text:
MTG dash and undying
Question about mtg rules.
When my opponent tries to kill Ragavan that I’ve cast for its dash cost and I protect it with Undying Malice.
Does Ragavan go back to my hand or does it stay on the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter?

It will stay on the battlefield (after it has returned to the battlefield from Undying Malice).
The creature that is on the battlefield after Undying Malice triggers and resolves is not the same one that you cast for the Dash cost. Dash won’t do anything, because this particular Ragavan wasn’t cast for its Dash cost.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. This rule has the following exceptions.

(None of the exceptions are relevant).

I wonder what percentage of our mtg questions here are answered with 400.7 :)


text:
Checkers board game stages
I have read there are 3 types of stages in checkers, i.e. opening, mid and end game. I am confused on how to determine when these three stages exist on the checkerboard. For example, how do I tell when the game is at the mid-game stage, is there a certain board layout or board configuration that allows me to ascertain the stage of the board?

There are very few specific board setups that detail early- mid- and late-games. It might be easiest to keep track of which stage you are in based on how many pieces and how many kings each player has and comparing to one another.
For instance, when very few pieces remain on either side, regardless of ratio of kings, this can be assumed to be the late game. Another example of late game is when one player is being dominated and has about one-third to one-half of the pieces that the other player has.
In the early-game, as another answer mentioned, some combinations are easy to memorize, especially if you play a lot. In the late game, some strong finishes are to be known in general, such as having all enemy pieces in a position where none of them can move (e.g. have your pieces block off your rear end) or sweeping the board with kings.
Mid-stage is more or less defined as the messy stage, where you're making up every move as you go and taking time to decide based on how you think the other player will react and how far ahead you can plan, aiming for the late stage. The two sides are approximately even and players are vying for the most profitable positions.

From what I know, this partition is like in Chess, the opening stage can be memorized, the end game has a lot of skill involved and can be learned in lessons, the midgame is all that in between.  To the best of my knowladge there is no formal defenition of this 3-stages partition, such that any state of the game can be classified to one of them.
Derek Oldbury (1924 - July, 1994), a draughts champion that wrote the 6-volume The Complete Encyclopaedia of Draughts wrote about it in The American Checker federation wrote:

Opening, Mid-Game, and End-Game:
It is convenient for study purposes to divide the game into three
  phases; opening, mid-game, end-game. This division is not entirely
  artificial as the chief motives underlying each phase are really very
  distinctive. The dominant theme of the opening may be said to be
  preparation for the battle which rages throughout the mid-game; the
  conflict of the mid-game is resolved in the end-game. In this latter
  we seek to prove the real value of the seeming advantages gained or
  lost during the earlier play.
One need only define the purpose of the end-game to see that this must
  be the most vital phase of the game. The preceding phases are
  concerned with creating good prospects, in the end-game we consider
  the actual result, win, lose, or draw. A slip at this stage and all
  the brilliant ideas of the past become worthless. On the other hand it
  is the end-game, demanding as it does both precision and artistry,
  that may give one the chance to recover from a weak position and turn
  defeat into victory. In draughts the best player wins and the proof is
  here - in the end-game.

Does not really answer my question "...is there a certain board layout or board configuration that allows me to ascertain the stage..."

sorry, not that I know of

Direct quotes should be in quoteblock or otherwise formatted or annotated to indicate that they are not your own material. Especially when they are potential breaches of copyright.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mechanically is there any difference between split and double faced cards?
Are there any differences in the rules (implicitly or explicitly) between how double faced cards are treated (e.g. cast, targeted, etc) and how split cards are treated?
The only difference that I came across is that double faced cards can be a permanent on either side whereas split cards must always be instant/sourceries.

There are various sorts of both split cards (e.g. the Ravnica set split spells, the Amonhket Aftermath cards, the Eldraine Adventure cards (sort of)) and various sorts of dual-faced cards (e.g. the Zendikar Rising spell-lands, the transforming dual faced cards from Shadows over Innistrad and other blocks). Are you interested in the differences between all those cards or just some of them?

Ah yes, like everything in MtG it's infinitely more complex that I thought. I'm interested in all, but I imagine in might be a big answer.

There are two different kinds of double-faced cards that work differently and are handled differently in the rules: modal double-faced cards, and transforming double-faced cards.
Modal double-faced cards
Modal double-faced cards, introduced in Zendikar Rising (the most recent set as of the time of writing this answer), are very similar to split cards. In both cases, a single physical card effectively represents two different "cards", and a player can play one or the other when they play the card. The only significant rules difference between split cards and modal double-faced cards is what characteristics the cards have in zones other than the battlefield and the stack.
Modal double-faced cards' characteristics are determined by rule 711.4:

711.4. Each face of a double-faced card has its own set of characteristics.

711.4a While a double-faced card is outside the game or in a zone other than the battlefield or stack, it has only the characteristics of its front face.
711.4d While a modal double-faced spell is on the stack or a modal double-faced permanent is on the battlefield, it has only the characteristics of the face that’s up.

while split cards' characteristics are determined by rules 708.3 and 708.4:

708.3. A player chooses which half of a split card they are casting before putting it onto the stack.

708.3b While on the stack, only the characteristics of the half being cast exist. The other half’s characteristics are treated as though they didn’t exist.

708.4. In every zone except the stack, the characteristics of a split card are those of its two halves combined.

708.4b The mana cost of a split card is the combined mana costs of its two halves. A split card’s colors and converted mana cost are determined from its combined mana cost. An effect that refers specifically to the symbols in a split card’s mana cost sees the separate symbols rather than the whole mana cost.

(Rule 708.4 only mentions the stack and not the battlefield here because split cards are only instants and sorceries, so a split card is never on the battlefield.)
Transforming double-faced cards
However, there are also transforming double-faced cards, originally introduced in the Innistrad block, that work very differently from how split cards work. Transforming double-faced cards can only be cast as their front face, and they each have their own way to either transform by switching to the back face while on the battlefield, or to enter the battlefield transformed. There are a variety of other rules governing how these cards work and how transforming works in the rules sections about Double-faced cards and the Transform keyword ability.
Split card variants
There are also split card variants that do not exist for modal double-faced cards. Some split cards have the keyword ability Fuse, which gives you an additional option to cast both halves of a split card as a single spell by paying the combined mana cost. And some split cards have one half with the keyword ability Aftermath, which means that that half can be cast from the graveyard, and only from the graveyard, not the hand.

I think this could be organized better. When using headings like that, then the first rules quoted under the MDFC heading being about split cards, not DFCs at all, can lead to people skimming the answer for information to go away very misinformed.

I moved those rules quotes around. Does that address that issue for you?

Yes.
Perhaps the most significant is that when not on the stack, a split card is both its faces combined (CR 708.4):

In every zone except the stack, the characteristics of a split card are those of its two halves combined.

while a dual-faced card is only its front face (CR 711.4a):

While a double-faced card is outside the game or in a zone other than the battlefield or stack, it has only the characteristics of its front face.

For instance, if the new Zendikar Rising spell-lands (e.g. Shatterskull Smashing) were split cards, they would count as lands while in your deck and the "Ooops, no lands" decks which key off Goblin Charbelcher or Balustrade Spy as a win condition would not be able to use them.

This kind of just scratches the surface. There are two kinds of DFCs, the modal DFCs from ZNR that are similar to split cards, which you seem to be mainly talking about here, and classic DFCs, which are very different from split cards. There are also Aftermath split cards, and Adventurer cards, which are in some ways very similar to split cards.

@murgatroid99 Agreed, but given the comment in the question about the only difference being that DFCs can be a permanent (and the timing of the question), I'm guessing the OP is asking about the MDFCs. I admit that's an assumption though.

It is likely that someone who would phrase this question in this way is working under the assumption that there is no kind of DFC other than MDFC, and by saying that the most significant difference between split cards and DFCs is that one rule, you are perpetuating that incorrect assumption. The question asks about DFCs, so the different kind of DFCs should be addressed.

I've asked the OP to clarify, which seems better than either of us guessing.

The question says "Mechanically is there any difference between split and double faced cards?". That's not a guess. Whether the OP intended "double faced cards" to refer only to modal DFCs or they were not aware that there was a distinction is essentially irrelevant. The question says "double faced cards" and so the answer should address double faced cards.

I believe in answering the question that people meant to ask rather than taking their words literally and possibly confusing them with information they're not interested in. If you don't like this answer, you're well aware that you're welcome to downvote it and/or write your own.

You should at the very least make it clear what question you are answering in your answer, by explicitly saying that you are describing the difference between split cards and modal double-faced cards.

To clarify/expand my previous comment, the problem I would like to see corrected is that a reader who does not make the same assumptions you make can read "...the most significant [difference between split and double faced cards] is..." and believe that the statement describes all DFCs. This can be easily corrected by writing something to the effect of "...the most significant difference between split and modal double-faced cards (modal double faced cards are not the only kind of double faced card) is...". You could probably find a less awkward wording if you want.

@PhilipKendall I disagree. It's best to answer the question completely and draw special attention to the specifics that the asker wanted. In this case yes, OP is almost certainly asking about MDFCs not transforming DFCs, but SE is meant to create a knowledge base and answers should be complete, particularly when the question is written in a way that is not explicitly narrow.

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


text:
To which edition of Monopoly would this Monopoly board belong?

To which edition of Monopoly would this board belong?
Source : Facebook page for Monopoly collectors.

Are you sure it's a commercially available edition and not someones art project?  All the ones I see online have trademark icons on the board?   The place names appear to be the Atlantic City version rather than a specify themed version.  The art also appear hand drawn rather than commercially printed.  It is also missing the 'just visiting' space next to where 'in jail' would be.

@StartPlayer It's not missing the just visiting space, it's just very faded. You can see the text just beneath the image of the person in jail.

@Draken ah yes didn't see that as it was very faint.  Again that makes me think this is a art project for Atlantic City rather than a commercially available edition but someone may well know better.

It's concept art
From an ebay description:

an Original Monopoly Neiman Marcus Concept / Prototype Artwork from 1976. This was purchased from a Neiman Marcus marketing executives estate sale, whom worked at the company in the late 60’s & 1970’s.


text:
Help identify a ~1984-1986, D&D-ish, chit/card + dice, battle game
One summer back in the mid-1980s, a friend and I played a simple, fantasy, tabletop, war game. I barely remember it, but I am hoping someone else knows it. I am not positive, but I believe it came out of a magazine of the time, like, what? Dragon or White Dwarf magazine. It seemed cut-out. We each arrayed an "army" of cut-out cards, each representing some kind of high fantasy figure, having a cartoon-ish image on it and numbers corresponding to attack and defense bonuses or something like such. The only one that I vaguely recall was either an Elf or a Ranger, which I only recall because it was labelled as having range, meaning it attacked first in the order of operations.
One of us would declare something like "My Elf attacks your Orc!" and we would roll dice, adding each card's various bonuses and whatnot, to determine the victor of that battle. Again, the ranged characters stand out in my memory because I remember that, having the power to strike first, if they inflicted sufficient damage to kill the opponent, then no return damage was dealt to them.
This all stands out to me now, because many, many, many years later I discovered Magic: the Gathering late in life, and when I first played I thought, "Wait a dang minute, I have played this before."
I hope someone else out there remembers that game. I asked my childhood friend, but he has no memory of it whatsoever.

I don't know answer but I do recall White Dwarf having free boardgames occasionally so maybe there is an archive of that somewhere online which can help track down what your looking for.  I remember playing one based on control of a space ship and it was the first time I'd ever seen a game use a D66 (two D6 with one colour for tens) for getting results from a table.

This sounds like King of the Tabletop to me, published in issue 77 of Dragon Magazine.  I played it many times as a teen.

I believe you are correct! It is too bad there are not many pictures of it on BoardGameGeek, and most of those are recent recreations. I looked, and at first I did not think that was it -- my memory of the cards/counters is of different colors and larger than those chits -- however, then I saw the tokens for Arch Mage, Elf Lord, Guillame Tell, etc., and the yellow chits for money (gold); suddenly my memory went all tingly and I thought, "This must be it!"
My childhood friend and I must not have played it correctly, though, because I have no memory of the player boards or land tiles. Thanks!


text:
What is this two-player card game?

Per the mockup above...
What is this game called? It's been in my family since I was a kid and I never could find it on the web. Here are the rules:

It's two player
Each player gets five cards in their hand
Player one's cards are objective-0, discard-0, discard-1, discard-2, discard-3, and discard-4.
Player two's cards are objective-1, discard-9, discard-8, discard-7, discard-6, and discard-5
The objective of the game is to remove cards from your own objective pile (12 cards each) by playing them into the four play areas (play-0, play-1, play-2, and play-3).
You can only play into the central areas by sequential rank. Ace being first, then two, then three, all the way to king. Once the king is played, that pile get's shuffled back into the deck-0.
If you can't play anything you discard one of our cards from your hand into the discard piles to end your turn.
[EDIT] The game is played with two decks.

It seems quite similar to Spite and Malice, though that has four discard piles per player rather than five, and is typically played with multiple decks of cards (perhaps requiring more than four play piles).


text:
Alternatives to Mulligans in Magic: The Gathering
!edited: Added non-opinion-based question
I am currently looking into ways of doing Mulligans in another way, or replace Mulligans altogether, for casual play around the kitchen table. I don't like the shuffling and reshuffling three times, for a two time mulligan.
I want to hear what to do, so that option is roughly equivalent to a normal Mulligan.
Here is my idea:
Draw (7+X) cards, keep (8-X) cards
Instead of having the option to take a Mulligan, at the beginning of the game, all players draw X additional cards, then shuffle (2X-1) cards back into their library (or put them on the bottom of their library). For each additional card draw, your starting hand size, which you may keep, decreases by 1:
Draw: (7) - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12
Shuffle back: (0) - 1 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9
Starting hand: (7) - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3
(no mulligan taken)
Players can draw 8, and keep 7, but can decide to keep drawing until the decide to keep, and shuffle cards back/put them on the bottom of their library for each card they drew additionally.
For example: Timmy does not care about odds and draws 7 cards, no mulligan. Johnny wants to test his new combo deck, and decides to draw 10, keep 5. Spike draws 8, is not quite satisfied, draws to 10, decides to keep, and shuffle five cards back, starting with a hand of 5.
Handicapping idea:

Timmy may draw up to 10 cards, and still keep 7.
Spike may only draw additional cards, if he starts the game with 3 life less for each card drawn additionally. Starting hand size is either 7, or reduced as before.

How have I to tweak the number of cards drawn and discarded, so that the quality of hands is similar to that of a regular Mulligan?

Your question seems to be close to being primarily opinion-based, a reason to close it. Rather than asking people whether or not they like your idea, you should try to focus on objectively answerable, not too broad questions. Preferrably, the answers should be supportable by evidence, references and, again, not just based on opinions.

I think there is a good question in here, not sure how to bring it out. Perhaps focus  on what are the advantages or possible drawbacks of the proposed method compared to the advantages or drawbacks of the now standard Vancouver Mulligan.

If you want to reduce shuffling for mulligans in casual, you can use the old commander mulligan rules, where you put any unkept hands aside until you are done mulliganing and only then shuffling all unkept cards back in.  This meaning a maximum of 2 shuffles per player, without changing the game substantially.  (Posting this as a comment because the question is closed)

@Zags question is reopened.  Post as an answer.

Your proposed mulligan rule would be better for the quality of a hand compared to a single mulligan under current rules, but much worse for larger/more mulligans. I would expect the number of viable decks to decrease, especially decks and archetypes that rely on few key cards would suffer.
Generally, mulligans are a system to exchange card advantage for card quality. Card advantage in this context is obvious, it's simply the number of cards in your starting hand compared to in your opponent's hand. Since your new system makes sure to keep the ultimate number of hand cards the same after the same number of mulligans (shifted by 1), we can focus on the resulting card quality. Card quality is hard to define because it depends on the deck's strategy, but generally, holding at least one of a certain card is a good, generally applicable definition of card quality of your starting hand. That's why I will evaluate your scheme on that criterion.
You have designed the system such that the number of cards in hand after drawing an extra n+1 cards is equivalent to taking n mulligans under current rules. Threfore, it would be always optimal to draw 8 cards and shuffle 1 back to 7 rather than just keeping the 7. That means that the chance to draw at least 1 of a certain card in your starting hand of 7 goes from 39.9% to 44.5%, without downside. That means that if you already have a playable hand, you get a chance to further improve that hand for free.
However, if you have an unplayable hand, e.g. too much or too little or the wrong color of mana, and you would like to get rid of the whole hand, then you could only do so at large card disadvantage. Also, the chance to find a certain card increases much more slowly with your scheme than under the current one.
Under the current rules, the cumulative chance to get a certain card in your starting hand after n mulligans are roughly:

0 mulligans: 40% (7 hand cards remaining)
1: 61%
2: 73%
3: 80%
4: 83%
5: 85%
6: 87% (1 hand card remaining)

By contrast, if you draw an extra n+1 cards under your rules, the probabilities for at least 1 of a certain card in your hand are:

1 card drawn: 44.5% (7 hand cards remaining)
2: 48.7%
3: 52.7%
4: 56.5%
5: 60.1%
6: 63.4% (1 hand card remaining)

I have used the hypergeometric calculator with values (top to bottom) 60, 4, 7 (hand size, adjust for actual card draw), 1. The first list of probabilities is obtained by multiplying the probabilities for "x < 1" (i.e. the wanted card is not in hand) for hand sizes 7 through 1. The second list is simply the probability for "x => 1" for hand sizes 8 through 13, which results in the same final starting hand size as the respective current mulligan.
As an effect, I would expect the meta to adapt around such a drastic change of the maths behind mulligans. It would become much harder to get a certain key card on your starting hand. Deck construction would have to take that into acount, by not including disproportionately important cards into the deck's strategy. That would be counter the core idea of "build-around cards", which are usually found in the rare or mythic rare slots of a set. Arguably, that mulligan rule would reward homogenous decks, decks where cards can more or less stand in for each other, and therefore decrease the number of viable archetypes.

I would caution against using your variant based on the fact that you are trying to avoid shuffling decks.  I think this suggests your playgroup is trying to solve the wrong problem.
The decks might not well balanced, especially land-wise.  Honestly, the times I've found myself having to mulligan often with the same deck it's almost always because I didn't include enough lands.  Or in a related problem, my mana curve is too high and I included too many flashy 6+ mana cards.  A typical 2-color deck 60-card will require around 24 lands.  Don't go much lower unless you have specific reasons (low mana curve, really good dual lands).
Your playgroup could be not proficient in shuffling, which might mean you are not shuffling thoroughly enough to randomize your decks.  If your shuffling is not sufficiently random, your deck is likely to clump cards in bad ways leading to more mulligans.  In this is the case, your proposed system could even backfire and force bad shufflers to start with fewer cards just to "guarantee" they have a chance.
As an aside, your system is similar to a partial-Paris mulligan, except it costs more cards to dig deeper and is non-repeatable.  I know that partial-Paris mulligans (which used to be the go-to in Commander) fell out of favor because they empowered combo decks and let players get away with more unbalanced decks.

Never thought about it that way. So proper deck building replaces the need for constant mulligans... I was inclined to choose your answer, but @Hackworth wrote a more extensive one with math, and comes to the same conclusions.

If you want to reduce shuffling for mulligans in casual, you can use the old commander mulligan rules:

Each time a player takes a mulligan, rather than shuffling his or her entire hand of cards into his or her library, that player exiles any number of cards from his or her hand. Then the player draws a number of cards equal to one less than the number of cards he or she exiled this way. Once a player keeps an opening hand, that player shuffles all cards he or she exiled this way into his or her library.

This means a maximum of 2 shuffles per player (the second of which can happen after the game has started) without changing the game substantially.


text:
Can I cast Uro, Titan of Nature's Wrath for free with Aluren if I'm casting it from my graveyard using its Escape ability?
Uro, Titan of Nature's Wrath is a 3 mana value with an Escape cost.

Escape—{G}{G}{U}{U}, Exile five other cards from your graveyard. (You may cast this card from your graveyard for its escape cost.)

Aluren allows me to cast cards with mana value 3 or less without paying their mana costs.

Any player may cast creature spells with mana value 3 or less without paying their mana costs and as though they had flash.

Am I allowed to cast Uro, Titan of Nature's Wrath using its Escape ability and use Aluren to negate it's casting cost, requiring me to only exile 5 cards from my graveyard?

No, you cannot.
Both the Escape ability on Uro and Aluren's ability are alternate costs for casting Uro. When you have multiple possible alternate costs, you can only choose 1 to apply. So if you apply the Escape cost, then you can cast it from your graveyard. If you apply the "free" cost, then you can't cast it from your graveyard.

118.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.

118.9a Only one alternative cost can be applied to any one spell as it’s being cast. The controller of the spell announces their intentions to pay that cost as described in rule 601.2b.

Out of curiosity, is the flash part tied to the alternate cost as well?

@JonTheMon No. Flash changes the timing for when you can cast a spell, but nothing in the full rules definition of it mentions costs or paying things.

Ok, I wondered if it could have been interpreted as "and if you cast it for this alternate cost, you may cast it as though it had flash".

No, Aluren does not allow you to cast Uro from your graveyard without spending mana.
Escape and Aluren both create an alternative cost for casting a spell, and you can only choose to pay one alternative cost. The Escape alternative cost is attached to the permission it grants to cast the card from the graveyard, so if you use that permission you must pay the Escape cost.

Beat you by 8 seconds! If I keep doing that about 250 more times I'll reach your rep. :)


text:
How much 'table talk' is OK - and when?
We played a couple of dozen games over the weekend.
Is it all right to talk about things that are transpiring during the 'night' phase? There does not seem to be anything that discourages it.
For example, is 'I hear someone moving cards' a fair thing to communicate?

I feel this should really have been two questions. To try to keep the answers on point.

Edited title to make question more clearly about 'table talk' - talking about things in the game, such as "I hear someone moving my card"?

Are you asking if you can talk about things during the night phase, or are you asking if you can talk about what you did, saw or heard when it was night during the day phase events? First is no, second yes.

The former. As in: talk during the night phase about things happening during the night phase.

I will take the other answers a step further and say that talking during the Night phase is simply not allowed.
The other answers give good reasons why it could be an issue, but here's what the rulebook says:

At night, players who are not active (whose eyes
  are closed) may not move, point, or do anything
  to communicate with the active player(s).

Any form of talking can be seen as covered under "doing anything to communicate with the active player(s)". The rule itself is a bit strange, because no one except the active player knows who the active player is! So you can't avoid communicating with the active player specifically, you would have to avoid all communication.
Also, if read completely literally, the rule seems to imply that the active player IS allowed to communicate. But this is silly, as if the active player ever says anything out-loud, then they are giving away that they are the active player. It is safe to assume that the rule is intending to say that the active player is allowed to "act" by doing the things they are instructed to do.
Also, from the rulebook:

After the night phase, players discuss amongst
  themselves who they believe the Werewolves are.

This makes it clear that the time for discussion is AFTER the night phase.
So I think talking about anything related to the game is strictly forbidden during the Night.
If you are talking about more just general socialization, then this is somewhat similar to other games... in a casual game, card games which strictly forbid "table talk" may still have a lot of general talk and socialization while playing, as long as nothing about the game itself is spoken. However, the nature of the limited time in which to perform actions, along with the importance of hearing the instructions being given, makes socialization during the Night phase a bad idea, even if it is not strictly forbidden.

The point of the rule preventing communication with the active player is to outlaw players from doing things like: player A holds up a number of fingers while the seer is taking their night action, player B claims to be the seer, and player A demands player B to prove that they are the seer by saying how many fingers player A held up at night.  This rule does not do anything to prevent jokes or idle chatter during the night phase.

@zags in order to prevent that the active player needs to stop communicating and that can be communication in itself.

@JoeW The rule is about preventing signaling to the active player as they have their eyes open and no one else does.  It's not about spoken conversation (note that "talking" is not one of the mechanisms of communication specifically listed), and is especially not about spoken conversation that is active player agnostic.

@zags sorry but I disagree, it is to easy for someone to set up some communication beforehand that is picked up by the active player that can be missed by others.

Thanks. There is a rule (albeit possibly ambiguous) forbidding communication during the night. That's a hard answer.

@DaveC426913 This is an incorrect reading of the rules.

@Zags, It's somewhat ambiguous, true, but I think the intent is to discourage "table talk" (i.e. game-impacting stuff) during the night. I'm OK with interpreting it that way.

@DaveC426913 The intent is very clearly to prevent players from sending or receiving non-public information during the night phase.  That's why the methods of communication that are called out are "movinging" and "pointing" and it is only in reference to the active player, namely the one who has their eyes open when no one else does.  If the intent were to discourage "table talk", then the rule would be "no one can talk during the night phase except the narrator or to ask procedural clarifications".

It will largely depend on the regular dynamics of your group, but in general, this is an annoying thing to do.

Talking confuses people about which role is doing what and when, covers up either the announcement of your moderator (be it human or electronic) and distracts everybody from the actions they are taking.
Commenting about what can or can't be heard is either a problem in itself or indicates a problem you need to solve, since

somebody is making up nonsense and/or plain chatting during the night phase - see the first bullet point - or
somebody can unfairly gain information about which roles have been used that others may not have access to - you need to adjust the cards or sleeves, the table cover, or the ambient noise you use to disguise the card movement noises

That said, if your group is fine with the interruptions and doesn't care much about having strange gaps in the action, or is totally cutthroat and take a no-holds-barred approach, or are so far into the meta game that this kind of chatter is where most of your enjoyment arises, go for it.

It's only annoying if someone is annoyed by it. As a group, we had interpreted it, at the time, to be acceptable.

"As a group" is a very dodgy thing to rely on, when discounting negative aspects of something. Individuals may not want to disagree with the perceived majority, even when it is in fact the disagreement that is the majority opinion.

Which is why one of the topics we chatter about is whether it's OK to table talk during the night phase.

Part 1: Is talking allowed during the night phase?
Whether or not to allow talking during the night phase is going to be up to your group.  A bunch of people sitting around with their eyes closed is an odd situation, and the natural inclination of humans in that situation is to chat or make jokes to break the tension, so in general it's not a problem.  It can even help obscure the noise people are making by moving cards, which is a good thing.  It's only a problem if it does at least one of the following:

Causes the night phase to take too long through people being distracted
Prevents people from hearing the app/moderator
Gives away information about roles or actions people are taking, it's a problem.

The only thing in the rules on the topic is:

At night, players who are not active (whose eyes are closed) may not move, point, or do anything to communicate with the active player(s).

The point of this rule is to prevent players from sending secret information t other players.  The situation the rule is trying to prevent is something like the following: player A holds up a number of fingers while the seer is taking their night action, player B claims to be the seer, and player A demands player B to prove that they are the seer by saying how many fingers player A held up at night.  Note that the rule is talking specifically about non-verbal communication in a situation where one player has their eyes open and others don't, which is also why it is specifically about the active player.  The rule does not mention verbal communication at all, because verbal communication at night does not convey different information to the active player versus the non-active players.

Part 2: Can players comment on what they heard in the night phase?
There are two relevant pieces of the rulebook here:

You  may  want  to  tap  on  the  table during  the night  to  cover  up  any  sounds  made by the different players when they are looking at and moving cards.
After  the  night  phase,  players  discuss  amongst  themselves who they believe the Werewolves are. All players may say anything, but may never show
their  card  to  anyone.

The rules as written do technically allow saying things like "I heard player X moving cards during the Seer's turn" (this falls under "Players may say anything), but the rules also suggest you are not supposed to be able to hear what happened during the night phase (hence the suggestion for covering up the noise of moving cards).
In my experience, it's really unhealthy for the game if players use or discuss information about things heard or felt during the night phase (with the exception of roles like the Cow or the Thing that explicitly use this).  At the very least, you should take measures to prevent people from being able to hear whether or not players are moving cards.  If players in your group are still trying to gain extra information from the night phase, you can house-rule that things heard during the night phase cannot be introduced as evidence during deliberations.  Here are some techniques for obscuring noise:

The app (if your using it) has background music.
Put down a tablecloth to muffle card noises.
Have everyone stand before the night phase to minimize the amount people need to move to reach cards.
As mentioned in part 1, chatter during the night phase can actually help block the noise of night actions.

We avoid interrupting or interfering with game play during the night cycle.

@DaveC426913 If people aren't interrupting play during the night phase, then chatter is not a problem.  It's only giving away information (either from people hearing other people moving cards or people signaling to the person with their eyes open) that's the problem in your situation.

Chatter should be kept to an absolute minimum during the night phase because it can give away way to much information about what is happening during the phase.
Werewolf: Can be outed if you are talking as you look around for other players as someone may notice the change in your voice. Or it may be noticed that you suddenly stop talking.
Mason: Can be outed if you are talking as you look around for other players as someone may notice the change in your voice. Or it may be noticed that you suddenly stop talking.
Robber: Can be outed if you are talking as you reposition to swap cards. Or it may be noticed that you suddenly stop talking.
Trouble Maker: Can be outed if you are talking as you reposition to swap cards. Or it may be noticed that you suddenly stop talking.
Seer:  Can be outed if you are talking as you reposition to look at a card. Or it may be noticed that you suddenly stop talking.
Drunk: Can be outed if you are talking as you reposition to swap cards. Or it may be noticed that you suddenly stop talking.
A lot of time what happens noise wise during the night phase can be used to figure things out. When my group played this game we used the ios/andriod app to announce things and just made random noises with hands and objects while things where happening to attempt to drown out the noise from players actions.
As for sounds and other signs of card manipulation the group I have played with have always considered discussing what we think (or what we want others to believe happened) during the night to be fair game. One of the strategies we have employed is to move  position of other cards in order to deceive others into thinking something has happened.
One thing you can do to reduce the ability to detect if a card has been moved is to add a step right at the end of the night phase where everyone reaches out to where their card is and moves it around before opening their eyes so that it is harder to know if it was moved or not.

Naturally, the person whose turn it is to take an action is not likely to do the talking.

We tend to lightly tap or drum during the night phase, to drown out any spurious noises.

@DaveC426913 The issue with not talking when it is your action is that if you are talking before and after your action it can be easier to spot which action you took because you stopped talking. My group ran into this issue with this game and other games from the simple fact of the moderator talking when they had an action to look around for other players and people caught on to their voice changing as they looked around since they didn't stop talking.

It's not a constant chatter - and it's focused on the game. "Someone moved my card.", "Somebody just crouched over the phone app while the music was playing."

@DaveC426913 I added some more tips, let me know if they help.

'...everyone reaches out to where their card is and moves it around...' Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is actually in the rules. We do it as a matter of course.

@DaveC426913 You are correct it is in the rules and that is something I have overlooked in the past. It has the announcer move them around but it is probably easier to have every player do it themselves.


text:
A complicated interaction with Sakashima's Student
I want to be able to do the following chain of events, but am not sure if it's possible. Please help!
Setup. At start of turn I have Etrata, The Silencer on the battlefield with Grappling Hook equipped and a Strionic Resonator ready to fire. Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow is in the Command Zone. I move to combat and declare Etrata attacking an opponent with 3 creatures on the board.

The damage goes through as First Strike damage and the Etrata trigger goes on the stack.
In response, I activate Sakashima's Student (SS), returning Etrata to hand as part of the activation cost.
With SS Ability on the Stack, I cast Flash.
Flash resolves, and I put Etrata back on the battlefield, paying the extra UB.
SS ability resolves, and he enters the battlefield as a copy of Etrata.
The Etrata trigger resolves and exiles one of OP's creatures, but because the Etrata on the battlefield is not the same creature, it remains on the battlefield.
Normal combat damage resolves. SS puts another Etrata trigger on the stack.
In response, I activate Yuriko, returning SS to my hand, AND I activate Strionic Resonator, targeting the Etrata ability.
These all resolve, I exile two more creatures and my opponent loses the game. SS is in my hand, and Etrata is back on the battlefield, ready to go again.

Right, so, apart from the implausible set-up, I'm concerned about that Step 5 assumes that I resolve SS's copy ability only as the SS Activated ability resolves, rather than when it goes on the stack. If I'm wrong, then my dream dies.

Thanks, I'm at work, so can't link to game sites. (Stack Exchange does not count!)

Point 3 nitpick: The SS doesn't have a "trigger". It has an activated ability (ninjutsu), and while that's on the stack, SS remains revealed but in your hand, and Etrata is (unrevealed, but hardly a secret) in your hand.

After Step 5, you would have to sacrifice Sakashima's Student or Etrata, The Silencer.

706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.
704.5j If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”

(Emphasis mine)

But let's say the legend rule didn't apply.
Your plan would work. The following choices are made when activating an ability:

Choice of mode[CR 601.2b]
Choice of targets[CR 601.2c]
Choice of how to divide/distribute an effect among one or more targets[CR 601.2d]
Choices that affect the cost to activate or how it's paid

All other choices, such as choice of creature to copy as Sakashima's Student is placed on the battlefield, are made on resolution.

Hah, forgot about the legend rule... more hoops!

I don't think the plan actually needs the Flashed Etrata to stay on the field, though.  Sacrificing the non-attacking Etrata to the Legend rule should be fine.

@Brilliand is correct, since the player losing the game is part of the triggered ability.

@Brilland, Of course they could, but the OP wants Etrata on the field "ready to go again".

@Brilliand yeah, having to sac the original Etrata is a downer, although if we're honest the chances of an opponent letting my turn come around again with the gun cocked and loaded again is minimal (not to mention the additional hoop of re-casting Flash from the graveyard).


text:
Exploding kittens. How many turns can an attack card "really" skip?
Scenario:
P1 plays attack
P2 plays attack.
P3 has 4 turns on her.
P3 plays a turn and draws a card.
P3 has 3 turns left.
P3 plays her attack.

What happens?

Possible duplicate of Exploding Kittens- Slap to get out of multiple turns

@ken 'slap cards' are only there in the party pack. This is the original edition I'm referring to. Thanks for the comment none the less :) appreciate it

Given that slap cards are just a targeted version of an attack, I would say they work exactly the same regardless of the name.

I disagree on the duplicate. It is close but it is different enough for a separate question.

@ToonKrijthe despite the difference of name of the card talked about, both questions are essentially the same - if you have to take multiple turns due to a Slap/Attack, can you take one or more turns normally, then play a Slap/Attack to shift the rest of your turns to another player. The answer is "yes" regardless of which card we are talking about.

I'm going to answer my own question here.
ThankYou Ken and Toon for the replies. :)

How many turns can an attack card “really” skip???
It can skip all the turns that you have piled up on you. +  it will make the next player take any remaining turns plus 2 more.
Scenario:
P1 plays attack
P2 plays attack.
P3 has 4 turns on her.
P3 plays a turn and draws a card.
P3 has 3 turns left.
P3 plays her attack.
What happens?
P3 gets to skip her remaining 3 turns, they are transferred to P4.
P4 so has to play 3 + 2 (P3's attack) = 5 turns in total.
(P4 has to play only 2 turns - if playing acc to the nerfed version of the attack card)

The rules talk about the existence of a THE NERFED VERSION, where The remaining turns are not carried over to the next player. Its for the players to decide before game how they want to play.

Note that the nerfed version was the original version, despite what the name implies.


text:
How many stones for small go boards?
I know the full-size game of Go is played on a 19x19 board and comes with 181 black stones and 180 white stones. This is to accommodate filling every spot on the board with a stone. I want to know if there are suggestions for (much) smaller boards.
While for other typical board sizes (9x9 and 13x13), I'm guessing we could adopt a similar rule for the number of stones to include (41/41 and 85/84, respectively), but what about very small boards?
I made this 3x3 novelty board for a friend, and I'm not sure how many stones to include with it. Because of the size, I am certain many games could involve a lot of capturing, and I wouldn't want him to run out of stones. He doesn't own a full-size game, so he has no pieces to use with this little board (we have been playing on my full-size board).
For folks who have played on small boards, how many pieces do you think I should include?
Extended Question: Do you have suggestions for other small sizes -- say, the 5x5 "capture go", or some irregular sizes?
Edit: I'm not looking for a theoretical upper/lower bound on the number of stones, but rather a "from a practical standpoint, how many might I include to prevent players from having to borrow captured stones to continue playing" kind of number.

You include exactly a single black stone for a 3x3 board. After that one stone is placed, it's game-over for white...

Note that I included a "star point" for the handicap game :)

The number of stones for a board is meant to be effectively infinite. The typical procedure if players run out is to exchange captured stones in equal quantities and continue with them.
This means that enough stones so that either player could completely fill the board is guaranteed to be enough stones.

"...enough stones so that either player could completely fill the board..."  This is not how the large game (19x19) allots stones, preferring to split the board size between black and white, and giving the last stone to black.

@user138719 that is true, because while it's the absolute maximum that could be placed, that board state isn't really logical, so in practice you don't need quite that many. It's merely an upper bound.  It means that 9 stones per player is guaranteed to be more than you need for a 3x3 grid.

@user138719 In a full size board it isn't likely that a game will be so one sided that they need more than half the board in any color, here though that's probably closer to 2/3 of the board as a reasonably safe number.

Perhaps “effectively infinite” is better (less worrying to pedants like me).

@user138719: I also believe that experience shows that, on a larger board, once a mildly competent player has occupied half the points they have won.

I think you could follow the same formula you've listed for other boards and you will be fine. That is black gets half the square of the number of lines rounded up and white gets half the square of the number of lines rounded down.
In a regular game you will not need more stones. That may not be true for go variants.

I would recommend to use Chinese scoring, where prisoners are given back to your opponent.

Go is played on a 19x19 board and comes with 181 black stones and 180 white stones. This is to accommodate filling every spot on the board with a stone.

Think about this: you'll never fill every spot in a game of go. Also, technically it is possible that one player might end up with more than 181 occupied spots. 180 is just a reasonable number that accomodates most scenarios.


text:
How to play Ticket to Ride with children?
I know that "Ticket to Ride: First Journey" exists but since I have a base game already (Ticket to Ride: Europe) I was wondering whether it could be streamlined for 5y-old children.

I played with my 5y old daughter using the Ticket to Ride: Europe base game and the following house rules. (We played twice; each game taking 20-30min.)
The first player to complete 4 tickets wins!
(We don't use the score track)
Game setup

Deal four train cards to each player
Everybody play cards face up
Remove all destination cards higher than 8 points from the destination pile
Deal one destination card to each player

House rules

On your turn you either draw two cards or lay down a track.
When you draw you can always draw two cards (ignore the restriction on the locomotive card)
You do only one destination card at a time. Once you complete one, you immediately draw another one.
Ferries and tunnels are normal routes
Double routes are always available

Suggestions
Use markers to identify the two cities in the destination card. We used the train station from the Europe base game. It also helps a lot to plan with them the shortest route beforehand. (Even it they end up doing it differently later on.)

I also found useful to make them aware they should try to collect sets that they will need later on, but it's equally important to not bore them too much with game mechanics and let them work these out by themselves.
Overall I felt that it worked pretty well. She understood the rules quickly and enjoyed playing.


text:
Does this 7 Wonders analysis make any sense?
In age 1, the only resource you buy are the grey ones, because: in age 1, the brown ones produce only one resource at a time, but in age 2 they produce 2. This means you profit more from buying brown cards in age 2 than 1. So it costs a coin, big deal. No matter what, age 1 or 2, when you buy a grey card, it produces one item. This means when the worse cards are in play, you should buy the ones that will be the same.
Note: It also helps to choose your playing style early right?

I completely agree, I just played a game and won by over 10 vps, because by building the gray cards in age one, it allowed me to build science, which in turn gave me tech trees that helped. One could say I got lucky, which I kind of did. I think the main thing I learned was that in order to win, choose your playing style early. Overall, this strategy  helped a bit though.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

The analysis is technically correct, but practically kind of wrong.
Every choice of card in 7 Wonders comes with an opportunity cost, which is to say, "What are you giving up by choosing this card instead?"
It is true that the brown resource cards in Age 2 give you access to twice as many resources as their Age 1 counterparts, for the cost of a single coin which is usually not huge as far as things go. However, if you decide that this means you should ignore the brown cards in Age 1 and just wait until Age 2 to get them, then:

You run the risk of never getting the resources you will need, especially if your opponents are paying attention and carefully deprive you of key cards.
You spend less of Age 2 building more useful cards (e.g. Science and Military cards, especially the ones that enable you to build stuff in Age 3).
You potentially have to spend more coins building things in Age 1, if you're relying on neighbours to provide the resources.
Conversely, your neighbours will not be buying resources from you, denying you a source of income.

It's easy to be flippant and say "It all depends on the cards", but really that's the point - 7 Wonders is a game of making lots of decisions, and there is rarely a singular strategy that you can follow blindly to success.

"opponents are paying attention and carefully deprive you of key cards" but that hardly makes sense for opponents, right? Buying what one needs gives one more than buying a useless thing that an opponent needs, right?

Sure, but if I'm going to burn a card on a Wonder stage or coins, then I may as well pick one that will cause the most damage to the player I consider to be a threat.

@AndrewSavinykh - not always: for example, say your opponent is playing side A and doesn't have access to enough of his mid-stage wonder resource at the start of age II. By "burning" that resource you deny him 7 points and the useful mid-stage ability - that's more powerful than beating him at war at age III (+5 to you, -1 to him is 6 points difference), this can be worth "sacrificing" an age II turn, even if you just sell a card for 3 coins (which gives you more flexibility for the rest of the game, or an extra point at its end)

I'd say the OP's analysis isn't even "technically correct" - age I cards are less effective than age II, and those are less effective than age III. Following that logic you can just as well that you shouldn't place any age I blue cards since they give much less points (2-3) than age III blue cards (5-8)...

Well I was assuming that OP at least premised his logic on "Which Age I/II/III cards should I build", so the choice is always between cards that you might have to decide between. Otherwise yes, you may well take that analysis all the way to "You should just dump cards for coins until Age III then buy everything", which I am pretty sure is going to be a losing strategy most of the time.

I think your asking "is it worth buying brown resource cards in age one when they improve in age two whilst grey ones do not"?
The answer is (as it should be for all board games) is "it depends".
yes Age 2 brown cards are better value but you do want to spend a third of the game not getting resources?
Is your choice of what cards you take influenced by what resource yours and neighbours wonder produces.
Do you need to collect lots of the same or a variety of resource for your wonder?
What resources can I get from yellow cards?
So in answer to your question.... Yes age 2 brown cards are better than age 1 brown cards but I personally wouldn't base my strategies on that fact.. However, as in all games, there is never one winning strategy that always works and you should always do what you feel is best in that situation.

So it can be a good idea, but you have to know when to abort, and stop doing it.

I agree with the other answer here  ""It all depends on the cards".  your comments says you won by 10 points build grey age I and going science.   My question then is why did other players not put other science cards under there wonder or discard them for money?  The point I think were both trying to make is there isn't one perfect strategy that will always work for you.  You have to make decisions each time and tbh having those choices to make is what make a game fun.  Not blindly doing same thing every single time.

I agree with that

I would also look at an analysis of how many cards require 2 of the same resource.  If most cards in age 2 and 3 require one of each resource then taking the double production are not worth as much.

This means when the worse cards are in play, you should buy the ones that will be the same.

That doesn't make sense. If they're worse, then they aren't the same.
Age I brown cards, Age II brown cards, and Age I silver cards are incomparable; no one is clearly better than the other. Yes, Age II brown cards give more resources than Age I brown cards, but an brown card obtained in Age I can be used to buy things for two more ages, while a brown card obtained during Age I can be used to buy things for one more age (and if you buy military in Age I, that military gives you benefits for all three ages). Silver cards can be used to buy high-value cards, but those cards don't show up until later ages; a silver card obtained in Age I can't be used to buy anything in that age.
Your argument, which you aren't articulating completely explicitly and so I have to read between the lines a bit, is that if you first have a choice between one resource of Type A or one resource of Type B, and then later a choice between two resources of Type A or one resource of Type B, then you should first choose Type B and then Type A. While there are some valid intuitions motivating that reasoning, it is not a conclusive. One motivation would be the assumption that the game makers designed the game to be balanced, so if they give you a choice between one of Type B and two of Type A, then one of Type B must be worth two of Type A. But the very fact that you think there is a clear strategy means that you are implicitly accepting that it isn't completely balanced. Furthermore, you are assuming that the relative worth of the two types of resources are the same in both ages, so if one silver resource is worth two brown resources in Age II, then it must be worth two in Age I. But as I argued above, that argument does not hold, because there are things available in later ages that require silver resources, and thus silver resources are worth more in later ages.

So it costs a coin, big deal.

You can't spend coins on resources unless your neighbors have those resources.


text:
Agricola - Brushwood Collector + Carpenter's Parlor combination
So, let's say I have the improvement "Carpenter's Palror", which allows wooden rooms to cost 2 wood and 2 reed.
Then see Brushwood Collector: Each time you renovate or build a room, you can replace the required 1 or 2 reed with a total of 1 wood.
If you interpret this combination in the order Parlor then Brushwood:
It costs 2 wood and 2 reed, then the 2 reed is replaced with 1 wood. So it now costs 3 wood.
In the other order:
It now costs 6 wood in total (brushwood), then the entire cost is set to 2 wood and 2 weed (2 wood and 2 reed).
Which is the appropriate interpretation?

You could build a wooden room for 3 wood.
Carpenter's Parlor sets the base cost, and Brushwood Collector allows you to pay part of the cost differently. Essentially, they don't even interact, since the Parlor is changing the wood cost of wooden rooms and the Collector is changing the reed cost of building/renovation.

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


text:
Can monsters use the mystic slide
Can monsters use the mystic slide? In one of the rooms we had the slide that leads to the basement. The haunt was the one where the betrayer controls one zombie-lord and many zombies.
How we played it:
When a zombie enters the room with the slide, they can go to any room they choose from the basement. The heroes themselves played as normal - they roll dice in order to use the slide. Is this correct?

Some of this will depend on which haunt you get.

Thank you! I will separate them in different posts. Here I will only leave the first question. The haunt is where the betrayal controls one zombie lord and many zombies (I do not know if there are other haunts like this, we only played 2 haunts). Also are there any policies not to spoil?

Yes, monsters can use any special room as they want.*
From the rulebook:

Like traitors, monsters can ignore all nondamaging room features. They can use the Coal Chute, Collapsed Room, Gallery, Mystic Elevator, and stairs tiles, along with many of the special movement options described on cards (such as
  the Secret Stairs), unless those cards say that only explorers can use them. They ignore the effect of the Furnace Room and the Crypt.

And the official FAQ:

Can monsters use the Secret Stairs, Secret Passage, Revolving Wall, and Mystic Slide to
  move around?

Yes. It's their house, after all. (Besides, it's possible for these to create areas of the house that can't be reached any other way, and some scenarios won't work if monsters can't reach all rooms.) Ignore the section of the rules that states, "unless those cards state that only explorers can use them." Also, a monster wouldn't need to roll to use the revolving wall.

*Note that this does not include stat-gaining rooms such as Chapel, Gymnasium, Larder, and Library. From the FAQ:

Chapel, Gymnasium, Larder, Library -- Can monsters use these rooms?

No. Unless a monster is actually a transformed traitor (a werewolf, for instance), its attributes usually do not change.


text:
Identify 3D Tic Tac Toe type of game
Looking for the name and rules of the game.
Four identical pieces. Each a clear plastic double cube with a red round bead in the center of one cube (half of the piece) and a green round bead in the center of the other cube (half). Players take turns placing each of their two pieces. Subsequent moves are made by repositioning a piece already played (following certain rules). Play is contained in a virtual 3x3x3 cube. Win with three in a row horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and/or 3D.
The game might be from 70s or 80s - not sure. Please help. I have the pieces but that's it. And pieces (pun intended) of memory.

Could you include a picture of the pieces you have?

Any chance the game is Cube Fusion? There are several versions, but the descriptions of the components match yours.
Here's the double-cube component with a green and red bead in each respective half.
Let me know if this is it and I'll make it a formal answer.

@Manath Good Job! That is exactly as described. Specifically MINI Cube Fusion must be the version OP has with only 4 pieces (double-cubes) total.

This sounds like Cube Fusion, specifically the MINI Cube Fusion version as Jay A pointed out based on the number of components.
From the description:

The game includes a playing board with a 3x3 grid and 12 playing
  pieces. Each piece consists of two cubes, each with marbles in the
  center - one red, one green. Players take turns placing pieces on the
  board, trying to make a specified pattern in his color but not his
  opponent's -- all the while having to play both his color and his
  opponent's color each turn. There are several different games
  explained in the rules: make 3, 4, or 5 in a row (in 3D) before your
  opponent, form a square in your color, form more three-in-a-row
  alignments than your opponent, etc.


text:
What kind of paper can I use for a game card?
I really want to make game card that's similar to Monopoly cards or the like.
What kind of paper should I use for the cards?

If you are looking to prototype a game there are really three options, you'll want to weigh Expense vs Effort vs Polish. Obviously if you are just playtesting (especially early in the process) Polish is not important, and keep expense and effort low will probably be helpful if you're going to be iterating your design a bunch!
There are three main options:
Print on heavy weight cardstock
Pros: fairly cheap, very low effort
Cons: Not very polished, cards will exhibit wear fairly quickly.
Print on paper and sleeve w/ CCGs for stiffness
Pros: Sleeves are probably the expensive bit, as it's not too hard to find someone who'll hook you up with junk commons from a Collectible Card Game like Magic. You can print on regular paper, and if just a few cards need changing it's quick and easy. Great for iterative design
Cons: Not everyone has access to junk cards to use as backing. Not polished, especially for final version.
Print on Demand Example: Drive Thru Cards
Pros: Assuming you've got good art skills can look professional/polished.
Cons: Not cheap, also not cost effective except as a vanity run/final playtest/review copies.

What's the dellivery time for Drive Thru? Slow iteration speed might be the biggest con there.

Also if you travel to a local gamestore and ask them for sleeves and junk cards to fill them with so you can design games, you'll probably be ready to go for $10 or something (assuming your game isn't massive). They always have junk cards lying around.

If the playtesting focus is determining random hands, it might be sufficient to code a program that outputs sets of random cards and draws additional ones from a pile on a keypress. This should be doable even with beginner skills, so chances are that you or someone you know can quickly hack it together.

Also, a note on sleeves: As you said, that's not a solution that would work for the final product, so there's no reason against taking inexpensive sleeves. So-called penny sleeves with the one buck for a pack of 100, and one or two of those should be sufficient for most board game requirements. In any case, the sleeve costs will always be less expensive than the amount of work you have to put into cutting the cards and putting them in there.

@eRIK I've only bought finished products from Drivethru ... don't remember exactly but I feel like it was fairly typical shipping time of a week or two.

What would be best homebrew alternative to Drive Thru or similar printing services? When I asked several local printing companies about printing custom cards I got only blank stares.

Best alternative would probably be B) sleeve printouts w/ junk commons for stiffness.

@aslum It's the cheapest and easiest one to work with, but I meat almost finished state, for demoing purposes for example. Can you give hints on what kind of paper/production process to look for to get nice looking homemade product?

@Deo Honestly if your printouts are decent, and sized right it can look fairly professional... In fact if someone doesn't know better they might just assume you had properly printed the game and sleeved it. I'd recommend against penny sleeves since they're a little harder to shuffle than proper ones.

How about going ahead and printing on 110lb card stock, but putting the cards in sleeves? Seems like that would work, plus they'll look good. You could also consider printing them on matte or glossy photo paper for a finer finish. As for the backs, I've accidentally printed on the wrong side of photo paper before, and not only did it print very good, it also gave the feel & appearance of textured cards.


text:
Can you pick up from the discard pile and hit in Phase 10?
When playing Phase 10, can you pick up from the discard pile to hit yourself or your opponent?
Any rules related to that (i.e. add to hand first, etc.)

Yes, you may do that, based on the rules, here's what's relevant:
Hitting:

Hitting is the way to get rid of leftover cards after making a Phase. You make a hit by putting a card directly on a Phase already laid down. The card must properly fit with the cards already down.
Before you can make a hit, your own Phase must already be laid down. You may hit only during your turn. You may hit your own cards, another player’s cards, or both.

Turns:

On your turn, draw one card, either the top card from the draw pile or the top
card from the discard pile, and add it to your hand. End your turn by discarding any one of your cards onto the top of the discard pile.

So you may draw from the discard pile to hit only when:

It is your turn.
You already made a Phase.
The card properly fits the Phase you are adding it to.

Combining these rules means your turn sequence to do this would be:

Pick up from discard pile.
Add it to your hand.
(if you already made a phase) you may hit your own or another player's phase.
Discard to the discard pile to end your turn.

Since you can only hit on your turn, this means you can only use the discarded card from the player before you.


text:
Bridge convention after opponent opens 1NT -- specific question about D.O.N.T
My partner and I have recently moved from T.O.N.T. to D.O.N.T., and are wondering if some of the latter's bids are useful even if there is interference. For example, if LHO opens the bidding with 1NT, your partner passes and RHO responds 2 clubs, do you still use 2 diamonds to show a distributional hand with at least 4 or 5 diamond pieces + 4 or 5 of a major?

That is something that you must agree with your partner. By default D.O.N.T is off in this situation, but you can agree that it is on. If you use this, it must be alerted. You must also consider how to show hands where the normal bid is impossible. Suppose, for example, your hand is clubs and spades, but the opponent bids diamonds. Obviously 2C is insufficient.


text:
What the is frequency with which a bridge partnership is dealt hands suitable for bidding 2-over-1?
A number of people that I play bridge with started learning 2-over-1; but found when they tried using it that the frequency with which hands suitable for its use is low. One of them even quotes 8% and, like many of the others, has stopped using 2-over-1, preferring other methods of showing strength when responding to partner's opening bid.
I've looked through the usual frequency and distribution tables for bridge hands; but have not been able to answer my question: is there a statistical method for calculating the frequency of 2-over-1 hands ?

8% is a LOT.  If every time it happens, you win half a board, you are doing 4% better than the competition, easily the difference between winning a tournament and finishing 10th out of 40.

i don't have access to hard stats, but based on my 4+ decades of playing competitive Bridge that figure rings true. If we consider a 26 Board Duplicate session as a typical evening, our side can be expected to open the bidding 13 times, with perhaps 6-7 of those being a Weak 1NT opening or 1 of a minor, perhaps 3 being opened above the 1-Level either weak or strong, and  the remaining 3-4 being opened 1 of a Major. For two of those to then employ  either the Forcing 1NT or 2-over-1 response, the two key system bids, sounds about right.
Remember that 2-over-1 is designed as a teams-of-four system that trades off weaker performance in part scores for increased accuracy in slam bidding. This leverages the IMP scale to best advantage, but can hurt MatchPoint performance. For a pair with specific aspirations in MatchPoint events only the switch you describe might be worthwhile - it certainly worked for Barry Crane, who shone in both team and pairs play with a system designed very much for MatchPoint (and Board-a-Match) events.

Many thanks for your response FIWEH (Forget I was ever here), which is very helpful, especially the reference to the Babe Ruth of Bridge. Could you enlarge on your comment about 2-over-1 being designed as "a teams-of-four system" ?  Alternatively, I have a voracious appetite for reading if you could provide a reference or two. . . . . . . . . . . Thanx !

@Stefanovitch: Check out Richard Pavlicek's site. If you want to play a matchpoint-optimized system, build it around 4 card Majors and weak NT, with aggressive openings. This gives you the greatest advantage in the part-score auctions you will have on most hands. For an IMP-optimized system build it around 5-card majors and either 2/1 forcing responses to the same, or a Strong Forcing One Club opening, to maximize accuracy on slam auctions & decisions.


text:
Monopoly: Do I Collect Rent If I Am In Jail?
I am playing Monopoly and I land on the 'Go to jail' space.
The player next in line rolls, and lands on Park Place, which I own. He challenges me, and says that he doesn't have to pay rent, because I am in jail.
Is this true?

Pardon my dyslexic tendencies, but for a solid five seconds I thought this question was titled, "Monopoly: Do I Collect Rent If I Am A Jedi?"

@TheSpartan Only matters when playing star wars monopoly.

Being in jail prevents you from moving. It doesn't prevent you from doing anything else.
You can buy property (at auction), trade properties, build houses and hotels, and yes, collect rent.
Unless there is a "house rule" against these moves, usually against the last one.

Being in jail only prevents you from moving, and does not prevent you from doing any other action, including collecting rent. The rules state:

Even though you are in Jail, you may buy and sell property, buy
  and sell houses and hotels and collect rents.

This is a very popular strategy late in the game, as the less you move, the less likely you are to land on your opponent's properties.
In addition, the rules specify that the only times you do not pay rent is when the property is mortgaged or if the property owner does not ask for rent before the next player's turn.

See also, How to Win at Monopoly and Lose All Your Friends

The only winning move is to not play.

"This is a very popular strategy late in the game" I know it's been many years since I played Monopoly, but surely this can only be "a bit of good fortune" and not a "strategy"? As far as I can remember, you can't plan on being sent to jail, can you?

@TripeHound you can't plan on being sent to jail, but you can try to stay in jail longer by choosing to attempt to roll doubles instead of paying $50 to get out immediately.

You can't gaurantee you will end up there but when you do end up there (and statistically you probablly will) you have to choose whether to buy yourself out. In the early game it makes sense to buy your way out so that you can collect your salery and buy properties. In the late game it makes sense to stay in jail as long as possible because landing on other people's properties costs you money.

@YoungJohn (and @PeterGreen) that makes sense... I assumed mmathis meant trying to be sent there, instead of trying to stay there.

@TripeHound: You may also have the option of whether or not to play a Get Out Of Jail Free card, if you hold one :)

@psmears you sell the get out of jail free card to someone in jail for $25

@curiousdannii Naw that's tic-tac-toe

Not being able to collect rent is just one of many fairly common house rules.

Some house rules disqualify an owner from collecting rent while in jail. This allows reprieve for other players landing on an expensive property with houses or a hotel during the time a player is incarcerated.

While this is not an official rule, some people choose to play by this house rule.

One of the many house rules that makes the game take much longer and be more painful then intended.

All Monopoly house rules are evil.

Wonder if this house rule is more common in states or countries where inmates are not allowed to vote.

@NuclearWang Most. I always play with the "rent collection is not optional" and "must pay rent with assets on hand" rules to discourage collusion and make it easier to bankrupt players.

I thought monopoly was intended to be long and painful. So the house rule fits the spirit of the game

@OganM: If you and all of your fellow players agree that you want to play a long and painful game, that's your choice, but personally I would not like to play such a game (so I try to avoid Monopoly altogether, natch).

@OganM People often play with house rules. These house rules are, by and large, toxic. In the standard game of monopoly the cash supply decreases over time. If you look at the chance cards for instance, they take away money more often than giving it. House rules often seek to increase the supply (ex land on free parking, get money) and this draws out the game drastically.

@OganM Monopoly is intended to be painful but not long. The game is supposed to give one player an early and commanding lead which continues until they force all other players out. House rules are what make the game longer, like ignoring the auction rule or money for free parking.

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


text:
Can Mr. X move into or through a detective occupied field?
As I read through the game and did enjoyed a few rounds one question appeared a few times.
When a detective moves into Mr. X's field the game ends with Mr. X getting captured.
BUT can Mr. X can move into a detectives field himself, or via a double move go through a detective occupied field into a different field without loosing the game?
Info: Mostly talking about New York Chase (a variant of Scotland Yard), but I can't make new tags. Although also interested in the Scotland Yard answer since it's probably the same.

In Scotland Yard, if Mr. X ever occupies the same location as a detective, he loses on the spot, regardless of if it was by the detective's move or his own move (forced as it may be). This is explicitly mentioned in the Scotland Yard rules, and Scotland Yard does not explicitly allow a double-move to bypass this (so implicitly, you still lose if you do a double-move that passes through a detective's location). This game also doesn't seem to permit Mr. X to remain in a location, noting that Mr. X effectively has an unlimited ticket supply (in theory, it is possible that Mr. X could end up unable to move, but such a situation requires deliberate actions on both the detectives' parts as well as Mr. X's that it should never come up in normal play)
From what I can get of the rules for the game you're specifically asking about, N.Y. Chase, it does not appear to specifically indicate this as a game end, only that if a detective moves to the station that Mr. X is at or if all routes away from Mr. X's location are blocked. Unlike in Scotland Yard, N.Y. Chase's rules account for the possibility that Mr. X may lack the ability to move due to not having appropriate tickets. If Mr. X has options that he cannot take due to not having the tickets, he announces that he has to remain where he is, but the detectives must still locate or completely trap him to win.


text:
In Uno Flip, what color do you continue play with after a Flip card is played?
I just bought a new UNO called UNO FLIP! and in this game, we have a Light Side and a Dark Side. When we use one of the Flip Cards, we have to (according to UNO FLIP! rulebook)

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

Think of this scenario:

When we start the game, we put a card in the Discard Pile from the Draw Pile.
On the dark side of this card (light side starts face-up) it is a teal 5.
After a couple of rounds someone plays a Flip Card. We flip the Discard Pile and the teal 5 on the dark side is now face up.

My Question
What should our next card be based on?
The teal 5 or the yellow Flip Card?

UNO Flip! Rules ©2018 Mattel

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

The teal 5 is on top of the DISCARD pile, therefore the next play should be on the teal 5.

Wow, I musst have been thinking too hard to think simple... :D


text:
Ticket to Ride United Kingdom: Are technology cards kept after use?
Are technology cards treated like the colour train cards and discarded once played, or do you keep them for future use?

See Purchasing Technology cards as a way to upgrade what you can do. Most of the cards are bought and kept in front of you helping your development (allowing you to claim longer routes or opening new areas for you to build).
In fact there are two technology cards that you don't keep but it's explicitely written in the rules: the "Right of Way" technology card and the "Thermocompressor" one (in the Advanced technology variant). You purchase those cards, apply them and return them to the pool for other players (or you for that matter) to purchase them again later.

From what I'm reading in the rules, there's nothing saying you ever have to discard a technology card. Once you acquire a technology, you keep it, and can use it as many times as you'd like over the course of the game. (Don't think of it like another train card; think of it like unlocking the ability to build certain new routes, or like a permanent upgrade for yourself.)

Awesome! I just wanted to confirm because I don't feel like it actually clarifies one way or the other! Thanks


text:
5 card major bridge
Playing 5 card major, a weak NT, rubber bridge. After a 1NT opening, west bids 2 clubs (interfering) - opener's partner bids 2 hearts - is this still a weakness takeout (i.e. Limit bid telling declarer got weak hand with max 9 pts and 5 in bid suit)or does West's bid take that out? I.e. Does declarer treat the 2 hearts as a normal bid?

As is always the case for questions about the meanings of bids, the answer depends on agreements between you and your partner.  You can agree to whatever you want, and in many cases, including this one, there isn't some choice of agreements that stands out as being much better than the alternatives.
That being said, I think it is slightly better to agree to make this a weak takeout, except that you will pass on the weakest hands unless you have a club singleton.  If you are playing transfer bids, most people keep them over an intervening bid of 2 clubs (with double asking for a 4 card major).
The main reason this is better is that you would rather be down 1 (even doubled) at 2 hearts than let them make 2 clubs and have a leg towards game, and similarly, you would rather get a leg with making 2 hearts than set them at 2 clubs.


text:
Overcalls at duplicate Bridge
As west, my partner opened 1 club; north, the TD, called one spade and in the east seat I replied 2 hearts.
Thereupon my partner alerted and advised the table that I was showing 5 hearts (a first reply in a major in our system shows 5 not 4 cards). The TD went into something of a flat spin and advised that there was no necessity for the alert because I had to have 5 hearts to overcall 2 hearts. After we'd finished playing she went to her rule book and demonstrated the rules of overcalls.
Was my bid actually what is defined as an overcall or merely a reply to my partner?

I would suggest you search for a novice-friendly game and director to play at and with, before this individual ruins your enjoyment of the game.

There are two questions here:

(Terminology) Is making a bid over an opponent still called an overcall if your partner has already bid?

There are two competing uses (from Merriam-Webster):

Definition of overcall
transitive verb
  :  to make a higher bid than (the previous bid or bidder) in a card game
intransitive verb
  :  to bid over an opponent's bid in bridge when one's partner has not bid or doubled

The first sounds a bit old fashioned, and the second is what I'd expect in modern bridge books, which tend to (cf. this lesson by Larry Cohen) use the names:
West, Partner (Opener): 1 Club
North, TD (Overcaller): 1 Spade
East, You (Responder): 2 Hearts
South (Advancer): [to call]

Did your partner need to alert your bid, regardless of terminology?

No, at least not in the American Contract Bridge League. See the Alert Procedures:

Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure
Suit bids:
  
  Three or more in a minor suit
  (Also: An opening bid of 1♣ is natural if, by agreement, it may be exactly
  4=4=3=2 with two clubs, three diamonds, and four cards in each major.)
 Four or more in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses
 Four or more for an overcall at the one level, five or more for higher levels
 Five or more for a weak two-bid
 Six or more for a weak three-bid

Side Note: It doesn't matter to the result, but I couldn't find the definition of overcall that the ACBL Alert Procedures are using. I would expect from experience that it is the second one.

The terminology your describe as Larry Cohen's is in fact standard Bridge terminology worldwide, as long as I have been playing Bridge (45 years now).

@ForgetIwaseverhere I agree, it is the standard I am familiar with as well. (I wasn't attributing it to Larry Cohen; I was simply using a link to his website as an quick example of / reference to the usage.)

Cleaning up the terminology: as everyone is saying, technically 1S was the overcall, and 2H was a response (in competition).  I would also agree with all that (in 2017) this wasn't, and isn't after the 2021 changes, Alertable in the ACBL.  Note that Alerting regulations are country-specific, but I can't believe that there is anywhere in the world that would require an Alert for 1C-(1S)-2H promising 5.
My guess is that partner is in a world where not everyone plays negative doubles, and many people would respond over the overcall with 4, so she thought she was being helpful.  Unfortunately, that is not the "normal duplicate world", and instead it caused a problem, which I'm not seeing much discussion of.
While I don't like the reaction of the Director* (who should be especially careful when playing and "ruling" at his table), he's got a point, and I want to explain it.
Bridge Communication is meant to be done between partners solely by means of the calls and plays (L72A1), and to opponents as the Regulating Authority requires (L40).  Alerting this call is so unexpected that it will almost certainly prompt an ask (if the "alert" was a straight up explanation without being asked, which I have seen, that's worse), so opener gets to tell partner what she thought partner's bid meant.
Keeping partners on the same page via the Alert procedure - especially with a "not Alertable" call - is not legal. Even if that was not the intent, it does "just make life easier", which is a problem.  So this needs to be stopped before it becomes a habit that gets relied on.  Thus the director's comment.
You don't have to understand the Alert Procedure completely (I don't understand it completely, and I have to rule if something's Alertable!); you do, however, have to know what parts of the system you're playing are Alertable, and do it correctly.  I hope that was the intent of the TD's correction.
* Although as a TD myself, I know several bridge players who react to any correction, delivered as gently as possible, as if I had "gone into a flat spin".  So I'll do my usual (which is usually close to correct) and assume it was an "you don't Alert that!" - more blunt than it should have been, less fly off the handle than it sounded to the newer, possibly intimidated by playing against the director, players.

Your call of two hearts was a response, not an "overcall." It's basically a response to your partner's one club call. It was your opponent, who made an overcall of one spade.
When you called two hearts, there was no need for the alert, because very few players would make that call with only four hearts nowadays. Instead, the modern call is a "negative double." (I'm moderately strong in the major suit the opponent didn't bid. And the opponent's bid cut me off.)
A case could be made that if the opponent didn't overcall and you called one heart, and that always meant a five card suit, that it should be disclosed. But the way to disclose it is through the convention card before the play, not an alert during the play.

The bid is not alertable under ACBL rules. If the partnership is not playing negative doubles (as most do these days) one must consider how the responder would bid with only a 4-card heart suit, but say 10-11 HCP in this sequence.
Technically this is a "response" not an "overcall", but in the heat of the moment (as opposed to a carefully written lesson or essay) terminology can often slip a bit. If partner had not opened, a 2H overcall should definitely promise a 5-card suit.

I should like to know why someone felt this answer should be downvoted. I do not think that three is anything inaccurate in it.

In Standard American bidding, after 1C-(1S), a bid of 2H does indeed promise 5 hearts and 10 high card points.
With only 4 hearts, the usual agreement is to double; this is a common convention called the "negative double".

This doesn't answer the question of whether it is an overcall or not.

Except that if a novice pair isn't playing negative doubles, as is clearly the case here, the standard interpretation would be to be showing 4+ cards in the suit bid.

The question asked about alertability, and the ACBL alert rules say that any bids with a 'highly unusual or unexpected meaning' should be alerted.  This means in effect that, in order to comply with the alert rules, a player needs to know what the standard meaning(s) of bids are.  It's unfortunate that this rule (and others) effectively make it impossible for a complete beginner to play tournament bridge completely in accordance with the rules, but scrapping such rules causes other problems.


text:
Bridge Responding to 1NT with 0 HCP?
What is the best response to a 1NT opening bid when responder has 0 HCP and 5 clubs and you have agreed with partner to use Staymans?

Pass. 1NT undoubled when opponents likely have the values for game is unlikely to be bad. If your left hand opponent doubles and it passes around to you you can bid 2C.

I clubs likely to be better?

@Taemyr yes. With 0 hcp, your hand is almost certainly worth zero tricks in no trumps. In clubs, you're likely to be worth two (the fourth and fifth rounds of trumps) and may be worth another trick from a finesse that a trump entry makes possible

The reason you have to pass initially is that your choice is between 1NT and 3C, not 2; even if clubs are likely to play two tricks better, you're two tricks higher.

Unless you have, say, five clubs and eight diamonds, you have nothing to show partner and should Pass. Given that RHO has passed, LHO will almost certainly bid and give your partner the chance to reassess the situation; if not, partner is likely to go down in 1NT, but get a better score than if the opponents made a fat contract.
There is, of course, the possibility that you are playing a system where 1NT is forcing (I can't think of any offhand, but no doubt there are some), in which case you follow the rules of the  system, and discover where it gets you (and probably why such systems are rare).

Like everyone here, I say pass with the hand given ((332)5 or the like). However, in general:

as ruds points out in a comment to his answer, a 0HCP hand is likely to be zero tricks in NT, and a 5-card suit is frequently one or two tricks as trumps.  Also, even one entry to potentially take a finesse can make a huge difference from "playing it out of your hand".
the standard "Stayman and transfers" system over 1NT allows you to play 2 of a Major (2H or 2S), but not 2 of a minor (you have to go to 3C or 3D).
so, with almost all 5-card major suits (particularly bad hands with 5-card major suits), you should transfer into the suit.  At "worst", you break even (if it's only worth one trick), and frequently you're at least one trick to the good.
but with a minor, you need to be 2 tricks better in the suit simply to break even (3 tricks better to show a profit), and a 5-card suit isn't enough.
however, a 6-card suit is - it's one more long trick! - especially with shortness somewhere (limiting losers, early entries to lead from the weak hand).  So I would play in clubs (however that's done in your system) with a 1=3=3=6 zero-count.

Another argument for transferring to the major with effectively any 5-card suit is only really relevant at Matchpoints - if both 2M and 1NT make, +110 beats +90. Caveats:

with a zero count, you don't expect to make either contract.  But with 5 or 6...
of course, 1NT+1 (+120) beats 2M.  So again, "usually" the trump suit gains you a trick.  But not always.
At IMP scoring, this is basically a wash.  As always, take the safer contract (which is usually playing in trumps).
At rubber, a 60 leg is slightly better than a 40 leg (and with 40 on, 2M is game where 1NT is not).  Here, you don't have to worry about 1NT making overtricks; they go above the line and "don't count".  But again, you have to make whichever contract you're in to score.
I play a system where I can get out in 2D; but because that doesn't have this advantage (2D= is the same +90 as 1NT, and 1NT+1 beats 2D+1), we don't use it unless it's obviously safer.

Note, there's another kind of hand that will bid over 1NT with zero - a three-suited (ideally 4=4=4=1 or 4=4=5=0) hand with short clubs.  Bid Stayman, and pass any response. Again, almost certainly you have a 7+ fit (unless partner's 3=3=2=5, oops), likely an 8 card fit, and your hand will be worth tricks (if just from ruffing clubs).

You should pass.
If you feel that 1NT should be forcing, consider using the Jacoby Transfers to show 5-cards or longer in response to a 1NT opening. You could force partner to bid 3C and pass on that, though most partnerships will agree that trying to play 1NT in this case is probably better.
In this case, your partnership has at most 17 HCP, so your opponents have at least 23 points. Let them figure out if and what they want to play.


text:
Scoring Attractions in Ticket to Ride: New York
I recently bought the new version of Ticket to Ride New York. One thing that is slightly unclear is the scoring rules on routes between two tourist attractions.
(Sorry if that is incorrect, but I don't have the English rules here and that is the exact translation from my language)
Anyways say you build the route between Times Square -> Empire State Building -> Chelsea.
- You get 1 point for the route TS -> ESB.
- You get 2 points for the route ESB -> C.
But then according to the rules you get one point per tourist attraction you connect.
Does that mean:
3 points (one for each)
or
4 points (2 points TS -> ESB and 2 points ESB -> C)
Image for reference:

The rules say

Finally, each player scores one point for each
  Tourist Attraction that is connected to one or more
  of the Routes they claimed.

In your example, there are three Tourist Attractions connected to at least one your routes, so you get three points from Tourist Attractions.