here is "Can a state trigger fire again if I give control of the source to my opponent before the first trigger resolves?" The previous question is "Can I give control of the source to my opponent before the first trigger resolves?" The answer to the previous question forms the basis of this one.

@rainbolt The other question covers this exact case.  "Can I respond to the triggering of the SBA and tap Bazaar Trader to give it to my opponent?"

@John - and this one follows on to it to ask "Given that I can respond, and then the effect stays on the stack, can I make my opponent loose before I loose?"

Does "your" always refer to the controller as opposed to the caster?

@DeanMacGregor Yes. The caster is generally referred to as the "owner" of the card.

@ChrisHayes technically, there are cases where you can cast one of your opponent's cards. The owner is the person who brought the card into the game in the first place.

In general, you could win while a "you lose" effect is on the stack. Winning/losing is a state-based action and the stack doesn't finish resolving if the game is over (e.g. a 2 player game).
However, with the Immortal Coil situation you describe, you lose. This is because the Immortal Coil in question won't create another triggered ability on the stack until the first one isn't there.

603.8. Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They'll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren't the same as state-based actions.) A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.

So the Immortal Coil can't trigger for your opponent until you've already lost the game, unless you're otherwise able to prevent or counter the ability on the stack.
Here's the bit I'm not certain about and will look up, but I think if you could flicker the Immortal Coil once the opponent controls it, it will trigger, because the "new" Immortal Coil has no memory of being attached to the previous ability (still on the stack) and thus will create a new one.

With 603.8 what happens if you have Immortal Coil and a Platinum Angel. Does it just keep triggering and resolving without doing anything? Thus locking the game out?

@Cameron As suspected, it forces a draw if nothing can be done about it. There's a ruling on Immortal Coil: Similarly, if the third ability resolves but you don't lose the game for some reason (because you control Platinum Angel, perhaps), it will immediately trigger again if your graveyard is still empty. Immortal Coil + Platinum Angel + an empty graveyard is an involuntary infinite loop. Unless a player disrupts it, the game will end in a draw.

@Samthere, While Flicker/Blink will cause the Immortal Coil to trigger again, those effects put the creature into play under the Owner's control, so it would come back to you, triggering another "you lose" ability for YOU, not your opponent.

@GendoIkari Right you are. There are a few effects that flicker and return under "your control" rather than owner's, but that also defeats the point here :D

Your assessment of what happens if you flicker the Immortal Coil (that it will trigger "again") does seem correct.

Critical to this answer's arguments is (or at least I think so) that changing controllers doesn't make the Coil a new object. A quick search shows nothing to the contrary,

@Silly Freak, Only changing zones causes objects to cease to exist. 400.7

@ikegami changing zones, but also a few extra conditions; search for "becomes a new object". On second thought, it's obvious that changing controllers is not one of them, auras stay attached after all...

A tricky one, and I fear I might be mistaken, but I suppose the answer still lies in 603.8 rule in the linked question (emphasis mine):

603.8. Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They’ll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren’t the same as state-based actions.) A state-triggered ability doesn’t trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.

Therefore, even if Immortal Coil is now owned by your opponent with no cards in his graveyard, it won't trigger since its ability is on the stack. However, if you, for example Stifle it before it resolves, it will trigger again, but for your opponent now.

That's a brilliant little sneaky way to kill off your opponent I like it

If you stifle the ability, you won't lose anyway, at least if the Stifle goes to the graveyard :P

@SillyFreak, not really single Stifle is not enough. Coil would trigger again during resolution of Stifle and put on the stack when a player receives priority, so you will lose anyway.

Ah, you're right. I was thinking at first that Stifle is in the graveyard soon enough (obviously no), and then was mistaken on whether you'd lose the game on resolution of the ability. (Mortal Coil doesn't use an intervening if clause, so yes.)

One thing to note though is rule 109.5:

The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller, its would-be controller (if a player is attempting to play, cast, or activate it), or its owner (if it has no controller). For a static ability, this is the current controller of the object it’s on. For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability. For a triggered ability, this is the controller of the object when the ability triggered, unless it’s a delayed triggered ability. To determine the controller of a delayed triggered ability, see rules 603.7d–f.

To my understanding, this means even if the ability resolves when Immortal Coil is under you opponent's control, the ability will still cause you to lose.
However do see the last part of Vilmar's answer.

This point was never really in contention in the question or any of the answers.


text:
Does Gix's command work like I 'want' it to work?
Do the options in Gix's Command happen individually from each other? Or at the same time? I am particularly interested in the interactions of choice 2 with either 1 or 3.
For example, if both my opponent and me have a pair of 2/2s and I cast Gix's Command choosing options 1 and 2, do I get to put +1/+1 counters on a creature before it is destroyed?
Similarly, if I choose options 2 and 3, do I get to return my creatures to my hand? (I notice that the card does not target and I assume this is why)

Each option will happen one at a time, in the order it appears on the card. So if you choose 1 and 2, then 1 will happen followed by 2. If you choose 2 and 3, then 2 will happen followed by 3.
So:

Yes, you will get the counters and your 2/2 (now a 4/4) will not be destroyed.
Yes, your creatures will be in your graveyard and can be returned.

Resolving Spells and Abilities

608.2. If the object that’s resolving is an instant spell, a sorcery spell, or an ability, its resolution may involve several steps.

608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.


text:
Hex board game strategy
I was teaching myself how to play the Hex board game by reading some books. I learned how to do 2x2 and 3x3 hex games by starting at the principal diagonal. I wanted to know what the winning strategy would be for player one (white) in a 4x4 Hex game starting from the principal diagonal.

Consider a 4x4 Hex.
Show that White has a winning strategy, starting anywhere on the principal diagonal that is in any of the hexagons 1,6, 11, or 16.

Here is what the setup would be:
Let the Hexagons be represented by numbers such as:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16
Let White have the first move. Let black have the second move.
White opens up at 6 (principal diagonal).

what game are you talking about? And what do the dollar digns indicate in your question?

@warren I believe that the OP is talking about this game of Hex.

@ghoppe - hope so ... I thought it was about general game-theory on a hex board (as tagged and worded) :)

@warren Yes, I was similarly confused at first. The question is poorly worded. :)

The dollar signs are used elsewhere to make mathematical expressions display properly. I'm guessing they're not activated on this SE since they'd be rarely necessary.

Not to mention they're somewhat superfluous if applied only to the numbers, and not even used to make nice multiplication symbols.

The winning strategy for such a small Hex board is shown in this basic strategy guide.
Like tic-tac-toe, on a 4x4 board white will always win by opening on the main diagonal, because for every counter that black can make, there is another way for white to force the win. Once white can form a "two-bridge" by placing the second piece in a non-adjacent space but with two empty neighbouring hexes in common, there is no way to block white from completing the chain, since there are two empty adjacent hexes to complete the link.
Here's an example position after white's second turn:

As you could see by playing out all the scenarios for white along the main diagonal, it's impossible to stop white from forming a "two-bridge"

If white plays a1, there are two-bridges at b3 and c2. Black can't stop both.
If white plays b2, there are two-bridge plays at a3, c4, d3, and c1.
If white plays c3, it's a mirror position of b2.
If white plays d4, it's a mirror position of a1.

Black can't win because there is always a way for white to orphan a black piece on this size board, making it impossible for black to form a "two-bridge".
I'm not that familiar with the game but my understanding is that the strategy only really becomes deep and interesting once the board gets to a 10x10 size.