text:
Creative handicaps in Settlers of Catan?
I've gotten really into Settlers of Catan recently.  There are a few people I regularly play with and these games are really fun / intense; however, when any of this group splits off to play "friendly games" with "casual players", the games are really one-sided.
"Playing easy" on purpose isn't fun for anyone involved; is there a more creative way to introduce a handicap?  I would prefer something subtle, in which the casual players aren't even aware that a handicap is involved.
An example would be "don't buy any development cards" (development cards are the bread and butter of my current play style), but I'm hoping to get some (more creative / more varied) suggestions.
[Edit] As a disclaimer, I am by no means calling myself "a good player"!  I'm just pointing out that I've played a bit more (30+ games?) than most casual players that have only touched the game a few times, and that as a result, I've gotten used to certain strategic ideas that casual players haven't been exposed to yet.

@dpmattingly In fact, house rules are the OPPOSITE of what I want to do; I would prefer this sort of thing to fly under the radar.

I would be really disappointed if I were playing a new game with friends and found out later that they had secretly handicapped themselves. Handicaps should be either declared, or eschewed, otherwise I feel like I'm being treated like a child.

The best handicapping is to require the more skilled player to have no 6's nor 8's in their chosen starting spots; a step harder is to also block the 5's and 9's, but that often results in not being able to find a spot to place starting bits.
Commensurately, the biggest problem for casual players is NOT picking at least one common number spot...

An additional option is to restrict the number of cities and settlements for the experienced players. Reducing one each still makes the 10 point win possible ((3x2)+4), but only just.

+1 Nice one!  Playing with suboptimal starting positions sounds like a really interesting challenge to explore.

OK.  Here's the ultimate challenge: (1) you can't put settlements by a 6 or 8 at any point in the game, (2) you can't buy development cards, (3) you're capped at 3 cities and 4 settlements, (4) you're not allowed to take the longest road at any point, and (5) when a 7 is rolled, you must put the robber on the desert.

@Elliott - that sounds like a recipe for just sitting around powerlessly waiting for someone else to win, to me.  I upvoted Lance Roberts's answer.  What you're proposing is making someone fight a boxing match with both hands tied behind their back.  Sounds like fun written down, but it would just be pointless and painful in practice :P

My "ultimate challenge" is mostly a joke.  I could never imagine ACTUALLY doing that!  But picking one of those once in a while might be an interesting challenge.

A handicap restricting the number of cities and settlements would hurt less skilled players because they wouldn't know how to get the 10-point win under the new rules. (Unless the idea is to get a lot of drawn games.) It should go the other way, 6 cities and 5 settlements, giving newbies more chances to win by getting lucky.

@TomAu Aside from the impracticality of increasing the numbers, the intent is to handcap only the more experienced player - asymmetric restrictions. Novices play with 4 and 5, old hands with 3 and 4. Not to mention that 5 & 6 would require also increasing the number of roads.

I would not recommend handicapping anyone.  The best way the casual gamers will learn is by playing good players playing optimally.  It actually handicaps the good players to play with casual players, since the casual players will do stuff no good player could predict and the game will change arbitrarily.

2 things: (1) what if you're playing someone who's not seeking to improve, and just "wants to have fun" (whatever that means), and (2) if "doing stuff no good player could predict" is so good, why don't strong players do it more often?

@Elliot, I think fun is relative to the players playing and the social experience, not whether you win or lose.  The not predictable stuff usually aren't good moves, but will sometimes hose a player not expecting it.  I get hosed by computer players sometimes because they do random crappy stuff.

I agree wholeheartedly that "fun" is different for different people.  For me, I have the most fun when everyone is trying their hardest to win, everyone has a shot at winning, and it's an intense fight till the end (to put it another way, I equate fun with an intense game; I don't have to win, but I have to be trying my hardest to win).  For this reason, I'd like to make games with casual players (e.g. people who have played less than 3 games total) more "fun" for myself by imposing challenges like "I won't put my starting settlements by a 6 or 8".

Also, can you please give me an example of the "not predictable stuff" you're referring to?  I'd like to explore such tactics, because something that hoses a player (even if it requires that they're not expecting it) can't be all that bad!

@Elliot, in Settlers you might have roads go to places that no one would ever build a road to, or settlements built in uncommon places, or the robber placed strangely.

@Lance sorry I'm a bit slow, but I'm confused about why these are always bad moves.  Say I build two roads that lead to nowhere (e.g. the corner of the desert hex).  If this prevent someone from getting a vital port, was it worth it?  Well, maybe.  It's a tradeoff between expanding to a better spot myself and cutting off someone else's important expansion.  In any given situation there might be a clearly superior choice, but I think it's plausible that sometimes, cutting someone off is a good strategic decision, even if it doesn't get you any other benefits.

@Elliot, I didn't say they were always bad moves, we've all done them as some time strategically.  I was just saying that casual players will not be thinking strategically, and do moves like that arbitrarily totally throwing a good player off his game.  I had it happen to me in TTR online yesterday, when a 'bot' player placed random tracks everywhere, completely unpredictable.  Bad for him, but also bad for my decision-making process.

@Elliot, there's the classic story of a bug in Deep Blue's software in one of the early matches vs. Kasparov. From the wired article: “Kasparov had concluded that the counterintuitive play must be a sign of superior intelligence,” Campbell told Silver. “He had never considered that it was simply a bug.”

For a handicap, I'd probably just boost all the other players up instead of tearing down the skilled player. Give all of the weaker players an extra development card and/or resource of their choice at the beginning. You could also give the skilled player slightly inferior drafts of initial settlements, like getting the third one and the last one and play the game normally.
If you yourself are the good player, I sometimes advise the other players a bit more than normal if they are going to make a bad decision. Occasionally when they accept my trade, I'll even tell them not to do it because I'm getting the better end of the deal and let them think it over again. but usually only once per game. Making your opponents better is always the best way to level the playing field! :D
Personally, I'm not a fan of making the skilled player need more VPs to win or have less settlements/cities because it's really obvious that there's a handicap being used. My ideal conception of a handicap is something that levels the players' chances of winning without making it obvious that game modifications were required to do so. "I win because I have 9 victory points and we modified the game so I only need 9" is much less fun that "I win with 10 VPs! (even though I happened to get an extra development card at the beginning, but everyone's forgotten about that, so my victory is untainted)".

Subtle ways to handicap yourself:

Randomly choose which cards you have to discard when the 7s are rolled and you are over the limit. Can't 'protect' the building you were going to build on your turn.
Limit building to 1 thing per turn. This prevents you from expanding quickly and steamrolling the game when you have good placements/rolls.
Never trade at an advantage for yourself. Trade 1 for 1 or 2 for 1 with other players but never 1 for 2. This limits the number of resources you have available to you.
Do not track cards that are in other player's hands. This makes it so you do not know what another player is likely to do next. Also prevents you from using the robber and monopoly cards to their full potential.
Randomly pick the space to place the robber when you have the chance.  This makes it so you do not always place on your opponents best or most strategic hexes.
Randomly choose who to take cards from when you move the robber, when given the choice. Prevents you from selecting a player who you know has cards that you are interested in.
Do not optimize your initial board placements. See the answer by aramis.
Limit the number of trades with other players or the bank you can do each turn.

Change the # of victory points required to win.  Instead of required 10 victory points to win.  Have victory point total be 8 or 9 for the less skilled players while keeping the 10 point victory condition for yourself.

This is very reasonable, but unfortunately it doesn't satisfy the condition of "it will go undetected by the casual players".

If you allow 5 cities and 6 settlements, you increase the possible number of permutations for victory. This gives newbies more chances to win by getting lucky (although the rule is "neutral" on its face so the newbies won't know this.
Yes, it does require more pieces. (You may borrow them from another set, or just "manufacture" them for this one game.) It works like a Monopoly game in which there are unlimited numbers of houses and hotels (and money earned from Free Parking), rather than the regulation numbers. This helps weaker players by increasing the luck factor.
This is in contrast to another proposal for 3 cities and 4 settlements, which helps experienced players (because they are the only ones that can figure out the critical combination).
Another way is to start everyone with two cities instead of two settlements (four victory points instead of two). It's easier to get six more victory points by luck than eight, but again it's neutral on its face.

If you are happy to make the handicap explicit then victory points are a good way to do it.
Increase the threshold the better player needs to reach in order to win. I am experimenting with this playing with my son who is 11.
Remember that victory point increases are not linear (ie gaining an extra point when you have 10 points is a lot easier than when at 2 points)
At the moment I play with a 3 point handicap, other adults playing have a 1 point handicap and the kids are at zero.
If I win by double or more the score of an opponent I increase my handicap by 2, if I win by 3 points or more then I increase it by 1 and if I lose by 2 points or more I decrease it by 1. I figure I will find a good balance point

Make trades that favor your opponents in the earlygame, delaying your first expansion until your opponents have built their first 1-2 settlements or cities.
For example, on a clay-light wood-heavy board, sell clay for 1-2 wood. You'll come out behind, but bad players won't notice.
Once your opponents get a production advantage, you can safely take off the kid gloves.

Here is a rule for you:
At the end of a player's turn, he or she can put a card from his/her hand in front of another player. This person won't be allowed to trade this resource (either way). The cards are removed at the end of a turn as welland thrown away.
This rule will make people "attack" the strong ones. If you're not strong, it may be simplier for you.
I just made up this rule, I didn't test it. ut if you do, your feedback will be apreciated! :o)

This sounds really interesting, and I'd like to try it out sometime.  On the other hand, I don't know if it's much of a "handicap" (because I also have the ability to block trading, and I can try to convince others to attack someone else).  In general, I think I'd prefer not to change the rules at all; instead, I'd rather look for secret, "personal" handicaps.

Try using an odd strategy, or handicap your starting position.
For example

Both your starting settlements must be on the coast.

or

You're going to be the sheep king. Play such that you're maximising the amount of sheep you produce, and still try to win.

Use diplomacy and persuasion. In games I play with a mix of players, players are very fearful of the player(s) known to be expert, and lax towards beginners. This comes into play most especially with trading strategies and the robber. A strong player in the lead is heavily embargoed, offered very lob-sided trades, and/or draws the robber far more frequently than other players.
These actions don't happen by themselves - players strongly discuss with each other how to cooperatively hamper the expert player with 7 or 8 victory points.
A succinct way of saying this is to employ Settler of Catan's normal slow-the-leader-mechanisms but more aggressively against the better players and less aggressively against the beginners.
Of course, to counter this, the expert will employ leap to victory strategies . . .

Set a limit to how many cards in your hand you can use on a turn.  Say for example 50% rounding up or down.
So let's say you decide to handicap yourself 50% rounding up and you have 5 cards in your hand.  This would mean you could only use 3 of the 5 cards on this turn.  This will put you more at risk with the robber as to build a city, you'd need to have 10 cards in your hand.
Not sure how'd this would play out, just trying to think of something that would fit your requirements.

You do not need any handicaps. After just a few games, you will automatically get handicapped when other players unite against you (no trades, using all cards against you, blocking roads etc) so that you do not win.


text:
Useful Settlers of Catan calculations?
I'm trying to calculate various probabilities that would be useful for Settlers of Catan.  So far I've tabulated the probability of rolling X in Y turns, the probability of rolling X before Y, and the probability of drawing a victory point within X tries given knowledge of Y knights / progress cards in play.

Can you guys think of any other data / calculations that would be useful for Settlers of Catan?

[Edit] Another calculation I've found extremely useful is "how many of each resource do you need to win the game, assuming you're going for X".  I'd love to hear more ideas though, and I don't care how hard / tedious they are to calculate!

Here are some useful calculations: Playing the probabilities in Settlers of Catan

Thanks, this is a great start!  It's unfortunate that the people I play with already knows about these ;-)

Dot calculation (5 for 6 and 8, 4 for 5 and 9 etc) is a good starting point, especially at the start of the game.

A useful statistic/calculation is the various combinations of settlements, cities, and development cards that add up to 10 VPs. Also the best combinations according to general terrain production.

Development cards that give 10 VP's?  Is this a serious answer?

@ToonKrijthe Sounds like he's saying that which combinations of the three listed things add up to 10 points is an example of a useful calculation.

Ok, that could be the case.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How is Test of Faith resolved?
This is the scenario: He attacks with a 4/4, and I block with a 1/1. I cast Test of Faith on my 1/1.
I say his creature dies, because I block three damage and become a 4/4, killing him, but he says that the +1/+1 counters don't come into play until all damage has been effected, meaning the 4th damage point would kill my creature.
Who is right?

P1 controls A: 4/4 attacker
P2 controls B: 1/1 blocker
Since Test of Faith has been cast and has resolved (probably during the declare blockers step, after declaring your blocker), it is not on the stack. When it resolves it creates a prevention shield that floats around, waiting for damage to prevent or the end of the turn to expire.
The declare attackers and blockers steps finish and the combat damage step begins:

P1 announces how attacking creatures assign damage (in this case, the only option is 4 damage from A to B).
P2 announces how blocking creatures assign damage (in this case, the only option is 1 damage from B to A).
Combat damage is dealt simultaneously as originally assigned, so your creature will only ever deal 1 damage in this combat even if its power changes now.
Creature A takes 1 damage; creature B would take 4, but the Test of Faith shields change that: 3 damage is prevented, and 3 (permanent) +1/+1 counters are put on Creature B and it takes 1 damage.
Even if the 4th point of damage lands before the counters are put down, neither player gains priority and so state-based effects (such as a creature dying) are not checked before the counters are placed. For more on this point, see thesunneversets' answer below.
Both creatures are 4/4 and have taken 1 damage this turn.

The combat damage step ends and the end of combat step begins.
Result: neither creature dies; neither of you were correct!
See: http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Combat_Phase

One useful place to look for rulings on cards is gatherer.wizards.com - if you look up Test of Faith there you can click through to display the following useful ruling:

01/12/2004    The +1/+1 counters are put onto the creature at the time
  the damage is prevented. If a 1/1 creature would be dealt 6 damage, 3
  damage is prevented and three +1/+1 counters are put onto the
  creature. The creature is a 4/4 creature with 3 damage on it, so it
  won't be destroyed because State-Based Actions aren't checked until
  after Test of Faith is finished resolving.

In short I agree with (and will upvote) Samthere's answer, but this is just to advise you of a useful resource that may help to resolve future disputes!

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


text:
MTG Best commander deck money can buy
The background to this is that in our group we have one player that drafts every week, goes to all the events and spends several hundred pounds on Magic each month. When we play casually he cannot understand my point that he is simply buying the win.
What I'm trying to do is build the best Commander deck possible using proxies to show that if I spend enough money on a deck I will win every game.
With this being the current ban list and every other card available, what is the best commander deck I can make?
EDIT
To define best im looking for somthing fast so it cant be focused on by the groop, hard to counter or stop once i have the combo cards, diverse so that the combo can be activated with multiple cards so the groop does not see it coming in folowing games.

-1: There's an interesting question here about buying the win, but I'm pretty certain "Make me a hardcore deck using any cards that Magic has ever published" is too broad.

Deleting extended back and forth.  This isn't the place for that folks.

Maybe you could rephrase this into something general about the Commander metagame, like whether the format is broken (or potentially breakable)? (Where "broken" means that, with some money/effort you can build degenerate fast-win decks that will reliably beat the kinds of decks people typically play in casual settings, or something like that.) This answer touched on that, for example, if you want some inspiration.

Five-Color Hermit Druid is regularly considered the fastest style of combo deck in the format. (Occasionally, it's built as BGx, usually BUG, rather than WUBRG.) Combo decks in general are absolutely the strongest archetype in the (multiplayer) format.
The core build of the deck is:

ZERO basic lands (this alone makes the deck rather expensive to build)
Hermit Druid (this makes green necessary)
Tutors to find Hermit Druid (this makes black necessary)
Fast mana to cast tutors and get Hermit Druid into play as fast as possible
One or both of:
Protection for Hermit Druid, so that it can survive a turn cycle and lose summoning sickness without getting killed off
Haste for Hermit Druid

With zero basic lands, a single activation of Hermit Druid will put your entire deck in your graveyard. From there, you have many choices of a game-winning combo to pick from (which makes WUBRG popular, as you have the pick of the litter when it comes to the combos). Dread Return is a common enabler, as something like Narcomoeba and Reassembling Skeleton can get you up to the requisite 3 creatures for the flashback cost, and then reanimate something such as Necrotic Ooze to begin comboing off.
While fast, Hermit Druid combo is very much a one-trick pony. Once the other players in your meta have seen it once or twice, they will either refuse to play against it, or else they'll work to negate its biggest weakness -- the reliance on a single specific card which isn't your general.

With regard to the question's edit:

Fast: The only deck I have personally witnessed which might be faster than Hermit Druid was a deck created by MTGS user Gaka with Griselbrand as the general. Gaka specifically created the deck to show that Griselbrand was broken, and the card is now banned (you might even say... "Griselbanned").
Can't be focused on: There is no such deck. If you build a powerful deck, your friends will either refuse to play against it, or focus on it. There is no way to consistently combo out on T1-2, but there are a number of cheap hate cards your friends could start playing (for example, Extract and friends).

Worse, the faster the deck is, the more focused it, by necessity, will be. This makes it more vulnerable to targeted hate.

Hard to stop: In Hermit Druid, "the combo cards" is really just Hermit Druid and a green mana source. Once Hermit Druid activates, you have access to your entire library via your graveyard. There do exist answers to the situation (Counterspell answers Dread Return, which is answered by Boseiju, Who Shelters All, which is answered by Strip Mine, which is answered by Crucible of Worlds... and so on), but having enough answers is difficult when the Hermit Druid player has full access to his entire library.

Note that, like a 60-card Dredge deck, Hermit Druid needs to be aware of existing graveyard hate. A Tormod Crypt on the battlefield means activating Hermit Druid is probably a bad idea, unless you've got Laboratory Maniac in your hand and the mana to cast it, and protect it until you can draw another card.

Diverse: The actual win condition used in a Hermit Druid deck varies widely. Necrotic Ooze is popular because you only need to reanimate a single target to get all kinds of activated abilities (of which there are many different ways to win the game), but it's not the only option. Laboratory Maniac is another common choice, because your library is empty, and a single instance of "draw a card" suddenly wins you the game. Loops like Saffi Eriksdotter+Karmic Guide+a sacrifice outlet also work, leading to an unbounded loop of creatures entering the battlefield (triggering things like Warstorm Surge), creatures dying (fueling things like Bitter Ordeal), and uses of the sacrifice outlet (anything from Blasting Station to Altar of Dementia).

Five-Color Hermit Druid is usually helmed by either Scion of the Ur-Dragon or Sliver Queen, as both of those generals can themselves be part of a game-winning combo in the event that your opponents stop you from using Hermit Druid. Scion of the Ur-Dragon can kill with general damage in one shot in several ways (although that only works on a single opponent at a time), as well as any combos relating to the individual dragons in the deck (such as Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind+Curiosity, although that requires the ability to recycle your graveyard with something such as Feldon Cane or Elixir of Immortality) and Sliver Queen can generate an unlimited number of sliver tokens given unlimited mana -- and if those tokens are causing you to get the mana in the first place, all the better (see, for example, Mana Echoes).


text:
What is the memory-style game that has pawn-like tokens covering pictures?
I remember a while ago having played a memory-like game which had blue plastic "pawns" which covered holes in a round cardboard sheet, while a second lower layer of cardboard was able to rotate underneath.  There were pictures on the lower layer which corresponded to the holes in the upper layer, and there were several different possible picture combinations.  What is that game called?

Can you provide any more details? What sort of pictures were they? Do you remember any of the rules?

I remember the holes were about 1/2" in diameter, and there must have been twenty or thirty.  The rules were pretty much the same as the rules of Memory (each player in turn takes up two "pawns", and if the pictures underneath are identical, the player keeps the pawns and continues; when the pictures that are uncovered are not identical, the player replaces the pawns, and the next player takes a turn.)  I can't remember what the pictures were exactly, but they were idealized and simple depictions of things like rabbits, birthday cakes, etc.

P.S. Wikipedia calls it Concentration instead of Memory.

Hmm. I know this game as Pairs, and we play it with a standard deck of cards, but there are hundreds of implementations of this mechanic out there...

OK, after asking a few people, I've found the game: Hūsker Dū?:

Wow, I didn't know the band Husker Du were named after a boardgame.  I wonder if they're the only ones!


text:
Are there any reputable chess openings which begin a4, b4, g4, or h4?
I have heard of 1 b3 and 1 g3, but never any of those in the question title.  Is this because they do not work in practical play?
I've tried 1. g4 d5 2. h3 e5 3. d4 Nc6 etc. with a good chance of a strong Bishop-pair and Queen for White.  White must castle Queenside, and will develop his Knight to f3 soon.  I played a couple trial games with myself, and haven't yet tried it on anyone else.  Perhaps some variation on this brash opening is more effective?  I'd like to know if anyone's studied this type of opening.

I'm not quite sure where you intended White's pawn to go on the third move, but presumably not d5.

These openings are considered "irregular," and therefore not totally reputable. There are two reasons.
The first reason is that unlike c4, d4, e4, and f4, they do not begin a fight for the key center squares. You can make the case that b4 and g4 open the way for a bishop to be "fianchettoed," but they get the player "involved" in other ways. B3 and g3 are "safer," but lackluster versions of these moves. And the pawn on g4 blocks the bishop on h3 unless you move it further. But in any event, white is likely to get behind in development with such an awkward, clumsy opening, even though s/he shouldn't by virtue of moving first.
The second reason is that kings generally prefer to castle into the corners on one side or another. These moves of side pawns open up the corners prematurely, making it hard for your king to castle. They may be good moves LATER in the game (depending on the situation with the OPPOSING king), but playing them on the first or second move gives the opponent too much time to take evasive action, thereby robbing you of the potential benefits.

((As you can guess, I'm hankering for the proposed chess Q&A division of stack exchange!))

@drm65: Maybe at some point. For now, we need to develop a following among GAMERS. Later, if we identify a "critical mass," then we can have our own division for chess.

When playing these openings, it is easier for the opponent to use a bishop or queen to prevent you from castling since you can't castle through check. This alone makes them undesirable, not even mentioning the fact that they leave the center undeveloped.

These would be classified as A00: Irregular Openings.
Starting with 1. a4 is Ware's Opening; 1. b4 is Sokolsky's Opening; 1. g4 is Grob's Attack; 1. h4 is the Desprez Opening.
As you've noted, these are not played often. The database at chessgames.com shows only 548 games starting with 1. b4, 260 with 1. g4, and just 10 each for 1. a4 and 1. h4. White has only a small advantage within all A00 openings, 38.5% to 35.1%.

I've actually had 1. b4 played against me in tournaments; it's awkward, but not unsound like 1. a4 or 1. h4 - the idea is to fianchetto the bishop to b2 as fast as possible, even if it means sacrificing the pawn.  Personally, however, I don't believe the pawn-sacrifice is worth the extra space white gains vs. playing the alternative, 1. b3.
1. g4 is also playable for the same reasons, but even more rare than 1.b4, because it forces white to castle on the queen's side (which means waiting at least one-extra move).

b4 is the Polish opening and is sound.  g4 is the Grobs or sometimes called "The Spike" and is rarely played because it is risky.  I have never seen h4 or a4 as an opening move except by beginners.  Even when I was a beginner, I opened with those latter two, to try to get my rooks out quickly.  As I learned more about the game, I understood why those two opening moves are not good. It is best when in your beginning stages to open with a center pawn, more likely e4 or d4, until you learn more.


text:
What does an Evil Twin of an opponent's Essence of the Wild look like?
Let's say I have an Evil Twin entering the battlefield under my control, and my opponent controls an Essence of the Wild. I choose the Essence as the creature that the Twin will copy.
When the Evil Twin enters the battlefield, what will it look like? What abilities will it have?
More importantly, when I cast a Diregraf Ghoul after all that, what will it look like? What abilities will it have? Does it enter the battlefield tapped or untapped?

First, the Twin enters the battlefield as a modified copy of the Essence. It's a green 6/6 Avatar named “Essence of the Wild” that costs 3GGG and has two abilities. These are:

“Creatures you control enter the battlefield as a copy of [this] Essence of the Wild.”
“UB, T: Destroy target creature with the same name as this creature.”

It's not blue or black, and it's not a Shapeshifter.
When the Diregraf Ghoul would come into play, two replacement effects are relevant. One is a copy effect that causes it to become Essence of the Wild, and one is a regular effect that causes it to become tapped. Rule 616.1 specifies that the copy effect is applied first. Once the copy is applied, the creature no longer has Diregraf Ghoul's text, so the tap effect ceases to exist and is never applied.

616.1. If two or more replacement and/or prevention effects are attempting to modify the way an event affects an object or player, the affected object‘s controller (or its owner if it has no controller) or the affected player chooses one to apply, following the steps listed below. If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).
[...]
616.1c If any of the replacement and/or prevention effects would cause an object to become a copy of another object as it enters the battlefield, one of them must be chosen. If not, proceed to rule 616.1d.
616.1d Any of the applicable replacement and/or prevention effects may be chosen.
616.1e Once the chosen effect has been applied, this process is repeated (taking into account only replacement or prevention effects that would now be applicable) until there are no more left to apply.

Diregraf Ghoul comes into play as a copy of your evil Essence of the Wild. It has all the characteristics of your evil Essence, including the destroy-same-name ability and the name “Essence of the Wild”. This is because characteristics modified by a copy effect are themselves copyable (706.9a). It has none of the characteristics of Diregraf Ghoul. It's not black, and it's not a Zombie.

706.9a Some copy effects cause the copy to gain an ability as part of the copying process. This ability becomes part of the copiable values for the copy, along with any other abilities that were copied.

You now have two copies of Essence of the Wild, both with the extra ability granted by Evil Twin. Your opponent's Essence probably doesn't have long to live!

And neither does any of his other creatures. >:)

EDIT: My bad, I answered the wrong question.  The OP clearly stated he wanted to know what happened when you copy an opponent's Essence with Evil Twin.  I leave this answer here just in case anyone wants to know the answer to another question possibly implied by the title, what happens when you try to cast Evil Twin with an Essence of your own in play!
The Evil Twin will be a 6/6 Essence of the Wild with the ability "Creatures you control enter the battlefield as a copy of Essence of the Wild".  The Diregraf Ghoul, also, will enter the battlefield untapped as a 6/6 Essence of the Wild.
See the following rulings on the Gatherer entry for Essence of the Wild:

9/22/2011:    If a creature such as Clone is entering the battlefield under your control, there will be two copy effects to apply: the creature's own and Essence of the Wild's. No matter what order these effects are applied, the creature will be a copy of Essence of the Wild when it enters the battlefield.
9/22/2011:    Other enters-the-battlefield replacement abilities printed on the creature entering the battlefield won't be applied because the creature will already be Essence of the Wild at that point (and therefore it won't have those abilities). For example, a creature that normally enters the battlefield tapped will enter the battlefield as an untapped Essence of the Wild, and a creature that would normally enter the battlefield with counters on it will enter the battlefield as an Essence of the Wild with no counters.

Your answer implies (by omission) that neither creature gets the destroy-same-name ability, which I don't think is correct. The Twin should get the ability because it modifies the copy, and the Ghoul should also get the ability because copy-modifications are themselves copyable.

This answer works for Evil Twin copying YOUR Essence of the Wild. If the Twin copies an enemy Essence, though, he still has the destroy ability (and all subsequent copies inherit it).

My bad, I did indeed read the question as "Evil Twin copying one's own Essence of the Wild".  Shouldn't try to answer questions just before bedtime, clearly!

Still useful info here! Sorry that I didn't name my question clearly enough.

Even if copying your own essence of the wild, the twin would still have the destroy effect, though you're much less likely to make use of it.


text:
What are the possible ways to test a deck?
Naturally when you make a new deck, you test it on your friends but mine have all stabilised their tournament decks now and the game ends so quickly that I don't get a feel for how my deck flows.
What I want to know is if there is ways of testing decks to see their potential without another player. I really need to give the deck a thorough test so I can see what cards don't fit and which combos are better than expected.
I have seen people play games against themselves but I don't believe this works very well.
What methods do tournament players use to test their decks?
Please note that simply playing games is not an acceptable answer as I do not know people that will just play for fun; they are all super competitive.

So you don't want to play against yourself, and you don't want to play against others. What's the point of testing then?

You could... find some people who will just play for fun?  I'm sure they're out there.

@Hackworth I have 3 friends that play. one uses pyromancers acension and juts waits to get 20 direct damage. another uses hive mind and plays pack spells and the third uses rush merfolk. all three can end the game by turn 5 on average and seeing 5 cards from my deck is not enough time to see how it flows, if i get mana screwed a lot, are my creatures to expensive on average, and not knowing you deck well having never used it having only 4 turns is not very good for learning which are your stronger cards and which of the 3 mana creatures to play first.

@Hackworth also my friends tailor their decks, when i tested my artifact deck with them two days later when we met up again they had 11 destroy all artifact cards in there sideboard

@thesunneverset any advice on how to do that ?

@Skeith you didn't make it exactly clear what you want from your deck. You want to play for fun, but you also want to tune it for good combos and put well-performing cards into it. If you want a competitive deck, you have to run it against other competitive decks, period. If you want a fun, non-competitve deck, what's there to test?

@Hackworth you cant seriously be telling me that players turn up to pro tournaments with a brand new never played deck and test it against competitive decks ? there must be things people do before hand no ?

Do you have a local games store that runs Friday Night Magic or other such evenings?  When I used to go to such things, I was always drafting, but there seemed to be plenty of people sitting around testing their constructed decks too...

@thesunneversets no, closest is in central london and works out to about £30

@Skeith By the way, your opponents sound like jerks. "11 destroy all artifact cards" in the sideboard?  That's not a sideboard, that's a specific attempt to make sure you don't have any fun at all.  (Unless you mean 11 anti-artifact cards between all their sideboards, which would be a bit more reasonable.)

What format are you playing? I assume it's not Standard, as Pyromancer Ascension is rotating out at the end of the week, and Hive Mind hasn't been legal since last year.

@adamjford modern

@Skeith: Well, with the banning of Ponder, Preordain and Rite of Flame, I bet your friend's Pyromancer Ascension deck is a lot slower now. :)

There are different ways of testing that you can do, but none of them are as effective as playing real games against other people.
1) Play without an opponent. I usually play new decks over and over without an opponent to see how the basic idea works out. Just draw and play and see how many rounds it would take you to win on average. Do your combos work out as you had hoped for? Do you have too much or too little mana available? Adjust your deck until you are satisfied with the results.
2) Analyze the meta-game you are playing in. What are other players going to play against you? Try to identify the main threats in those decks and see if you can counter them. Are you fast enough so that they do not matter or can you establish enough control to break their combos? If you find a common deck that you are helpless against, try to find a solution.
3) Put up your desk for analysis online. There are many forums with experts from the MTG scene. Post your deck in the appropriate forum and hear what others think about your deck. They usually will have more experience and find weaknesses without having to play the deck. If you have more specific questions than "is my deck any good?", the MTG experts from this site here (Board and Card games on Stack Exchange) will also be able to help. I learned a lot already here.
These three steps can help you a lot already. In addition you can analyze the Mana Curve of your deck and identify problems there. But in the end, finding practice partners helps the most. I have played MTG-games over webcam in the past with friends of mine. It works better than it sounds like in the first place ;). So even if you don't have anyone in reach, you can try to play with friends who live farther away over the Internet.

It's been a while since I was a tournament player, but I used to be pretty good.  Beyond playing against the tournament decks of my friends, which was always the best way to test, I did two things.

I just played the deck to see how many turns it took to get to 20 damage, which actually is decent testing to test the basic concept of the deck to see if it even works on a basic level.
I had a set of about four decks that I kept maintained that were exemplars of existing tournament decks and ran against them.  It's usually pretty easy to play both ends of the game, and it wasn't hard to keep on top of what some examples of tournament decks are; at the time, you could find listings of them online and in magazines, as I'm sure is still true today.  I'd just proxy cards I didn't have for this purpose, and that testing would give me an idea how my new deck fared against the dominant archetypes of the day.

You need an actual playtesting group, one with decks that resemble the actual metagame, not ones specifically tuned to beat your one deck (unless you're playing a dominant deck and that's a specific metagame choice, that is.)
Also, super competitive players need to test their decks just like anyone else. Why won't they take you seriously and do proper testing with you? Even if they're decks are fully tuned (which I seriously doubt, especially since Innistrad is coming out this weekend and each format's metagame will undoubtedly adjust at least slightly), the play practice should still be valuable.
If it's because your deck is a rogue brew and they won't test with you because they perceive it won't benefit them because they'll never play against it... Well, I imagine that's a problem with which many rogue brewers have trouble, and I don't have a solution myself.

Tapped out is Good database and useful insight for people with intermediate entry level information about the game, but should be in advanced understanding of rules. Great place to play test if you have all the cards remembered, but does take some time.
Magic the gathering is a complex game with tons of rules and rules that not only evolve over time, but new ones are introduced every new set/ block (or rather new card mechanics) which both makes the game infinitely changing but also always different and exciting. Wizards pays attention to the meta game and actually creates solutions for kinks people find in over powered cards, the universe of Magic is so big now that deck types and spells are more like Rock Paper Scissors with hundreds of combinations. There will always be a great skill in the game, but the best players know that it is knowing what's popular and finding the balence between the power and strategy of all the options. One that has been proven powerful is card advantage, and choice, not limiting your solutions against your opponent. A well rounded deck may fair well against all but loose to speed decks- and struggle to stop decks from "going off" and that's why games have side boards which can't be overlooked either while playing one on one.
Advice for newer players who really want to enjoy the game and up there ability with access to the Internet, simply read cards. Go to the gatherer and look up some of the cards you have seen. Go to discussion in all the interesting cards and see what people have to say. Look up simple search for a color type you like, or even a creature type. The more cards you know the more your mind will flood with possibilities, often placing doubt on methods you once thought were incredible combos. There is always a rock paper scissor effect with magic, a few decks are known for their ability to triumph over a bunch of decks and some require a higher knowledge of the game and how mechanics work.
If your friends are playing what sounds like tier one legacy decks and you are new it almost sounds unfair, I'm sure they would be open to ideas of pauper (a cheeper solution and favorite of mine) is a limited number on rarity symbols which will change game style drastically.
Download the apps on kindle and I phone I pad. The latest electronic versions of magic are impressive to say the least. The latest Apple version grows and expands just like the traditional meta game, however starts with magic Orgins.

You could join a group like http://www.magic-league.com.  I don't play with them myself, but these people run online tournaments unaffiliated to Wizards, using applications for playing Magic over the internet that are not MtGO... and thus a lot cheaper, for those who are budget-conscious!
I expect you'd find plenty of people in the forums and on IRC who'd be willing to discuss deck testing and maybe even give you a game.  As far as I can tell it looks like a pretty active community...
I appreciate that your question asked for "ways of testing a Magic deck that don't involve playing with people", but honestly, I really think you should find ways of playing with people!  I can't believe anyone ever became really good at competitive Magic without a playtesting group of some kind.

go to tappedout.net and play their playtest app. you can find different decks in there built by other player and go ahead and play their deck against yours

Welcome to B&CG Dave!  We tend to favor longer answers here rather than quick links out.  While the above is helpful, you could expand it by telling us about a time when tappedout.net was particulary helpful to you.  Thanks!


text:
How many artifact lands can I play a turn?
I bought the 5 artifact lands from Mirrodin to add to my artifact deck; it works with the artifact theme (having all of my cards be artifacts) and goes well with my Darksteel Juggernauts.
The thing is, the other day a friend told me that, because they are artifacts and not basic lands, I could play a basic land and as many artifact lands as I have in my hand in a single turn. Is this true?
I find it hard to believe as that would make then overpowered and everyone would use them.
Can anyone verify this or point me to an article where artifact lands are discussed?

As an aside, they are overpowered, just not for that reason, and were banned from the standard format when they were new and are banned from the new 'modern' format presently.  Just mentioning, don't be surprised if your friends get irritated by how easily you kick their butts using a metalcraft deck powered up by Mirrodin lands :)

@Affe I created an artifact deck and thought it was cool that I could make every card an artifact :) I have no metal craft and was using them as normal land until my friend told me they had other rules. On a side note some of the people I play have spent over £200 a deck and have 20 + mythic in them and have attempted to use over half the banned list lol

@Skeith You can do pretty cool things with artifact lands, like tutor for them, sacrifice them, count them towards Affinity, count them towards Metalcraft and various other things that key on having an artifact on the battlefield!

Tried my artifact deck over the weekend and had 2 33/33 dark steel juggernauts on the field :) very overpowered with artifact land

I think your friend has artifact lands and Moxes confused - you can play one land per turn unless something specifically says you can play more - basic land, artifact land, snow land, or any other land, it's still one land per turn.

Artifact lands may be artifacts, but they are also lands, and all the usual rules about how often you can play and land (i.e. once a turn, on your turn) still apply to them.  The same goes for creature lands like Dryad Arbor from Future Sight: if you've played a land already that turn, you can't then play your Dryad Arbor.
If you want to dump out a ton of mana production on your first turn, you're going to have to invest many thousands of dollars for a large collection of Moxes, I'm afraid to say.
From the Comprehensive Rules, section 305, Lands:

305.2. A player may normally play only one land during his or her
  turn; however, continuous effects may increase this number. If any
  such effects exist, the player announces which effect, or this rule,
  applies to each land play as it happens.
305.9. If an object is both a land and another card type, it can be
  played only as a land. It can't be cast as a spell.

Essentially, the fact of an Artifact Land being an artifact doesn't mean it is no longer bound by the rules for lands; it must follow all the normal rules for lands, and all the normal rules for artifacts too - so it is a valid target for Shatter, and so on.

Oh, I don't know, there are a ton of cards which allow you to dump a bunch of lands down or otherwise accelerate your mana without investing in Moxes. ;)

@ghoppe - Good point, I've changed my answer to say "on your first turn".  Obviously there are ways to ramp your mana if you're willing to work hard at it; the OP seemed to be looking for an easy short cut, and THAT doesn't exist except at a price :D

@Skeith: Also, it sounds like your friend has the idea that basic lands have different rules than nonbasic lands when it comes to playing them; this is not true. Rules-wise, the only differences between basics and nonbasics is how many cards with the same name you're allowed to play in your deck, and the supertype or lack thereof.

Just because artifact lands are artifacts it doesn’t mean you can just spam them on your turn. The normal land rule applies to these lands meaning you can only place one land each turn unless other card texts say otherwise. If wanting to create lots of mana in early turns, expensive cards such as moxes and other 0 mana costing cards that produce mana - like black lotus - would be needed

I don't really see how this adds anything over the 10 year old existing answer.

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


text:
Can I choose "Artifact Creature" as a creature type as Adaptive Automaton enters the battlefield?
I want to use the card Adaptive Automaton in my white artifacts deck. Most of the creatures in the deck are artifact creatures. Now, I am not sure if "artifact creature" is a correct creature type. Let's take Palladium Myr for example. It is of creature type "Myr" and also an "artifact creature". Are both attributes real creature types?
In case I cannot choose "artifact creature", those automatons will find a new home in my Elves deck, but I would prefer to have them in my white artifacts deck.

You may be interested in Xenograft

Or even more so: Steel Overseer and Tempered Steel.

ghoppe: Interesting... I don't have blue in the deck in question but it might be interesting for other decks.
adamjford: I have 4 Tempered Steel in my Deck, they are really key to winning. I also experimented with Steel Overseers, but they are usually too slow to really pay off in my deck.

No, you can't, because "artifact" is not a creature type, it's a card type.
The information on the type line is divided into two portions, the type(s) and the subtype(s). Each word before the dash represents a type of the card, and each word after the dash (if any) represents a subtype. For example, Palladium Myr's type line says "Artifact Creature - Myr" so "artifact" and "creature" are its types and "Myr" is its subtype.
When a card says "creature type," it effectively means "subtype of a card which has 'Creature' or 'Tribal' as a type." In other words, the creature type is always a subtype, something that must appear after the dash.
Also, the complete list of possible creature types is given in the comprehensive rules, rule 204.3k as of this writing. When a card like Adaptive Automaton asks you to choose a creature type, you're only allowed to choose one of the words from that list (according to rule 204.3d).

"Artifact creature" is a card type (2 types to be exact, Artifact, and Creature), not a creature type. A creature type is always a sub-type of the "Creature" card type, like Elf, Orc, HUman, Soldier, Myr, and so on. So since Adaptive Automaton requires you to pick a creature type, you cannot pick "Artifact Creature"


text:
Can a Space Marine army consist of units from different chapters?
I'm a newcomer to the Warhammer 40K tabletop miniature game and I'm researching different armies, but I wasn't sure if different Space Marine chapters were compatible.
For example, could I play an army consisting of Space Wolves, Blood Angels and "regular" Space Marines without raising any eyebrows in "normal" play?

TL;DR Yes they can, however the rules for alliances vary by edition
As well as with some others...

History of Allies
Previously in second edition there were rules in each codex for who could ally with who, specifically mentioning which armies you were allowed to team up with. From what I can tell you could just add any unit you wanted to your force.
Come third edition, these rules had gone and been replaced with a system for using multiple force organization charts to field multiple armies. (Page 131 of the 3rd edition rule book)
Space Marine Chapter allies backstory:
Quoting from 'Using Allies in Warhammer 40,000' here is a view of space marine allies in previous editions:

Space Marines:  Space Marines hold the "typical" Imperial view of other races:  They are untrustworthy Heretics who should only be regarded as subjects for conquest.  However, Space Marines also have a history of looking down their noses even at other military forces within the Imperium, regarding Imperial Guard and Ministorum forces as "only human".  Even so, Space Marines will work with other Imperial forces, as all are fighting for the best interests of Mankind.
When circumstances dictate, Space Marines will sometimes fight alongside Eldar or Ork forces, especially in times of war against the Chaos forces.  While it is degrading to the average Space Marine to fight alongside such heretical filth, it is sometimes necessary to do so in order to protect their Emperor.

There are however some caveats, quoting again:

Space Wolves and Dark Angels:  These two Space Marine chapters do not work well with each other, as they have a long-standing feud going back to the days of their Primarchs.  But this feud is always put aside in the face of a dangerous foe.  However, it is not forgotten.  Before battle, one Marine is picked from both chapters to act as a "champion", and these two champions fight a duel in memory of the duel between their two Primarchs, so many years ago.
Dark Angels/Black Templars:  Dark Angels and Black Templars have always been extremely anti-alien, refusing to work with them even in the most dire of circumstances.  Though most Space Marine chapters will ally themselves with alien forces if the needs dictate such an alliance, these two chapters will never work alongside any force that is not human.

(emphasis mine)
That covers some of the backstory of the armies, and some of the history from the hobby side.
6th edition
With the new ally rules out in 6th edition you are able to combine two different spacemarine armies together, most of which are battle brothers or allies of convenience. There is, as I have linked, a look-up table or matrix to reference when pairing up allies. Also note that the minimum number of units needed to be fielded in a secondary army is far fewer than your primary, but there is room for your force to grow if you so wish.
See page 113 of the 6th edition rule book for details.

6th edition ally matrix
Of the other chapters space marine allies include:
Battle Brothers:

Black Templars
Blood Angels
Dark Angels
Space Wolves

Allies of Convenience

Grey Knights

I've linked them through to the articles about them on the WH40K Lexicanum.
Whilst I don't want to list every ally of the specialized space marine chapters, they mostly show the above pattern, baring Space Wolves and Dark Angels whom consider each other only Allies of Convenience.
7th Edition
This edition behaves much like the previous edition, except it has an updated matrix of Allies:

Seventh edition allies matrix
The biggest difference is that all units from the Armies of the Imperium are Battle Brothers
8th Editon
The most comprehensive guide I've found to the 8th edition allies is here.
In short you're free to make an army with any number of different component units, in free play. Competition play has more rules, as described in this other Goonhammer article.
This edition has a marked change to how allies work. Now armies now have Faction Keywords, and each detachment of your army must all have have the same 'Superfaction' keyword. Then to gain the benefits of a faction, the members of that detachment must be members of that faction:

These keywords, and adhering to the above Superfaction, faction and subfaction keywords give you access to more Command points allowing special actions during play.
The article is very well written, and goes in depth into how to form an army. Suffice to say, it's much more nuanced how to build an army with different allies than previous edition, but still possible.

So yes, now you can combine spacemarine armies.

Unfortunately you are not allowed to mix-and-match with units from different Codices any which way.  The different books are tuned somewhat to have different strengths and weaknesses.  What's acceptable in 'normal' play is of course up to the people you play with!  If it's something fun and flavourful, most people will probably allow it.  If you pick and choose the best unit in each slot from each Codex, don't expect anyone will allow it.
However, as of the publication of the 6th edition rulebook in July 2012 an army may have an 'Ally Detachment' containing a limited number of selections from another codex.  An army based on one the Space Marine Codex can include these others as allies, quoting part of Pureferret's answer:

Battle Brothers:

Black Templars
Blood Angels
Dark Angels
Space Wolves

Allies of Convenience

Grey Knights

Of course you can paint your models any way you like and have a mix of units from different 'Chapters' as long as the actual rules in use form a legal army.
Editing in content from comments:
There has in the past been a ruling in the Grand Tournament FAQs that if you use an 'official' paint scheme, the army must use the corresponding Codex or the 'vanilla' Codex: Space Marines.  e.g., no Red Marines with blood drops on their shoulders "counting-as" Black Templars.  But red marines with blood drops counting as plain old vanilla codex marines are ok.

It's usually frowned upon to even have differently painted units in the army, since each main chapter has their own codex, and with it their own set of rules.  If I see red marines with a teardrop, I'll think, "He's playing Blood Angels".  If I see green marines with white wings, "There's Dark Angels".  If I see both of those, plus blue and yellow marines, my firs thought would be "Which army book exactly are you using?"

Guess it depends on where you live/who you play with.  Can't imagine it being a problem here if you're using the main Codex:Space Marines for the rules.  I do recall there was at one time a GT rule that if you had an 'official' paint scheme they had to use rules from either be the 'correct' Codex or the Codex: Space Marines

I've edited your post, and taken it to meta dun, dun, dun

You wouldn't be able to use rules that were army specific that came from different codex books, for instance, you can't use rules for the blood angels and also rules for the space wolves in the same army - however, you could just use them all as 'standard' marines and ignore special army specific rules.
We used to have a lot of new players in my old gaming group, that would mix and match armies purchased on ebay, etc., and slowly work themselves into an army of their own but using different units with different paint schemes to get rolling.

I had a roommate specifically paint up what he called his "Crusade Army" for a grand tournament, where he painted each squad based on a chapter with that specialty (blood angels were assault, red scorpions for one of the vehicles, iron fists were a bike squad, etc) ... and people thought he had just thrown together a bunch of different armies.  I think he still took the prize for point totals that year, as he had payed attention to the army composition points, though.   (oh, and like you said -- he was using normal space marine rules, not one of the special chapter lists)


text:
Is there a way to approximate Hold'em blind increases to time a game?
At a poker night I organise with friends, we're currently ratifying a set of rules.
For the blind structure, at the moment, we start with blinds of 5/10 and increase the blinds every 15 minutes.
If we want a game to last for say, 2 hours (obviously, loose or aggressive play can influence this) is there a blind increase structure or schedule that can make a game last roughly 2 hours?
The number of players varies for each game, anywhere between 4 and 8.

How many players?  The number of players is important.

A varying number of players, anywhere between 4 and 8.

Found a web site that you can enter in the following parameters and it'll create a blind structure for you:
Number of players:
Tournament length (hours):
Smallest chip denomination:
Starting chips:
Round length (minutes):

http://pokersoup.com/tool/blindStructureCalculator

One way to help this is to think about it backwards, so you have 8 periods of blinds (15 minutes x 4 x 2 hours) and let's assume 8 players, 100 chips each.  So, ideally, you want one player eliminated each period.  What's a high-enough blind to encourage play?  Try 10-1 or 20-1.  With 10-1, the last period will have 2 players, each with 400 chips, so that's a big blind of 40.  The second to last, has 3 players with ~260 chips each, that's a big blind of 26.
10 11 12 16 20 26 40 is therefore the mathematical progression (which we'd tweak to 5, 10, 12, 16, 20, 30, 40 for poker sanity and ease).  This is quite aggressive, so feel free to tweak the ratio.  Still, it should give you a method for determining good numbers.


text:
What's a good way to shuffle small decks of cards?
In the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, there are a lot of small deck of cards to shuffle: 1 to 6 15-cards character decks and 3 to 8 10-card location decks, depending on the number of players. Due to the way these decks are prepared or reset, cards usually end up in clumps of the same type.
With such a small deck, it's hard to riffle shuffle the cards and overhand shuffles don't separate the clumps too well. What's a good way to shuffle my cards?

So the deck just has a small number of cards rather than cards which are small?

@JonathanHobbs: Yes. The cards are of normal size; exactly the same size as a Magic the Gathering card. It's the deck size that's problematic

Do you trust the person doing the shuffle? A lot of methods for shuffling small decks have the issue of being too controllable -- with a bit of skill and math, you can predict or even choose where each card ends up if you do them just right.

@IlmariKaronen: PACG is purely cooperative, so in this particular case, being perfectly random isn't absolutely necessary

@Ilmari Karonen - You are right that with a very small number of cards, its trivial to control the order.  However in a competitive environment, its important to remember that almost any method of shuffling with any number of cards is controllable.  In fact, most of the common in-the-hands or on-the-table methods of shuffling can be done entirely false without altering the order at all.

@dbyrne But in a cooperative game with friends (or even a competitive game with real, non-cheating friends), you're not trying to protect against people pretending to shuffle. You're just trying to avoid shuffling methods that don't work even when done properly.

The pile shuffle recommended by Jonathan Hobbs works OK, although I'd strongly recommend randomly varying the order in which you deal out the cards to make it more random.
The main issue with it is that the randomness comes almost entirely from the shuffler's choices, rather than from uncontrollable physical randomness as in a riffle or mash shuffle (not that those can't be done "perfectly" too, but it takes a lot more skill).
A variant that you can do in your hand is the Mongean shuffle, where you hold the source deck in one hand and pick cards from it alternately to the top and bottom of the target deck held in the other hand.  With a bit of practice, you can do this really quickly and efficiently.
Like the pile shuffle, the Mongean shuffle doesn't actually introduce any randomness if you do it perfectly in consistent order.  However, you can break up the order by sometimes dealing more than one card in a row to the same end of the deck; if you do this perfectly randomly (i.e. switching ends with 50% probability after each card), the Mongean shuffle actually becomes about as good as the theoretical random riffle shuffle.  Of course, again, the source of the randomness is under the shuffler's control, so a skilled shuffler could, in principle, use this to stack the deck.
A nice feature of both the pile and the Mongean shuffles is that, even if done non-randomly, they still serve to spread out clumps of cards; indeed, a "perfect" Mongean or pile shuffle breaks up clumps more efficiently than one would expect by random chance.  For some purposes, this may be sufficient.
Finally, if you want to shuffle a small number of cards really randomly, one of the most efficient methods may be the simplest: the wash shuffle, where you simply spread the cards on the table face down and push them around randomly before gathering them up again.  It's simple, it's crude, but it does the job.

A nice variant of the wash shuffle for board games: throw the cards in the box lid and shake around.

The wash shuffle works particularly well when the shuffle is followed by each player taking cards.  No need to reassemble into a deck first; just spread the cards out, move them around until well-mixed, and have players draw.  This is what we do with the destination cards in Trans America at the start of each round.

@Ilmari Karonen - Never heard of the mongean shuffle.  Thats a nice suggestion.  Disagree with the pile shuffle, but otherwise I agree with everything you said.

Thought about this some more...it seems to me the mongean shuffle will have a lot of the benefits that the faro shuffle has, without the drawbacks of the pile shuffle.  Faro shuffles are faster to execute, but harder to learn.  Thats the trade-off.

I am a card magician and a programmer who has written deck shuffling simulation software.  This gives me a unique (but by no means authoritative) perspective on this question.
Overhand and Hindu Shuffles
The overhand shuffle really should be adequate for anything less than 10 cards.  If this method doesn't feel comfortable in your hands or if you don't feel the cards are being mixed enough, try out the hindu shuffle.  Most people naturally gravitate to one or the other.
Wash Shuffle
@Ilmari Karonen pointed out that the wash shuffle is great for small numbers of cards, and I agree with him.  The main drawbacks are that it requires a lot of table space, and it can be difficult to gather the cards if you are working on a hard, smooth surface.
Table Riffle Shuffle
For more than 10 cards, a table riffle shuffle really is the best technique for two reasons:

Its the most effective way to mix the cards, bar none.  In my opinion, even the wash shuffle is inferior to a handful of good riffle shuffles.
It puts minimal wear on the cards when shuffled from the corners without putting a lot of flex on the cards.  This is particularly important for board games, which have much more expensive replacements than normal playing cards.

Faro Shuffle
There is one other shuffle I occassionally use for board games, and thats an imperfect faro shuffle.  I wouldn't use this for a very small number of cards, but is possible for maybe 10 cards or more.  If you are worried about cards clumping during your overhand shuffles, sprinkling in a few faros will definitely solve that problem.  However the faro shuffle has three drawbacks:

It is difficult to learn
It can damage the edges and corners of the cards (particularly for beginners)
If you are good enough to do a series of "perfect" faros it isn't random

All of these drawbacks are mitigated if you use card sleeves.  Sleeved cards are much easier to faro, and do not get damaged.  It even solves the randomness problem because anyone good enough to do perfect faros will have mostly been practicing with unsleeved cards.
If you want to spend hundreds of hours practicing, you can learn the fancy one handed faro or tabled faro to impress your friends (not recommended).
Pile Shuffle
I personally would not use a pile shuffle.
It does not mix the cards as well as you would think.  Even if you haphazardly alternate the order, the cards will feel as though they are being randomized much more thoroughly than they actually are.  Its hard to go into more detail about why this is true without exposing some principles which magicians use in their tricks.
Related:

Shuffling (Wikipedia)

Roll a dice for small piles if it asks for a random card. Figure out a bottom to top or top to bottom numbering and stick to it. Hand/stack shuffle them and then roll. This still doesn't solve the issue of placing the villain if you're playing with only a couple locations, but doing a box lid shuffle or something like it can fix that.
I've found that doing this removes any certain knowledge when playing solo and also helps combat any control when playing coop. I've yet to run into any major conflict with the rules while doing this. The only concern I've had centers around when you told to take the top two or top three cards. But I'm rarely dealing with a back to back shuffle in which I have information and a need to take a specific number of cards off the top.
But it's still overall a useful tool in randomizing small decks when needed. Be creative.


text:
What are the official rules of Jenga?
Specifically, we are running into the following points of contention:

When a piece is removed, do you have to place it neatly on top to build a new complete layer, or can you build incomplete layers?
Are you allowed to remove and/or place tiles with both hands?

Welcome to StackExchange!

You must complete each layer before starting a new one (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga#Rules)
Only one hand at a time may be used to remove a block; both hands can be used, but only one hand may be on the tower at a time. (see the rules at BoardGameGeek.com)

The box of my version of Jenga has a picture of a player using two hands to pull a block, despite the game rules inside the box clearly saying that you can only use one hand!


text:
Are Magic: the Gathering Conspiracy cards colorless?
What is the color of the following Magic conspiracy cards:

Advantageous Proclamation
Backup Plan
Brago's Favor
Double Stroke
Immediate Action
Iterative Analysis
Muzzio's Preparations
Power Play
Secret Summoning
Secrets of Paradise
Sentinel Dispatch
Unexpected Potential
Worldknit

Conspiracy cards (cards with the Conspiracy type) are colorless. They are not permanents, they cannot be played in decks, they only exist in the command zone*, and they never interact with cards, abilities, or effects that care about color.
Rule 105.2 says

An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame. An object's color or colors may also be defined by a color indicator or a characteristic-defining ability.

and rule 202.2b says

Objects with no colored mana symbols in their mana costs are colorless.

Conspiracy cards do not have mana costs (in particular, no colored mana symbols), color indicators, or characteristic-defining abilities, so they do not have any color; they are colorless.

* This was clarified in the Magic 2015 update:

313.3. Conspiracy cards remain in the command zone throughout the game. They’re not permanents.
  They can’t be cast or included in a deck. If a conspiracy card would leave the command zone, it
  remains in the command zone.

I don't know about only existing in the Command Zone. You could open a Conspiracy pack with a Booster Tutor to put it into your hand, where it could interact with any number of cards that interact with the hand.

Booster Tutor is Unhinged, and like many cards in that set it does not work in the MTG rules. By that same argument, you could put a rules card in your hand, but we don't have rules about that either.

It seems very picky to say that you're considering Conspiracies, a card legal in a tiny sliver of Magic games, but won't also consider an Unhinged card, which is also legal in a tiny sliver of Magic games. Kind of a double standard. You're talking about two of the only "draft-only" sets in existence. It doesn't make sense to start drawing arbitrary lines.

@corsiKa The comprehensive rules include rules for conspiracy cards and Conspiracy Draft, so even if there are some funky rules quirks out there, Wizards clearly made an effort to make them fit into the rules framework. They've also made it pretty clear that Un- cards aren't really covered by the comp rules. That seems like a fairly good reason to make a distinction between Conspiracy and Unhinged.

@corsika Conspiracy cards work within the rules. Unhinged cards do not. What part of that line is arbitrary?

@corsiKa If you think Un cards have any place whatsoever in valid MTG play, I'd like to play against you with my R&D's Secret Lair/Ashnod's Coupon deck, preferably in an expensive bar.

I think that this answer is incorrect. Rule 105.2c: A colorless object has no color. So technically, Conspiracy cards are colorless.

Unless it says "all objects with no color are colorless", I don't think I need to change anything

Ok fine. Here is another one. 202.2b Objects with no colored mana symbols in their mana costs are colorless

When you are done with that one, explain this, this, and this. Those are the top three Google results for "What color are basic lands" without quotes.

202.2b seems like a pretty strong case for calling them colorless, so I have changed my answer.

@murgatroid99 For what it's worth, rule 105 itself also supports this, albeit not explicitly: "An object can be one or more of the five colors, or it can be no color at all." I think that, combined with the list below (monocolored, multicolored, colorless) at least implies that those are the only possibilities for any object.

None of the Conspiracy cards have any mana costs, color indicators, or characteristic-defining abilities relating to color.  Thus, they are all colorless.

I think you should reference rule 202.2b Objects with no colored mana symbols in their mana costs are colorless or rule 105.2c A colorless object has no color or both.


text:
Is Maze of Ith actually a common card?
Is the card Maze of Ith from "The Dark" series in fact a C1 common card as this checklist states?
I'm posing this question in this manner to avoid phrasing it "why the heck is it a $20 card if it's so common".

What checklist states that? When in doubt, always check the official Wizards Gatherer site. Maze of Ith is an Uncommon in The Dark, and a Rare in Masters Edition IV
And by the way, the price tag might have more to do with the fact that it's an old, not-common, and pretty good card.
Edit:
The comments and Wiki article on The Dark sheds some light on the matter:

Rarity breakdown
The Dark cards come in two rarities, common and uncommon. Of the uncommon cards 43 are U2, meaning that they appear twice on the uncommon print sheet. 35 cards are U1, these are usually dubbed the rares of the set. Of the 41 commons in The Dark 40 are C3. Maze of Ith is the only exception at C1 and is usually denoted as an uncommon although it is 50% more common than the U2 cards of the set. Also the common card Gaea's Touch comes in two versions, one has the mana symbols in the upper right corner of the card shifted more to the right than usual. For collector's purposes this means that one Gaea's Touch is a C1 (shifted mana symbols) and the other one C2 (normal).

Going by the checklist provided in the comments, The Dark has no rares designated as such, so all cards go up in rarity in proportion to fit today's C/U/R pattern.
As far as I can tell, all C3 remain Commons, C1 (Maze of Ith) and all U2 are Uncommons, and all U1 are Rares, by today's rating.

The checklist that states it is a C1 common came from http://www.wizards.com/magic/generic/cardlists/The_Dark_Checklist.txt

I agree it's a good, older card btw, it's the classification as a common that's befuddling.

@Stephen: It's simple really: it was part of the common print run, but appeared less often within that print run than other commons.  Hence, you'd get it in a common "slot" within your pack (along with 3 uncommons and a rare, or whatever it was in those days) just not very often compared to other commons.  Hopefully they have made their print runs a bit less haphazard since those wild and woolly days!


text:
Does "Going Infinite" necessarily end the game?
I've seen a variety of combinations that will allow a player to "go infinite"* in life, power, toughness or simply create an endless loop**.
In the case of the endless loop, I understand why it necessarily forces a draw.  The game states can only proceed to states that feed the loop.

104.4b If the game somehow enters a “loop” of mandatory actions, repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.

If a creature goes infinite in power or toughness, or a player goes infinite in life, does it necessarily signal a win/loss condition?
A particularly stubborn a player could require the now infinite player to only gain as much life/toughness/power as they are willing to physically perform the combo, but it would be poor sportsmanship, right?
* perform a combination where, at the end of the sequence, the combo may be performed again
** a particularly specific setup involving 3 oblivion rings

if you have infinite life and I activate my Door to nothingness you still lose the game.

@ColinD Only if the priority changed to you so that you could legally tap it.

your combo likely uses the stack, so I will get priority before your combo can resolve.

@Stephen, Life is useless. If you run out of draw you're dead.

related: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/24435/is-magic-the-gathering-a-consistent-game?noredirect=1&lq=1

The comprehensive rules on taking shortcuts in Magic, as per your request. (Sorry, long...)
If you refuse to take a shortcut out of an infinite loop when you have the opportunity, you are committing deliberate timewasting as Andrey's answer suggests; a definite no-no in a tournament, and hopefully in a friendly group as well!

Taking Shortcuts

715.1. When playing a game, players typically make use of mutually
  understood shortcuts rather than explicitly identifying each game
  choice (either taking an action or passing priority) a player makes.
715.1a The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As
  long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other
  player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable.
715.1b Occasionally the game gets into a state in which a set of
  actions could be repeated indefinitely (thus creating a "loop"). In
  that case, the shortcut rules can be used to determine how many times
  those actions are repeated without having to actually perform them,
  and how the loop is broken.
715.2. Taking a shortcut follows the following procedure.
715.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest
  a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices, for all players,
  that may be legally taken based on the current game state and the
  predictable results of the sequence of choices. This sequence may be a
  non-repetitive series of choices, a loop that repeats a specified
  number of times, multiple loops, or nested loops, and may even cross
  multiple turns. It can't include conditional actions, where the
  outcome of a game event determines the next action a player takes. The
  ending point of this sequence must be a place where a player has
  priority, though it need not be the player proposing the shortcut.
  Example: A player controls a creature enchanted by Presence of Gond,
  which grants the creature the ability "{T}: Put a 1/1 green Elf
  Warrior creature token onto the battlefield," and another player
  controls Intruder Alarm, which reads, in part, "Whenever a creature
  enters the battlefield, untap all creatures." When the player has
  priority, he may suggest "I'll create a million tokens," indicating
  the sequence of activating the creature's ability, all players passing
  priority, letting the creature's ability resolve and put a token onto
  the battlefield (which causes Intruder Alarm's ability to trigger),
  Intruder Alarm's controller putting that triggered ability on the
  stack, all players passing priority, Intruder Alarm's triggered
  ability resolving, all players passing priority until the player
  proposing the shortcut has priority, and repeating that sequence
  999,999 more times, ending just after the last token-creating ability
  resolves.
715.2b Each other player, in turn order starting after the player who
  suggested the shortcut, may either accept the proposed sequence, or
  shorten it by naming a place where he or she will make a game choice
  that's different than what's been proposed. (The player doesn't need
  to specify at this time what the new choice will be.) This place
  becomes the new ending point of the proposed sequence. Example: The
  active player draws a card during her draw step, then says, "Go." The
  nonactive player is holding Into the Fray (an instant that says
  "Target creature attacks this turn if able") and says, "I'd like to
  cast a spell during your beginning of combat step." The current
  proposed shortcut is that all players pass priority at all
  opportunities during the turn until the nonactive player has priority
  during the beginning of combat step.
715.2c Once the last player has either accepted or shortened the
  shortcut proposal, the shortcut is taken. The game advances to the
  last proposed ending point, with all game choices contained in the
  shortcut proposal having been taken. If the shortcut was shortened
  from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make
  a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that
  player.
715.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player
  involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in
  the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the
  active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop,
  the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a
  different game choice so the loop does not continue. Example: In a
  two-player game, the active player controls a creature with the
  ability "{0}: [This creature] gains flying," the nonactive player
  controls a permanent with the ability "{0}: Target creature loses
  flying," and nothing in the game cares how many times an ability has
  been activated. Say the active player activates his creature's
  ability, it resolves, then the nonactive player activates her
  permanent's ability targeting that creature, and it resolves. This
  returns the game to a game state it was at before. The active player
  must make a different game choice (in other words, anything other than
  activating that creature's ability again). The creature doesn't have
  flying. Note that the nonactive player could have prevented the
  fragmented loop simply by not activating her permanent's ability, in
  which case the creature would have had flying. The nonactive player
  always has the final choice and is therefore able to determine whether
  the creature has flying.
715.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw.
  (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)
715.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a
  loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.
  Example: A player controls Seal of Cleansing, an enchantment that
  reads, "Sacrifice Seal of Cleansing: Destroy target artifact or
  enchantment." A mandatory loop that involves an artifact begins. The
  player is not forced to sacrifice Seal of Cleansing to destroy the
  artifact and end the loop.
715.6. If a loop contains an effect that says "[A] unless [B]," where
  [A] and [B] are each actions, no player can be forced to perform [B]
  to break the loop. If no player chooses to perform [B], the loop will
  continue as though [A] were mandatory.

I see the relevant part in 715.1a 'a loop that repeats a specified number of times'

@thesunneversets, Wow, is there a "dummy's version" of the explanation?

Very relevant is 715.2c "If the shortcut was shortened from the original proposal, the player who now has priority must make a different game choice than what was originally proposed for that player." - You can't slow down an infinite combo by interrupting it and doing what was proposed

@Pacerier: 715.1: Most of the time, just play like a normal person and don't worry about the rest of this rule, unless something weird happens and you need to figure out what to do about it. .2 a: If you have priority, you can "propose a shortcut" by describing a (finite) sequence of legal actions, which can include actions by other players, or even span multiple turns. b: If someone proposes a shortcut and you don't agree to it, you have to say when you will deviate from it (but not what you will do). c: Then the game advances to the end of the shortcut. (1/2)

.3: If a loop happens, and the active player (or next applicable person in the turn order) can break the loop, they must do so. .4: If you cannot break the loop, the game is a draw. .5: If you can only avoid the loop by using an ability, spell, etc. which is not involved in the loop, then you are not required to do so. .6: If an effect is phrased as "[A] unless [B]," and [B] could break the loop, doing [B] is optional. (2/2)

The game does not end. You cannot do something infinitely.
While you do not have to do every step of a combo you do have to announce how many times you do it.  This number must be finite but can be as large as you want.  After that the game continues normally.
A player cannot try to achieve a tie by saying "i am still doing my infinite combo" until the time runs out.
That is delay of game as much as just not ending your turn for not reason.
What this also means that if someone gained infinite life via combo, they can be killed by an infinite damage combo.  The second person can always name a bigger number.

So, from your answer, there is in fact there is no "going infinite" at all.  Can you point to any of the official rules that would support this, since there are a couple of guys in our play circle who will argue about this.

As you have said in your question the only way to go infinite, is if you have an infinite required trigger.  If no one beats me to it, i will find the reference tonight

715.4 says something along those lines, Andrey: "If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw."

You could "get stuck" in a loop which you can not break. This will, if there is no way you can end the loop, result in a draw.
I remember that from the old Worldgorger Dragon/Animate Dead days.

Why the down vote?

probably because at the time this answer was added, it did not add anything that was not already contained in another answer.

@ColinD No other answer mentions the possibility of a draw? Hmm, ok, I searched now and found it in the rules in the top answer: "715.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)". But it wasn't all that obvious.

personally I don't find anything wrong with your answer. I gave it an upvote because it was clear and to the point.

One condition where going infinite in life would not signal a game ending is EDH, since there are other winning conditions.
For example, even though you now have infinite life, if you take more than 20 damage from my general you still lose.
Another condition that I believe be applied in a general game is to poison counters, since they form an alternate victory condition.

You can have infinite life and still lose from trying to draw a card from your empty library.  That's probably the main one.

If you put that into an answer with the appropriate rule reference I'd upvote it.

@thesunneversets You can't have infinite life. Either the loop contains mandatory actions that no one is willing to break (in which case you have a draw), or you do the loop a finite number of times and then break it. There's no possible circumstance where someone has infinite life.

They did in fact change the rules recently where you used to have to name a finite number of times a particular combo goes. Now you can actually name infinity as the amount of times you do a combo as well. The co,bo will then happen “infinite” times. This does not end the game because of the shortcut rule. The game will only end because of an infinite loop if the infinite loop is required to be performed by the cards in the loop such as 3 oblivion rings with an empty battlefield. Otherwise infinite loops do not end the game. (Unless of course the infinite loop wins you the game)

This is entirely inaccurate. That part of the shortcut rules has not changed significantly in a long time, and "infinity" is still not a legal choice of number of iterations when performing a loop.


text:
When a general goes to the graveyard in EDH, does his casting counter reset in the command zone?

11) While a Commander is in the command zone, it may be cast. As an additional cost to cast a Commander from the command zone, its owner must pay {2} for each time it was previously cast from the command zone. (ie: it costs 6WW to cast for the third time.)

In a game last night someone tried to allow their commander to go to the graveyard as a method of resetting the casting penalty from the command zone.  While I agreed that the general could be brought back from the graveyard through normal means and cast without the penalty, I disagreed that allowing the general to go to the graveyard reset the counter in the command zone.
His argument was that it's in the graveyard, counters on a creature go away.  I argued the counter is not on the general at all, but rather is part of the state of the game/command zone.
Who was correct?

You were correct in the assumption that the tracking of casting cost is not a counter, but a separate attribute of the game.
The official EDH rules state:

While a Commander is in the command zone, it may be cast. As an additional cost to cast a Commander from the command zone, its owner must pay {2} for each time it was previously cast from the command zone. (ie: it costs 6WW to cast for the third time.)

The Magic comprehensive rules state:

903.10. A player may cast a commander he or she owns from the command zone. Doing so costs that player an additional {2} for each previous time he or she cast that commander from the command zone that game.

Neither of these refer to "counters" at all - it's a static "every time you play this again, it costs {2} more."

It's important to note that being a commander is an attribute of the physical card (903.3). It is not related to the object that card represents (the creature/planewalker). An object changing zone becomes a new object (400.7) and usually looses all of it's previous attributes. But this doesn't apply to attributes of the card. The card is and remains the Commander no matter what zones it gets shuffled through. This is the same reason why copies of a commander do not deal commander damage. Those copies are not represented by a commander designated card.

...and why a commander that becomes a copy of another creature (or morphs, or otherwise changes) still deals commander damage.


text:
What cards have good potential for a combo with Mayor of Avabruck // Howlpack Alpha?
In the Innistrad set, at least 1 of the double faced cards is a werewolf with the ability to upgrade other werewolves and wolves in play.  What other wolves have good potential to combine with the Mayor of Avabruck//Howlpack Alpha card?
I'm thinking primarily of Commander games, but if you think something fits a different format, please note that.

Why settle for two or three wolves when you can have seven or more of them instead?

If just having a ton of 3/3 wolves isn't enough for you - why not have them fall upon your opponent's creatures like, er, a pack of wolves?

With Howlpack Alpha, you get a free creature token every turn for zero mana. It's crying out for a Juniper Order Ranger.

That guy's going to get large. So now you're getting a lot of creatures with counters on them. Maybe they're still too small… And maybe you still don't have enough of them…

EDIT: Just a note on how insane Doubling Season is…

Howlpack Alpha + Doubling Season = two effectively 3/3 wolves every turn
add J.O. ranger = two effectively 5/5 wolves every turn, ranger grows +2/+2 each turn
add Plaguemaw Beast = Sac. a wolf to grow all other wolves and ranger +2/+2

Here are some ways of generating more wolf tokens to play a swarming strategy.

This kicker might be more appropriate to EDH/Commander games where mana is more plentiful, likewise Master of the Hunt is expensive but if mana is plentiful, it might be an option.

For true EDH play, here's your general for this deck:

Note that Master of the Hunt has errata on him so that the tokens he produces are Wolf tokens named Wolves of the Hunt; previously, since they had no specified creature type, their type was the same as their name and they wouldn't have gotten the Alpha's bonus!

These cards have Human and Wolf or Warewolf in their creature types, and would gain +1/+1 from the Mayor regardless of which face was up.

These (formerly human wolf) cards are (now, Sept 2011) werewolves and benefit when Howlpack Alpha is face up.

+1 for the cool factor of getting the bonus from either face of the Mayor/Alpha, even if it's not exactly the most powerful combo!

Options for the Green/Black player :)

Garruk Relentless doesn't technically ever require black mana to play, but he'd look pretty cool as a "champion" for the G/B Werewolf deck nonetheless...

I'd be surprised if the old black Werewolf cards weren't errata'd to be just of the Werewolf type, to be consistent with the back face of the double-faced Werewolves.

Pack's Disdain and Cover of Darkness would also fit very nicely into a thematic G/B werewolves deck...

This answer will no longer be entirely correct once these Oracle change come into effect later today. Lesser/Greater Werewolf is now a Werewolf, and Treacherous Werewolf is now a Wolf Werewolf Minion.

Metal wolf!  Not only does he get the boost from the Mayor/Alpha, he also boosts the Mayor/Alpha if you set his type to Werewolf.  It's a win/win partnership!
(I've noticed that Pat has requested that we amalgamate our answers into one decisive one, so my final answer is this guy plus the two other cards I've posted so far.  A pretty good start to creating a nasty pumped-up werewolf package.)

Another great card that should be included.  The collection of answers is strongly suggesting an interesting deck.

Brass Herald is another artifact "lord" that can give all Werewolves +1/+1... unfortunately this one is much less of a bargain at cc 6!  Door of Destinies might be worth a look, if you can accommodate the idea of wolves having destinies of course...

These cards if played in order shown will get you twice many wolves as you have land on top of the wolves from your howlpack alpha and however many wolves you have played after door of destinys comes into play they get pumped. I had 80 80/80 wolves after i used one howl of the night pack and one reverberate.

How does Door of Destinies get any charge counters here? You need to play a Wolf spell for it to get a charge counter, playing Howl of the Night Pack won't give you any charge counters.


text:
What is the correct creature type for Lesser and Greater Werewolf?
I noticed that the text of the Lesser/Greater Werewolf card reads Lycanthrope but the oracle text at Gatherer reads the type as Werewolf.
I think that the Gather errata (oracle) should be the observed interpretation, but how can I put this in a simple way that will be accepted by other players and is consistent with the established rules?
I see this as a relevant question, as this card could be teamed with Mayor of Avabruck//Howlpack Alpha and gain the +1/+1 no matter which side was facing.

The creature sub type "Lycanthrope" has been removed from the game; "Werewolf" is correct as per Oracle reference.
Oracle is always the final authority on all questions about a specific card:

108.1. Use the Oracle_(TM) card reference when determining a card's wording. A card's Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at http://gatherer.wizards.com.

A rule specifically tackling your question:

205.3f Many cards were printed with subtypes that are now obsolete. Many cards have retroactively received subtypes. Use the Oracle card reference to determine what a card's subtypes are. (See rule 108.1.)

I don't see any way to convince other players of that fact if they choose not to believe you, except by showing them the Oracle reference. Note also that in the Comprehensive Rules, section 205.3m, there is a list of all currently legal creature subtypes, and it does not list Lycanthrope.
For reprinted cards with that issue, you could take 1 of the reprinted cards as a sample and prove it that way.

The reference to 204.3k is helpful, let's see if anything more conclusive comes up.

The Oracle wording is considered to be the official way the cards work according to Wizards of the Coast.
Sure, there's nothing stopping your casual group playing using the original card text.  But if you want to "become good at Magic" and maybe attend some sanctioned tournaments some day, then having a clear idea of how the cards will actually work in such an environment should certainly be to your advantage.
If your play group is avowedly casual, and intends always to be so, then it's fine to have a house rule to "play the card as printed".  But you should warn new arrivals to the group early on, to avoid possible confusion!  And even then the really obsessive-compulsive rules lawyer types may not be happy with such a free-and-easy approach...

The change to "Werewolf" took place on Thursday, September 22nd, 2011.

It was noted http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4785/is-lycanthrope-or-human-wolf-the-correct-creature-type-for-lesser-and-greater/4790#4790