text:
What are the chances of shooting the moon in Hearts?
In Hearts, we just want to avoid getting any heart card or the Queen of Spades. But if we can get all 14 cards, we shoot the moon and everybody else gets 26 points.
So, given a fair shuffle, what's the chance that we can actually get a shot to the moon?
There must be some probability, because if in a draw, we get 1 Ace of Clubs, and the hearts from 3 through Ace, we know there is no possible configuration where we'll ever NOT shoot the moon.
Whereas, if we get ALL the diamonds, we are doomed to "lose" every hand, because all our cards will always be different in suit from the first card. There is no possible configuration where we can shoot the moon.
If nobody can give me a number, what about a process of getting to this number? I imagine it has something to do with expected values, but I'm not very sure. But, it is an interesting question. I've managed to play a "perfect" game where I never took a single point, and some games where I've shot the moon once or twice, but never a game where I shot the moon 4 times in a row to win. Is this poor strategy, or a fault of bad luck?

Much depends, in real lfe, on the skill and strategy of the other players; are you assuming that they attempt to minimise your chance of shooting the moon, or to minimise their score? Also, limited information plays havoc with precise probabilities.

I played Microsoft Hearts obsessively at one point until I managed to shoot the moon four times consecutively for the supposed "perfect score" of 104-0-0-0, and then gave it up forever.  I can't remember why I felt the need to do such a thing, and it did take quite a while!

I guess, we should assume, for simplicity's sake, that everybody has perfect information and plays a perfect game -- everybody knows everybody else's cards and is working to either minimize their score OR shoot the moon. @thesunneversets, that's quite impressive!

@markovchain with perfect information it then becomes a game of brinkmanship, I'm not going to take a heart when I could wait for you to take one. Players would rapidly discard cards which would allow them to prevent a shoot-the-moon in order to force their opponents to take hearts to avert it.

Yes, but eventually someone will have to take the hearts. With both perfect information and a perfect game, wouldnt we be able to know if a shot to the moon is possible or not, given only the initial hands, even if nobody has played a single card yet?

Computing the chance of getting a hand where shooting the moon is guaranteed is a fairly difficult problem.  Computing the chance of getting a hand where shooting the moon will happen?  This requires a massive quantity of assumptions about player behavior and pretty early on hits computational intractability, beaten only by the rate at which your assumptions make the result irrelevant.  It's an interesting question but is unfortunately not answerable.

@thesunneversets six out of my 1092 games against the computer have been perfect, while (obviously) none of my 1618 games against online opponents have been perfect.
As for the original question, I shoot the moon 5% of the time (1019/20360 hands), online compared to 19% (2617/13711) vs computer. I wish it kept stats for my opponents shooting the moon. I suspect it's much lower because I compulsively keep Ace of hearts and take other countermeasures.

It's certainly possible to calculate which hands can Shoot the Moon with 100% probability, but it's not going to be easy.
There are 635,013,559,600 different starting hands of 13 cards from a 52 card deck.
We know that if we are dealt all 13 cards of one suit, there's 4 hands out of  635,013,559,600 that will shoot the moon ;)
If we have 12 cards of one suit and one ace in another suit, there are 13 different ways to get 12 cards of one suit, times 3 different other ace cards in other suits, times 4 different suits so: 13*3*4 = 156 winning hands.
Of course if we have an ace and king of the other suit and the rest one suit, it's also a winning hand — wait it has to be an Ace-King in the long suit too because we can't risk an opponent having a king plus another card in our long suit.
Well, this is getting difficult soon. Thankfully, Bridge players have already figured this out for us. :) They have a concept called the Losing-Trick Count, a method of hand evaluation for counting the number of losing tricks held by a partnership. To "shoot the moon" we need a Losing-Trick Count of Zero.
According to this table I found on Wikipedia, there are 4,245,032 hands with a losing trick count of zero. As a check I summed up the number of hands in that table and it equals 635,013,559,600 exactly. Whew! Sounds right!
Therefore, your probability of Shooting the Moon with 100% accuracy is at a bare minimum .000668% percent.
HOWEVER… Trick points are scored differently in Hearts as compared to Bridge. You can lose tricks but still take all the hearts and the queen of spades. So Ace-King of Spades + AKQJT98 of Hearts plus 6 other losers is a winning hand. I expect about half of the 90,206,044 hands with a LTC of 1 are shoot the moon winners since if the losing trick is a club or diamond, at that point it doesn't matter. (Presuming the winning tricks have forced the Queen and hearts. Things get murky.)
So, I expect the number of perfect shoot the moon hands is significantly more than the .000668% percent of Bridge hands that are perfect. You can add at least .0071%, and then a bit more as you start chipping away at those losing tricks that no longer matter.
My brain is starting to hurt now.
I think I'll go lie down and hopefully this gives you an idea of how to start to get the answer. It's important to realize that the reason shooting the moon isn't as rare as you'd expect is because even a marginal hand has a decent chance of shooting the moon, for your opponents don't have perfect knowledge. If an opponent has a king-queen in one suit and a king-10 in the other, which king do they keep to stop your attempt?
And of course, at first most opponents don't expect players to go for the moon, and are trying to get rid of trick taking cards when they can. That's what makes Hearts so interesting in my view, the psychology of being wary of those greedy moon targetters. ;)

I don't know if this is the right answer, but it's an automatic +1 just for effort...

Sadly, it's more complicated than it appears. 13 clubs is a successful (inevitable) moonshot, but 13 of anything else is automatic failure (admittedly you score no points unless someone else shoots the moon). Even your example hand could fail: ace of clubs, ace of diamonds on which somebody discards a small heart, and a heart lead will mean you score all but one point.  My own opinion, more empirically based than provable, is that the number of hands on which you can guarantee to shoot the moon is vanishingly small, but the number on which you can bluff or squeeze a result is quite large.

@TimLymington Gah, you are correct, I forgot to account for the fact that in Hearts, the 2 of clubs is always led first. In short, any guaranteed inevitable moonshot hand requires the Ace of Clubs. Your empirical opinion matches my experience. :)

Further research (and a cup of coffee) reveals that the Losing Trick Count only deals with AKQ. Reasonable in Bridge terms, but a suit AKQxx (LTC 0) is not certain to take all the tricks in Hearts; somebody with Jxxx will take the fourth round.  This question (with OP's conditions) seems unanswerable, since there is no way but inspection to discover whether a particular hand fulfils the criteria (or that's what my cup of coffee says, anyway.) If you removed some of the specifics, such as Microsoft's rule that nobody can play a point card on the first trick, might Maths.SE be interested?

@TimLymington, that's true, and perhaps maths.se might make more sense. Though I think, by symmetry, lots of hands can be eliminated. If we grant that we need an ace of clubs under perfect information and perfect strategy to shoot the moon, all hands without an ace of clubs can be eliminated. I'll think about it some more, on what the requirements of a full proof shoot the moon hand is.

Your opponents play a key part in a lot of "shoot the moon" scenarios.  Canny opponents will pass you A2H, which will almost certainly cause you to win a lot of hearts and lose at least one hearts trick.  Furthermore, many players will hold off on getting rid of their big hearts until two players have collected points.  Hearts is a game of damage minimisation though and sometimes it's better to let a losing player shoot the moon than to give them the points.

@markovchain I don't think we need the ace of club under perfect information lets say i have the other 3 aces and you have a singleton ace of club then you can lose the first trick and still shoot the moon without issue

Some general thoughts:
1) You have to have the Ace of clubs, to win the first trick.
After this:
2) You can win every other trick with some combination of winners in the other suits, i.e. the top 12 diamonds, the top 4 cards in every other suit, etc
Notice with enough length, you don't need to have only top cards...If you have the A,K,Q,J,10,9,X of Spades, X can be anything, because the previous high cards will pull out everything in that suit.
3)If you have AKQ of spades, and A,K,Q,J,10,9,X of hearts, you can just win with the hearts and the queen of spades, and lose all the rest (sluffing the AK of spades, even), as you will have all the points.

Actually, since there can be no points in the first trick, you don't need to win it. Nor do you need to win any trick up to the point where a heart could be discarded (or Black Maria is played).

In order to guarantee shooting the moon, you do.  If you lose the first trick, and someone else leads the 2 of spades the second trick, and you have no spades, that's the end.

Fair enough. But then your hand 3) won't work: you win the spades, and then are not allowed to lead a heart, so you have to let someone else win a trick, possibly garnering a heart and leading back a heart. If you want a guarantee, you have to be sure to win all 13 tricks: simpler mathematically but very unlikely.

Can often shoot with far less strength as other players are generally trying to avoid getting points.

@swbarnes2 If Bob has the Ac and 12 hearts, if Alice has the 2d, and if I have the Ah and 12 diamonds, then I am guaranteed to shoot the moon.

If the poster has the cards I describe, they can shoot the moon no matter what other people have.


text:
Are items shared when hiding alone?
If you hide alone in City of Horror, do items still get shared (to yourself) even though no vote takes place?

No. When hiding, you are not allowed to vote. Since there are no votes, the outcome is considered a tie, and in the case of a tie, no one gets anything. The items remain on the location.
In the FAQ (PDF):

Q: Can a hidden character (Little Girl or Little Boy’s power, or Hiding action card) take part in sharing anything?
  A: The character can’t vote, but can receive an item.

And on page 6 of the Rules (PDF):

Be careful: in case of a tie in the sharing vote, no players get anything. They remain on the location.

Thank you for this! That's what I figured, and in fact the exact argument I put up. +1

@JimHurley No problem. Welcome to the site!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I chose to bring a shockland untapped into play when I tutor it with an effect that brings a land tapped into play
One of my Flagstones of Trokair is dying and I search for an Godless Shrine. Does the Godless Shrine enters play untapped when I pay the 2 life?

It would come into play tapped as a ruling on the card says other abilities take precedence. If you look at the Gathering page for Godless Shrine you will find your answer.

If another effect (such as Loxodon Gatekeeper’s ability) tells you to put lands onto the battlefield tapped, it enters the battlefield tapped whether you pay 2 life or not.

Wow so you have the choice to pay 2 life if you want to?

@corsiKa Yes you do. It is rarely useful though.

Yes,  many a misclick made you take 2 damage for no reason back when Farseek and Shocks were in standard together

No.
If you read Godless Shrine's ability carefully, you'll notice that it doesn't say the card enters the battlefield untapped if you do pay; it says the card enters the battlefield tapped if you don't pay.
Godless Shrine only affects how the card comes into the battlefield when you don't pay; it doesn't affect how the card comes into the battlefield when you do pay.
Flagstones of Trokair causes Godless Shrine to come into play tapped, and Godless Shrine doesn't do anything about that (even if you do pay).

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


text:
How do you determine the winner of a Texas Hold'em poker hand?
In Texas Hold'em poker, there are some cases where a particular card, often called kicker, acts as a tiebreaker between players to determine who wins the pot, or if the pot has to be shared.
For some combinations such as three or four of a kind, there is no doubt: the kicker is the 5th card of the chosen combination, and determines the winner.
Example

Alice has 7 and 10
  Bob has 7 and K
  On the board are 7, 7, 2, 3, 4

In that case, both have a three of a kind. But because Bob has a king and Alice only a 10, he wins.
Most of poker websites explaining the rules clearly mention the role of the kicker applying to three of a kind and double pairs. But much fewer say something about colors, straights and full houses, and I found many contradicting answers. I also asked the question to some used online poker players and they also gave me contradicting answers.
I have tried to search for official tournament rules, but most of them only explain what happens with bad behaviors, bad deals, incorrect or confusing betting, showing cards when you shouldn't, acting when it's not your turn, etc. without mentioning subtleties about combinations at all.
To simplify my question, I will take three examples; I think it's better to start with examples before getting to the general answer if one exists. So, what's happening in the following 3 examples? Could you give a more generalized answer?
Example 1 - Flushes

Alice has 2♣ and 3♣
  Bob has 4♣ and 5♣
  On the board are 6♣, 8♣, 10♣, 2♥, 5♦

Contradicting answer 1: it's a tie, because the highest card included in the flush is the 10, which everybody chooses to include in their 5 showdown cards.
Contradicting answer 2: Bob wins, because he has the greatest private card that is part of the flush
Example 2 - Straight

Alice has 6 and K
  Bob has 6 and J
  On the board are 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

Contradicting answer 1: it's a tie, because the greatest card in the straight is the 8 for both Alice and Bob
Contradicting answer 2: Alice wins, because she owns an extra king, compared to the jack of Bob
Example 3 - Full house

Alice has 3 and 7
  Bob has 3 and 6
  On the board are 3, 3, 2, 2, 5

Contradicting answer 1: it's a tie, because one is supposed to choose only five cards to make a combination, and a full house is already five cards. There couldn't be any kicker, and thus their showdowns are strictly equals.
Contradicting answer 2: Alice wins because of her extra 7, compared to the 6 of Bob
Thank you very much for your answers.
Note: I'm unable to post next to you, so I edit my own post; strange not be able to answer to an answer.
Ok, So if I summarize what you are saying :

In the flush case, Bob wins because at some point, their hand differs. Technically, I can continue comparing the highest private card to decide who wins. I had it correct.
In the straight case, if the highest card of the straight is public, then it's technically always a tie, no matter what the players had as second private card (asuming that only one of the two cards was part of the straight).
In a full house if both players have the same triplet and the same pair, it's always a tie, no matter what the players had as second private card (assuming again that only one of the two was part of the full house).

Please confirm me that what I summarized is correct.
Thank you for your answer.

The hand with cards of a same suit is called a flush. The original questions referred to matching colors; this is misleading because matching only colors (as opposed to suits) is not a valid hand in any standard poker game.

Every hand is exactly 5 cards.   The most common mistake is not using exactly 5 cards.

For reference - in some languages the word for 'suit' is the word that usually translates into English as 'color'.  This is an occasional source of confusion.

Upvote, for the linguisity, but ... seriously? Are there two "families" of cards, or four? There is money at stake,, and I find it hard to believe that such languages would still use ambiguous terminology

The first thing to mention is definitely that there are no extra cards. Poker hands are evaluated with exactly five cards. Sometimes you use all five community cards as your best hand, in which case your pocket is useless (bluffing aside, of course). So strike that right away: if you can't beat your opponent with five cards, you've lost (or tied).
This is true even if all players are using the community cards. In the extreme example, say a Royal Flush comes down in the community cards. Everyone gets a Royal Flush (in which case, obviously, you go all in hoping your opponent makes a mistake.) You're not forced to say "Well, I had an ace in my hand, so I break the tie between the two of us." No, no, and no, you all have the community cards, you tie, split the pot and move on to the next hand.
The next step is to evaluate the hands. It starts like this:

Does any single player have a straight flush? A straight flush is having both a straight and flush at the same time. A flush is all 5 cards being the same suit. A straight is having 5 consecutive cards, consecutive being defined with the order A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A. Ace is in the list twice, but you cannot overlap A. Thus, A, 2, 3, 4, 5 is a straight, 10, J, Q, K, A is a straight, but Q, K, A, 2, 3 is not. A Royal Flush (10, J, Q, K, A of the same suit) is sometimes considered a special straight flush, but in reality it's just the best straight flush.

If yes, that player is the winner.

Do multiple players have a straight flush?

If yes, the winner is the one with the highest card. (A-2-3-4-5 is the lowest straight, while 10-J-Q-K-A is the highest straight.)
If multiple people share the highest card (either in a different suit or because there is a straight flush in the community cards) they split the pot.

Does any single player have 4 of a kind?

If yes, that player is the winner.

Do multiple players have 4 of a kind?

If yes, the one with the highest 'set of 4' is the winner.
If multiple players have the highest set of 4 (which is not achievable with a standard poker deck, but is with a double deck or community cards), the one with the highest kicker (highest card not in the set of 4) is the winner.
If this card is the same, they split the pot.

Does any single player have a full house?

If yes, that player is the winner.

Do multiple players have full houses?

If yes, then keeping in mind that a full house is a 3-set and a 2-set, the player with the highest 3-set wins the pot.
If multiple players share the highest 3-set (which isn't possible without community cards like in hold 'em, or a double deck) then the player with the highest 2-set is the winner.
If the 2-set and 3-set is the same, those players split the pot.

Does any single player have a flush? A flush is defined as all 5 cards of the same suit.

If yes, that player is the winner.

Do multiple players have a flush?

If yes, the player with a flush with the highest unique card is the winner.
This hand is similar to 'high card' resolution, where each card is effectively a kicker.
Note that a flush requires the same suit, not just color. While the colors used on the suit are red and black, two each, there's nothing to that connection. A club is no more similar to a spade than it is to a heart - only suit matters. The colors are red and black for historical purposes and so the same deck can be played for other games where that might matter.

Does any single player have a straight? A straight is 5 consecutive cards that do not wrap around the Ace. See full explanation in the Straight Flush description.

If yes, that player wins the pot.

Do multiple players have straights?

If so, the player with the highest straight wins. (A-2-3-4-5 is the lowest straight, while 10-J-Q-K-A is the highest straight.)
If multiple players share the highest straight, they split the pot.

Does any single player have a 3 of a kind?

If yes, that player wins the pot.

Do multiple players have 3 of a kind?

If yes, the player with the highest 3-set wins the pot.
If multiple players have the highest 3-set, the player with the highest kicker wins the pot.
If multiple players tie for highest 3-set and highest kicker, the player with the highest "second kicker" wins the pot. (For example, A A A K Q beats A A A K J - here, A A A are the 3-set, K is the kicker, and Q and J are the second-kickers.)
If the players tie for the highest 3-set, highest kicker, and highest second kicker, the players split the pot.

Does any single player have 2-pair?

If yes, that player wins the pot.

Do multiple players have 2-pair?

If yes, the player with the highest pair wins the pot.
If multiple players tie for the highest pair, the player with the second highest pair wins the pot.
If multiple players tie for both pairs, the player with the highest kicker wins the pot.
If multiple players tie for both pairs and the kicker, the players split the pot.

Does any single player have a pair?

If yes, that player wins the pot.

Do multiple players have a pair?

If yes, the player with the highest pair win.
If multiple players have the highest pair, the player with the highest kicker wins.
Compare second and third kickers as expected to resolve conflicts, or split if all three kickers tie.

At this point, all cards are kickers, so compare the first, second, third, fourth, and if necessary, fifth highest cards in order until a winner is resolved, or split the pot if the hands are identical.

Note that when comparing two hands, all suits are equal in Poker - the ranking of suits from games such as Bridge and Five Hundred have no bearing on evaluating Poker hands. Bridge order is, however, used for certain "bring in" tie breakers, such as 7 card stud.

Nothing can be more accurate and complete answer. Thank you very much !

Where does this tell about five of a color, such as example 1 in the question?

You forgot flushes! 2. It's possible for multiple players to share the same 4-of-a-kind or 3-of-a-kind in single-deck games with shared cards, like Texas Hold'em.

@user8067: There is no hand composed of five of a color. However, this answer omits five of a suit, which is a flush, and ranks above a straight and below a full house.

@sitnaltax For sure, I thought I added the commnunity qualifier to that like I did to full house... looks like I omitted it. I wrote it pretty late :)

Added flushes (whoops) and clarified community 4-sets.

For pairs, highest pair wins; kickers only matter if players have the same pair.

@Chris absolutely right - fixed.

One special-case that should be evaluated before anything else in community-card poker. If the five community cards represent the best hand for each player at the table, all players still in split the pot regardless of their hole cards. A player can beat the community by having a hole card that betters the hand "on the table", such as an Ace of a flush suit.

@KeithS That is not true. The players split the pot in that case. You might have a house rule for that, but it's not part of tournament poker.

@corsiKa - That's exactly what I said. Maybe I could have said "all players who haven't folded split the pot", but yes, the players split the pot.

I'm confused then - why does that need to be evaluated first? Quite simply, each player evaluates their hand individually, and the first person (or people) to have one according to the algorithm above win the hand. I suppose you could optimize it by saying "can anyone beat the five card community hand?" and eliminating those that don't, but you still have to go through the entire process anyway, so I don't think you gain much by doing that. In essence, your comment adds more confusion than it solves.

The ties you describe in 2 cannot happen.   The board needs at least 3 of a suit to make a flush.  You cannot have 3 + 3 if the board is only 5 cards.

@Paparazzi It cannot happen in Texas Hold'em with a different suit (although it can happen in the same suit if all 5 community cards comprise the straight flush or with different ranks if for example the board is an open ender straight flush and hero has the high end and villain has the low end) but I felt for completion's sake I should leave it in there because there are many games where it can exist and if you'll notice, my answer doesn't even touch what game, just how to evaluate any poker hand.

The stated question is texas holdem.

@Paparazzi This answer is intended to be (and indeed is used as) a canonical answer. It is used to answer any question that uses the standard poker resolution.

I've done a bit of reformatting to help improve clarity. Feel free to make further changes or undo it entirely if you don't like it.

Sorry to dredge this up, but I just want to confirm that with a straight flush A2345 loses to any other straight flush, as you say the hand with the highest card wins, and ace is the highest card.

That is correct - the Ace, in a wheel (A2345) is the lowest card. That was expanded upon in the Straight section, I've copied the relevant material to the Straight Flush section.

As a comment on straight flushes - In games where there are wild cards (or more rarely for poker multiple decks), a royal flush is distinct from other straight flushes - 5 of a kind beats straight flush, royal flush beats 5 of a kind.

@Andrew That might possibly be, however I would not be surprised if such a card also actually skews the odds out of order for the traditional hand sets. I would not expect anything other than friends at a kitchen table to use wild card. I don't mean to dismiss that very important use-case, but such things will vary so wildly from house to house that it would be difficult to succinctly capture in my answer.

A reminder, as Alexander Woo had to the question, that in many non-English languages, "suit" = [their word for] "colour".  We should be careful to be clear, and assist people in understanding that it is different in English, but to the Spanish, "el corazón no es del mismo color que el diamante".

@Mycroft The site, and this answer, are in English. It uses terms that can be looked up in any glossary of poker terms. The answer is, to be frank, longer than an answer should be already.

@corsiKa: It is a great answer, and the answer's comment about colour vs suit is reasonable. Some of the comments to this answer, and to the question, and I have heard several times to conversations in this game and others, veer farther to "colour doesn't matter, only suit matters" [implication deleted].  I'm hoping only for some understanding from those people that it reads to non-native English speakers as "suit doesn't matter, only suit matters" and avoid that construction, in favour of "colour - red/black - is different from suit - clubs/spades; and only suit matters in poker."

Explanaition under 12 could be misunderstood - "If multiple players tie for highest 3-set and highest kicker, the player with the next highest kicker wins the pot." as written could mean if the three of a kind is in the community cards, one player has AQ, one has AJ and the third has KJ, the KJ wins it because he has the next highest kicker card after the tied aces.

@Andrew An odd interpretation, but I added a clarification.

First of all: in your examples 2 and 3, the 'extra cards' (Alice's king and Bob's jack in example 2, and Alice's 7 and Bob's 6 in example 3) effectively don't exist: for comparison purposes, you use precisely each player's best 5-card hand.  Those hands are 45678 in example 2 and 33322 in example 3; any additional cards in the player's hands are entirely moot.
Example 1, on the other hand, follows exactly the rules for kicker cards: Alice's flush is 2, 3, 6, 8, ten (of hearts), while Bob's is 4, 5, 6, 8, ten (of hearts).  Since Bob's cards are 'higher' than Alice's, Bob wins the hand.  More generically, what's used for flushes (and technically for straights) is lexicographic order : compare the highest cards (in the player's 5-card hands, remember!); if they're the same, compare the second-highest cards; and so on down to the end.  As soon as you find one card higher than the other, that player wins; if you never find any cards higher than the other, then it's a tie.  This is the idea that covers examples 2 and 3.  (Technically it covers example 1, too - it's just that that example falls into the tie case.)
The same concept works for the other classes of hands too, but you have to be careful about comparison order; for pairs, two pairs, and three of a kinds, compare the 'feature' cards first (this is where kickers come into play, when the feature cards are the same: ten, ten, king, three, two beats ten, ten, queen, jack, nine, but king, king, 4, 3, 2 would beat queen, queen, jack, ten, 9).  For full houses, always compare the three-of-a-kinds first (so a hand of 5, 5, 5, 4, 4 would still beat a hand of 3, 3, 3, King, King).

@corsica has given an excellent answer, which is extremely thorough, but isn't at the right level of abstraction (in my opinion).  Here is a different way of conceptualizing the rules for people looking for a more rule-based understanding of how the hand ranking system works.
Rules for poker hands
There are 6 rules, applied in the order they are listed.  While this list is specifically for Texas Hold'em, all but Rule #2 are used by most poker variants.
Rule #1: Anyone who has folded the hand is ineligible to win or split the pot.
It doesn't matter what someone's hand "would have been" had he/she stayed in.  If you fold, you lose.  If all but one player folds before the end of the hand, the remaining player wins without the hand being played to completion.  Because betting happens sequentially, it is not possible for all players to fold during a hand, so there will always be (at least one) winner.
Rule #2: You make the best 5 card hand you can of your cards and the community cards.  Cards that are not part of that hand are irrelevant.
In particular, if the best 5 card hand you can make is the community cards, you have no particular card advantage over other players and your best possible outcome is to split the pot.  This is the only rule that's specific to Texas Hold'em.  Variants of poker with just 5 cards do not need this rule.  Other variants of poker with more than five cards (like 7 card stud or Omaha) have a variation on this rule.
Rule #3: The player with the highest category of hand wins.
The categories are (from best to worst):

Five of a kind [only possible when playing with wilds]: all 5 cards of the same number (ex. 7-7-7-7-Joker)
Straight flush: all 5 cards are consecutive* and of the same suit** (ex. 5♠-6♠-7♠-8♠-9♠)
Four of a kind: four cards with the same number (ex. 5-5-5-5-3)
Full house: three cards with the same number as each other and the other two cards are the same number as each other (ex. Q-Q-Q-9-9)
Flush: all 5 cards are the same suit** (ex. Q♠-10♠-5♠-4♠-2♠)
Straight: all 5 cards are consecutive* (ex. 5-6-7-8-9)
Three of a kind: three cards with the same number as each other (ex. J-J-J-K-2)
Two pair: two cards with the same number as each other and two other cards with the same number as each other (ex. 10-10-5-5-K)
Pair: two cards with the same number as each other (ex. K-K-A-4-2)
Junk: none of the above (ex. K-10-6-5-3)

*Aces can count as low (effectively a 1) or high (effectively a 14) (ex A-2-3-4-5 or 10-J-Q-K-A) when determining consecutiveness for a straight or straight flush.
**Same suit means they are all ♣, ♠, ♥, or ♦.  Color is irrelevant.
Rule #4: If players have the same category of hand, the player with the highest unique participating card wins.  For hands with multiple groups of the same number (i.e. the full house), the larger group is more important.
For a straight, a flush, or a straight flush, all cards are participating.  For the other hands, it's the cards involved in the sets of the same number.  The order of cards from highest to lowest is A (14), K (13), Q (12), J (11), 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.   Exception: when an ace is used in a low straight (A-2-3-4-5), it is below a 2 in value (effectively a 1).  Example 1: Q♠-J♠-8♠-5♠-4♠ beats Q♠-J♠-6♠-5♠-4♠ because the 8 is higher than the 6.  Example 2: A-K-Q-J-10 beats K-Q-J-10-9 because A is higher than K.  Example 3: a 3-3-3-2-2 beats a 2-2-2-K-K because the triplet of a full house is more important than the pair.
Rule #5: If players are tied on category of hand and are also tied on all participating cards, the player with the highest unique non-participating card wins.
These cards are known colloquially as a kicker, second kicker, etc.  Hands that use all 5 cards (the straight, flush, full house, and straight-flush) don't have kickers.  A junk hand is all kickers, and a face-off between junk hands is simply a competition of highest card.  Example: 8-8-8-A-K beats 8-8-8-A-J on the second kicker (King beats Jack).
Rule #6: If the players are tied on category of hand and are also tied on the value of all cards, the hand is a draw between those players and all players tied for best hand split the pot.

The examples in the question
Example 1 - Flush

Alice has 2♣ and 3♣
Bob has 4♣ and 5♣
On the board are 6♣, 8♣, 10♣, 2♥, 5♦

Alice and Bob both have a flush of clubs.  Bob wins due to having a higher participating card (5 vs 3).  See rule #4.
Example 2 - Straight

Alice has 6 and K
Bob has 6 and J
On the board are 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

Alice and Bob both have a straight (4-5-6-7-8).  The hand is a tie because their participating cards are the same and there are no non-participating cards.  See rules #2 and #4.
Example 3 - Full house

Alice has 3 and 7
Bob has 3 and 6
On the board are 3, 3, 2, 2, 5

Alice and Bob both have a full house (3-3-3-2-2).  The hand is a tie because their participating cards are the same and there are no non-participating cards.  See rules #2 and #4.

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


text:
Are there abilities or effects that change the timing restriction of 'level up' abilities in M:tG?
Are there effects that change the timing restrictions of level up cards (e.g. Wizard Class)? As far as I can tell, the various effects that affect casting of sorcery spells do not affect level up abilities despite the reminder text stating "Gain the next level as a sorcery to add its ability."

There are lots of things which stop activated abilities of a permanent being activated - are they of interest here, or do you care only about things which let you activate the ability of the Class card at instant speed?

As an aside, the activated abilities of Class cards are not level up abilities, despite their wording. CR 702.87c: "Some enchantments have the subtype Class and associated abilities that give them a class level. These are not the same as level up abilities and class levels do not interact with level counters."

I'm mostly interested in if/how "sorcery speed" abilities might be activated at instant speed. @Ben P.'s answer is precisely what I was looking for.
thanks for the clarification - the lack of counters is a relevant point.

There are no such abilities or effects.
The relevant rules are:

717.2a “[Cost]: Level N — [Abilities]” means “[Cost]: This Class’s level becomes N. Activate this ability only if this Class is level N-1 and only as a sorcery” and “As long as this Class is level N or greater, it has [abilities].”

and

307.5. If a spell, ability, or effect states that a player can do something only “any time they could cast a sorcery” or “only as a sorcery,” it means only that the player must have priority, it must be during the main phase of their turn, and the stack must be empty. The player doesn’t need to have a sorcery card they could cast. Effects that would preclude that player from casting a sorcery spell don’t affect the player’s capability to perform that action (unless the action is actually casting a sorcery spell).

There are no existing cards that modify these fundamental rules.

While I believe this is correct, how did you determine there are no cards which modify these rules? There are for instance cards which modify the very similar rule 606.3 "A player may activate a loyalty ability of a permanent they control any time they have priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of their turn, but only if no player has previously activated a loyalty ability of that permanent that turn."

Class cards haven't existed for very long, so looking through AFR, MID, and VOW for anything that modifies their rules was pretty easy. Of course, this answer could change any time new cards are released.

Oh, maybe you're asking how I verified that nothing modified 307.5 (and not how I verified that nothing modified 717.2a). In that case: I didn't. I've just played magic for a long time and have never noticed such a card. Further, I see 307.5 as a sort of "fundamental" rule that is unlikely to be affected by cards (though obviously anything is possible).

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


text:
What is the proper way way to play Butcher of Malakir and Falkenrath Noble?
I am not sure if I correctly understand what order the phases would be when playing Butcher of Malakir and Falkenrath Noble.
Also the description causes confusion as it basically says "if creature OR another creature" dies. Is this singular or plural, for example does "Whenever Falkenrath Noble or another creature dies" apply to all creatures that might die during this turn or if 5 creatures die then the affect only takes place once for "another creature"?
Scenario 1:

It is a 3 player game.
One opponent attacks me with six 5/5 creatures. He has no other creatures on the battlefield.
I choose to block with six 1/1 creatures. So all my creatures will die.

Would all his creature would be sacrificed because of Butcher of Malakir, and he also loses 12 life at the end of his turn or as creatures are dying?
Scenario 2:

One opponent attacks me with six 1/1 creatures and has no other creatures on the battlefield.
I block with three 1/1 creatures.

Which of the following would happen:

My three 1/1 creatures and three of his 1/1 creatures die due to the equal power/toughness, and because 3 of my creatures died then his other 3 creatures are sacrificed before they have a chance to attack me.
My three 1/1 creatures and three of his 1/1 creature die, but his remaining 3 creatures deal damage to me before they have to be sacrificed?

Just a late comment on this matter but the "Whenever $creature or another creature ..." wording is a update of the wording "Whenever a creature...". Both do the same thing but the former is more explicit that the creature itself can trigger the effect.

Scenario 1
As the creatures are dying, more or less.

Butcher of Malakir's ability triggers 6 times. Falkenrath Noble's ability triggers 6 times.
You place the ability on the stack in the order you desire (since they're all yours): [Doesn't really matter]

Butcher of Malakir's ability is put on the stack 6 times.
Falkenrath Noble's ability is put on the stack 6 times targeting whoever.

Falkenrath Noble's ability #6 resolves:

The targeted player loses one life.
You gain one life.

Repeat step #3 for the other 5 instances.
Butcher of Malakir's ability #6 resolves:

The opponent sacrifice one of his 5/5s. Falkenrath Noble's ability triggers.

Falkenrath Noble's ability is placed on the stack targeting whoever.
Falkenrath Noble's ability resolves:

The targeted player loses one life.
You gain one life.

Repeat steps #5-#7 for the other 5 instances.

(If the other opponent has creatures too, there will be more triggers added in step #6.)
So before moving from the Combat Damage Step to the End of Combat Step,

One or more players lost a total 12 life (one at a time).
You gained 12 life (one at a time).
Each opponent sacrificed 6 creatures.

Scenario 2
It's #2 (you take damage) because all combat damage is dealt simultaneously[1].

Simultaneously,

Your three 1/1s deal one damage to each of his 1/1s.
Three of his 1/1s deal one damage to each of your 1/1s.
The other three of his 1/1s deal one damage each to you.

SBAs are performed simultaneously:

You lose the game if you have non-positive life.
Your 1/1s are destroyed. (Butcher of Malakir's ability triggers three times. Falkenrath Noble triggers three times.)
His three 1/1s with one damage marked are destroyed. (Falkenrath Noble's ability triggers three times.)

You put the nine triggered abilites on the stack in the order you desire.
...

Notes:

All combat damage dealt by the creatures participating in that Combat Damage Step is dealt simultaneously, to be specific. Creatures with First Strike and creatures without participate in different Combat Damage Steps.

If he had an Archangel of Thune on the board as well in scenario 1, assuming his third opponent had 6 creatures to sac as well, it and the butcher and the noble all gain, err, 18 +1/+1 counters. Oh boy.

Due to my cousin arguing with me, the above information applies even with tokens dying correct?

@Damainman, Yes. "Creature" refers to "creature cards or tokens on the battlefield", and token creatures do go to the graveyard (die) when destroyed, sacrificed, etc.

@Caleth Fixed. . . .

Your first scenario:
You are attacked by Aaron the attacker, and Oliver is a third player who is observing.

Your six creatures a dealt damage. They go to the Graveyard.
Six triggers go on the stack for your opponents to sac creatures. Six triggers go on the stack for you to gain 1 life and target player (not necessarily Aaron) to lose 1 life. You choose the order in which these go on the stack.
As the life triggers resolve, the target of them loses life and you gain life.
As the sac triggers resolve, both Aaron and Oliver have to sac a creature. For each creature they sacrifice, a trigger from Falkenrath Noble goes on the stack and resolves.

So if Oliver and Aaron both have six creatures, a total of 18 life will be gained by you, and 18 life lost by Oliver and Aaron (since each is a separate trigger, you can have 9 go to one and 9 go to the other, or all 18 to one and none to the other. You could even deal some to yourself if you wanted, but in this deck that's unlikely...)
Your second scenario:
The creatures still deal damage to you. All the damage happens at the same time, and it isn't until your blockers are dealt damage that they go to the graveyard and trigger the process.
In this case, you can expect you to lose your 3 (3 butcher triggers, 3 noble triggers) and Aaron to lose 3 (3 noble triggers). You also lose 3 life from the 3 that got through. When the butcher triggers resolve, Aaron and Oliver both sac 3 creatures, which makes 6 noble triggers (assuming Oliver had enough creatures). So you're looking at 12 noble triggers in total.


text:
What happens when destroying something that gives flash to a spell on the stack?
Say Player 1 has something like Shimmer Myr that reads:

You may cast artifact cards as though they had flash.

Then when that player tries to cast an artifact as an instant, Player 2 places something like Naturalize on the stack to destroy target artifact (the Shimmer Myr). What happens to the artifact being cast?  What about the mana used to cast it?

Player 2 can't really stop player 1 from casting an artifact as if it had flash, outside of destroying Shimmer Myr while player 1 is tapped out.
At any given time, one player has priority. If player 2 has priority first and casts Naturalize, player 1 can respond by casting an artifact. If player 1 has priority, they can cast an artifact. Once they do so, it's on the stack and it doesn't matter if player 2 casts Naturalize; the artifact has already been cast and will eventually resolve unless it's countered.
That is, Shimmer Myr's ability only matters while they're casting the artifact. (Same goes for flash.) You check whether you're allowed to cast a spell as part of casting it, not later, and timing restrictions are part of that.


text:
Can you play 99 relentless rats in commander?
Just a silly question, can you run 99 Relentless Rats in commander? Maybe that and Sphinx of the Chimes and some juicy commander that plays off creature types.

You may note that there are those who would argue that playing relentless rats in this way, is against the spirt of EDH.

I don't think it's a very effective strategy anyways. I've heard playing Iona is against the spirit of playing EDH :p. It would be more of a gag deck than anything else.

@MitchD It depends entirely who you play with, but I could see people not really liking it even as an ineffective gag deck - either you'll sit there and waste time in a predictable way, or (depending on what you're planning) you'll pull out your silly combo and end the game in an unfun way.

It was a silly question, I agree with you guys. I have a friend with a crap load of rats and yeah.

@Pow-Ian As I said over there, I think those people are wrong, because it makes a number of other fun cards that are normally useless in EDH actually playable. Sphinx of the Chimes and Bloodbond March and Doubling Chant, for instance. I think that's just as much "in the spirit of EDH" as this weird Mishra deck. And both are more "in the spirit of EDH" than stuff like Iona locks or Sharuum combos (even though I like those more, tbh).

@Pow-Ian Those who argue that are against the spirit of Relentless Rats.

touche..........

Also, good luck casting one if your deck is 99 rats :)

If you want to combo with relentless rats then the 5 mana artifact from coldsnap called thrumming stone is where you want to be

@Pow-Ian spirit of commander is whatever you and your playgroup wants to play. It is a casual format play whatever makes you happy. As long as you got buy-in from your playgroup you can do whatever.

Yes, you can, for the same reason you can in other formats.
The first Golden Rule:

101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).

They'd have to ban or restrict the card to limit its use, but it's legal in that format.

Sheldon (EDH Rules Committee) has answered this question directly.

The RC has discussed it and for the time being thinks that multiple Rats is OK. We reserve the right to change our minds down the road.

Although some rules differ from the official MtG rules (i.e. "outside the game" ,Living Wish, is handled differently than other casual formats), Relentless Rats' ability is covered in CR 112.6m. If Relentless Rats were banned in EDH, you couldn't use any copies, but since it isn't you may use any amount from 0-99 copies because [CR 112.6m] specifically allows you to ignore [CR 903.5b].

112.6m An ability that modifies the rules for deck construction functions before the game begins. Such an ability modifies not just the Comprehensive Rules, but also the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules and any other documents that set the deck construction rules for a specific Constructed format. However, such an ability can’t affect the format legality of a card, including whether it’s banned or restricted.

Also:

903.1. In the Commander variant, each deck is led by a legendary creature designated as that deck’s commander. The Commander variant was created and popularized by fans; an independent rules committee maintains additional resources at http://mtgcommander.net. The Commander variant uses all the normal rules for a Magic game, with the following additions.

903.5b Other than basic lands, each card in a Commander deck must have a different English name.

Props for finding that. mtgcommander.net forums are really, really annoying to search.

As a long term fan of Sheldon articles at SCG, I must say to that man I will play whatever I feel like in my casual decks. If my playgroup gets its jollies from having a bunch of degenerate  combo commanders racing to see who goes of first, who the hell is he to tell me we cannot do it? Having a banlist for a casual format has always been a bit tosh.

There's two answers to that question, depending on how you read it.

Can you put 99 cards named Relentless Rats into a commander deck.

Yes you can, Relentless rats is one of the 18 cards that you can have more than one copy of in your deck (the 11 different basic lands, Relentless Rats, Shadowborn Apostle, Rat Colony, Persistent Petitioners, Seven Dwarves, Dragon's Approach, Nazgûl). The rules specify you can have any number of copies of basic lands, and the cards themselves specify you can have any number (or specifically 7 for the dwarves, and 9 for the Nazgûl) of the other 6. The very first rule in magic, Rule 101.1, specifies that you follow the card's oracle text when it conflicts with the rules (after all most abilities add to or remove effects of other rules, like Haste removing the effect of summoning sickness).

Can you play a deck with 99 Relentless Rats.

Nope, the deck is legal, but with 99 Relentless Rats in it, that means you have nothing in the deck except Relentless Rats, there's no way to actually play the deck. If you want to build a deck like that, you probably want to top out at 70 Relentless Rats, if you play nothing but the rats and land.

"there's no way to actually play the deck" Of course there is. Not sure what definition of "play" includes "will have a realistic chance to win with". You still draw a card every turn, etc. There was even a time in MTGs history when a deck consisting of 1000 lands and nothing else was actually competitive!

@GendoIkari You can use the definition Magic uses for the word "play". None of the cards in the deck would be able to be played (unless by some chance an opponent uses something like show and tell, but analysis like this needs to be done in a vacuum) Since none of the components of the deck can be played by that definition, the deck as a whole could be said to be unplayable. A deck of nothing but land would be playable by that definition, you can still play the land, one per turn.

I think there's a clear distinction between asking "can you play a deck with Relentless Rats" and "is there a way to play a Relentless Rats if your deck is just 99 Relentless Rats"? Nothing in the OP suggests the later question.

Note that the "deck of all lands" that was "played' historically could have just as easily been a deck of all Relentless Rats for the exact same effect. Playing a land wasn't relevant to the strategy.

@GendoIkari Can uoi explain the 1000 land deck?

@Accumulation It’s talked about here. Quick summary is that a lot of people were running a Stroke of Genius combo that could force you to mill hundreds of cards; but not infinite cards. It had no other win condition; so it was self-defeated by any deck with a huge number of cards.

Yes, you can have as many of the relentless rats as you want. Whether your format generally allows one copy of a card or four does not change this. You playgroup may have a house rule that says differently. Generally house rules are worth following if you value your playgroup.
Now a next level question would be if relentless rats got restricted in the Vintage format how many copies could you play then?

You absolutely cannot have 99 Relentless Rats in Commander. It's madness. The card costs 3 mana. How are you even going to cast one the whole game with no lands? Commander is a 100 card deck no more no less.

There is no rule in Magic that your deck needs to be playable.  You absolutely can build a deck with nothing but a commander and relentless rats.  You'll just lose with it.

"Can" and "should" are two different questions.

@ArcanistLupus to be fair the question does use the word play, and depending on which definition of the word you use, a deck with no lands and no moxes is unplayable.


text:
How are excavation permits handled if the turn you dig in straddles a year-end?
In Thebes, you're an archaeologist digging up ancient ruins around the turn of the 20th century. When you show up at a dig site, and dig for some variable amount of time, you expend your excavation permit for that site. There are five sites to dig at, and your excavation permits are restored when you complete a game year.
The trouble is that the duration of a turn is variable in Thebes; you spend one week for every space you move, and up to 12 weeks digging. It's quite possible for one of your digs to straddle a year-end: you start before the year ends, and finish sometime in the new year.
Can you dig at a site if you have no permission, using the "refreshed" permit to dig? (And thus starting the year with a used permit for that site.)
If you have a permit before you dig, do you spend it before you dig and then have it again after you're done digging?
Finally, consider this odd case: you're in week 51. You spend three weeks moving to Mesopotamia (arriving in week 2 of the new year), and then start digging as part of the same move. Is this legal if you have no permit? (In theory, it would refresh in week 1, but the game doesn't break down your turn into components; it's "all one move.") If you had a permit, would you have a permit again once you were done digging?

I think the key phrase in the rulebook is this one:

At the end of his turn, the player pays any costs in weeks he has
  incurred by moving his time marker.

By this token, you wouldn't be able to dig without permission just because, after the weeks taken up by movement, you would be "into next year".  If you start your turn in one year, then everything counts as taking place in that year; excavation permits can only flip at the end of a player's turn.
If you have a permit, you can of course use it at the very end of one year, and then have it flip back up again at the end of the same turn...


text:
Activating Charnel Troll's ability during upkeep
In MTG Arena, I'm having some trouble with Charnel Troll. You are supposed to be able to activate it's ability to discard a creature in response to its triggered ability that makes you exile a creature from your graveyard. But MTG arena doesn't seem to be letting me do so. If I have a creature card in my graveyard it automatically makes me select one and I can't seem to find a way to activate its ability. If I don't have any creatures in my graveyard, Charnel Troll is immediately sacrificed and nobody ever seems to get priority to respond to the ability. What is going on here?

Just checking, when you experience this problem, do you have a creature card in your hand to discard?

@murgatroid99 Yes. Also can generate mana to activate the ability.

Have you set a stop on your upkeep, and do you have full control on? They're the general answer to "Arena isn't giving me priority", especially in cases where you're responding to one of your own abilities.

@PhilipKendall No I do not. Yeah, I guess that would be the answer. It seems like something you may reasonably want to respond to, but I guess that's not how arena decides what to do.

While it's not a completely hard and fast rule, Arena typically doesn't give you priority when responding to one of your own abilities. If you ever want to do that, it's full control time.

Sometimes the client predicts actions that you may be able to take.  Sometimes it does not.  This is one of those instances.
To guarantee that the client will operate properly in a case like this, you have two options.

Enter a stop. i.e. you click on the upkeep step, and force the client to let you take an action.
Enter "Hold Full Control" mode, (Default is by Left Shift+Ctrl).

I play tested both scenarios you described above, and putting in the stop or entering Hold Full Control mode allows one to play out the scenario you describe.  i.e. you can respond to the trigger, discard a creature card, get it into your graveyard, and then exile the card for the upkeep trigger.
One might reasonably assume that "full control" mode would work in this scenario.  My play testing indicates it does not.  You have to put in the stops to get the desired behavior.  The reason for this, is that "full control" mode turns off as you transition between turn phases (possibly even turn steps).  You can't turn on full control in time.  This is the point of stops.  To force the game to stop in a phase and to give you priority.


text:
What impact will Kickstarter have on how Designer Board Games are released?
There have been some notable releases through Kickstarter.

Eminent Domain - one of the earlier big successes.
Eaten By Zombies
D-Day Dice - most successful board game kickstarter to date.

How do you expect Kickstarter to effect the Designer Board Game ecosystem? Will Kickstarter flood the market with too many bad games from people trying to get rich. Will it kill the industry like Napster did to the music industry? Will it be more like Youtube, lowering the entry field for exciting new designers, like Youtube brought us many new entertainers.

This seems like an inherently speculative question, since it is asking people to predict the future, and therefore is not a good fit for this site.

I agree with @bwarner, but I think you could recast this as a question about analyzing how Kickstarter has affected games (review/assessment, not prognostication).

Many kickstarter games (at least on the RPG side) have either demo modules or playtest rules, which you can read BEFORE committing. I've seen a couple on the boardgame side as well, where the rules PDF was posted; the kickstarter was for a nice set.
I can see boardgames relying upon components to move stuff via kickstarter.
Given the typical mode for Kickstarter, you have to get people trusting that you (1) have a clue and (2) made at least a passable game, and then get them to promise money.
If you can't convince them, then you don't get your cash, and they don't get charged.
If you convince them, but they dislike the game and/or components, they can leave bad feedback... so after two or three tries, you're not going to get any but the most clueless.
So no, it's not going to bring a rash of get-rich-quick scammers. It's self-limiting.

I think one of the most important parts here is the corollary of your mention of kickstarter funding components: for everything except the components (design/prototype/test), you don't need much money. If you want to produce it, then you need the money - so reasonable consumers can require quite a lot in the proposal, and make informed decisions.

@Jefromi Yup. That's precisely what I was implying.

There is more to a games publishing company than just getting sales capital.  You need to source things, advertise/promote, support, etc.  Kickstarter is just one piece in a much larger puzzle of self-publishing.  Also, they take a very high percentage for the 'service' they provide.  Finally, Kickstarter does not guarantee that the promised service is provided.  Several people I know have already gotten burned by this.  I expect as it gets more popular, people will stop trusting the service as much.  In short, I see little difference in the industry as a whole with the advent of Kickstarter.  We should see just as many small design shops/self-publishers as before.

I think kickstarter only wants people to trust them to deliver the money to the provider after the conditions are met.  Beyond that, it is about trust (or not) the provider.


text:
After playing a Swap Your Hand card should the player draw in Saboteur 2?
When player A plays a Swap Your Hand card he or she changes his or her cards with somebody else (player B). Then player B draws a card. Should player A draw a card too?
The general rules say that

Play an action card... then draw 1 card.

, but in this case player A gets an extra card. On the other hand the rules of the Swap Your Hand card say

Discard the action card, then the other player gets to draw 1 card!

Does it mean that player A should not draw?

Player A should not draw.  The player the card was played on is the one who draws.
Another way to think about it:
Before the swap turn, Player A has X cards and Player B has Y cards.  Player A plays a swap on Player B.  Assuming the deck has cards in it, afterward Player A should have Y cards and Player B should have X cards.
Another way to think about it:
If both players have a full complement of 6 cards, and a swap is played, both players should end up with 6 cards when the dust settles.  Assuming there are cards left in the deck, of course.

It would be nice with some authoritative ruling on this. This interpretation might be the intention of the rules. But as I read the rules, they are completely logically compatible with both players drawing cards. The "Swap Your Hand" explanation just states that the other player gets to draw. It does not say that that player A does not draw. The earlier rules clearly state that players should draw a card at the end of their turn.


text:
What happens when The Paranormal Investigator discovers a Werewolf?
I played One Night Ultimate Werewolf last night and the following happened:

The Paranormal Investigator looked at a Werewolf card.
The Troublemaker swapped the Paranormal Investigator with the Insomniac.
At the end of the round a Werewolf was lynched.

There was some confusion as to who was on Team Werewolf and who was on Team Villager. The rules for the Paranormal Investigator say "if you look at a Werewolf or a Tanner you become a Werewolf or a Tanner". We weren't clear if "you" meant the player becomes a Werewolf or the Paranormal Investigator becomes a Werewolf.

Allegiance moves with the card, so it's always the person with the PI card who will be a Werewolf. This isn't really spelled out with the PI card, but it follows the same process as the Doppelganger from the base game of ONUW (the PI being from the Daybreak expansion).

If a player receives the Doppelganger card during the night, she is the role the Doppleganger originally viewed.


text:
Can Willbender be used when Dark Salvation is cast?
Can Willbender be used when Dark Salvation is cast?
I only ask as it mentions the word target twice.

Depends on how it was cast.
The spell asks you to select 1 target player and 0-1 target creatures:

Target player creates X 2/2 black Zombie creature tokens, then up to one target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn for each Zombie that player controls.

If you cast it without targeting a creature, then it has only one target and may be retargeted by Willbender. If you decide to use the creature-removal part of the spell, then it has two targets and is not a valid target for Willbender's ability.
Willbender's abilities does not add or subtract targets, so you cannot target a token-generating Dark Salvation to use it as removal (you can, however, steal the tokens).
Here's a bit of relevant comp rules that Michael Politowski pointed out in the comments (emphasis added):

114.8c An object that looks for a “[spell or ability] that targets only [something]” checks the number of different objects or players that became the target of that spell or ability when it was put on the stack (as modified by effects that changed those targets), not the number of those objects or players that are currently legal targets…

Thus, if you're playing EDH and your opponent has a morph in play, I very much suggest using Dark Salvation to its full effect so you don't get Willbender'd. Because the first rule of EDH is "It's Always a Willbender."

Obligatory Comprehensive Rules reference: 114.8a


text:
In The Crew, if I do not have a color, do I have to play a rocket?
The Crew – Quest for Planet Nine is a trick taking game where cards can be number of colors or rockets acting as trumps.
If in my hand, I do not have the requested color but I do have a rocket, do I have to play it or can I play anything from my hand ?
Going through the rules, it does not seem to tell that the rocket must be played but as this principle is in most trick taking games I know of, I'd like a confirmation.

Looking at the rules here it says (emphasis mine).

There are five card suits: pink, blue, green, yellow, and rocket
cards. Following suit means that each player must "follow" the suit
choice of the first player; i.e., you have to play a card of the same
type. Only if you do not have a card of this suit may you play a card
of a different suit.

and later is says (emphasis mine)

During a color-suited trick, a rocket may only be played if a card
in the color suit cannot be played.

Reading this sounds like it follows expected playing of trick taking is option.  If you can not follow suit you may play a card of a different suit.  You may only play a rocket if you can't follow suit.
Neither of these situations say must so if you can't follow suit and have the choice of playing a rocket card or not that is a free choice.

The rules expressly say you are never forced to play a specific card:

During a trick, there is no mandate to play a specific card. If you have multiple cards that you can play, you may play a low card, even though you would have been able to win the trick with a higher card. In other words, you are not forced to win the trick.

Thanks for this additional extract of the rules. I had (badly) interpreted that part as if it was only about numbers in a given color and not about rockets as well.

Of course, if you have only one card of the lead suit, you have to play it


text:
How does the Ozolith work with undying?
If a creature with undying and a +1/+1 counter dies when The Ozolith is on the battlefield, is the counter removed so that the undying ability makes the creature come black to the battlefield?

The Ozolith won't allow you to infinitely recur a creature with undying.
The Ozolith doesn't remove the counter from the dying creature before it leaves play, it simply makes copies of each counter after the fact. This means your undying creature still sees the +1/+1 counter it had before leaving the battlefield, and it won't return to play.
From rulings on The Ozolith:

The Ozolith's first ability doesn't move counters off the creature that left the battlefield. Rather, you put the same number of each kind of counter the creature had onto Ozolith. Notably, if you somehow control a second The Ozolith, each one will receive the same number and kinds of counters that were on the creature that left the battlefield. Similarly, if the creature has an ability that triggers when it leaves the battlefield that refers to the number of counters it had, that ability will use the number of counters that were on the permanent, even if The Ozolith's first ability resolves first.

(emphasis mine)


text:
If two people wanted to play, would each have to buy the cards?
Would there be enough cards for two players to build adequate decks with only one copy of the base set and/or the Asylum Packs, or would each player have to have their own?
Thanks!

Absolutely, for a reasonable expectation of "adequate". While there aren't enough cards included to create single-faction decks, you could easily make several, viable, multi-faction decks out of nothing but the base set. When you add in a couple of asylum packs, you're set for quite some time.

Thanks!  Does the same hold true for the Asylum packs?  Can two people make use of a single Asylum Pack?

@Teryx, yes, if you have the base game they can both use cards from an asylum packs to flesh out their respective factions, unless both have the same factions there are enough cards for some variation. Most (if not all) Asylum Packs include some cards for all available factions, with the exception of the Order of the Silver Twilight, since they were added in an expansion after most of the current asylum packs were released (their expansion pack contains a much larger amounts of their cards to compensate, as do their line of recent asylum packs.).

This review of the core set says you get about three starter decks worth of cards in the base pack. Plus, the core set is intended to get two people playing.
It looks like you can play two player games of the CoC LCG with only a single copy of the base set.


text:
During scoring, can an Inuksuk be a double?
In the card game Nanuk, When the game is over and players are tallying up their points, can an Inuksuk be counted as a double card (a card with two animals on it)? Since it's a wild card, an Inuksuk can be used to finish a pair or a set. A double card is a pair on its own. So can an Inuksuk be a double, and hence a solo pair, and thus worth 1 point? Or can it be paired with a double to create 2 pairs and two points?

The rules of Nanuk(you should specify the game you mean somewhere) says Inukshuk cards may be used to "fill any pair or set"(singular) and that only double cards may be used twice. It does not say the inukshuk can BECOME a copy of another card.
I'd say no, they cannot be used in this way.


text:
Hive Mind and Counterspell
Let say I have Hive Mind in game:

The opponent casts Counterspell on my creature spell. Can I counter the Counterspell with the clone of Counterspell I get from Hive Mind?

Yes, you can. By the time Hive Mind's ability copies your opponent's Counterspell, that Counterspell is already on the stack. So you can choose it as a target for your own copy of Counterspell.
In more detail, what happens is this:

You cast your creature spell, which let's say is a Weirded Vampire. (Why would you be playing Weirded Vampire against Hive Mind? Weird, huh.) The stack is

Weirded Vampire

Your opponent casts Counterspell, and Hive Mind's ability triggers. The stack is

Hive Mind's ability
Counterspell (opponent's)
Weirded Vampire

The ability resolves, giving you a copy of Counterspell, which you can choose to have target the original Counterspell. The stack is

Counterspell (yours)
Counterspell (opponent's)
Weirded Vampire

Your Counterspell resolves, countering your opponent's Counterspell. The stack is

Weirded Vampire

The Weirded Vampire now resolves.

This does mean that (in a 2-player game) Hive Mind basically nullifies any counterspell which can target a copy of itself.


text:
Does my "six or eight" rule for "raising one" make sense?
I was taught to raise partner's "one of a major" bid to two with six high card points.
A variation of the rule that I learned recently was eight "points" counting distribution.
So over a bid of one heart, a holding like the following might qualify:
♠ 432 ♡ K842 ♢ J752 ♣ 63
There are four honor points, and I was taught to add one for the king of hearts after partner opened it, bringing the total to five.
I add two more points for the fourth trump and an additional point for the club doubleton (these represent ruffing values), bringing the total to eight.
Whether or not they agree with my "math," most modern experts would raise one heart to two hearts, right?
Now supposing I have the "worst" six high card point holding:
♠ Q842 ♡ 432 ♢ Q75 ♣ Q63
There is no honor (and no intermediate cards) in the bid heart suit, and the distribution is 4-3-3-3.
Should I pass on the theory that "six" is really five?

Look for excuses to raise when you have a fit with partner, particularly in a major suit. With the first hand, raise to 2H. With the second hand, also raise to 2H.
If partner bids game with a balanced 18-count, you haven't gone down yet, and even if you eventually do you may have talked opponents out of bidding their own profitable partscore.


text:
Should I have made a takeout double in the situation?
With a part score of 60 to 0 (neither side vulnerable), I dealt and bid a "strong" 1NT with:
♠ QT3
♥ KQJ8
♦ KJ93
♣ K5

"West," to my left, overcalled 2 clubs.
Our respective partners passed to me.
I doubled (for takeout).
West rebid 2 diamonds.
All passed, and we set them 3 undoubled.

My partner had something like:
♠ xxxx
♥ xxxx
♦ xx
♣ Qxx
and might have bid (2 clubs) "garbage Stayman" if West hadn't.
My takeout double was meant to produce this effect, and probably a two hearts contract, except that West took me out.
Did West effectively "rescue" me by overcalling, meaning that I should have kept silent?
Or was it right to double to try to force partner to bid in this situation, risking a downed contract, to deprive the opponents of their (likely) 40 point part score?

There's no one correct answer for a situation like this. It's a judgement call. I would have passed, for two reasons. One is that the club overcall means my CK is less likely to be useful. The other is that I was understrength for 1NT to begin with. The hand counts to 15 HCP, but it's worth somewhat less due to the lack of aces and the unprotected SQ. This evaluation method makes it 14.05:
http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=QT3+KQJ8+KJ93+K5
It looks as though no part score will make on this deal, do there doesn't seem to have been a lot at stake in your decision.

If you and your partner agree that this double is takeout (which is a normal agreement), this is the sort of hand that should make that call.

You have absolutely no business reopening this hand - the point of a 1NT opener is to make it so descriptive that partner is now Captain, and partner should be making a cooperative double when your side has the balance of the points. If he makes no move, neither do you.
West definitely rescued you when he bid 2C with his balanced 23 count. You rescued him back by doubling, and he reiterated the favour with a 2D rebid.
You were not going to have fun in 1NT if you didn't recognize early on which end plays were on. You were very lucky to get a plus score on this hand - were your opponents Rueful Rabbit and Secretary Bird?

I feel that you are overstating your case. Certainly it is not unusual to play takeout by opener in this situation. Perhaps that is only reasonable in conjunction with good methods. For example, playing lebensohl with negative doubles, I think you should double with this hand to protect partner's ability to penalize with a club stack, or to play a reasonable partscore when partner was unable to act with a weak hand and 4=1=4=4 shape. Playing lebensohl with penalty doubles, this hand should double to play a reasonable partscore when partner can't act with two 4-card suits without a game force.

FWIW, the opponents' 23 points were divided something like 12 and 11, not 23-0. I think I inferred from East's pass that my partner had a few points.

@TomAu: What was the agreed upon meaning of a double by partner in this scenario? If take-out of Clubs, then East's denial of game interest and your shortness indicated that partner had less than 8 points and you should pass. If penalty then your shortness an then your partner either has club length with weakness, or just weakness, and you should still pass. After you open 1NT partner is Captain - respect his denial of points..

No. This is a very bad (takeout) double.
You said everything you needed to say with your 1NT bid. It basically advertised "takeout double" values (12 hcps in the three unbid suits), plus an extra stopper (a king) in the opponents' club suit.
Your partner knows everything s/he needs to know about your hand, and you know nothing about partner's. As Forget pointed out, your partner now has superior knowledge about your combined holdings, is the "captain" of the team, and should make all bidding decisions going forward. You should not bid again, except to "speak when spoken to."
You are lucky that your RHO did not redouble with his 11 hcps. Barring misplays or unusual distribution, your opponents are favorites to make almost any two level contract with an 8, or even 7 card fit, given their combined 23 points, probably with overtricks. A more competent partnership would have bid and made such a contract, and you do not want to raise the stakes.


text:
Do you count defensive points in the opponents' suit when making a takeout double?

Left hand opponent opened 1 heart.
Partner doubled for takeout.
Right hand opponent passed.
I "had to" bid 2 clubs with something like:
(S) xxx (H) xx (D) Jxxx (C) Jxxx.

We were doubled for penalties, and went down five (vulnerable), after partner partner laid down:
(S) Axxx (H) Kxx (D) Kxx (C) Qxx
In defending the takeout double, partner said, "I had 12 points and four spades. That's a standard takeout double."
I said, "I need 14 points for a vulnerable takeout. I don't even consider your hand worth 12 points (even though technically that's the case), because of the 4-3-3-3 distribution."
What bothered me most about the double was not the minimum point count, but the "stranded" king, and three cards in the opponents' suit.
Give partner a better distribution by changing her hand to  something like:
(S) Axxxx (H) - (D) KQxx (C) Kxxx
and I wouldn't have complained. Because all her "values" would have been OUTSIDE the opponents' suit, for offense, not defense.
(FWIW, Kaplan and Rubens evaluates this hand as 15 points, and the actual hand at 11 points because of the flat distribution and stranded honors. That's true, even though the traditional Milton Work count for both hands is 12 points.)
Was partner right to make the double?
Or was I right to protest it?
Is vulnerability the deciding factor?
In either case, why?

Related meta question - http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/476/questions-about-specific-bridge-hands

Nearly all American experts would not make a takeout double here, and my impression is that most Europeans would not as well.  Having 3 cards in their suit is a flaw when deciding to try and declare the hand rather than defend, and points outside their suits do matter: with only 9 points outside of their suit, your offense-to-defense ratio is low.
If opener has 6 hearts, and partner 3 or 4, your K will not take a trick on offense (it will be ruffed).  And if partner has 1 heart, the K could be useless as well.  But it will always take a trick on defense, so the heart K should be discounted slightly when considering the takeout double.  Qxx of hearts would discounted heavily because it would be useless on many hands.
There are several ways to lose by doubling here: partner has 3 hearts, partner gets you into a 4-3 minor fit, partner competes over 2H and gets you too high, partner drives to game expecting more.
Partner is still there.  He will reopen after 1H P P if he has one of the hands you want, and I would recommend playing a pre-balancing style where partner can double light after 1H P 2H... then he will protect you from having passed this hand.
In all, too many flaws: only 9 points outside their suit, poor shape, no spots, bad vulnerability.  If opponents were vulnerable that's another flaw since you might be able to get 100 or 200 by setting them.

@drew: I like your comment about low offense to defense ratio, and your reply generally.

At Matchpoints, I think you should consider doubling 1H...

It's a very borderline hand for the takeout double, but I maintain that, if you're in the mood to compete, there's nothing wrong with bidding on a borderline hand.  Yes, you've listed a bunch of ways this bid can (and did!) go wrong.  If we didn't ever make bids that could go wrong, Bridge would be a much less interesting game.  In any circumstance where the opponents can really punish you for the bid, they stand a strong chance of making game anyway.  Sometimes, psyching them out with an aggressive bid pays off.  Having said all of that, no one ever claimed that this double wasn't iffy ;)

@aryabhata: Fair enough regarding match points. But it's a version I barely understand.

@thesun: "If we didn't ever make bids that could go wrong...", that is not an argument: It can be used to justify any silly bid one makes! The point is how much do you stand to gain vs lose by making that bid. For instance, not making a takeout double could also go "wrong". You might miss a 4S contract when partner has the right hand. The statement that almost no expert would make a takeout double with that hand at IMPS is quite accurate, IMO.

@Aryhabhata - at the top level of competition, that bid may well be just too risky.  I was under the impression we were talking about a fairly casual game!  If you're sitting in that seat with that hand and you feel like you really want to get into the bidding at that point, then the questionable, borderline takeout double is the bid you have.  I wouldn't lambast a partner for making it at one of our (casual) Bridge games.

@thesun: Anything goes where you play. Ok. So? How is that even relevant to the "fact" that most experts would not make a takeout double? I really don't get your point. Ideally this question ought to be closed (inspite of the many meta threads), but it hasn't. So the only reasonable answer is what most experts consider correct (of course there is no good way to prove that, and another reason to close the question). Anyway, this discussion is pointless.

@thesun: I don't mean to be rude (if my earlier comment comes across as such). The fact that we are forgetting the purpose of a stackexchange site (inspite of the meta threads) and allowing subjective questions, irks me a bit (Of course, what is on-topic itself is subjective and a whole other discussion). I apologize if I managed to offend you.

@Aryabhata: No problem :) But the question was not "would experts make a takeout double". It was "was partner right to make a double". In a top-level tournament, no. At home with friends, I don't think there's much difference between going down 5 or 6 doubled, as against letting the opponents have the game and match bonuses.  And that's the worst case scenario, in many other scenarios the bid might pay off.  I'm only upset that Tom has been given carte blanche to tear strips off his partner for making an absurd bid when IMO it wasn't: just not a safe one.

@Aryabhata: But, er, you're probably right that this question is proving more trouble than it's worth.  I promise to bow out and stop banging my drum on this topic, even if I think my answer was downvoted a little unfairly ;)

Double by this hand is unwise in any scoring system. Best to pass.
Note that to double on an offshape hand like this requires you to check a special box (minimal offshape takeout doubles) on an ACBL card.

Re: ABCL card, this is a little misleading. To double by agreement with a hand like this requires checking that box; that agreement may either be explicit, or implicit because you frequently open hands like this. However, if partner's not "in on the joke" (that is, partner has no reason to think you'd have a hand like this), you're permitted to double with this hand.

Yes, sorry if anyone got the opposite impression! Just using this as an example to explain to OP that this double is not standard, not to explain acbl bidding rules.

Entire books could be written (and have) about how to evaluate your hand beyond a simple count of High Card Points, so a full treatise on this subject is outside the scope of this site.
The bare King is not great, but since your LHO opened the bidding and will have length in that suit, he will wind up having the Ace more often than his partner.  Thus, you could anticipate the King likely worth a trick.
The double is fine, and rates to gain a lot if you have four spades, or the heart Ace, or length in a minor and shortness in hearts.  Sometimes, you go down.  Sometimes, things would have worked out better if you kept your mouth shut.  However, if you wait to bid until you are certain that you won't go down a packet, you will miss a ton of profitable situations.

Are you seriously suggesting that Mike Lawrence would in second seat double a 1H opening with: (S) Axxx (H) Kxx (D) Kxx (C) Qxx? It seems so by linking to his book, and I highly doubt it myself.

Quote from Hand Evaluation by Mike Lawrence, page 89: "Minimum balanced hands in the 10 to 15 point range do not lend themselves to voluntary action except when in the thirteen to fifteen point range." I see no reason to believe Lawrence adjusts the strength of that ugly flat hand up from 12.

I think you both bid fine and don't really have to over-analyse your loss.  Your partner had a bare minimum for a take-out double, with only three card support in the unbid suits; but a takeout double is forcing, and your bare minimum response was also appropriate.
It seems unfortunate that you turned out to have absolutely the worst possible hand on both sides; but on the bright side, 5 down doubled is not necessarily the worst given that your opponents had almost certain game...

I think I should possibly have edited my answer to add "it depends on the context".  By initiating a takeout double with such a borderline hand, your partner is definitely taking an aggressive gamble.  If you were playing rubber bridge, were one game up, and had 80 points below the line, then obviously diving in with a risky takeout is a bit crazy.  On the other hand, if the opponents were in danger of running away with the contract... sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures!

good question. We had one game apiece, both vulnerable. I didn't appreciate the 1400 point penalty. Fortunately we were playing tiny stakes, one-tenth of a penny per point, or $1.40. Then we switched partners.

Downvoted because 5 down doubled would be far worse than a game, and lack of analysis about why takeout double is good or bad.

@Drew: 5 down doubled is pretty darn bad, but as I say, giving the opponents certain game, and the 500/700 point rubber bridge game bonus, without even trying to contest it, is also bad.  I know a lot of Bridge players who would always rather go down fighting.  There's nothing to worry about here: the takeout double was a normal, if borderline bid, and just because complete disaster struck in the actual event doesn't mean that the bidder should be excoriated.  Always look on the bright side of Bridge, I say!

@thesunneversets: "Down five" was a bit unlucky (all the finesses "offside"). But even a more normal "down three" was pretty bad; that's -800 when vulnerable. Maybe the double was acceptable at "favorable" vulnerability (-500 for down three non-vul vs. -620 for a vulnerable game), but not otherwise.

Partner doesn't know for sure that you're going down 3-5; Bridge is a game of pushing your luck and interfering with your opponents' bidding space; and I continue to stand by my assertion that, in casual rubber Bridge, sometimes a partnership would rather risk going down in flames (and, if that happens, hope to recoup it with a slam the next hand) than just hand the match to the opponents by not even trying to bid.  Yes, I'm aware that's controversial, I've gotten a couple of downvotes already from suggesting it, but I totally stand by it.

@thesunneversets: Actually, appropriate Rubber Bridge strategy is to get a Vulnerable part-score and sit on it as long as possible, collecting doubled penalties until the opponents learn better; which is often never. Your post is an emphatic recommendation for never, and I would like to know what club you play for money at so I can quit my day job.

Nobody forced you to bid 2 Clubs; you chose to because you weren't listening to the auction. Alarm bells should be going off in your head after the sequence:
1H  Dbl  Pass  ?

Partner ostensibly has short hearts, you have only two, and RHO declined to make a bid also suggesting short Hearts.
Who's lying?
If the answer is that Partner is the likely liar, just bid 1 Spade. You have the doubleton heart and a possible ruffing trick.  Opponents are likely to play you for a 4-card Spade suit and thus an 8-card fit with partner, plus you are a level lower. It is much more difficult, in consequence, for them to double this contract.
Further, if Partner is making this Takeout Double based on a strong minor suit and 17+ points, the last thing you want to do is encourage him by bidding his suit. That's asking for trouble. Don't take the chance of doing so. Just bid the suit that signals a mis-fit.
Moral:
When responding to a Takeout Double with an absolute bust hand, make the cheapest possible call that can be excused. Make it as easy as possible, and as tempting as possible, for the opponents to re-enter the auction.

Here is a Frank Stewart example showing a doubler with Q86 of spades. https://www.baronbarclay.com/product/bridgecolumn07-12-12/July2012I was taught not to bid 1 spade with three little ones (maybe AKx) but to bid my cheapest four card suit. Given my four to the jack, (seven cards and two low honors in the suit between us), we can still hold our own in "our" suit.

@TomAu:That's the difference between doubling 1D and doubling 1H. Assuming a shape double rather than a super overcall of 17+ and a strong suit, the first promises 4 in the one unbid major, while the other promises 4-3 or 3-4 in the two of them.

Speaking of "shape" doubles, after all these years (eight), I still feel that partner had the wrong shape for a double. Her 12 hcps met some people's minimums, but her 4-3-3-3 distribution made her hand more like 10-11. M y own standard is 13 hcps with a doubleton in the opponent's suit, and 14 hcps with a tripleton (12 with a singleton and 11 with a void).

@TomAu: Of course she had inadequate shape - that's no excuse for you to hang her out to dry on the hand. That's a fast way to needing a new partner. The opponents can make 3NT and possibly 4 of a major on the hand - which Partner's Double might just have talked them out of if you just bid a nice simple 1S.

I'd probably bid one spade (on your say so) the next time this happens. But eight years ago, I did what I had been earlier taught to do.


text:
In Betrayal, does a monster really die after 1 hit?
We're playing betrayal-at-house-on-the-hill. If I read the rules correctly, when a player hits a monster, even just for one damage, he defeats it and the monster gets stunned. In my version of the haunt, it even gets killed right away. This is for haunt 46
So that means if the monster (4 might) wins against the hero (4 might, 4 speed), say with a 2 point difference, the player loses 2 physical points (4 might, 2 speed). The monster needs to repeat this 3 more times to finish off the player.
On the other hand, if the hero wins against the monster, the monster is removed from the board, giving the hero a 4:1 chance to kill the monster. Right?

I think a lot of that is going to depend on the details of the haunt. Also there is no need to spoiler which haunt you as that doesn't really reveal much information

It reveals that in haunt 46, monsters die instead of get stunned, which is information only found in the traitor-book, not in the hero-book, and the info is not especially needed to solve the question (unless one wouldn't believe me and wanted to look it up) so I thought better safe than sorry.

That is the information you should spoiler, not the haunt itself. Monsters dying in a single hit is a spoiler regardless of what haunt it happens in while knowing what haunt is being played should never be a spoiler.

But that is my question: is it correct that monsters die in a single hit, or am I reading it wrong?

You can put spoilers around that part of the question so that people who don't want the spoiler can still read the question without having it spoiled. By just putting the haunt number behind the spoiler tag you are not preventing anything from being spoiled at all. In fact with your question title as it is you spoil that mechanic of the haunt without the reader even needing to click into the question to see what haunt it is.

Looking at page 18 of the Rulebook there's a section of How Monsters Work which says:

Monsters can't be killed.. If a monster would take any damage, it is stunned and misses its next turn... Stunned monsters can't slow an explorer's movement. Even if a haunt says to do something other than stun monsters when they take damage, they can still be stunned by effects that specifically stun monsters.

These are the base rules for monsters which can be manipulated by specific haunt rules. Do note that the Traitor may know game altering rules that you, as a Hero, simply do not know.
Now, let's take a look specifically at Haunt 46:
Below are minor spoilers for Haunt 46 including special rules. It is brief and only outlines the rules in question. Read at your own risk!

 The Feast!
 Cannibal Freaks ( Speed 2, Might 4, Sanity 4 )Special Rules:
 If a Cannibal Freak is defeated by an attack, it's killed instead of stunned.
 In this scenario the special rules dictate that instead of getting stunned the monster would be defeated instead. That is if they take any mental or physical damage. That being said, specific items that stun can still be used to incapacitate the monster. The monsters will die in one hit but the base stats for the monsters are also fairly high. Depending on how many items the Heros were able to attain during the game you may need to play this safe and cluster your monsters together or corner a specific hero to get them out of the game.

Do note not all Haunts are perfectly balanced and some rules may not be flushed out enough to answer every single question that may pop up. From Avalon Hill:

Keep in mind if the rules are not specified in the rulebook you and your group can decide what makes the game most fun.

In this case though, I think the answer is cut and dry.

Thanks, that's perfect. Monsters are OKish statwise (speed 2 might 4 san 4) but most heroes easily have 4+ might, making this haunt very tough for the monsters imho.

@Konerak There's really nothing absolutely true about what heroes will have when a haunt starts. It's actually possible (though unlikely) for a haunt to start on the first turn of the first player, with the players having nothing but the omen card that triggered the haunt. Some haunts are easier early on and harder later (larger house making it harder), some are harder early on and easier later (lower stats, lack of stuff making it harder)


text:
Why Does The Parade Scoring System Work The Way It Does?
Has anyone here apart from me played Parade?  It's a simple, cute, yet original and maddeningly addictive little Alice-in-Wonderland-themed card game from a Japanese designer.  Basically, there are 6 suits of cards, ranked from 0-10.  You want to avoid collecting these cards where possible, as they score their face value against you at the end, unless you have the most or equal most cards in a suit, in which case they score 1 point against you each.
It just seems to me that the designer possibly missed a trick with this scoring system.  Obviously there are interesting choices to be made in that it's better to collect 5 or 6 green cards rather than the green 7 or 8 on its own; but it still seems like it would have been much more interesting for the cards you have the most of to count positively in your favour.  Then it would have been just like Hearts: you'd have had to keep an eye out for players trying to "shoot the moon", and it could often be better to tactically pick up a few cards than just avoid picking anything up as much as possible.
As it is, I feel mitigating your losses by picking up more cards in the same colours is semi-interesting, but being able to turn losses into positive points would have been really interesting - especially as the game can be brought to a premature end by any player having at least one card in each suit.  But am I missing something?  Would inverting the rules in this way ruin the balance of the game, for a reason such as, e.g., it being too easy to score a ton of points and end the game quickly?
If anyone has both played Parade and can provide some analysis/insight into why it's scored the way it is, I'd be very interested!

Obviously, I don't know Naoki Homma's reasoning for his points system, but probably the answer to your question is that turning the points around would drastically disbalance the game.  The main reason is this:
A positive point for you is like giving every other player a negative point
When playing with multiple players in a game, one must be very careful about giving one player an advantage because it's the same as giving all other players a disadvantage (and visa-versa).  This bonus is powerful enough so that a single extra card (making 6 cards) can make a huge point swing:  -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 = -40 points to +6 * 3 (in a 3 player game) = 18 points.  So one card makes the difference of 58 relative points in the game.  The other way, it turns -40 into -6, which is still huge (34 points), but nearly half as big.

I'm suspecting it's a game length thing, currently.  Seems like in Parade you spend a lot of time avoiding grabbing cards, and with good reason under the normal rules.  If you can end the game by collecting one card of each colour, then it could be quite easy to go bang, bang in two moves and end the game; a stupid thing to do if all those cards are negative points for you, but quite good if you get +1 for most of them!  Maybe you could make it work by removing the one-of-each-suit game-ending rule, but by then the game is starting to look completely different...

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/