text:
Can you cast a copy of a card from the battlefield if the effect creating the copy specifies that it can be cast?
I recently saw a post on r/BadMtgCombos about an interesting combo, the combo works as following (text copied from the author, credit to u/Gamesfreak13563):

First, get Transmogrifying Licid and Spellweaver Volute on the
field, and make Volute an artifact with Liquimetal Coating.
Panharmonicon doubles Idris, Soul of the TARDIS' enters the
battlefield trigger, and thanks to rule 607.3 Idris can exile both the
Licid and the Volute and gets the activated and triggered abilities of
both. It doesn't, however, get any of their static abilities,
including Spellweaver Volute's enchant ability.
Once that's done, activate Idris' Licid ability to turn it into an
aura that enchants a creature. It doesn't have Volute's enchant
ability, just the enchant ability from the Licid, so it can legally
enchant a creature. Because of Rule 303.4m, the triggered ability on
Idris from Spellweaver Volute refers to the attached permanent, so
when you cast a sorcery, you create a copy of the card that Idris is
attached to.
Now, you'd think that you'd cast the copy, exiling your enchanted
creature causing your Idris to sacrifice itself when it can't attach
to anything else, but actually don't: Rule 707.12 says that the copy
of an object is created in the same zone that the object is in, which
in this case, is the battlefield. And Rule 704.5e says that a copy of
a card can exist on the battlefield. So, you create a copy of the card
on the battlefield, don't cast it, and then it just stays there. And
since you didn't cast the copy of the card, you don't have to exile
the card and you don't have to sacrifice Idris.

My question is, could you choose to cast the copy from the battlefield, or is there any rule preventing you from casting things from the battlefield? And if you can, would you need to sacrifice Idris due to it not being able to enchant an instant in a graveyard, or could you save idris by ending the licid effect since it's a special action?

I feel like the bit about using the special action to save Idris should be its own question, as it's basically unrelated to the main question.

Yes, you may cast a spell from the battlefield.
The rules for casting spells are fully general as far as the origin zone is concerned:

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. [..]

Excellent, thanks! A further question if you or anyone else happens to know, let's say I mutated the enchanted creature, when I copy the merged creature and choose to cast it for free, what happens? Will I cast one spell with the characteristics of the merged creature, cast two spells being the two creatures separated, or something else?

@Allure: The combo as described uses the "may" in "You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost" on Spellweaver Volute (emphasis mine).  You copy the enchanted creature, choose not to copy it, and boom, you have your copy sitting pretty on the battlefield.

Yes, you can cast the card. This is because an effect says you can do so, which applies regardless of the zone the card is in. A trivial example is Squee, the Immortal, which simply states that you can cast it from specific zones other than your hand (namely, from your graveyard or from exile).
Note that if the effect says "you may cast the card" without further qualifications:

you must pay the mana cost and any required additional costs, or an alternative cost if one exists;
you may pay any optional additional costs;
you must specify valid target(s) if the spell requires them (e.g. an Aura with enchant creature cannot be cast if there are no creatures on the battlefield); and
you cannot get a land onto the battlefield this way (as a land cannot be cast as a spell).

If the effect states "you may cast the card without paying its mana cost":

you cannot choose to pay its mana cost or any alternate costs

which means that if {X} is in the mana cost, X can only be 0;

you must pay any required additional costs; and
you may pay any optional additional costs.

The question in your title and the one in your body are actually different

Can you cast a copy of a card from the battlefield if the effect creating the copy specifies that it can be cast?

Yes.

My question is, could you choose to cast the copy from the battlefield

No. Unless you have a way of getting an object on the battlefield that is both an instant and a creature, the combo doesn't work, so you can't get the copy, let alone cast it; the ability "Copy Enchanted Instant" allows you to copy only an Instant.

Because of Rule 303.4m, the triggered ability on Idris from Spellweaver Volute refers to the attached permanent, so when you cast a sorcery, you create a copy of the card that Idris is attached to.

Rule 303.4m is just clarifying Idris' ability would apply even if Idris were not an Enchantment. It is not saying that Idris' ability applies to objects that aren't of the specified property.

This is incorrect. Idris will not have "Enchant instant in a graveyard" because Idris only copies the Activated and Triggered abilities of the card(s) she exiled, and "Enchant X" is a Static ability (702.5a). Since the activated ability of the Licid is the only thing that makes her an aura and it gives her just "Enchant Creature", that is the only enchant ability she will have,

@Andrew Good point. I think the other point stands, though.

Perhaps, it's an odd situation, but a plain reading of 303.4m would have me ruling that it did work as the reddit post says, it shouldn't, it's an unintended edge case for sure, but all the actual RAW support it.

The combo works fine. The phrasing "the enchanted instant" is only for readability. Under the hood, it always means "the enchanted object" and so applies to any type of object.


text:
What dice to use in a game that revolves around triangles?
I am currently in the process of prototyping a game that revolves around triangles. I want my players to roll 3d4 dice to move, but am worried about the effects it might have vs. a traditional 2d6 setup.
The reasons I want to use d4s are:

They are triangular prisms.

and

I can use three of them and still only have a maximum of 12 rolled at any one time.

I am worried about the rolls always being just a few numbers. For 2d6, the odds of rolling a 12 (or the lowest #) are 1 in 36. For 3d4, the odds are 1 in 64, making my rolls less diverse. I seem to roll 7, 8 or 9 every time I roll 3d4.
I need to know if this would pose any problem to the movement factor in my game (for now, assume it has 40 squares).

Would you be prepared to consider d8 + d4? A d8 is just two tetrahedra stacked back to back after all.

@PhilipKendall No, it's not. A d8 is two square-based pyramids stacked back to back (square to square). Tetrahedra are triangle-based pyramids.

"I want my players to roll dice to move" -- From a game design point of view, this in itself is your biggest problem. That is, if you're rolling for a number of steps the player can move, or such. It adds large amounts of randomness, with no control given to the players themselves.

@ilkkachu and yet many of the most popular board games use dice for movement. From Monopoly and Ludo to stuff like Hero Quest or D&D inspired board games. In addition, 3d4 will mean a high tendency for an average and thus reduce the wild swings you might get  (e.g., getting 2 or 12 using 2d6).

Just as a personal opinion, I'm not a huge fan of d4s and how they roll and would shy away from them simply because of that.

@VLAZ, funny you should mention Monopoly. Exactly because of of the random movement, there are many turns in the game where you have no meaningful decisions to make, and even a step or two can make the difference between hitting something cheap or safe, or an expensive street owned by an opponent. It's also popular because it's well-known (it's something like 80+ years old now), and gets marketed a lot. That's not something a new game is going to have, so when making one, it's better to make a good game.

Why not glue 2d4 together to make d6s? Now you have triangle-faced d6s. Obviously for production you'd want to get a mold or 3d print, but for testing purposes that should be sufficient. Bonus points: you can now include a "if you lose the dice, any normal dice will do in a pinch"

Unusual, but it might work...unfortunately, I still would like to roll three of them, giving me even more odds to calculate.

As an aside, board game publishers will not look favourably on roll and move mechanics, which are largely seen as out of date and completely unmarketable.  If you must use this mechanic, you should hide it as much as is possible (e.g. using cards/deckbuilding).

@VLAZ How many games released since 2004 (the last 15 years) have used that mechanic and been popular?  I can think of one (Xia), and it hid that mechanic.  All of the others you mention were created in the 1980s or earlier. Some designers even consider any use of dice to entirely break the flow of a game.

@TemporalWolf I thought of that too, but bipyramids are weird when the base is an odd number, because you don't end up with a top face, only a top edge.

We really need more information on what you're trying to create. All we know about the game is that it revolves around triangles and has 40 squares(?). Nothing about the layout or what the squares are for or how triangles fit in at all. I don't see how anyone could possibly judge whether one set of dice would be more 'problematic' than another.

Doing some research shows you will still 5-9 range but it will be slightly more when you are using d4. Now if that difference causes a problem that would be up to you to decide. One other thing to note is you will no longer be able to roll a 2.
This comes from https://anydice.com/program/51b6

#    |  % for 2d6   |  % for 3d4   |
2    |   2.777778   |     0.0000   |
3    |   5.555556   |     1.5625   |
4    |   8.333333   |     4.6875   |
5    |   11.11111   |     9.3750   |
6    |   13.88889   |     15.625   |
7    |   16.66667   |     18.750   |
8    |   13.88889   |     18.750   |
9    |   11.11111   |     15.625   |
10   |   8.333333   |     9.3750   |
11   |   5.555556   |     4.6875   |
12   |   2.777778   |     1.5625   |

I wouldn't say it's "slightly more". 3d4 gives 6-9 nearly 70% of the time; 2d6 is just 55%.

"Now if that difference causes a problem that would be up to you to decide" just to elaborate here - assuming a single line of movement (e.g., Monopoly), then players will tend to stay relatively close together as they have a high chance to either roll the same numbers on this movement, or get equivalent scores over multiple rolls (e.g., player A rolls 7, then 9, player B rolls 9, then 7). This "clumping together" need not be a problem and indeed might be useful. If there are multiple paths available, that becomes less of a concern.

You are usually not aiming for a specific target when rolling speed, but rather "greater than or equal to a value".  As such a CDF is more informative.

Another good value to look at is the expected value of a roll and with the 2d6 you get 7 and 3d4 you get 7.5.  So you would expect about .5 move each roll.

In general, rolling more, smaller dice will give a narrower range of possible answers and a distribution that's more concentrated around the average value, compared to rolling fewer, larger dice. This is easy to see by looking at the extremes: rolling a single d12 will give every value between 1 and 12 with equal probability (broad range, no peak at all), whereas rolling twelve d1s will give you 12 every time (narrow range, nothing but the peak).
This is, essentially, the central limit theorem in probability theory, which says that adding up more and more independent random numbers (e.g., dice rolls) gives a better and better approximation to a normal distribution. The width of the "bell curve" depends on the variance of the random numbers that are being added, and the variance of a single dice roll decreases as you decrease the number of faces it has.
Joe W's answer gives the specific stats for the two cases you're considering, so I'll not repeat those.

General opinion is that D4s are unsatisfying to roll.
D8s have triangular sides and roll well.  You can get D8s with different values to bias your distribution.
3 D8s with distribution: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4 will still give you outputs ranging from 3-12, but your bell curve will be more extreme.
link with distribution: https://anydice.com/program/14e90

Interesting idea, I'll think about it.

Why are they unsatisfying to roll? I have never heard that before.

D4s are unsatisfying to roll because the corners are too sharp for it to properly roll.  Root specifically got around this issue by creating custom d12s that simply had 0-3 on an equal number of faces.

@JoeW Because they simply don't roll. If you cast them flat, they just land and skid across the table the same way up as they landed.

Of interest is the number of rolls to finish.  For a 40 square game, rolling 2d6, it takes an average of 40/7 or 5.7 rolls to finish.
The Var(2d6) is 70/12.  Variance of "5.7" rolls of 2d6 is 33.25, SD is then about 5.76, and 95% confidence is then around +/- 11.3 or about +/-1.6 rolls.  So naively, it will take 4.1-7.3 rolls to finish.
For 3d4, average is 7.5, so 5.333 rolls to finish.  Var(3d4) is 45/12, over 5 and a third rolls that is 20 variance, so 4.47 SD and +/- 8.76 confidence, or +/- 1.17 rolls; so 4.16 to 6.5 rolls to finish.
(This uses napkin math based distributions; the actual statistics are a bit more annoying, but will be close.)
Feeling the difference between those game lengths is going to be hard.

I'd argue you should start upside down.  How many rounds do you want the game to be?  How should the on-board stuff (say, move forward) have impact compared to dice rolls?
I'd also argue that "rolling a bunch of dice and adding them up" isn't a great mechanic.  There is so much more you can do with dice -- pairs, runs, etc.

This game will have many go-arounds (like monopoly), and the spaces landed upon will have an impact on gameplay. There are certain spaces that may eventually require players to pay other players, and some spaces that will reward the roller with an extra roll or currency.

If you want to have something very similar to 2d6 but using d4's, do 4d4 - 1d4.  This can be implemented by having five d4's, four of which are the same color and one is a different color.  This is not exact, and it does add a 2% chance of getting numbers higher than 12 or less than 2, but it's closer than 3d4.
https://anydice.com/program/14e8a

If you want to go heavier on the flavor, use 3-sided dice rather than 4-sided (these can also just be 6-sided dice numbered 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3):

3d3 will give you a much lower average roll than 2d6, but you could adjust for this by making the map smaller or just putting things closer together on the map.
https://anydice.com/program/8667

Using 4d4-1d4 breaks the theme of three in my game, so this would not work.

@TheCentaur what aspect of the theme does this break?

The entire idea of the game is that everything comes in threes, which was my entire idea for rolling 3 triangular pyramid dice. I see your point, though. I may have to make a sacrifice.

@TheCentaur I added another suggeston

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is this true : «In a 2-player game of Monopoly, there is a 12% chance that the game will go on indefinitely.»
This supposedly «fun fact» was posted on a Facebook game page.
One commentator declared a 2-player game of Monopoly a zero-sum game;
I stated that the bank acts as a 3rd player, injecting and withdrawing cash.
Is there any mathematical validity to the statement that a 2-player game of Monopoly could go on indefinitely?
Edit: Concerning «indefinitely». Since the OP was making a distinct case of a 2-player game, and 3- or more -player games always end, for this question, I think we can assume that s/he meant that the 2-player game would never end.

It is unclear what is meant by "indefinite" in this context. It can either mean an unlimited amount of time, or an undefined amount of time. If you think of a simplified sample game where we each have $100, and we repeatedly flip a coin. If I win, you give me $1. If you win, I give you $1. Will this game ever end? As the number of flips tends towards infinity, so does the chances of the game ending. Eventually the game would end; but it could take an infinite amount of time to do so. So really it comes down to what the original post meant by "indefinite".

I can't see how Monopoly is a zero-sum game. Players get money from the bank, players give money to the bank (in terms of fines, house repair chance cards etc).

@Gendolkari, Philip Kendall : You both make valid points...

There are only a few ways the bank can inject money into the game and that is by passing go and a few chance/community chest cards. outside of that it is just removing money from the game from the purchase of property, housing, and various fees from spaces, chance and community space cards. Unless both players are losing less than 200 dollars each turn around the board on average they will run out of money eventually.

I added an edit concerning the word «indefinitely» in order to constrain the question...

Is the poster of the fact playing by the actual rules are using things like 'free parking' variants which lengthen the game? '12% seems such a weirdly accurate figure I suspect its just a made up 'fact'.  Players getting cards like General Repairs will also keep removing cash from the game.

@StartPlayer : I am assuming that strict Monopoly rules - i.e. no house rules - are followed.

The trouble is that without house rules, this is just "obviously" untrue (see Gendolkari's answer for a more formal derivation). I think your best bet is probably to go back and ask whoever posted this fact for their proof.

The short answer is "Yes, but...".
The longer answer is, as per the paper in question, that a team of researchers did some calculations on what would happen in a 2-player game of Monopoly where both players follow very simple strategies (and a couple of things that aren't 100% by the rules), notably:

Always try to keep a small reserve of cash on hand to pay rent or other costs.
Always buy properties you land on where possible.
Never bid on properties that are up for auction.
Build houses according to a simple pattern.
Never pay to get out of jail (even on the third roll).
Always sell your Get out of Jail card to the bank for $50 (which I'm pretty sure isn't a thing).
Never trade properties.

At the very least, #2, #3 and #4 are generally considered poor strategy - careful use of auctions can get you key properties on the cheap, and clever building of houses can deprive your opponent of their opportunity to build. Obviously the key here was removing most of the major decision points to keep their model manageable.
With those simplifications to the game, they then created a big state model of the game - all the possible things you could potentially see if you took a snapshot of the game at different points in terms of who owned what properties, how much money they have, what spaces they're on, etc. And then they modeled all the different paths the game could take between those states, to find the probability of going from one state to the next (e.g. if the current state includes "I have rolled doubles twice in a row", there's a 1 in 6 chance the next state will transition my position to "I am in Jail").
Then, with that bit transition model, they do some fancy maths to show how often the game winds to a close. You're right in saying that the game is not zero-sum, but the "banker" role can both add and remove money so it can be as much to blame for making the game go on forever as it can be the reason it finally ends.
They actually do this modelling in a few different ways, but all of their different methods all agree that if you run the game for an arbitrarily long time then there's about an 88% chance that one player or the other will win, meaning that there's a 12% chance that you'll never actually see the game end because both players wind up having enough money on hand to handle the ups and downs of the dice.
So, in a 2-player game of Monopoly, with a few rule changes, and where neither player makes any real decisions, there is a 12% chance that it will never end.

The phrase "and where neither player makes any real decisions" seems to bear the semantics of "where neither player actually plays with intent to win". Viewed in that light, it's surprising that in 88% of games a winner does emerge.

Properties are never up for auction, because of the previous point. In two player monopoly, trading is a bad idea for one party. In the steady state, "sell your Get out of Jail card to the bank for $50" is a simplification of "hold onto GooJ card until you exit Jail failing the third roll"

Someone one the FB page where this question was originally posted found this answer from the

School of Operations Research and Information Engineering Cornell University
  Ithaca NY 14853, USA

ESTIMATING THE PROBABILITY THAT THE GAME OF MONOPOLY NEVER ENDS

At the end of the 10-page report, the following is stated :

All four of our estimators yield confidence intervals that suggest
  that the probability that the game goes on forever is close to 12%.

The answer to the question would therefore be : True
but I will have to read it to confirm this.

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


text:
Power Grid - Korea : How are resources purchased?
From the Power Grid - Korea map rules :

Phase 3 : Buying Resources
In reverse player order, each player chooses one of the two markets
from which he will buy resources this round. He must buy all resources
for the round from the market he chooses. If the market chosen has no
more of a resource he wants, he will not be able to buy that resource
this round.

Source : Power Grid Korea Rules
Questions
Note : All of the following actions would be done in reverse turn order.

Case 1 : Do all players choose, each in turn, a market and then, all players, again each in turn, buy their resources?
Case 2 : Do all players choose a market and immediately buy their resources from that merket before the next player chooses a market and
buys resources?

The reason for my question stems from the aformentioned rule :

If the market chosen has no more of a resource he wants, he will not be able to buy that resource this round.

One has to admit that a reasonable player would not choose to buy from an empty market.
The only justification I can find for this rule is the following :
A non-empty market becomes empty after the player has selected it.
The only way for that to happen is that the previous player has bought all the remaining resources.
That could reasonably only happen in Case 1.

For starters, I think you mean "Case 1" in the last sentence. Now you have overlooked the whole point of the map/rule: players can't buy from both markets in a turn. So the prices - and availability - of all the resources you need force you into some tough choices.

Further, the imprecision of the "empty market" language isn't helping things. Very rarely will an entire market be depleted of every single resource. You're right that some players may not be able to source all of the resources they want at prices they can afford from both markets during a given round, but that's the tension. The only way someone could arrive at Case 1 is by adding to the rules. On your turn, you buy all you want from one market. You can't buy from both. "Choosing a market" is equivalent to buying from a market, knowing that you won't be allowed to buy from the other

@The Chaz : You're absolutely right - I corrected the error at the end of the question.

Case 2, as confirmed by the publisher.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2029922/korea-does-everyone-choose-their-market-anyone-buy


text:
To what game does this card belong?
The card in the following picture was included, probably by mistake, in a stack of Chance cards that were in a 1936 Monopoly box that I purchased on eBay a number of years ago. It clearly has nothing to do with Monopoly but it looks really old and finding it in a 1936 box seems to confirm that it is. I am curious as to which game it belongs.

Based on the images in this listing, it appears to be from the game "Pirate and Traveler".

No doubt, that's it. The cover is particularly amusing in that it states «INDORSED (sic) BY EDUCATORS» instead of «ENDORSED». I wonder what the educators would say about that...https://boardgamegeek.com/image/712488/pirate-and-traveler


text:
Is a crazy camel that lands on a normal camel's square placed under it, or over it?
In the game "Camel Up", a "crazy camel", moving backwards on on the racetrack, may land on a square where there is "normal camel".
When that happens, does the crazy camel go underneath the normal camel, or is it placed on top of it?

Do we really need a camel-up-second-edition tag? I think camel-up would suffice to cover everything about all editions of the game.

@L.ScottJohnson that really depends on how different the editions are - some games editions are almost identical, other games significant differences happen between editions, that could be enough to make answers for the first edition not apply to later editions and vice versa. I don't know the game [tag:camel-up] so I can't really say which case applies here.

@Andrew : I deleted the second edition tag. I would think that tag useful once someone has flagged a question that requires a distinction between editions to be made; in other words, I prefer a precedent-based approach (which I call «english») to a predict every possible outcome approach (which I call «french»)...

@Andrew in this case, the editions are not worth the distinction. The second edition has some additions, but the overlap is largely the same (and compatible where it differs).

It's worth noting that the "crazy camel" does not appear in the first edition of Camel Up.

@robyaw : You are absolutely right - I stand corrected and apologise to Andrew. I will reinstate his tag for the second edition...

Again, though, the tag can cover all editions, even though the second edition has some additions. You don't need edition tags on, say, magic the gathering, even though new stuff gets introduced.

The rules state:

Should a camel unit ends its movement on a space with another camel unit, it jumps on top of that other unit.

And also later (not directly relevant but possibly helpful):

If a crazy camel lands on a spectator tile, its movement is influenced in the same way, just in the opposite direction to the racing camels.

So the rules set out that the crazy camels move in the opposite direction to the other camels, but otherwise follow the same rules. So if it moves into the same space as another camel, it will go on top.


text:
Was the Monopoly Income Tax ever $150?
According to the «Income Tax» entry in Monopoly Wiki,

In the original 1935 edition, the tax amount was $300; the change to $200 didn't come until a year later.

In the American editions, apart from the added option to pay 10%, was the flat income tax amount ever some other amount, like $150?
I ask this questions because I may buy a vintage handmade board on which the Income Tax square is $150; knowing if this amount was ever used would help me to date the original board.

Note that the Monopolywiki entry text may be a bit misleading. The 10% option way always there in all editions until the 2008 change. In the original 1935 version, it was "10% or $300". It was changed to "10% or $200".

No. According to Wiki, the only change other than from the original $300 was the elimination of the percentage option altogether in 2008.
(The Wiki entry apparently ignores the original hand-made versions: the circular track version whose "Income Tax" space had no flat fee option at all: just "Pay 10%".)


text:
Monopoly Stock Exchange add-on: How does the add-on change the probability of landing on the properties?
[tl;dr] Go to section «The Question», at the end...
In 1936 and 1937, Parker Brothers published a «Stock Exchange» add-on for Monopoly, Easy Money, and Finance; it was re-released for Monopoly, by Chessex, in 1992. This add-on replaces the «Free Parking» square with a «Stock Exchange» square.

Also, see The Monopoly Stock Exchange Add-On Is the Only Way to Play
The Card Decks
The add-on adds «Advance to Stock Exchange» cards to each of the Chance and Community Chest decks. The 1936 version added 3 cards to each deck. In the 1992 version, the number of Advance to Stock Exchange cards used varies according to the number of players
Also added to the Chance card deck is a «Go To Jail» card that applies only if you own stock.
The Probabilities
The probability of landing on any of the squares in Monopoly has been well documented.
For example, see Probabilities in the Game of Monopoly®
This reveals that Jail, Go, and New York are the most visited squares in the game.
The addition of the cards «Go To Stock Exchange» and a «Go To Jail» card will certainly change these probabilities. Will the Orange properties no longer be the most visited? By how much will the probability of landing on the the Yellow properties be increased?
[tl;dr] Advance to the Question
Has anyone written a computer program to compute the probabilities of landing on the various squares when the add-on is used?

Can't wait for StackExchange add-on :D

Linked in Probabilities in the Game of Monopoly® by Truman Collins, are C source code files written to calculate the probabilities of normal Monopoly. We can just roll up our sleeves and tweak the program ourselves to see what kind of changes we get.
Choices
There are two separate programs linked: one that calculates the probabilities based on simulated die rolls, and one that uses a Markov matrix to calculate the exact probabilities. Collins says the data on the webpage were generated using a "extended" version of the Markov code, and then goes on to describe how even that process may be improved. However, to start off I decided to use the simpler (but less accurate) roll-up-the-probabilities code to see how far it gets us. I told it to simulate 10 million rolls. The code also outputs probabilities for two strategies: paying $50 to get out of jail immediately, and staying in jail until you get doubles or escape naturally. Below are only the probabilities for the "short jail" strategy.
Changes
I decided to split the difference between the two versions listed in the question, and add three Community Chest and three Chance cards that go to the Stock Exchange square, and also add the one Chance card the can send the player to jail. I chose for that card to always send the player to jail, rather than try and add in the complexity of simulating if the player had stocks.
Results
                            W/SE  Rank Normal Rank Difference RankChange
Go                          2.919 7    3.105  3    94.01%     -4
Mediterranean Avenue        2.13  34   2.137  36   99.67%      2
Community Chest             1.577 37   1.888  37   83.53%      0
Baltic Avenue               2.143 33   2.16   35   99.21%      2
Income Tax                  2.273 26   2.322  28   97.89%      2
Reading Railroad            2.781 12   2.958  6    94.02%     -6
Oriental Avenue             2.205 30   2.267  32   97.27%      2
Chance                      0.668 40   0.857  40   77.95%      0
Vermont Avenue              2.233 29   2.322  28   96.17%     -1
Connecticut Avenue          2.188 31   2.302  30   95.05%     -1
Visiting Jail               2.159 32   2.272  31   95.03%     -1
St. Charles Place           2.5   22   2.71   14   92.25%     -8
Electric Company            2.442 23   2.596  20   94.07%     -3
States Avenue               2.274 25   2.372  26   95.87%      1
Virginia Avenue             2.373 24   2.462  24   96.39%      0
Pennsylvania Railroad       2.77  13   2.92   8    94.86%     -5
St. James Place             2.711 15   2.799  12   96.86%     -3
Community Chest             2.129 35   2.596  20   82.01%     -15
Tennessee Avenue            2.842 10   2.935  7    96.83%     -3
New York Avenue             2.947 6    3.088  4    95.43%     -2
Free Parking/Stock Exchange 5.1   1    2.875  9    177.39%     8
Kentucky Avenue             2.704 17   2.83   10   95.55%     -7
Chance                      0.815 38   1.048  38   77.77%      0
Indiana Avenue              2.702 18   2.745  13   98.43%     -5
Illinois Avenue             3.109 3    3.176  2    97.89%     -1
B & O Railroad              3.08  4    3.073  5    100.23%     1
Atlantic Avenue             2.877 9    2.702  15   106.48%     6
Ventnor Avenue              2.916 8    2.683  16   108.68%     8
Water Works                 2.955 5    2.816  11   104.94%     6
Marvin Gardens              2.746 14   2.581  22   106.39%     8
Go To Jail                  0     41   0      41   0           0
Pacific Avenue              2.8   11   2.679  17   104.52%     6
North Carolina Avenue       2.711 15   2.624  18   103.32%     3
Community Chest             2.024 36   2.366  27   85.55%     -9
Pennsylvania Avenue         2.6   19   2.5    23   104%        4
Short Line                  2.535 21   2.438  25   103.98%     4
Chance                      0.721 39   0.861  39   83.74%      0
Park Place                  2.264 27   2.182  34   103.76%     7
Luxury Tax                  2.236 28   2.189  33   102.15%     5
Boardwalk                   2.556 20   2.617  19   97.67%     -1
In Jail                     4.284 2    3.948  1    108.51%    -1

The addition of six cards that take you to the Stock Exchange square almost double the odds of landing on it. Due to the effect of it warping you across the board, in general the properties before the SE square have a slight reduction in probability, and the squares after it experience a slight increase. The Chance and Community Chest squares have the most dramatically lowered chance due to the increased chance of drawing a card that moves you away (from about 81% to 85%).
For rankings, the Stock Exchange square becomes the first or second most landed on square, depending on if you decide to stay in jail or leave right away. Illinois Avenue and the B & O Railroad continue to stay around the top, and the squares following them (Atlantic, Ventnor, and the Water Works) have some of the most notable increases in rank. New York drops down to sixth, after the Water Works. Go drops down to seventh, since the cards that warp you to the Stock Exchange put you the furthest away from GO possible.
If playing with this Monopoly Add-on, I'd probably invest in the Yellow.

A terrific answer, involving a lot of work, in less than 3 hours. I'm going to invest a lot of time in comparing the results to those for regular Monopoly. Thanks...


text:
Parcheesi Blockade Rule
Is moving an existing blockade forward together to form a new blockade on a new space allowed?

Proposed answer : A new blockade cannot be formed
Parcheesi is the trademarked name of the American version of the Indian game Pachisi.
Milton-Bradley and Parker Brothers sold the game under this name and were acquired by Hasbro.
The Parker Brothers rules do not address the problem presented here.
Parker Brothers Parcheesi Rules
The Milton-Bradley rules do explicitly address the situation.
Milton-Bradley Parcheesi rules

Answer. You are not allowed to form a new blockade from an existing blockade.

The wiki page also notes that it is prohibited: "Blockade pieces may not be moved forward together with the roll of a double."  (That bit is found with a citation to the Parker Brothers rules, which, as you say, doesn't corroborate the rule.) It was added in a big block of rules text back in April 6, 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parcheesi
(I've added a citation there to the MB rules.)


text:
Catan Seafarers - The Forgotten Tribe scenario : Who claims the harbor?
We have a player who has moved a ship near to a harbor and has claimed the harbor. But, we have another player who is gonna place a settlement for first time on the same island.
So, in this case who will have the final claim and use of the harbor on the new island?

From the rules :
Catan Seafarers Game Rules and Scenarios

Harbors
If you build (or move) a ship on an edge next to a harbor, you take
  the harbor. If you have a settlement on the coast, you must
  immediately place the harbor on an adjacent edge. However, harbors
  must never occupy adjacent or the same edges. In case you have no
  appropriate coastal settlement, you can put the harbor aside until
  such a settlement is built. When you have placed a harbor, you can use
  it immediately, even during the same turn.

Interpretation. This means that the first player who places or builds a ship next to a harbor, physically picks up the harbor, i.e. removes it from the board. The player will then place this harbor on an edge next to one of his/her coastal settlements on the main island, if the player has one. No one can build a settlement on any of the small islands.
«So, in this case who will have the final claim and use of the harbor on the new island?»
The player who moved next to the harbor claims it (picks it up) and gets to place the harbor next to one of his/her coastal settlements, immediately, or later.
«But, we have another player who is gonna place a settlement for first time on the same island.»

During play, no settlement can be built on the surrounding small
  islands that do not produce resources.

For the harbor, it's first come, first served. And, no player can build a settlement on any of the small islands.

Thank you. The two if statements (without mention of move to main island) in the rule confused us lot.


text:
Where can one find an up-to-date list of all accepted Scrabble words
I would like a list of all up to date Scrabble words. Where can I find one in list form please? I have tried Tile Fish and also Collins.

You can find the official scrabble dictionary on the Hasbro website, though it is not in list form. https://scrabble.hasbro.com/en-us/tools

Merriam-Webster offer several lists on their website.
Lists such as Starting with..., Ending with..., 2-letter word, 3-letter words, words containing J, or Q, or X, or Z, etc.
https://scrabble.merriam.com/word-lists

The complete list is available for purchase to NASPA members:https://www.scrabbleplayers.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl

According to scrabblepages.com"Any word that is found in a standard English dictionary can be used in the game of Scrabble. There are also Official Scrabble Dictionaries that can be purchased for more word options.
There are some words that are not allowed to be played and these include suffixes, prefixes and abbreviations. Any word that requires the use of a hyphen or apostrophe cannot be played in the game. Any word that required the use of a capital letter is not allowed.
When playing an English version of the game, foreign words are not allowed to be placed on the board. However, if the foreign word does appear in a standard English dictionary, it is allowed. The reason for this is due to the fact that the word is spoken enough and is considered part of the English language."
Now that being said there are words that are definitely not child or teen appropriate under that category and house rules are always fun to use.


text:
What constitutes a pair in the game "L'Auberge des Pirates"?
In the game "L'Auberge des Pirates", holding a pair is considered dangerous for your survival during the game. It is not clear, however, what constitutes a pair: will one visible card + one card in hand be considered a pair, or will two cards in hand be a pair?

According to the rules (via google translate):

This player
shows you his cards (and to
you alone). Your charge is successful
if he has a pair between the
cards in his hand and those
that he has in front of him.

And in the description of drawing a card:

Draw 1 card without the
show (if it makes a pair with
cards in your hand or those
placed in front of you, do not say anything,
you haven't lost until
you are not charged).

Despite the awkwardness of the translation, it seems clear enough that when challenged, you lose if there is a pair ANYWHERE among the cards you own, whether between two cards in your hand, or one from hand and one from in play.


text:
Is a merger between two players possible in Monopoly?
We've had multiple games with three players left, where it became clear one player is significantly stronger than the two other players combined.  At one point the two weaker players realized this, and wanted to do a merger.
We've allowed this in a house rule when the two players' combined net worth is less than that of any other players.
Assuming every player is operating in good faith, is it possible to achieve "merger" to the same effect within the official rules framework?
EDIT: My question is, under official rules, can Players A and B operate under a united banner as if they are one player? Assuming both players have made the necessary officially-sanctioned arrangements so same-coloured lands are only held by one player so houses can be built? Can Player A and B allow each other to be effectively rent-free under official rules? In this way if Player X (not part of the union) loses, the game effectively ends, or under whatever arrangements needed for Player B to surrender under official rules?

You can chose to play that way if you wish - but it is not standard Monopoly by any stretch. Rather it becomes a hand-rolled game of undetermined name. Perhaps the group you play the game with enjoys that game better, and possibly other groups might like to try it as well. Just don't go thinking it bears any non-superficial similarity to Monopoly beyond re=use of board and pieces.

@PieterGeerkens I disagree. Yes it requires changing some rules, but it still uses 95% of the same rules as Monopoly, just like playing where you get money when you land on free parking.

It is not in the intention of official Monopoly rules. My question was the legality under the scrutiny of official rules, or what amendments to our house rules is required to make it legal under official rules. We have no qualms about playing it with or without merger (it's house rules, after all), and I doubt anyone beyond Monopoly-purist would say it's not Monopoly.

Short version: With the exception of multiple players ending up winning, almost.
Longer version: There are a couple things where this is different from the official rules. Because trades are legal within the rules, there's nothing stopping Player B from trading all of his property and money to Player A, in exchange for a dollar or something like that, and then after he loses being an outside spectator who attempts to help Player A.
However, you cannot sell/trade properties that have any houses or hotels on them. This means that if you want to stay within the rules, Player B needs to first sell his houses to the bank (at half value), and Player A would have to buy them back after the trade. Aside from costing extra money to re-build the houses, there are 2 situations where following the rules could be different here:

If there are a shortage of houses remaining in the supply, and Player B has properties with hotels on them, then Player A would be unable to re-buy the hotel after he gets the property.
If there is a shortage of houses or hotels in the supply, and the third player could build the houses or hotels, then he can bid on them to attempt to win them in auction. Player A may either have to pay even more for them, or end up losing them to the third player.

The other thing that's outside the rules is that if Player A ends up winning, then by the official rules only Player A has won. But in your variant, Player B can claim to be as much the winner as Player A.

Another difference is that there are still two tokens moving and potentially landing on X's properties, which makes it less bad for X than B handing over all their assets to A

This happened to me.  4 people were playing.  Person A had a Hotel on the Oranges, and Person B landed on them.  They had a few Monopolies, and lots of mortgaged property.  According to the rules, you can trade to get money.  So, Person B traded all their property to me(Person C) for 1 dollar.  Then, many turns later, I went bankrupt to Person A, and I sold all of my stuff to Person D for 1 dollar.  So, effectively a merger.
You can not technically merge however, but loopholes exist.

Selling to a third party when bankrupted is definitely not allowed by the rules.

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


text:
Game for 2 players
Looking for a good board game for 2 players. We currently have Flux, Killer Bunnies, Settlers of Catan, but these are most fun with 4 to 6 players.

Hey Rob!  Welcome to B&CG.  I am very sorry that I have had to close your question.  We have a strict policy against recommendation questions here.  We've found that these questions don't work very well with the StackExchange format. I hope you'll stick around, we handle rules and strategy questions about specific games very well.  Thanks again.

There are a lot !
If you are into pure strategy (like chess, you know)… You have:

Chess (duh)
Gipf project (6 games with similar strategies but not quite the same).
Lots of games by Gigamic, like Quoridor, Quixo, Quarto, …
A whole lot more of games! Most of strategy games are for 2 players.

If you are willing to play on a more hasardeous and/or communication and/or second-guessing games:

Mr Jack, where one has to find who is the bad guy and the other one tries to make that bad guy escape from the board (and eventually from the table ;-P)
Kahuna, where each player creates bridges between islands, each majority wins the island, the player with the most islands win.
Forbidden Island, a cooperative game for 2-4 players, where a team tries to get all the statues off an Atlantis island before it dives into the abbyss.
War of the Ring, a very complex and long game where the evil and good forces of Middle-Earth fight for the victory. I personnally developped some skills in explaining the rules, it now takes only 2h30 for me to do so. Just saying.
Even a lot more…

There are a bunch of games for 2 players, as you can see. I suggest that you precise what kind of game you like, so I can tell you more about a cretain category of 2 players game.


text:
What is this game that's similar to Go?
I always thought that Go was played by trying to place 5 of your pieces in a row while blocking your opponent from doing so, but I just recently looked up the rules, and it's completely different.
Is the game I was playing real? What is its name?

There are two strong possibilities that are both played on a 19x19 board, Pente and Go Moku. Both have as a goal to get 5 in a row.  Pente also allows capturing and you can win by capturing 5 pairs of stones.
Pente

Pretty good game, I had it confused with Go for the longest time as well.  There have been a bunch of editions over the years, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a set.

please note that it is completely different from Go, but : "Go" in Japanese also means "Five", so that is why it is part of the "Go Moku" name, and the board used is also similar to a goban (probably because it allows one to reuse an existing set). The rules (and the gameplay) are completely different though.. And I think you meant "13x13 board" ?

I seem to recall from The Master of Go by Yasunari Kawabata that the Go professionals – or at least the rather obsessive older player, the eponymous master – played Go Moku (and maybe other games like shogi) between games for relaxation.

I think the name of your game is Go Moku. That is the "five in a row" game.
It's not really similar to Go, except in terms of the name. It can, however, be played on a Go board with black and white stones.
But the objectives and criteria for winning are totally different.


text:
In Power Grid, what are the phases and what are the steps?
My copy of Power Grid has an strange reversal of terminology between the cards:

... and the rules:

Obviously this isn't a huge deal, but I just wonder which is correct in terms of the other editions of the game available?

Update: after the answer below confirmed that the cards are wrong rather than the rules, I contacted Rio Grande Games to ask about getting replacement cards.  They directed me to the BoardGameGeek store, which sells a Power Grid promotional pack called "Power Grid: Theme Park (BGG Promo Card Set)".  This contains a replacement Step 3 card, but sadly no replacement player summary cards...  If anyone knows how to get them, that would be great to know.

Power grid's terminology is totally backwards from what it should be.  Phases should be bigger than steps.  I would love to have cards that refer to phases rather than steps because it would make the game so much easier to explain.

@Zags It's simply a bad translation. The German word Stufe can be translated into English as step or stage - whoever translated the rules should have picked the second one instead of the first.

In later revisons of Power Grid phases are used to describe the difference phases of a turn. Steps are used to describe the 3 different game states that happens when a player builds 7 cities or pull the card in OP post from the top of the power plant pile.
The card does say "Step 3" in the later revisions that I played.
For more information check the Power Grid FAQ

This is correct, I believe it was a simple mistranslation on the card. Personally, I think they should have fixed it the other way – making the game have three "phases" and outlining the five "steps" of each turn, but what's done is done. :)

Thanks for clarifying that, FuleSnabel.  @ghoppe: I'd agree that in English it would make more sense for the phases to be the longer period!  Thanks for mentioning the translation issue - I see that indeed in Funkenschalg, each round is made up of 5 Phasen, and the 3 periods that the game is divided up into are Stufen.


text:
Lifelink interaction with triggered abilities on creature's death
I had this scenario with my wife and we couldn't figure out how to properly progress:
1.) Wife declares attackers (creature names are irrelevant)
2.) I declare blockers with one Vampire Nighthawk and two Epicure of Blood creatures.
When damage is dealt, one of my Epicure of Blood will die due to her attacking creatures. However, it says: "Whenever you gain life, each opponent loses 1 life." Do both of my Epicure of Blood's trigger from lifelink despite one of them dying? Or does the triggered ability not occur due to it being dead and removed from the game before it can check if life gain occurred?
My thought was that damage gets dealt, lifelink triggers, but only my remaining Epicure of Blood will trigger. Thanks for your help!

Both creatures' abilities will actually trigger; it doesn’t matter that one dies.
The key is that all damage is done simultaneously, and with Lifelink, the life gain happens simultaneous to damage dealt. So at the moment you gain life, both creatures are still alive, even though one of them has lethal damage now.

603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.

The creature with lethal damage doesn’t die completely immediately; it dies the next time state-based actions are checked, which is before anyone would get priority. When state-based actions are checked, the abilities that were triggered then go on the stack.

704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 116, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated.

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

The creature will be dead by the time they go on the stack, but that doesn’t matter.

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability.


text:
What does a damage number of "<1" mean in Warhammer 40k?
I recently bought the Dark Imperium starter set for Warhammer 40k. This set includes two "mini-codices" for both Space Marines and Death Guard, covering only the units that are in the set.
What baffled me was the damage rating for the Bolters for the Space Marine Intercessors. They are written as "<1".
I could not find any information regarding this, neither in the core rulebook, nor in the Space Marine booklet. Furthermore, I could not find a relevant errata for the Space Marines or the Dark Imperium set.
What does "<1" as damage mean? Is this simply a typo and should be regarded as 1?

I finally managed to take a picture of the booklet:

As can be seen, the "Boltgewehr" ("Bolt rifle") has a damage value of "<1".

I believe you are right, this is a typo. Elsewhere the D for such weapons is 1 (space marine codex etc). The other notations are typically a static number or a random value e.g. D6.
I think GW typically write out the full text: "a value greater than" rather than use > etc.

Thank you for your answer. I find it strange that this typo has not been fixed, or at least been discovered and talked about by anyone.

No problem. I'll have to check my copy when I get a chance. I have to admit I didn't pay a great deal of attention to much of what came in the box other than the rulebook!

I just realized it yesterday when I explained the basic rules to my girlfriend. I was about to explain the damage, when I saw "<1" and was immediately confused.

I've checked my copies(!) and I can't find any examples of D<1 so I guess it's either been corrected or was introduced in a later print.

I added a picture to clarify


text:
When playing Edgar Markov, what is the definition of a "Vampire spell"?
I'm quite new to MtG, so this may be a noob question. I play EDH/Commander with Edgar Markov as my commander. His text reads "Eminence - Whenever you cast another Vampire spell, if Edgar Markov is in the command zone or on the battlefield, create a 1/1 black Vampire creature token".
Obviously this will trigger for vampire creature spells ("Vampire Cutthroat", ""Pulse Tracker", "Crypt Ghast" etc), but will it trigger for other spells? For instance, are instants like "Vampire's Zeal" and ""Vampire's Bite" or enchantments like "Mark of the Vampire" considered "Vampire spells"?
I have a hunch that cards that contain the word "Vampire" in their name or type line are concidered vampire spells, but that cards with the word in their text box are not. Is this correct?

A Vampire spell (for the purpose of Edgar Markov) is a spell which has the Vampire (sub)type; its name doesn't matter. You can find the type(s) in the bar between the picture and the rules text. Vampire Cutthroat is a "Creature - Vampire Rogue", so it counts; Mark of the Vampire is an "Enchantment - Aura", so it doesn't count.
There are no non-creature spells which explicitly have the Vampire subtype, as this Gatherer search shows. There are non-creature spells which have all creature types thanks to the Changeling ability, such as Crib Swap; this search lists all 6 of them.

All current Vampire spells are creatures, see here

@Hackworth. These 6 instants are vampires.

Maybe not needed for a new player, note that as "Vampire" is a creature subtype, it can normally only apply to creatures. But "Tribal" is a special subtype that allows non-creatures to have creature subtypes.

Nitpick: Tribal is a type, it pumps Tarmogoyf.

Tribal is weird in a lot of ways (which is why it isn't printed anymore).  It is technically a type (which only matters for Tarmogoyf, and maybe a few other cards), but it acts like a supertype.

@Arcainst Lupus I remember a competitive magic player once told me in 2007 that he would not have made it to National that year if the Merfolk mill decks pilots that he faced in the first two rounds of regionals realised they could tap there Merfolk enchantment to Drowner of Secrets ability.


text:
Will generated tokens be progressively stronger when using Cathar's Crusade and Sorin, Grim Nemesis?
I played a game yesterday where I had Cathars' Crusade and Sorin, Grim Nemesis on the battlefield. I managed to activate Sorin's -9 action:

Put a number of 1/1 black Vampire Knight creature tokens with lifelink onto the battlefield equal to the highest life total among all players.

One of my opponents had 35 life at that point, so I got 35 tokens.
Cathar's Crusade says:

Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control.

How will this play out? As far as I can tell, this will result in one of the following scenarios, ranging from the least to the most powerful:

I put 35 tokens on the battlefield at the same time. This will trigger the effect once, giving all of them one counter.
I put the first token on the battlefield, it gets one counter. I put the second token on the battlefield. It gets one counter, and the first token will get one counter for a total of two. Continuing this pattern will end with a battlefield with 35 tokens with an increasing number of counters (ranging from 1 counter on the last token to 35 counters on the first token)
I put 35 tokens on the battlefield at the same time. This will trigger the effect 35 times, giving all the tokens 35 counters.

We went with option 2, but I had some other bolster cards on the board (Captivating Vampire, Legion Lieutenant and Door of Destinies with three counters) so I would have easily won even if we had chosen option 1, but I'm still curious which option is the correct one.

All 35 tokens enter the battlefield at the same time. All creatures you control, including the 35 tokens you just created, will get 35 +1/+1 counters.
As Sorin's ability resolves, you carry out its instructions; in this case, create 35 1/1 creature tokens.
Cathars' Crusade will be triggered 35 times:

603.2c An ability triggers only once each time its trigger event occurs. However, it can trigger repeatedly if one event contains multiple occurrences.

If it were to trigger only once, its trigger condition would have to be worded differently, for example as "Whenever one or more creatures enter the battlefield, [..]". As it is, it triggers once for every single creature entering the battlefield.
All abilities that do trigger during the resolution of a spell or ability wait until that spell or ability is fully resolved before they enter the stack:

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.
116.3. Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:
116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.

The abilities created by Cathars' Crusade work on all creatures on the battlefield at the time they resolve, not when it is triggered or when it enters the stack. Assuming that no player takes further action, the 35 Cathars' Crusade triggers will resolve and give every creature you control, including the tokens, 35 +1/+1 counters each.

It's 3.; you'll get a lot of giant Vampire tokens. Cathars' Crusade has a triggered abilities, of which the rules state

603.2c An ability triggers only once each time its trigger event occurs. However, it can trigger repeatedly if one event contains multiple occurrences.
  Example: A permanent has an ability whose trigger condition reads, “Whenever a land is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, . . . .” If someone casts a spell that destroys all lands, the ability will trigger once for each land put into the graveyard during the spell’s resolution.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 116, “Timing and Priority.” The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

All tokens enter the battlefield at once, and by the time the Cathars' Crusade ability triggers resolve, they'll all be ready to receive the +1/+1 tokens.


text:
Can I cast spells while Teferi's Protection is in effect?
Teferi's Protection says:

Until your next turn, your life total can’t change and you gain protection from everything. All permanents you control phase out.

I am not phased out, and the cards in my hand aren't phased out, so can I still cast spells before my next turn? I realize that my lands are also phased out, so I can't tap them for mana. But if I tap all my lands before casting Teferi's, can I spend surplus mana until it disappears at the end of the current phase? And can I cast spells with zero cost?

Is there some reason in particular that you think you might not be able to do this? It might help clarify the question if you share it.

No, not really. I think I should be able to do this, but one in my playgroup said I couldn't do this :-)

@SveinBringsli Is the person in your playgroup able to give any explanation of why they believe you shouldn't be able to cast spells? In particular if they can point to a section of the CRs, we can probably help explain why it doesn't apply.

Agreed with what @PhilipKendall said. Though IMO even just mentioning in the question that "my friend said I couldn't do this" (or something to that effect) would have been a useful clarification.

There's no reason you can't do exactly as you describe.  In fact, it's a fairly common tactic to tap a land for mana that is about to be destroyed or otherwise made unavailable.

106.4. When an effect instructs a player to add mana, that mana goes into a player’s mana pool. From there, it can be used to pay costs
immediately, or it can stay in the player’s mana pool as unspent mana.
Each player’s mana pool empties at the end of each step and phase, and
the player is said to lose this mana. Cards with abilities that
produce mana or refer to unspent mana have received errata in the
Oracle™ card reference to no longer explicitly refer to the mana pool.

And your analysis about everything phasing out is spot on.  Only permanents can phase out (and Teferi's Protection only instructs you to phase out your permanents anyway).  So nothing affects your ability to cast spells with your unspent mana.

Can I cast spells while Teferi's Protection is in effect?

Yes. Nothing in Teferi's Protection says otherwise. Having no permanents (until your next turn) might make that challenging, but the card itself does not prevent you from casting spells. Some ways to cast spells while being protected:

Float mana and use it before it leaves your mana pool
Cast spells that don't require mana. For example, 0-mana spells like Ornithopter or spells with alternative casting costs like Force of Will would still be castable.
Use non-phased-out resources to cast spells. For example, if you (for some reason) cast and resolve Teferi's Protection during your turn, you could still play a land (assuming you haven't already) and then spend the 1 mana on a spell.


text:
Kuraz vs Trap hole, still draw?
Player A summons Kuraz, selects 1 set card to destroy on player B's field, player B chains by activating the set card which is Trap Hole, Kuraz is destroyed, but ..
Will Trap Hole is considered "destroyed" so player B draw a card? Or it's sent to graveyard by resolving so player B doesn't draw card?

A good read over here: Chains, Activation, and Resolution

IMPORTANT: When resolving a chain, as the cards resolve they are NOT sent to the Graveyard until the entire chain has resolved, or a card specifically destroys them

So in this case, since Trap Hole is on a same chain with Kuraz, Trap Hole is destroyed by Kuraz, and the controller of Trap Hole is allowed to draw a card.


text:
Monster attacking directly considered as "battled"?
So if monster attacked directly, is it considered "battle"? So if Michion, the Timelord attacked LP directly, his effect of halving LP activates?
I'm asking this because of Michion, the Timelord's effect:

Cannot be Special Summoned from the Deck. If you control no monsters,
  you can Normal Summon this card without Tributing. Cannot be destroyed
  by battle or card effects. You take no battle damage from attacks
  involving this card. At the end of the Battle Phase, if this card
battled: Halve your opponent’s LP. Once per turn, during your Standby
  Phase: Shuffle this card into the Deck.

Yes, the effect of Michion will activate; direct attacks are included in what are considered "battles".
From Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG Official Rulebook ver9.1 p48

When a card requires a
  monster to have “battled” (past tense), the attack had to have reached the
  damage calculation portion of the Damage Step in order for the monster to
  have “battled”. If the attack stops before damage calculation, the monster
  did not “battle”.

So, provided Michion's attack reached damage calculation without being interrupted, the effect to halve the opponent's LP will activate at the end of the Battle Phase.


text:
About Chronomaly Cabrera Trebuchet's effect + pay cost for no effect
Chronomaly Cabrera Trebuchet:

Once per turn: You can Tribute 1 other "Chronomaly" monster, then
  target 1 face-up monster your opponent controls; its ATK becomes 0
  until the End Phase.

Player A has on field Chronomaly Cabrera Trebuchet, and 1 more Chronomaly monster, so total of 2 monsters on his field.
Player B activated Enemy Controller and took control of Chronomaly Cabrera Trebuchet.

Q1: It says You can Tribute 1 other "Chronomaly" monster,.. without specifying which side of the field, so player B can tribute player A's other Chronomaly monster to fulfill this cost, right?
Q2: For any card in YGO, can you fulfill a cost without doing the effect? Like in this case, player B wants to fulfill the cost of Chronomaly Cabrera Trebuchet by tributing player A's monster, but player A doesn't have any more monsters to change their attack to zero. Can player B still activate Chronomaly Cabrera Trebuchet's effect?

Q1:
No you can't. You can only pay for costs with your own cards (so cards you control, in your grave/deck/hand...).
There are some cards that allow this, but it will be stated explicitly on the card.
E.g. the kaiju monster or 'chimeratech fortress dragon'.
Q2:
Won't work in this specific scenario for above reason, but to answer in general, this is also not allowed.
In the case of 'Chronomaly Cabrera Trebuchet' the reason is that as part of the cost, you need to target a monster on your opponents side of the field, so if there are none you cannot activate the effect.
To give a bit more obvious example of this, you can't activate 'Monster Reborn' if there's no monster in either players graveyard.


text:
Mystic mine vs Denko Sekka
Does Mystic Mine stops all monster effects? Or just activation?
It sounds like only activation, so continuous monster effects may still be active? Like Denko Sekka's effect?
Mystic Mine:
If your opponent controls more monsters than you do, your opponent cannot activate monster effects or declare an attack. If you control more monsters than your opponent does, you cannot activate monster effects or declare an attack. Once per turn, during the End Phase, if both players control the same number of monsters: Destroy this card.
Denko Sekka:
Cannot be Special Summoned. While you control no Set Spells/Traps, neither player can Set Spells/Traps nor activate Spell/Trap Cards that are Set on the field.
Case 2:
Another similar case would be Mystic Mine vs Majesty's fiend, will Majesty's Fiend effect will be active?
Majesty's Fiend:
Cannot be Special Summoned. Monster effects cannot be activated.
Case 3:
Another case would Majesty's Fiend vs Denko Sekka, will Denko Sekka's effect by active?

Mystic Mine only prevents the activation of monster effects for the player who controls more monsters.
Continuous effects, such as the effect of Denko Sekka, are simply active as long as the card is face-up on the field.
Moreover, Majesty's Fiend imposes the same restriction as Mystic Mine. In all three cases named, there are no activated effects. Therefore, yes - Denko Sekka and Majesty's Fiend will both be applying their effects in each of the three cases.


text:
In Faro how do players indicate/remember their call of the last three cards ("Calling the Turn")
I've been trying to learn how to deal Faro. Online sources such as Wikipedia and Wizard of Odds mention that when three cards remain players can 'call the turn' stating the order they think the final three cards will be turned up. I cannot find any mention though of how the players' call(s) should be indicated; there doesn't seem to be any place to show it on a standard Faro layout, and pen and paper seems clumsy even in a casual home game. At the same time, with a number of people wanting to call the turn and the dealer and players needing some aid to remember, I'd be interested if anyone knows the 'real' way, or has a suggested way to track this. It doesn't seem like any casino at any time would allow this to be done simply verbally, so it strikes me there must be a way to handle it concretely.


text:
Is a reasonable level of knowledge of American Football advantageous when playing Blood Bowl?
The rules of Blood Bowl are fairly short and comprehensive. Although a lot of parallels can be drawn between them and the real world game Blood Bowl is based on, American Football, there is no need to know the rules to the real world game in order to know the rules of, and play, the table top version.
However, I'm curious if having a reasonable level of knowledge of the tactics and strategies used in real world American Football can be used as an advantage when playing Blood Bowl?
Even with my limited knowledge of the sport there are a number of similarities that spring to my mind that could potentially be transferable from the real pitch to the game one:

Formations - the layout of players on the pitch
Team Composition - the amount of players in a team that excel at certain skills
Plays - the actions players take between touchdowns to try and score one
Style - when to play defensively and when to play aggressively

(This list isn't exhaustive, please do not just copy and paste it and give an example of each as an answer, especially if that answer is not backed by any evidence of the advantage it gives.)
Given the large amount of competitive Blood Bowl leagues that exist, and that it has a faithful video game conversion allowing competitive play against a world wide audience, is there any evidence that supports the theory that using tactics and strategies from American Football can be used reliably and repeatedly as winning strategies in Blood Bowl?

Knowledge of American football strategy is not helpful in Blood Bowl because Blood Bowl lacks the rule that shapes all of American football play, namely, down and distance.  In American football you have four plays ("downs") to advance the ball 10 yards.  If you manage to do so, then you get another four plays to go another 10 yards (a "first down"), and so on until you either fail to make a first down in the allotted plays, or you score.  Almost everything about American football strategy revolves around managing down and distance.
Suppose, for example, that you make four yards on your first play, and five yards on the second. With only one yard to go you would choose a short-yardage play that highly likely to gain the one remaining yard, even though it has virtually no chance of making a large gain.  Getting tackled after two yards in that situation is a huge win.
Blood Bowl really has no equivalent.  Once a team fields the ball, they pretty much have to keep advancing it until they score.  If the ball carrier gets knocked down, you won't get an opportunity to reset for another play; you'll just recover the ball with another player and continue advancing, or you'll lose possession to the other team.  (I.e., every tackle effectively results in a fumble.)
Therefore, in a Blood Bowl game you'll never get much of a chance to apply anything you happen to know about American football strategy because you essentially never run a play from scrimmage, and that is what football strategy is all about.

Sounds more like Rugby than American Football....

@John My knowledge of Rugby is pretty limited, but from what little I do know, I agree.

Though a knowledge of Rugby tactics wouldn't help either, especially since in Rugby there are several major rule differences, e.g. you can't tackle a player without the ball, and you can't "protect" the ball-carrier from being tackled by the opponent, which are two of the common & basic actions/tactics in Blood Bowl

I think there would be some basic strategies that could probably transfer from American Football to Blood Bowl.
1. Protecting the weaker/faster/better-at-throwing players
In Blood Bowl, as in American Football, there are differences in the physical and technical abilities of the players. In Blood Bowl they're arguably more pronounced than in real life American Football. The basic strategy of using your larger, stronger players to form a barrier in order to protect your weaker/faster/technical players would carry over.
2. Certain 'plays'
Hail Mary, for example, is going to be a valid play in Blood Bowl with limited time remaining. Having some knowledge of this strategy and when to use it would be helpful.
However, my opinion is that these similarities could be learnt from experience in Blood Bowl very quickly. So my hypothesis is that, at the tournament level, it would not be beneficial to know American Football strategies. You would only need to know Blood Bowl specific strategies instead.

Although Blood Bowl may have similarities to American Football, listing the differences will show that knowledge in the latter doesn't help the former:
Turn Based vs Real-Time:
Blood Bowl is a turn based board game.  I'm quite certain there is no turn based version of American Football.
Teams are asymmetrical:
The teams in blood bowl have different abilities
"Blood" means violence:
One way to win is to kill the other team.  That is obviously not a valid tactic in American Football.

How does this address the prospect of using tactics and strategies from American football in playing Blood Bowl, though? You've answered the reverse question, not the one actually asked.

Because you have no chance to apply them?  I can't even imagine how to apply any real American Football tactics to Blood Bowl.

American football is at base a game where the attack has two options, pass or run, and the defence has to guess which one they're more likely to try, and react accordingly. The same applies here; you haven't shown that there are no useful tactics transferable from American football to Blood Bowl. A lack of imagination has not ever been proof of anything (in fact, it's a logical fallacy, the argument from incredulity).


text:
What are the rules for playing Four way Chess
In 4 way chess on what square do pawns get promoted?

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess
It's a point-based system where you get points for a variety of events, including: capturing pieces of the other three players, putting multiple kings in check with a single move, and accepting the resignation of the only remaining player.

Are there different rules for how pieces move and pawn promotion, and is it just a free for all?

The video explicitly lists one difference for promotion (or similarity, if you think of it in terms of being the 8th rank...)


text:
Ticket to ride: What is the math behind the point values of city pairs?
I want to make a custom ticket to ride map. I am trying to figure out what the mathematical formulas are behind the design. why alan moon decided which city pairs to put on the cards, and how to value each city pair.

I probably should have asked this as three separate question 1) how to value each city pair. 2) which city pairs put on the cards and how that relates to which routes are which color. 3) the math of the connections between cities

I am not sure this would work as separate questions as I am guessing all 3 of those, along with other factors, are needed to determine the routes and values

The point value of tickets, as far as I can tell, in the minimum number of trains needed to link the two cities.
I wont explain all of them as you can check your self but here are a few examples to show what I mean.
Denver to El Paso ticket is 4 points.  The shortest route is Denver to Santa Fe (2) to El Paso (2) totaling 4.
Boston to Miami ticket is 12 Points.  The shortest route is Boston to New York (2) to Washington (2) to Raleigh (2) to Charlston (2) to Miami (4) which totals 12.
Seatle to New York is 22 points.  The shorted route is Seatle to Helena (6) to Dululth (6) to Toronto (6) to Pittsburgh (2) to New York (2) totaling 22.
This works as far as I can tell for all other tickets and in my experience all other TTR games.  There may be a few exceptions but if designing your own map then this seems to be the standard formula.

There are some exceptions to the "rule" of "point value of ticket"="minimum distance", and one of them is one of your examples - the shortest route Seattle-New York is Seattle-Helena-Duluth-Chicago-Pittsburgh-New York which is only 20. As in my answer I'll mention the 1910 expension, which modifies the scores of some tickets, but interestingly also away from what the rule would say, and I believe that I've read somewhere that Alan R. Moon himself has said that it wasn't meant to be a rule.

I expect there will be some exceptions, as stated in answer, and as you rightly say some are changed in expansions.  But the questions asked for guidance about what value to give tickets in a custom version and it seemed a good rule of thumb at least.

I'm not sure there's much math in that.
It's probably more lots and lots of playtesting.
When the 1910 expansion was released, the classic version provided tickets that balanced the game in a different (in most people's opinion: better) way because more games had been played, and more pros/cons of the standard ticket set had been discovered.


text:
Pawn Promotion Limit?
We bought a chess set in which the rules state that pawn promotion occurs when the pawn moves to the light square in the upper left corner of the opponent's first row. So, this cannot occur when the pawn reaches any square in the last row?  All the other answers to pawn promotion do not address a specific square rule.

Possible duplicate of Restrictions around promoting a pawn, where the accepted answer directly responds to this question.

Pawns promote when they reach any square on the back row.  The rulebook you got is either wrong or you are misreading it.

I can understand why you thought I might have misread the instruction sheet, but I quoted the rules as written. I wonder if this is a rule from some long ago, perhaps original, version of the game.  In any event, we prefer to believe the "any back row square" promotion.

@Karin in that case, the rulebook is wrong

Or perhaps the rulebook presents a particular pawn as an illustrative example, and that pawn (barring captures) can promote at only one square.

@Karin There are many rules in chess which have changed - castling didn't originally exist, pawns couldn't move 2 squares, and the queen was much weaker - but there was never a "pawns only promote in the left corner" rule.


text:
"At the beginning of the end step" meaning and comparison to "your end step" and "each end step"
So, the difference between "At the beginning of your end step" and "At the beginning of each end step" is pretty obvious, but what is the meaning of "At the beginning of the end step" and how does it compare to other two?
All three wordings are present on cards and seem to be used on new cards, here are examples from recent standard sets:
Thassa, Deep-Dwelling: "At the beginning of your end step"
Underworld Breach: "At the beginning of the end step"
Resplendent Angel: "At the beginning of each end step"

"At the beginning of the end step" refers to any player's end step.
That wording is equivalent to "At the beginning of each end step", but it is used for abilities that are expected to trigger only once, often because the ability instructs you to sacrifice the permanent it is on.

If you used a Sundial of the Infinite to skip the end step, would it be sacrificed at the next one?

@JonTheMon You would, but that's an unusual case the card isn't written for. "At the beginning of each end step, sacrifice this card" would read strangely, so they say "the end step" instead even though it's functionally equivalent. It's the same reason they use "when" sometimes and "whenever" other times; the former for triggers that are expected to only happen once, the second triggers that are expected to happen multiple times, but still functionally identical the same way.

But is "at the beginning of the end step" not marking the current turns end step? Shouldn't it be written "at the beginning of the next end step" if it refers to any next beginning end step?

The wording "the next end step" makes sense in a delayed triggered ability, where there is one "next" end step relative to whenever the trigger is created. But on a permanent, every end step is going the be the "next" end step, as long as the permanent exists, and during the end step, it's not the "next" end step anymore, it's the current end step.

The wording seems to change based on the intent/frequency of the event (end step).
Thassa (“your end step”): Repeating, during your turn only
Breach (“the end step”): Single time, this turn (technically it behaves the same as "each end step")
Angel (“each end step”): Repeating, every turn (including opponents)

"At the beginning of the end step" as opposed to "At the beginning of your end step" is different in one major scenario. Consider: If you were to play Underworld Breach on your opponent's turn (as through Vedalken Orrery or similar means), than it would still be sacrificed at the beginning of their end step, whereas if it was worded using your instead of the than you would keep it until the end of your turn.


text:
If I copy a creature with enters the battlefield ability with sakashima the impostor, does the ability trigger?
If I copy a creature with enters the battlefield ability with sakashima the impostor, does the ability trigger?
For example, do I gain control of a permanent, if I copy Agent of Treachery. Sakashima retains the name, so if the ability it has says that “when agent of treachery enters…” it seems that the ability should not trigger, as the name is still Sakashima. Does Sakashima replace the name in the text too?

Does this answer your question? Do "enters the battlefield" abilities trigger when a creature is copied with Phyrexian Metamorph? - if this doesn't answer the question, please explain why you think Sakashima is different.

Sakashima is different, because it specifies that it retains the name. If it copies the text verbatim, then the abilities should not trigger, as it is the sakashima that enters, not the agent of treahery.

In that case, you want Rayami Mutated has a different name and/or How does having multiple permanents with the same name affect those permanents' abilities?, both of which come down to CR 201.4.


text:
Reef route movement rules
The kids boardgame, Reef Route, seems to be missing some rules from the rulebook. Nothing too serious, but it still bothers me.
In the rules is stated that a small fish gets eaten by a predator when the predator moves to the same space with the smaller fish. It also says that a small fish cannot move to the same space as another small fish, and if the player is unable to move small fishes indicated by the dice, any other small fish can be moved. But I cannot find anything about moving a small fish to the same space with a predator.
So, can a small fish rush head on into the mouth of a predator? In that case one could feed other players fishes in some situations. Intuitively I'd say it shouldn't work like that, but I'd like to get confirmation for it.

That's the way we played it.  My 6 year old loves it when he gets to send my fish into the Predator.

@LeppyR64 that's also how we play it, and it's hilarious for my 5 year old daughter. Knowing the official rule won't propably even change that, but I'm too much of a perfectionist (nitpicker) to just let it go. I actually sent feedback for the publisher, lets see if they give me the answer.

I contacted the publisher and got the official rule:
"In concept, a small fish moving into a square occupied by a predatory fish means the small fish gets eaten."
So, the small fishes can indeed rush head on into the mouth of a predator. Seems like my daughter can continue feeding my beautiful little fishes to sharks, and there's nothing I can do about it.


text:
Axis and Allies 1942 second edition and attacking subs
When a Sub attacks a battleship in Axis and Allies 1942 second edition. Can the battleship defend itself against the attacking sub?

http://axisallies.com/rules/axis-allies-rules-1942-2nd-edition.pdf
From "3. General Combat"
The Battleship can defend itself during "Step 4. Defending Units Fire" as long as it is alive, or if it was moved behind the Casualty Strip in "Step 3. Attacking Units Fire".
If the Battleship is destroyed during "Step 2. Submarine Surprise Strike or Submerge", then no, it does not get to defend itself.

Step 2. Submarine Surprise Strike or Submerge ... Once all attacking
  and defending submarines that conducted a Surprise Strike have fired,
  the casualties they have generated are removed from the game and this
  step is over for this round of combat.


text:
Shortening Harry Potter the Battle for Hogwarts while keeping the difficulty
My wife and I like the deck-building game harry-potter-hogwarts-battle.  Games 1 to 3 where too easy for us; Game 4 is challenging to our liking.
However, playing game 4 means having to battle all villains from levels 1 though 4.  Which takes time.  It takes us more time than our two sleeping children allow us (our baby sleeps in 45 minute block, some times 1h 30m if we are lucky).
In addition to battling villains, building a deck also takes plenty of rounds of play.
Are there house-rules for playing that both keep the game at our desired level of challenge (with the option to increase challenge if we grow) and shorten the time it taken to play a game?
(We prefer playing an complete game on one evening over pausing the game and continuing an other evening)

I suppose you are referring to "house rules" that would allow you to keep the difficulty but shorten the play time. Including such tag so users can find this post easily

You could play a few evening to complete it. keep tap where you left off and continue.

@ChoTimberwolf you are right.  I did consider the option and in my question explicitly asked for alternatives to pausing and continuing a next evening.

ah sorry didn't read it complete. So to speed it up, take one villain and one location away? and give yourself some more starting cards?

In this BoardGameGeek thread here another player had the same questions. The only problem is that they are playing the full game, and there are things that do not apply to you (moreover there will be spoilers that maybe you want to avoid).
So I'll try to sum up his rules that apply to Game 4:
To make the game shorter, I would say start on location 2, and reduce the number of villains. He recommends from experience to divide the Villains in three categories, from easy to hard. I report his list, with only the villains you discovered:
Easy Villains:

Crabble
Quirrel
Death Eater

Medium Villains:

Draco Malfoy
Basilisk
Dementor
Tom Riddle

Hard Villains:

Lucius Malfoy
Peter Pettigrew

I personally disagree with the dementor being a medium villain.
But regardless:
Remove one villain from each category and you'll have shorter game.
Also start from location 2 to make it a little harder.
As for player hands, I would start with 4 cards added from the store each. There are different ways you can do this:

Pull out 8 cards from the store and choose who gets which (try to still do 4 each)
Assign yourelf 20 influence points and choose the cards (I would ban Petrificus Totalus though, as it's quite strong (Maybe not in 2 players though))
You could also stratify the cards (like 1 card expensive 5+, 1 card 3-4, and 1 card 2 for each players) but that takes a longer setup so maybe you won't like it

To conclude:

-3 Villains
-1 Location
+6 Random cards

There are other different tweaks that the post gives, but I haven't included them as they could be spoilers.
EDIT: Also, when you reach further games let me know so I can update this summary with the new information.
Credit goes to BGG User ranissi for these rules.

I'll try it and will accept if it works. It sound like a good approach.


text:
Moving +1/+1's via Combine Guildmage
So if I have Kumena's Speaker on the battlefield with a +1/+1 due to his ability and a Combine Guildmage that can move +1/+1 from one creature to another. Does CG duplicate the +1/+1, and does KS get another +1/+1 due to having an island on the field or another merfolk

CG moves counters, and KS doesn't grant any counters

Hopefully the linked duplicate is clear. Guildmage cannot do anything with Kumena’s +1/+1, because it is not a counter.


text:
How do draw effects during the discard phase work?
What happens if discarding one or more cards during the discard phase triggers an effect that draws me cards?
The instance I have in mind is having The Gitrog Monster on the battlefield and more than seven cards in hand at the end of the turn.
What would happen when I discard one land card? Do I keep the card drawn or do I have to discard again?

The 'discard phase' doesn't exist anymore, it's part of the cleanup step:

Cleanup Step

514.1. First, if the active player’s hand contains more cards than their maximum hand size (normally seven), they discard enough cards to reduce their hand size to that number. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.

The Gitrog Monster's ability may trigger as a consequence of discarding land cards, so 514.3 applies:

514.3. Normally, no player receives priority during the cleanup step, so no spells can be cast and no abilities can be activated. However, this rule is subject to the following exception:
514.3a At this point, the game checks to see if any state-based actions would be performed and/or any triggered abilities are waiting to be put onto the stack (including those that trigger “at the beginning of the next cleanup step”). If so, those state-based actions are performed, then those triggered abilities are put on the stack, then the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. Once the stack is empty and all players pass in succession, another cleanup step begins.

(emphasis mine)
So there will be another cleanup step, where (if your hand size exceeds 7) you again must discard cards in order to reduce it.

If you still have too many after everyone passes, you'll be forced to discard back down to your hand size.

Cleanup Step

514.1. First, if the active player’s hand contains more cards than their maximum hand size (normally seven), they discard enough cards to reduce their hand size to that number. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
514.2. Second, the following actions happen simultaneously: all damage marked on permanents (including phased-out permanents) is removed and all “until end of turn” and “this turn” effects end. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack.
514.3. Normally, no player receives priority during the cleanup step, so no spells can be cast and no abilities can be activated. However, this rule is subject to the following exception:
514.3a At this point, the game checks to see if any state-based actions would be performed and/or any triggered abilities are waiting to be put onto the stack (including those that trigger “at the beginning of the next cleanup step”). If so, those state-based actions are performed, then those triggered abilities are put on the stack, then the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. Once the stack is empty and all players pass in succession, another cleanup step begins.

Emphasis mine.


text:
Transports onload/offloading adjacent to enemy controlled sea zone
We're playing the 2004 board edition of Axis and Allies. Page 13 of the rulebook states:

A transport may not load or offload in a territory adjacent to a hostile sea zone

To me, that means that if Australia has a British infantry, and Britain has a transport on sea zone 40, but Japan has an aircraft carrier on sea zone 38 (on the total opposite side of Australia), the transport could not load the infantry.
Is that correct? Or does it mean that the Japanese carrier would have to be adjacent to the transport as well?

I believe you are correct. Australia is adjacent to a hostile sea zone, and therefore British transports cannot load or offload infantry in Australia while an enemy ship is in any of the sea zones around it. I base that on the fact that "territory" always refers to land, where-as "zone" refers to sea.
Seems incredibly overpowered. But that is how the rules read.


text:
Does Hanabi allow empty clues?
I've been playing Hanabi for a while now with a few groups of people.
Recently, we realized that there was a considerable discrepancy in how some people understood the rules. Specifically, one person gave a clue saying "None of your cards are red".
We turned to the rule book, but even then couldn't find a definitive answer. The rules specify that if you give a clue, you have to give a color or a number, and you must point to every card that matches this information in the player's hand. For example, you can't say "red" and point to only one of their red cards.
There doesn't seem to be anything allowing or disallowing giving a clue that matches none of the cards.
Some of our players were absolutely fine with that (according to them, if nothing says you can't, it means that you can)
Some of our players were against it (you are not cluing cards, therefore the clue is invalid), and some even thought it was insanely powerful for advanced plays because your available alphabet for communication becomes publicly known and much larger.
Are there any other editions than mine where the rulebook actually specifies if this is allowed or not? If not, are there any other sources that could answer this question? (ex: interview with creators, official community consensus, etc)

This depends on which edition you are playing.
There are different editions published by different people, and the R & R Games rulebook answers this clearly:

Important: The player must clearly point to the cards which he is giving information about. (Thus saying "You have zero of something" is not allowed as you cannot point to anything.)

However, this rule did not exist in the original publishing, and the designer of the game actually specifically said it was allowed.

As per the heading really - when giving info can you tell someone they have zero of a colour or value?

The official answer by Antoine is "yes" and we also included this in our rules.

It seems that one of the reasons to disallow this is that with that clue as an option, it is possible to come up with a fool-proof convention where each different clue you can give has a known meaning... basically you can encode information into the clues.

it is possible to come up with a fool-proof convention can you give a source or more information on that please?

@GendoIkari: If you want to include the text of my answer in yours too, I'll happly remove mine.

@AndrewSavinykh coming here a year and a half late, but a set of conventions called "hat guessing" are what you're looking for. There's a Github repo that contains several Hanabi academic papers, including hat guessing e.g. https://github.com/hanabi/hanabi.github.io/blob/main/academic_papers/2015-02-01%20-%20How%20to%20Make%20the%20Perfect%20Fireworks%20Display.pdf

The link above is now dead, so for future visitors, here’s a relevant paper:
Bouzy, Bruno. "Playing hanabi near-optimally." Advances in Computer Games. Springer, Cham, 2017.

The German version of the rulebook says its allowed
 Der Farb-Hinweis, dass ein Spieler überhaupt keine Karten
 einer bestimmten Farbe hat ist erlaubt!
 Beispiel: „Du hast keine blauen Karten.“

roughly translates as
 The color clue, one player having no cards
 of a certain color at all, is allowed.
 Example: "You don't have any blue cards."

(https://www.brettspiele-report.de/images/h/hanabi/Spielanleitung-Hanabi.pdf)
Only posted as answer because of the amount of qouted text, GendoIkari posted references the German version first, so his answer is the "better" answer.