text:
If I deal multiple types of damage, do I need to deal them in the order listed?
Consider a power like Fanatic's "Exorcism":

Fanatic deals 1 target 1 melee damage and 1 radiant damage.

Can I choose to deal the radiant damage before the melee damage? Or do I have to deal the melee damage first because it is listed first? This would be important if I have an effect that deals bonus damage to the next damage that I deal, and one of the two damage types is preferred.

Effects on cards that are separated by an "and" happen sequentially, so the melee damage will happen before the radiant damage.
From user phantaskippy (tagged as playtester) on the Sentinels of the Multiverse game forums:

Any use of "and" will happen sequentially. . . . All uses of "and" in situations where timing is relevant are intended to be sequential. It may not be obvious, but it is at least consistent.

This sentiment is repeated here by user Rabit (tagged as moderator and playtester) among the discussions about effect timing:

Do things in the order described.

In reading through forum posts, the consensus follows this interpretation.

To answer the question about why this may be important, that is, you want to increase one damage type for a specific reason, Adam the Admin has this to say over on the forums (emphasis mine):

The damage is intended to be dealt individually. This means if it's increased, both melee and radiant are increased by 1 separately, and the same goes for when it's decreased. A base reduction of -1 will make her do no damage at all, but a +1 will double her output. It essentially makes damage modifiers into multipliers for her innate power, which is in keeping with Fanatic being a high-risk/high-reward character.

So if you are looking to increase the radiant damage, you're in luck. Any increase to Fanatic's damage output will increase both the melee and radiant damage.

Does "moderator" just mean forum moderator? If so, is there any reason that a moderator's word weigh more strongly (aside from also being a playtester)?

@Thunderforge I would tend to think that forum moderators tend to have more knowledge about the game because they spend so much time parsing through forum posts to make sure everything is running smoothly. Ultimately, it doesn't look like the game designers step into the forum for any reason; they leave rules explanations up to people with higher rankings in the forums.

@Thunderforge - The computer version of the game works this way as well (damage types done in order, each type modified individually)


text:
Was there ever a non-1st Edition version of the Machamp found in the 2-player Starter Set?
Back when I collected Pokémon cards, I received a 2-Player Starter Set, which included a 1st Edition Holographic Machamp. As far as I know, everybody who got this set received the same 1st Edition Machamp card.
Was there ever a non-1st Edition version of the starter set Machamp released?

According to Bulbapedia:

A 1st Edition version of this card was included in the 2-Player Starter Set. While an Unlimited Edition version of the Base Set print of this card was never officially released, a Non Holofoil version of this card lacking the 1st Edition stamp was included in the Trainer Deck A, distributed to prototype Pokémon Leagues before the TCG officially launched in North America.

So it look like all Foil Machamps from the Base set are 1st Editions ("Unlimited" refers to cards that are not 1st Edition).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I voluntarily fail the roll for the Collapsed Room?
The Collapsed Room has the following text:

You must attempt a Speed roll of 5+ to avoid falling. If you fail the roll, draw a basement tile and put it in play. You fall there and take 1 die of physical damage.

Is it permitted to voluntarily fail the roll if I want to go to the basement and am willing to sacrifice the 1 die of physical damage?
Also, does the answer differ for forced movement? This came up for Haunt 9: The Dance of Death. In that haunt, players must make a Sanity roll or do the following:

you must move toward the Ballroom by the shortest route through discovered rooms. You may perform other actions normally along the way if you wish.

In our case, the Collapsed Room was in the way of the Ballroom, and we were unsure as to whether we could voluntarily fail that room roll in order to get farther away.
So can I voluntarily fail the roll for the Collapsed Room?

Yes, you can. From the FAQ:

Collapsed Room -- Could a monster or explorer intentionally choose to fall through the floor of the collapsed room to get to the basement?

Yes. A hero would need to roll and take damage; a monster or traitor would not

For your second question, I do not believe the rules give a clear answer to this. I believe it is logical to say yes, you can fall down to avoid the Ballroom. This is because the instructions are specifically referring to how you choose to move, and it says you may perform other actions along the way. Falling down the collapsed room counts as "other actions", and it is not something that really falls within the question of where you are moving to. I believe that when it tells you where you must move to, it is referring to which direction you take each time you use movement to leave a room.
Also note that if the Collapsed Room has already been discovered, an explorer can choose to walk through it freely without needing to roll:

Only the explorer who first discovers the Collapsed Room needs to make the Speed roll listed there. Thereafter, any explorer entering the room can either ignore the room ability or use it intentionally, in which case that explorer still takes the damage. Falling to the basement doesn’t count as moving a space.

No, not in this situation.

You don't roll when entering a previously-discovered Collapsed Room. From page 6 of the rules,

Only the explorer who first discovers the Collapsed Room needs
  to make the Speed roll listed there. Thereafter, any explorer
  entering the room can either ignore the room ability or use it
  intentionally, in which case that explorer still takes the damage.
  Falling to the basement doesn’t count as moving a space.

In this situation, however, your character wouldn't choose to jump down. They do not want to get further away. They are compelled to reach the room as fast as possible.

Gendolkari's answer makes no sense. They say one can choose to fail the roll, but then follows up with the rule saying one doesn't even get a roll.

I'm not sure you can say that the rules require you as the player to make the same decisions that the character you are playing as would logically do.

@GendoIkari, There's only one decision: To jump down (by not rolling the dice) or to try to make it across. The player can't decide not to roll any more than he can decide to move the miniature away from the ballroom. The compelled behaviour of the character limits the actions of the player.

Also, note that you do NOT have to roll to avoid falling if the room has already been discovered. You just choose whether to cross or to fall. This is clarified in the second edition rules. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1239262/timing-using-dog-and-collapsed-room

@GendoIkari, Adjusted my answer. I'm surprised your didn't adjust your own!?

Thanks, I didn't have an actual rules quote until now (I own first edition, and second edition rules aren't available online as far as I know). Though this particular rule doesn't directly answer either of the questions, it's certainly related enough that it's good to be in the answer.

@Gendolkari, http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/downloads

Until now I was pretty sure that they'd never updated that link for the new edition. But, I just checked, and both that link AND my edition 1 rules have that rule about Collapsed Room. I thought it was a new clarification to the second edition. So now I don't know if they even updated the rulebook for second edition or not. If they did, I can't easily tell if that link is first or second edition.

@Gendolkari, Link is probably first edition, especially since the page number is different than the one mentioned on the BGG post mentioning second edition.

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


text:
Can you build a ship in the Caspian Sea?
The Caspian Sea is a lone body of water south of Caucasus and north of the Middle East. It is also not connected to any other sea location and does not have a zone number. Here is how it appears in Axis & Allies 1941:

Is it permitted to build a ship in this location in any version of Axis & Allies? I realize that it is rather impractical to do so, but in the rare chance that you want to invade a bordering country with some naval support on your side and have the ability to pull it off, is it permitted to build a ship in it?

Yes, there are versions of Axis and Allies that allow building ships in the Caspian Sea. This is the exception tough. In Axis and Allies 1941/1942, the Caspian Sea is not considered a sea zone and you cannot build any ships there.
In Axis and Allies 1940 Europe/Global, the Caspian Sea is a sea zone. Therefore, you can build ships there.

Basically, you can build a ship in any sea zone adjacent to a "factory" owned by your country.
In the beginning of many versions of the game, Russia has two factories, one in the Moscow zone, and one in Karelia (Leningrad), but none in the Caucasus. Russia needs first to build a factory in the Caucasus (or some Middle Eastern square adjacent to the Caspian Sea), which will then allow her to build a ship in the Caspian Sea.


text:
Is it better to close gates or save up clue tokens to seal them?
Imagine that we've got a couple of gates open and every investigator has 3 clue tokens. All other things being equal, is it better to try to immediately attempt to close those gates or would it be better to save up to 5 clue tokens in order to seal them? By better, I mean more likely to result in the investigators winning the game.

It depends. Mostly on how likely a gate is to open again at that particular location.
It's better to wait and seal gates with lots of gate mythos cards in the deck, to prevent them from continuously re-opening.
It's better to quickly close gates with few gate mythos cards and many clue mythos cards, as it will be unlikely to open again, and blocking access to valuable clues while it sits unaddressed.
The specific frequencies can be found in this document.

+1, in the situation of the asker, do both. Assuming 4 players, have one or two investigators collect more clue tokens to seal the gates that are most likely to be drawn again as gate-mythos. Have another one or two investigators jump into gates which are less likely for gate-mythos and more likely for clue-mythos. If in doubt, choose the gate that will get rid of annoying monsters when closed. The remaining characters (if any) should fight monsters, go shopping or whatever else is currently on your plate.

I think the document on "Gate Seal Priority" was a little bit misunderstood. It seems to be meant as advice on which gate to close, given that you HAVE TO close a gate.
The biggest drawback with closing gates as opposed to sealing them is that if they reopen, a new doom token is placed on the doom track. In my group we ALWAYS save up and clues and seal games unless the "gate limit" is very nearly exceeded and no-one has enough clue tokens tokens. In this desperate instance, the document on "Gate Seal Priority" is a great way of determine which gate to close.
Even when playing with expansions that has the "gate burst" rule(gates open even when sealed), we always seal. This is because gate bursts do not put new doom tokens on the track.


text:
How do you awaken the Ancient One by opening the gate of Kadath?
The Arkham Horror Statistics spreadsheet lists one of the ways to awaken the Ancient One as "Opening the gate of Kadath". To date, it has never been achieved and I'm curious about why. I took a look through all of the encounter cards for Unknown Kadath but didn't see any that referenced opening a gate that would awaken the Ancient One.
So how does one open the gate of Kadath and why is it so difficult that it has never been accomplished yet?

It's talking about this encounter:

Unknown Kadath
In response to your pitiful knocking, the massive gate of the Castle of the Great Old Ones swings wide. Lose 1 Stamina and 1 Sanity. If you are devoured as a result, the Ancient One immediately awakens.

It's a literal physical gate in the encounter, not a gate like the ones that open normally during the game. And for some reason you decide to knock on it. Pretty hard to awaken the Ancient One that way - you have to manage to get that encounter and already be at 1 Stamina and 1 Sanity.


text:
Can other players try to stop you from completing Joining the Winning Team?
The Dunwich Horror expansion of Arkham Horror includes a card called Joining the Winning Team. Basically it's a mission where you have to sacrifice an ally at a number of places. On completion, you win the game and all other players lose the game.
I'm aware of the fact that this is nigh impossible to complete (as of this writing, the Arkham Horror Statistics page says that only 11 of their nearly 13,000 recorded games have ended by its completion), but in the rare event that you might be able to pull it off, can the other players do anything to stop you? Can they attack you or anything?

There's no direct way people could try to stop you. They can't attack you; there's nothing in the rules about players attacking players.
There are at least a few ways they could try to indirectly stop you:

They can try to close gates and kill monsters before you can get to them, so that you won't have any trophies you could use to buy allies.
They can deliberately leave monsters that'd block your path alive.
They could try to equip themselves for the final battle and let the ancient one wake up quickly, giving you no time for your mission. The gate limit makes it pretty easy to let the ancient one wake up early, if you're feeling daring.
If you do get close, they can try to make sure you can't get lost in time and space. If you try to hop in a gate that someone's about to close; they can decline to close those gates. So you'll be trying to get to 0 sanity/stamina in another world. To prevent that, they could also try to prioritize closing the gates to more dangerous other worlds before you're ready to get lost in time and space, so that when you get to that point, you'll probably just waste a few turns passing through. I suppose they could even try to heal you if they have the right character or item!

Thanks! I can see why so few recorded games have ended this way given how easy it is to end it through these means (or threaten to end it through these means). I wonder if most of the games that ended with this card ended because of the players intentionally trying to help the player win with it just for the heck of it.

If someone in my play group attempted this, they wouldn't be very popular! It is a very 'troll' type of card. Arkham Horror is hard enough without having one of the players working against you

@link64 Agreed, though it's actually a little more subtle than that: since they'll be trying to get to specific destinations and also accumulate trophies to buy allies, they'll probably be killing monsters for you, maybe closing gates, and possibly even sealing them in order to buy themselves more time! (Despite the flavor of them joining the winning team, if you fill up the doom track before they manage, they still lose.) But still, quite true they won't be cooperating, and their ultimate goal definitely makes them unpopular.

@link64 Must be different for different groups. Our group has played often enough that we'd probably try to help someone win this way just because it would be a fun challenge to try to end the game in a non-standard way.

@Thunderforge If the player with the mission decides on their own to go for it, they're either dooming the rest of the team (in a normally cooperative game!) or forcing everyone to play a different game. It's fine if everyone wants to do that but that's not guaranteed.

@Jefromi Absolutely correct. Unless you get buy in from the group, it's going to make it competitive.


text:
Can Auction be played on a deed that is already Private?
The Action card Auction says the following:

Noon: Choose a deed in play. It becomes Private. If you own and control that deed, gain 1 ghost rock for each dude controlled by another player at that deed.

Is it possible to play this card on a deed that is already Private? Or is it only playable on a deed that is initially Public?

There is an in depth discussion of costs vs. requirements by the rule team here. It boils down to this: the first sentence after the bold text & colon is a cost and must be paid in order to use the card. Everything after that you try to execute, but if you are not able to do so just continue on.
So for Auction, the cost is simply "Choose a deed in play." The only restriction in that sentence is "in play", so already Private deeds are fine. The rest of the text then executes. "It becomes Private" has no effect, but the text about gaining ghost rock executes as normal.


text:
Does removing a token from play trigger effects that happen when a dude is discarded or aced?
Say that I have a Gunslinger token in a shootout and he gets discarded or Aced. Per the card's text, you need to "Remove this token from the game after this shootout."
I presume that this means they go neither to the discard pile, nor to Boot Hill after a shootout. Does that mean that effects that trigger when a dude is discarded or aced happen to the Gunslinger? For instance, the Undertaker deed has an effect that happens whenever a dude is aced. If the Gunslinger is aced in a shootout, does the Undertaker effect still happen even though the Gunslinger doesn't go to Boot Hill?

If you assign 2 casualties to a dude (token dudes are still dudes!) they're considered aced unless they're Harrowed in which case it'd take 3 casualties!  Per the FAQ:

When a Token Dude is aced or discarded it is removed from play instead of going to the discard pile or boot hill.
  It will still trigger events like collecting a bounty or the Undertaker giving its controller 2 ghost rock.

Can you include a link to the FAQ?


text:
Can Unity play Mechanical Golems when she gets to play a card outside of her turn?
All Mechanical Golems in Unity's deck say the following:

This card cannot be played during your play phase.

It's pretty clear that this means that during your turn, you cannot play a Mechanical Golem card as the card you play after resolving start of turn effects and before using a power (that's the Play Phase).
I presume that this means that you can't also play a Mechanical Golem card through something like Inspired Repair, which lets you play another card (since you would have played Inspired Repair, and resolved its effects, during your Play Phase).
But say that during another player's turn, you are given the opportunity to play a card. For instance, say that Fanatic is defeated and uses her "One player may play a card now" ability. Since it is not happening during Unity's Play Phase, could she play a Mechanical Golem straight from her hand and bypass the regular restriction?

Yes, she can play a mechanical golem outside of her play phase as if it was any other card. All that card is saying is you can't play it during the play phase and it does not mention not being able to play it like any other card.

This card cannot be played during your play phase.

Take this card for instance

Scrap Metal - "At the end of your turn, either take 1 Mechanical Golem from play back into your hand, or destroy this card.
  At the start of your turn, you may play a card. If you do, destroy this card."

What that card lets you do after you take a mechanical golem from play in into your hand you can then play it during the start phase of your next turn allowing it to  return the play with full health. What this means is that you can play a mechanical golem during your turn as long as it is not the play phase. The start of turn, user a power, draw a card and end of turn steps (or during any other player/environment/villain turn) are perfectly legal to play a mechanical golem as long as you gain the ability to play a card during those steps.

This is also why characters like Omnitron X and Argent Adept that can put cards into play from Unity's deck, or give plays on other turns, work so well in conjunction with Unity -- anything that lets her more freely play bots makes her more awesome.  :)


text:
What are the differences between Deadlands: Doomtown and Doomtown: Reloaded?
On first glance, Doomtown: Reloaded (2014) looks pretty similar to Deadlands: Doomtown (1998) and they are both published by AEG. What differences are there between each other? Are they compatible?

Both games are indeed similar. They are both set in the Deadlands universe (although Doomtown: Reloaded does not explicitly say it, despite there being obvious signs such as Harrowed, Hucksters, and other references to the setting). Both have the basic mechanics of cards having playing card values and the need to control locations while managing ghost rock. And both have an ongoing story that is in continuity with the other.
The big difference between the two is that Deadlands: Doomtown was packaged as a collectible card game. Doomtown: Reloaded on the other hand is what AEG calls an "Expandable Card Game", which is exactly the same as a Fantasy Flight Games' "Living Card Game" (Fantasy Flight Games trademarked the term, so AEG had to come up with something different). Instead of having booster packs, new sets have 4 copies of every card in them, so you don't need to scour for that one card you need.
As for actual rules differences, the core gameplay is the same, but there are a number of important differences. A fanmade compilation of the rules differences is pretty exhaustive. A few highlights:

Decks can only have 4 cards of the same suit and value.
Dude and deed Uniqueness only applies to your own gang.  Different crews can have the same dude or deed in play.
If you equip more than one weapon or horse the previous weapon or steed are discarded.
Skills checks are now equal to or greater, instead of just greater than the target number.
Aced dudes no longer have their gear sent to boot hill.  It is discarded instead.
When resolving shootouts, a dude can be discarded for 1 rank difference in casualties, and aced for 2 rank difference.  If they are harrowed, they can be sent home booted for 1 rank difference, discarded for 2 and aced for 3.
Bounties can be increased beyond 1 ghost rock, and anybody with a bounty is considered wanted (if the amount is reduced to 0, they are no longer wanted)
Law Dogs (or any other faction) are no longer able to boot to remove bounty
Card memory no longer exists (i.e. once a card is out of play, all effects on it, including permanent effects, are removed and not added back if the card is returned to play)
The player with the most influence no longer draws an extra card at Nightfall (now called Sundown)
Fear level no longer exists
Events no longer exist.

There are also a number of new mechanics, such as Grifters, which allow you to activate their ability at the start of the game if they are in your starting posse. For instance, the Grifter in the base set can boot to shuffle your starting hand into your deck and draw 5 more cards (this ability can only be used once at the start of the game).
You may also notice that there are some general paradigm shifts in Doomtown: Reloaded. For instance, a developer diary explained that it was intentional that there are so few Out of Town locations (basically, the Out of Town "landslide" deck that was used often in Deadlands: Doomtown became too powerful and too difficult to contest, since movement was restricted).
Despite the similarities, the two card sets are not intended to be played with each other and the tournament rules explicitly state that you cannot use Deadlands: Doomtown cards with Doomtown: Reloaded. That said, it probably is possible to mix them, so long as you remove any cards that contradict with any new rules.


text:
If a card with a pull has an effect that boots the character, do they boot only if successful?
Consider a card like Soothe from Faith & Fear:

Noon Miracle 10, Boot: Boot this Blessed to unboot another dude at this or an adjacent location.

This card has a pull and an effect that includes booting the character. Am I right in saying that the character only gets booted if the pull is successful, and the character is not booted if it is not? (The Miracle would of course be booted either way, since that is the cost).

I believe you are correct that the character is only booted if the pull is successful.
Per the rulebook page 29, under 'Spells':

If the skill check equals or exceeds the spell's difficulty, the spell succeeds and you use that ability. Otherwise, the spell fails and nothing happens.


text:
Whose Grifter goes first?
In Doomtown Reloaded, Grifters are characters who allow you to look at your starting hand and, if you don't like them, boot them. For instance, Travis Moone allow you to boot him and then redraw your hand.
Recently I played a game where both of us had Grifters and it was important to know whose Grifter went first. Basically, my opponent was on the fence about using his Grifter and wanted to know if my Grifter was going to start the first round booted.
Since Grifters activate after the initial hand draw but before the first lowball round, we didn't have an established way to decide whose Grifter went first. So whose Grifter goes first? Or do you just count to three and decide simultaneously?

The November 2014 tournament floor rules answers this:

Before the first turn of the game if there are effects/reacts that
  could be conflicting before a winner has been determined by lowball
  (E.G. Grifter abilities), use the following procedure:

All players make a choice as to whether they are going to use or pass on the grifter ability. Each player then holds their hand out
  with a concealed token in there, with an agreed colour code, red for
  use and blue for no use.
If a player fails to hold out a token of either colour then they pass the use of the grifter.
Both players open their hands at the same time and use the ability or not as indicated.

In friendly games, we usually don't worry about this, and even in tournaments in my experience it is resolved without resorting to this 90% of the time.


text:
Is a player limited to four In-Town Deed cards?
Doomtown: Reloaded comes with a very helpful player board that looks like this:

(Original image source)
Notably, there are four spots for In-Town Deed cards. Is this a hard limit? I didn't spot anything in the rules regarding the maximum number of deeds and since the board is optional, I'm not sure if it meant that this was a true limit or if it was just how many they decided to print on the board.
So is a player limited to four In-Town Deed cards? Or can they have as many as they want?

Nope - they just only had room on the board for four. You can play as many deeds as you can pay for.
See page 19 of the rulebook, where they show a deed potentially being played 3 to the right of the Home, where there is no printed spot on the board.

See MasterAir's comments below. Also, on page 19 of the rulebook, the example diagram shows a new deed potentially being placed 3 to the right of the Home card (which there is no space for on the board).

Steven Holder is correct. In Town Deeds can be played at either end of your street. DTR is a card game, the board has some useful information for new players, but the image of where to put your In Town Deeds is just a guide.
The rulebook states:
"Unless they say otherwise, all deeds are in town. Place an in-town deed at one end of your street or the other, adjacent to the in-town location on that end of your street."
(I don't have enough rep, or I would have just commented on his answer)


text:
Can shootouts happen in the town square?
The rules are a bit confusing about where shootouts can happen. All of the examples, both in the Welcome to Gomorra tutorial and in the rulebook, show shootouts happening in order to contest control over a deed card. The rules consistently mention the "location" that a shootout is occurring, but don't seem to ever define what counts a location. Is it just deeds or does the town square count as well?
So can shootouts occur in the town square?

Yes, you can have Shoot-Outs in Town Square.
On page 18:

As a Noon play, one of your unbooted dudes can choose a dude controlled by another player at the same location, and call out that dude (challenge that dude to a shootout). This doesn’t boot your dude, and so as long as your dude stays unbooted, they can call out an opposing dude each and every time it’s your turn to make a play."

And on page 12 it states:

There are three types of in-town locations. Each deed is its own location. Each outfit’s home is a location (with a few special rules). And the area in the middle of the table is a location called the town square.

Shootouts happen when dudes are at the same location and there are three types of in-town locations, one of which is the town square.


text:
Render Silent and Abrupt Decay
If I cast render silent targeting abrupt decay, will my opponent still be unable to cast spells for the rest of the turn?

Your opponent will be unable to cast spells for the remainder of the turn.
The ruling on gather for Render Silent confirms this:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=369022

A spell that “can’t be countered” is a legal target for Render Silent.
  The spell won’t be countered when Render Silent resolves, but that
  spell’s controller won’t be able to cast spells for the rest of the
  turn.

No they can not cast spells for the rest of the turn.
The second part of the spell is a seperate effect from the first.


text:
Is there a way to beat Standstill?
If your opponent has a standstill on an otherwise empty board, is there a way to remove it without your opponent drawing cards?
krosan grip doesn't work because split-second doesn't apply to triggered abilities, and stifle or trickbind don't work either, because they themselves will trigger the ability.

The only thing I can think of is to counter it. Even if you try and exile it in response to it triggering, it will just trigger again and go back on the stack.

Honestly the best strategy is probably to play into it. Standstill decks don't mind the stalemate. The cards that answer it are prohibitively narrow and overcosted for Legacy play. Or force them to break their own Standstill by being a lands deck yourself, I suppose. ;)

as Alex says, play into it. The way to deal with standstill is to ask yourself "Can I comfortably win the game without casting another spell". If you cannot answer "Yes", then play as if the standstill isn't there and accept the card draw.

@Allure I think the title is fine.  No need to be pedantic.

You need to look for abilities that can be activated from places other than the 'field, since abilities don't trigger Standstill.
You can cycle Resounding Wave targeting Standstill and a land, as cycling is an activated ability it won't cause Standstill to trigger.

702.28a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player’s hand. “Cycling [cost]” means “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.”

Kederekt Leviathan (unearthed) will also get it off the board.

Okay, I think I've found another solution.
first, when it's your turn, play Alchemist's Refuge, and then when it's your opponent's turn, you activate it, and flash in Genesis hydra for at least 4.
Since it's your opponent's turn, your trigger goes onto the stack last, and resolves first.Then,
genesis hydra would have to find a notion thief, and it will put that directly onto the battlefield.
At that point, standstill gets sacrificed, and you draw the 3 cards

This won't work.  When you cast Savage Summoning, Standstill's ability will trigger in response and go on the stack above it, and so your opponent will draw 3 cards before Savage Summoning resolves.

@jwodder fixed.

Still doesn't work.  Whenever you cast a spell with Standstill on the board — be it a flashed Genesis Hydra or anything else — the Standstill trigger will always go on the stack above it, and your opponent will draw the cards before your spell resolves.

@jwodder but the triggered ability of genesis hydra will go on top of that, because both genesis hydra and standstill trigger off of casting the spell

So it does.  I didn't actually read the text of Genesis Hydra and fully expected it to have a "When ~ enters the battlefield" effect rather than "When you cast ~".

Ulamog works too.

What a beautiful Rube Goldberg machine

Removing a player from the game removes their permanents along with them.  Attacking with man lands such as Stirring Wildwood or with tokens from Decree of Justice will either kill the player or pressure them to break standstill themselves.  Standstill decks will usually run 2/2 man lands, so having lands bigger than that (such as the 3/4 Wildwood) can win that battle (though do watch out for Wasteland; you will probably need a set of these yourself).
Also, if you have an effect like Boseiju, Who Shelters All (since Standstill decks are usually chalk full of counterspells), you can nullify the effects of standstill with cards like Wit's End or Mind Twist.

You can counter it when it is being cast.
If you wanted to ensure that if it triggers it does not get a chance to be sacraficed, then you need to use an ability that wipes the stack like the one found on Sundial Of the Infinite.
Another way would be to destroy it without casting a spell. You could use the ability of a creature already on the battlefield to destroy it after it is played.

If your opponent has a standstill on an otherwise empty board

oh wait you are saying you have an empty board also? if so I don't think there is anything you can do. because everything you are going to do is going to trigger it's ability.

@Pow-Ian, you need to look for abilities that can be activated from places other than the 'field. As Akedren points out, Resounding Wave has such an ability.

EDIT: Below answer actually won't work, because Standstill is only sacrificed when its triggered ability resolves.  It will trigger again from the Stifle and the second trigger will resolve before Stifle does.

Play any spell so that Standstill triggers.  Then play Stifle to counter the trigger.

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


text:
Is it possible to intentionally draw a game?
I was told today that it's possible to do an effective "friendly mulligan" (draw to 7 cards) by intentionally tying the game and starting a new one.
I've heard of people intentionally drawing matches a lot of times, but is it legal to intentionally draw a single game?

I'm not sure you can intentionally draw a match directly. You can only intentionally draw your games, which ends up resulting in a drawn match.

@corsiKa Yes, you can, see my answer "if a game or match is not completed". An intentional draw in a match is always reported as 0-0-3, even if both players each won a game before they decided to draw the match.

Yes, it's fine.
From the tournamet rules:

2.4  Conceding or Intentionally Drawing Games or Matches
If a game or match is not completed, players may concede or mutually agree to a
  draw in that game or match. A  match is considered complete once the
  result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a
  player leaves  the table after game play is finished. Until that
  point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though  if
  the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be
  reported as 2-1. Intentional draws are always  reported as 0-0-3.
Players may not agree to a concession or draw in exchange for any
  reward or incentive. Doing so will be  considered Bribery (see section
  5.2).
If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she has conceded the match.

But remember that you can't use the sideboard if you decide to draw before starting to play:

2.3  Pregame Procedures
The following steps must be performed in a timely manner before each game begins:

Players may exchange cards in their decks for cards in their sideboards. Players may only do this after  the first or subsequent
  game of the match and not for games that are restarted or games that
  are drawn  before any game actions are taken.

Matches are played until time has run out or until a player has won a certain number of games. Therefore drawing a game will not use up one of the games in the match, because there is no limit to the number of games that can be played in a match:

2.1  Match Structure
A Magic match consists of a series of games that are played until one side has won a set number of games,  usually two.
  Drawn games do not count toward this goal. If the round ends before a
  player has won the required  number of games, the winner of the match
  is the player who has won the most games at that point. If both
  players  have equal game wins, the match is a draw.

Seems like that would use up one of your games in the match (outside top 8, which would allow you to keep playing after going 1-1-1). Is that correct?

@Guvante There is no limit to the number of games that can be played in a match. I'll edit my answer to reflect that.

Sure, and you don't even have to trick it.  See rule 104.4i:

104.4i In a tournament, all players in the game may agree to an intentional draw.

You can shake hands and agree to a draw at any time.


text:
Is there any economical game which demonstrates social-democratic economy rather than capitalism?
As much as I enjoy games like Monopoly or Settelers of Catan, I'm very concerned about the way these games affect players' concept of economy, as they demonstrate extremly capitalistic economical rules where the goal of each individual is to financially crush his/her friends.
I know that since competition is an important factor in many games, the use of capitalism is natural, but I'd anyway like to find out about any economical board games that demonstrate a different approach.

There's anti-monopoly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Monopoly

there are a lot of online games that have actual real economies.  World of Warcraft, and Kingdom of loathing have supply/demand driven economies.  It's capitalism, but it's not cutthroat like Monopoly(which is not actually an example of capitalism by the way)

Has anyone something to say about anti monopoly? I've seen it but never played.
One comment though, I don't believe the objective of most economical games is to crush; rather compete to be the biggest. That's human

I can't imagine how socialism could make a remotely fun game. Even with competition aside, capitalism gives the players choice. With government (the game rules) controlling the economy, the game just plays itself. Where do the players fit into this?

@tyjkenn The fact is I got some interesting answers so looks like competition is not the only way to enjoy life.. Also it's really not about the old dogmatic 'capitalism vs socialism' but a search for a new experience.

You might be interested in the game "Mediocrity"
http://www.pagat.com/invented/mediocrity.html

Puerto Rico is an economic game but it's hardly purely capitalistic.  While you can trade goods for money, you get at least half if not more of your victory points by shipping goods, and each type of good is worth one victory point regardless of value.  However, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Catan is capitalist.  It's a pre-capitalist barter economy with no money.  You use raw materials to build settlements and roads, and there is no mention of leveraging worker's labor to maximize your personal wealth.  Perhaps you are conflating capitlism with societal /economic competition, which is not remotely the same thing.

It does not mention worker's labor because it's a game, but if you translate the game's inner economical logic into real life (and that's what people tend to do with the cultural activities they participate in), it is very much about owning resources, let them "work for you" and win by being the richest person around.

Since games usually need a winner, crushing your opponent is often just part of the process.  This is why I sometimes like to play cooperative games. My favorite is currently Pandemic, but it is not an economic game like Monopoly/Catan (Pandemic's economic component consists mostly of making efficient use of limited actions and limited turns).

You may want to look at Indonesia. It's still outwardly capitalistic, but the concept of cooperation, mergers, and acquisitions gives you an alternative route to achieving your objectives.
It's a shipping game, and you can play as a production company, a shipping company, or a combination of both. Production companies must to rely on shipping companies to deliver their goods to cities, and must pay fees for using their network. This means you might have to rely on other players depending on your strategy, and other players will have to depend on you for their shipping companies to work. This setup makes for a very dynamic distribution of wealth within the game.
Mergers and acquisitions happen when companies start to combine on the board based on the division of land or shipping routes. This allows you to create bigger and more efficient shipping lines.
There's a nice rundown of the game on YouTube.

Like most other decisions in Chicken caesar, the tax rate is determined in a democratic way.

There is the "Anti-Monopoly" which gets the game origins of the Monopoly, i.e. the Landlord's game.

The fact that the economic part is important but not predominant make 7 Wonder kind a more Social-democratic game than capitalism, since money is not the main objective of the game.
Plus, giving the choice you tend to buy resources from a poorer civilization.
Another game, which doesn't have economic dynamic at all, but do have a gameplay dynamic involving democratic resolution which tend to lean forward social-democratic behaviour is Mafia, surprising as it is considering the name. At the start of the game, the townpeoples do have their own destiny in hand, it's their choices, base on a ballot, that will eventually dictate the outcome of the game.


text:
What are some good introductory rules to bridge?
I've tried to learn how to play bridge before, but there are so many variations (even on the Wikipedia page) that it's hard to keep track of everything and pin down exactly one way of playing it that I can use as a base to learn all the variations from.
As far as I've learned, the game is similar to (and derives from) whist, which is the most basic trick-taking game, where a team scores points for winning tricks past six. But past that, I looked at the rules for playing bridge, and couldn't make head nor tail of them. There are variations like rubber bridge and contract bridge, and among those variations on how to score points. For example, the first rulebook I ever saw bridge in had the club-trump suits worth 2 points, diamonds worth 4, etc. up to no-trump worth 10, and a team won once they scored 30 points worth of odd tricks. But then I learned from somebody else that a single trick was worth 30 points, and then from somebody else that a contract was for six plus the bid, but I didn't know what the contract was even used for and what purpose it had in scoring.
Between rubber and contract, which one is more popular? What do all the variations have in common besides their origins in whist? Please help this beginner.

I suggest you check the publication dates of the rule book before believing in them! The 2,4 points rule you mention, if it existed, probably died out before 1930...

The book was from at least 1997, I believe. (It was from a book called the Giant Book of Card Games, and was called "Bridge Whist" in the book.) I'm not sure if it took its resources from somewhere else, though.

Turns out it was 2003.

Did the book also mention Contract Bridge? Looking at the book, at least one of the authors (Alfred Sheinwold) is long dead (coincidentally, 1997 according to wikipedia). He was a well known name in Bridge though.

Bridge Whist is like Bridge in the same way Australian Rules Football is like American Football; the similarities don't mean playing one will make you an expert in the other.

@TimLymington: However, with its simpler scoring system and consequent de-emphasis on bidding, Bridge Whist would be a great introduction to the game for casual beginners. I wish sometimes there was less snobbery about Contract Bridge's antecedent games amongst serious players, as it would ease the introduction of the game to beginners. Many of the last century's greatest players first played Bridge Whist and Auction Bridge before Contract was invented.

Rubber and Contract bridge aren't two different types. Rubber bridge is a form of Contract bridge.
There are essentially two forms of contract bridge these days

Duplicate Bridge
Rubber Bridge

In both forms (i.e. contract), for one deal, there is a 52 card deck dealt, the players do the bidding to determine the level and trump (or no trump), and depending of whether they are declaring or defending, they either try to make or break the contract.
The differences come in the mechanics around a set of deals, and how the deals are scored.
Rubber is mainly geared towards four players playing for money, and most of its quirks might have been derived from whist.
Duplicate is the form of bridge more prevalent these days and tournaments are held using that.
The raw scoring for a particular deal is almost the same in both rubber and duplicate: Declaring side makes 20 points for clubs/diamonds (i.e. if they chose clubs/diamonds as trump), 30 for hearts/spades (if trumps). 40 for the first no trump, and 30 for the rest.
Defending side gets 50 or 100 points for each undertrick. They get a 100 if the declaring side is vulnerable, which is determined differently between rubber and duplicate. The contract could get doubled and redoubled which might affect the score, but I suggest you ignore that for now.
100 points makes a game, and in order to get the game bonus you need to bid to the appropriate level and make it. Similarly you have the small slam and grand slam bonuses.
The difference between the raw scoring for Rubber and Duplicate comes in the bonuses calculation I believe (part score bonus, redoubled overtricks etc). I suggest you don't worry too much about those differences for now, and just remember the 20/30/40 and 100 for game.
In duplicate this raw gets converted to a different score, depending on the kind of duplicate.
In rubber, the raw scores get added up in various ways, in addition to rubber specific bonuses, and if you are playing for money, gets converted to money! :-)
For a beginner, I would suggest you forget about the scoring (apart from what was said above) and concentrate on the play first, and then the bidding, for a single deal.
The 30 making game scoring is probably an ancient form of bridge called auction bridge. I suggest you ignore that (and please check the publication dates of the books you read).
Hope this helped clarify some.

The first thing you need to know is that clubs and diamonds are minor suits, and spades and hearts are major suits. Minor suits score 20 points for each trick over six, major suits 30 points for each trick over six. No Trump scores 40 points for the first trick over six, and 30 points per trick thereafter.
The second thing you need to know is that game requires 100 points of tricks bid AND made. So a minor suit game requires 11 tricks 5 x 20 (over six), a major suit game ten tricks (4 x 30) over six, and a No Trump game nine tricks, 40+30+30 for the first three tricks over six.
Two games make a rubber. If you win the rubber two games to zero, you get 700 bonus points. If you win it two games to one, you get 500 bonus points.
If you make more tricks than you bid (overtricks), you get credit towards game (below the line) for only the tricks that you bid. You get "bonus points" (above the line) for overtricks. But they don't count toward game.
If you make fewer tricks than you bid, your OPPONENTS receive points that represent penalty points (to you). These penalties are increased if the opponents said "double." I won't go into the system of penalties since it's quite complicated.

One of the things that confused me was the win condition. If winning the rubber wins you the game (like I saw in that book), what purpose do the bonus points serve? Or is it not actually the rubber that wins you the game, but the points?

@JoeZeng: It's the points that win. Winning the rubber USUALLY wins the game for you. Unless the opponents scored a lot of "penalty" points that cancelled out your rubber bonuses.

So kinda like the Golden Snitch in Quidditch, then?

@JoeZeng: Rubber used be played for money. So the bonus points counted towards your earnings...

There are many books that will answer your question, as well as good websites. However, I wouldn't dive right in to Standard American Yellow Card without finding some lessons or tutorials first. It looks like Toronto has quite a few bridge clubs, and I would contact the managers of those clubs and ask about beginner's lessons.
Book-wise, you could do worse than to pick up Audrey Grant's series of books on basic bidding and play. Ms. Grant is a long-time instructor and ACBL legend, and she has written plain-English introductions to Standard American, play technique, and common conventions. From there, I would recommend Card Play Technique by Victor Mollo & Nico Gardener. This is one of the great books on the game, and focuses (as the name implies) on the play of the hand.
Much like chess, it is easy to get attracted to "win more with this system"-type books, only these books will be about bidding systems rather than chess openings. Studiously ignore them for the time being. I would recommend getting to the point where you can say (and understand) "I open on 13 points, two bids are weak except two clubs (22+), 1NT=15-17, five-card majors, longest minor, stayman, blackwood." At that point you can begin to usefully think about the type of bidding system/gadgets you might want to employ. Audrey Grant's books will get you there (and so will a decent beginner's curriculum at a club).
There are also programs that are designed to help you learn more about the basics. BridgeBase Online (BBO) offers a simple, four-deal introduction game that gives you a complete explanation of what the bids mean. The ACBL also offers two "Learn to Play Bridge" programs that walk you through the basics.
(I don't have sufficient reputation to link the ACBL programs - from acbl dot org click "Learn to Play" and you'll get there.)
Really, though, I would try to find some beginner lessons at a club. They have the advantage of getting you playing as you begin to learn concepts. You will also probably find a "hints allowed" beginner game that caters to folks who are learning. BBO is a great place to play lots of hands and learn but you will frustrate a lot of people if you are completely new.

Wait, how did you know I live in Toronto?

Doesn't everyone live in Toronto these days?

@PieterGeerkens: Not me. But I remember Toronto as being "smaller" (in population) than Montreal from the 1970s. It's now substantially "larger."

Just as a couple of other resources to consider:
American Contract Bridge League(ACBL) has a rather simple introduction page with Standard American Yellow Card(SAYC) being considered a basic bidding system.  There are more than a few extra bidding systems you could add if you were so inclined but if you havce questions there, please ask them as some of us here may be open to explaining them.

The book "Dummies Guide to Bridge" is a good modern introduction to the game. Starting with an explanation of the rules, it covers all aspects of play and bidding needed by beginners.
The author, Eddie Kantar, is a former world champion and one of the most popular, and most respected, bridge writers of the 20th century. He writes with a light, slightly humorous style that is fun to read, while clearly explaining the concepts he is covering.
Other quality books exist for beginners, including titles by authors Audrey Grant and Ron Klinger., amongst others.
An important distinction for beginners is that between the Rules of the Game and the Partnership Understandings that are essential to achieve even a novice level of capability. The Rules are likely to only be the first one or two chapters of any beginning book, and are the same around the world. However the Understandings needed to begin play vary widely around the world. Here is a quick recap of the most common "Partnership Understandings** for a few regions of the world. (Don't worry about what the names mean; they are just names.):

North America - SAYC or Standard American Yellow Card
United Kingdom - ACOL
China and SE Asia - Precision Club
Poland - Polish Club
Italy - Blue Club and Neapolitan Club

The Understandings are a language that you and your partner adopt to enable you to communicate with each other during the bidding. Although the Rules are very simple, gaining a deep understanding of the Understandings that enable achievement will take you a lifetime (or longer, as the joke goes) to master. Start by playing with friends who are also learning, and don't worry about getting the Understandings right at this point.


text:
What is the appropriate way to snipe a king that castles through check?
In lightning chess matches (matches with time controls of 3 minutes or less on each side), some players play with the rule of "king sniping" - that is, to save time, if the opponent played a move that left his king in check, the other player can simply capture it (thereby winning the game) rather than forcing the opponent to retract his move.
Combined with the rule that the king cannot castle through check (cannot move two spaces if the space between the origin and destination is attacked by an opposing piece), the problem arises of what the appropriate way is to capture the king if this actually happens in a lightning match, as the king is not in a position of check either before or after the opponent's turn. Simply taking the king away might confuse the player because the other piece will have made a technically illegal move, but moving to the square that the king castled through (which amounts to a sort of "en passant" capture, capturing a piece/pawn that moved two squares in a special case as if it had only moved one square) captures the rook instead of the king.
Is there any convention for this?

Or, if you're a ninja, flick the piece they're casting through at the perfect instant to knock the king out of your opponent's hand as it's passing through the covered square.

Note that when playing in an official (FIDE rules) tournament, capturing the king is itself an illegal move. If you try to claim that way and your opponent points it out, you lose. So this is a bad habit to have.

When the king castled through check, your opponent made an illegal move. Call it, and you win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess - "A common rule used in fast chess tournaments is that if a player makes an illegal move, the player's opponent may point it out and claim a win."

I'd say the en passant method is the way to go.  There's no conventions for this that I know of.

Probably because it happens so rarely, I bet.

In blitz, you can take the opposing king (whereas in normal chess, it's illegal to move such that you're in check).  Not all blitz is this way: online chess typically just retains the rule that leaving yourself in check is illegal, and this is fine since the computer enforces the rule.  In real life blitz, because of the fast pace, the usual convention is that you lose if you leave your king in check.  This is to stop people from wasting your time by moving into check, hitting the clock, letting YOUR time run, then taking the move back afterward... it's hard to restore the time you lost.
Normally you just capture the king outright and claim victory in over-the-board blitz. But as you note, you can't do this in a clear fashion when your opponent castles through an attacked square.  There are similar illegal moves that could occur: castling with a rook that has already moved, or with a king that's already moved, or simply making an outright illegal move.
The convention I have always used is that illegal moves must be retracted.  If the king is OUTRIGHT left in check, you may capture it and declare a win.  But simply moving through an attacked square would not qualify, and you would simply hold down your clock button (to stop your opponent from starting your clock) and say, "Illegal castling... please retract the move".
You would not be entitled to capture his king.


text:
Is there a valid Blokus configuration where all the pieces are on the board?
Is there a configuration of Blokus pieces where all pieces of one colour touch only at the corners and not the edges, so that the pieces could actually appear that way in a Blokus game, with each player ending up with a score of 0?
Solutions for both the four-player and two-player game would be appreciated.

And by a score of 0 I really mean 15, but the way I play with others, we count positive points and aim for a low score.

I've done this playing Solitaire. Complete with provable last placement of the single.

@DampeS8N Yay for a 4-way rotationally symmetrical solution!

After poking around a while for information on the scoring system, I found this site:
http://puzzlesland.com/blokus/

It contains an "optimal configuration" as I asked for in the original question, plus various other hypothetical configurations that were figured out.

I would just like to check, this is not normally possible if all players play strategically and use blocking, am I correct?

@VortexYT If players are playing strategically there is almost no chance that this will happen, this is the kind of outcome you need to be aiming for in the first place.

Yes! They all can fit, just takes time and careful configuration.

I did! Not so easy! But try! You can find another solution.


text:
Can one creature block multiple attacks?
I'm not much of a Magic player myself, although I do know a bit about the game. Recently, I got into an argument about whether one creature can block multiple creatures' attacks.
It looks like rule 509.1a specifies that each blocking creature blocks one attacking creature:

509.1a The defending player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will block. The chosen creatures must be untapped.
  For each of the chosen creatures, the defending player chooses one
  creature for it to block that's attacking him, her, or a planeswalker
  he or she controls.

But the point of the argument was, can "one" creature be chosen multiple times? Because it seemed like multiple blocking creatures could block one attack, but not the other way around.

No, a creature can normally only block at most one attacking creature.
You have already quoted the relevant rule. I will bold the part of the rule that answers your question:

509.1a The defending player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will block. The chosen creatures must be untapped. For each of the chosen creatures, the defending player chooses one creature for it to block that’s attacking him, her, or a planeswalker he or she controls.

The chosen creatures referred to are the defenders. Your mistake in reasoning was that you applied the rule to attackers, not the defenders, basically the other way round. For each defending creature, you pick one attacker which to block. Of course you can chose the same attacker multiple times for multiple defenders.

I would bold the "one" in "chooses one creature for it to block."

@GendoIkari No because it does not counter the OP's wrongful assumption - that you can pick one several times per defender

"One" should indeed be in bold because the OP would be right if it said "For each ... chooses any number of ..." (like when for Avatar of Hope).

I've made my point and stand by it, please don't edit my answer.

Maybe, but you made an invalid argument. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise (text in bold).

I agree with ikegami, I get what point you're making with the bolded text, but it would be clearer to make your conclusion read: "No, a creature is normally assigned to block once, and may normally block only one creature."

To be pedantic, one creature can only block one attacker per declaration of blockers. There is trickery where multiple combat steps can allow a single vanilla creature to block twice in one turn.

There seems to be conflict between 509.1a and 509.1g.    The latter reads “Each one is blocking the attacking creatures...”.   The notion hat a blocker can block multiple attacking creatures is then reinforced by similar language in the sections under 509.5.    Unfortunately this thread was closed so I could not post a response.

Gendo and Ikegami are correct, the bolded part of the rule is not enough to answer the question asked without the next few words, while the five words after the comma would answer the question by themselves.

No, one creature cannot be chosen to block multiple attackers (unless otherwise specified on the card, like Avatar of Hope). Each blocking creature may be assigned to one attacking creature. The rule, as you've pointed out, states (emphasis mine):

509.1a The defending player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will block. The
  chosen creatures must be untapped. For each of the chosen creatures, the defending player
  chooses one creature for it to block that’s attacking him, her, or a planeswalker he or she
  controls.

The rule starts out by saying that the defender chooses all creatures that will block. Declaring all blockers at the same time is important. The defending player then assigns each blocker to one creature to block. Since all blockers are declared at the same time, it cannot be assigned to block one creature multiple times; each blocker is assigned to one attacker when blockers are declared.

I give this answer the nod because it clarifies the point that which creatures block is chosen simultaneously, and only once, which most accurately answers the confusion of the original question.

The way this is written makes it sound like you imagine a separate step or phase to determine the set of blockers, and then another to associate the blockers with attackers. But as far as I'm aware, both those things are done at once - certainly, that's how the interface for both official online clients presents it. It's not as if either player has priority in between deciding which creatures are blockers and deciding what each of them blocks.

@KarlKnechtel While it is common to simplify it to do it all at once, I believe they are actually technically separate. It is usually entirely equivalent, but there are two cards – Invasion Plans and Brutal Hordechief – that seem to let a player control only the second part (compare their wording to Master Warcraft's). Usually, those effects also make the first part trivial by forcing every creature to block, but, e.g., Familiar Ground changes that.

@m90 oh, wow. Are all of those cards supported on MTGO?

@KarlKnechtel They do appear to be present on MTGO. (I don't know how they work there.)

No sir, one creature can only block one creature, in any ordinary circumstances.  (You can of course block one attacker with multiple different creatures: as long as each blocker is only blocking one attacker).
Check out this link for examples of creatures and other cards that can break the one-creature-blocked-per-blocker rule.

The answer here is no, unless there is an effect in play allowing a creature to block more than one creature, it can only block one. This is covered in the second sentence of the rule you quoted, where it says for each blocking creature to choose one attacker to block. There's a few different cases for being able to block more than one attacker:

Can block an additional creature:
There are some creatures and effects that allow you to block a second creature, some creatures have this naturally like Night Market Guard or Two-Headed Dragon some cards give the ability like Brave the Sands or Echo Circlet.

Can block any number of creatures:
Some creatures can block any number of creatures, for example Palace Guard or Guardian of the Gateless

Can block a specific number of additional creatures:
This is pretty rare, but two cards Hundred-Handed One and Watcher in the Web can block a specific number of extra creatures (the giant one per hand, the spider one per leg/eye) and one spell, Yare allows its target to block 3 additional creatures.

If a creature could block more than one creature, or any number of creatures, naturally, then none of these abilities would need to exist on cards.

Technically yes, if it has "can block any number of creatures" in the text. Otherwise no.

This is not a useful answer at all, because any card can do what it says in the text, even if the rules wouldn't normally let it. That's the point of putting text on cards.

There seems to be conflict between 509.1a and 509.1g

@Kevin there isn't, these are the technical steps involved in blocking, 1a is where you declare which creatures are going to block, 1g is where the creature is officially a blocking creature. Most players follow most of 509.1 all at once without going through all the steps manually.


text:
What is a four-wind game called in Japanese mahjong?
In Japanese mahjong generally the longest game most people play is a hanchan (半荘), where the han part (半) implies that it's "half" of something, presumably a full four-wind game with 16 hands.
But is there a name for a four-wind game in Japanese? I can't find a reference for it anywhere if it does.

According to WWWJDIC, the word is イーチャン, or 一荘 in kanji - read as iichan (although it's unusualy in that it appears to be written in katakana, which I'm guessing could mean that it's a fairly new loanword from Chinese?). There's a JMdictDB entry on it here.


text:
Where does the term "sacred discard" come from?
In most variants of Mahjong with restrictions on when a player can complete their hand off a discarded tile (especially Japanese Mahjong with furiten), the English rules refer to the situation as a "sacred discard". This confuses me, because the kanji etymology for furiten (振聴) seems to mean something more like "thrown-away tenpai" (as in 振り聴牌, furi-tenpai), and no other variant that I know of has a specific word for it like Japanese does.
Where did the term "sacred discard" come from, in that case? Was it just a culturally interpretive term invented by English-speaking players? Or does this term actually exist in some variant?

I do not know the answer, but I asked in a experienced Mahjong group I'm in, kindly received a most valuable pointer and was subsequently able to extend it to this answer:

Was it just a culturally interpretive term invented by English-speaking players?

Probably. An online search brough up https://i.sstatic.net/BrAub.png (A Mah Jong Handbook: How to Play, Score, and Win, https://books.google.de/books?isbn=1462905005), which is from 1964 and may be a root source others copied from.
Note that Mahjong was introduced to Japan only in 1924, so it took some time for it to divert from the Chinese rules (and create Riichi), and further more for it to be adapted into English and into books. That this took about 40 years is not unlikely.
From the group's reaction it also appears that, depending where and with whom you play Mahjong, there is a fair chance you won't encounter the term 'sacred discard' at all, even though Wikipedia uses it occasionally (especially in introductory articles). Personally, I've also always seen, heard and used the original furiten instead (but I am not a regular player, so that amounts to not much).

"Sacred discard" is a western interpretation of the rules they perceived to be in place around 1964. However, the details provided in that 1964 book describe many rules that conflict with each other and that are not part of the modern game today.
More imaginative terms that reflect better the fallen aspect of "furi" are hallowed or damned. Sacred is a bit of language that has a positive connotation: being in furiten is exactly not that.


text:
If you help someone in combat and you lose, do you both get the 'bad stuff'
If you are facing a monster, but don't have enough fighting power to win in combat, you can persuade another player to help you. This adds their combat power to yours.
What happens if the monster still wins? (For example, if a third player pulls out a card that raises the monster's power over your combined power).
Does the 'bad stuff' only happen to the original player, or does the helping player have to suffer this as well?
If the bad stuff does happen to the helping player, do they both roll separately to 'run away', or do they run away as a team?

Both players must roll to run away separately, and any player that fails to run away suffers the bad stuff.
From the official rules

If two players are cooperating and still can’t defeat the monster(s), they
  must both Run Away. They roll separately, and each player chooses in what
  order to Run Away. The monster(s) CAN catch them both.

and

If you fail to Run Away from a monster, it does Bad Stuff to you, as
  described on its card.


text:
Are there any cards that turn creatures into land?
There are dozens of cards that turn land into creatures, but are there any cards that turn creatures into land ?

Path to exile does that indirectly :)

I just want to point out that if you're doing this for ramping or something, Cryptolith Rite gives all your creatures "tap to add 1 mana of any color to your pool"

There are four cards that explicitly turn creatures into lands.

Life and Limb makes all Saprolings Forests.
Song of the Dryads turns any single permanent into a Forest
Imprisoned in the Moon turns any creature, land, or planeswalker into a land with no subtype that can only tap for {C}.
Ashaya, Soul of the Wild turns all creatures you control into forests.

In addition, there are 4 cards that can make arbitrary creatures copies of specific creature permanents: Cytoshape, Infinite Reflection, Echoing Equation, and Mirrorweave. If you make a land into a creature (with a card with Awaken, for example), and then cast one of those spells targeting that land, the other creature(s) will become copies of the land.
Finally, any creature that enters the battlefield as a copy of a creature permanent (i.e. Clone) or can become a copy of a creature permanent (i.e. Shapesharer), can become a copy of an animated land, which will result in it being just a land.

Thanks for this. It's interesting that this really hasn't been done yet. I was hoping to find something that turned creatures into lands and removed their state of being creatures for a bit of sillyness, but I couldn't find anything.

The problem is that making nonland permanents into lands is easily abusable. If you could turn any creature into a land, you could follow that up with Planar Cleansing to have the only creature on the battlefield. Plus, you could use something like that to avoid any effect that targets nonland permanents, like Detention Sphere.

It's not so much that it's abusable - there's very little that would be more abusive with this sort of card than the numerous other type-changing effects.  It's just that the rules interactions that come about from making traditionally non-land permanents into land get decidedly awkward.  Note that there are very few 'creature-into-X' effects because of just these interactions.

ha! Thanks for keeping your answer updated with Imprisoned in the Moon!

One possibility is utilizing Clone and friends alongside manlands (or effects which animate lands).
Example: Pay {G} to turn a land into a creature with the first ability of Kamahl, Fist of Krosa. Then, pay {2}{U} to turn a Shapeshifter you control into that land with the activated ability of Shapesharer. (Note: Shapesharer is a legal target of its own ability.) The creature will become a land until your next turn and will not be a creature, because continuous effects such as Kamahl's are not copiable characteristics.


text:
Are there any EDH commanders whose colour identity is not solely determined by their mana cost?
Colour identity is not only the colours in the casting cost, but any mana symbols that appear in the rules text (but not the reminder text!). Are there any legendary creatures that have a different colour identity to their card colour?

There are. The color identity rules were purposefully changed in 2010 to allow these legendary creatures to be played as commanders:

Bosh, Iron Golem
Memnarch
Thelon of Havenwood
Daughter of Autumn
Rhys, the Exiled

Out of curiosity, how did you find the cards in answer?

@Ivar Sheldon listed them in the rules change announcement. (Follow my first link and read the last couple of paragraphs.)

Do you know if there are any others that have been printed since that rules change announcement?

@Cascabel As far as I can tell, as of the writing of this answer in 2014 that was a complete list, no additions between 2010 and 2014, in the past 6 years though that list has grown quite a bit.

While most cards color identity is in the casting cost, there are many cards that have an identity that does not match their colors. This is true for legendary creatures too and there are many commanders with identities outside the card color. The most common reason is the card has an ability with different colored mana costs, some of the more common ones:

Jodah, Archmage Eternal - Jodah is red, white and blue by mana cost but has an ability that costs  making him all 5 colors for identity.
Morophon, the Boundless is colorless as a creature, but the cost reduction effect "Spells of the chosen type you cast cost  less to cast" make it all 5 colors in identity.
Golos, Tireless Pilgrim - is another colorless creature with an ability costing  making it a 5 color identity commander.(Currently banned in commander)
General Tazri - a mono white creature that has an ability costing  for a 5 color identity.
Tazri, Beacon of Unity - similar to the older Tazri, she is a white creature with an ability costing , making her identity white because of her cost and all 4 other colors because of her ability.
Alesha, Who Smiles at Death, Daghatar the Adamant, Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest, Tasigur, the Golden Fang, and Yasova Dragonclaw were a cycle of mono color creatures from Fate Reforged with abilities that cost at least 2 hybrid mana of the other colors in their Khanate, making their color identity 3 colors.

A less common reason is double faced cards, the color of the back face is part of the identity1 of the commander:

Archangel Avacyn is a white creature, but the back face is red, making her color identity white and red.
Esika, God of the Tree is a green creature, but the casting cost of the back side of the modal double faced card, The Prismatic Bridge, makes the commander have a 5 color identity.
Jorn, God of Winter is a green creature, but the casting cost of the back side of the modal double faced card, Kaldring, the Rimestaff, makes the commander color identity green, blue and black.
Valki, God of Lies is a black creature, but the casting cost of the back side of the modal double faced card, Tibalt, Cosmic Impostor adds red to the color identity.

And finally there are two possible 0 mana value commanders:

Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar - like any card with no mana cost printed, Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar cannot be cast normally. Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar has an ability that will give it an alternate cost (and that alternate cost could put it under the first category too) but as this card has no colors from its mana cost, it relies on the color indicator to set the card color, which also is part of what sets a commander's color identity.
Rograkh, Son of Rohgahh - Rograkh has a mana cost of 0, and unlike Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar does not have any abilities with a colored cost. Because of this Rograkh's card color and color identity is completely set by the color indicator circle on the card's type line.

This also applies to cards in the 99, which is why the colorless Elbrus, the Binding Blade can only be in decks that include black, the back side counts for identity and must be included on the commander.

If you are interested in finding a commander with certain colour/colour identity, ScryFall is a powerful search.
You can search for cards that can be your commander (is:commander), and filter them by colour identity (id=WUBRG) and colour (c=WUBRG). It also supports <, >, <=, and >= symbols.
e.g.
Find all commanders with colour identity WUBRG, but with fewer card colours.
Find all colourless commanders with colours in their colour identity.
There seem to be two cycles of commanders of fewer colours than their identity:

Fate Reforged had a cycle of monocoloured legendary creatures, each with an ability including a cost of hybrid mana of two other colours.
Unsanctioned (a joke set) had a cycle of monocoloured legendary creatures, each with an ability cost of an enemy colour.

The following Scryfall query reveals that there are, at time of writing, sixty such commanders.
is:commander ((c:0 id>0) or (c:1 id>1) or (c:2 id>2) or (c:3 id>3) or (c:4 id>4))

Ten of them are silver-bordered, leaving the number legal in ordinary Commmander (append f:c to the query) at 50.


text:
Do things on the stack or state-based effects resolve between first strike and normal combat damage?
I have two examples of different scenarios that are confusing to me.
First, if I have a 1/1 creature with first strike and deathtouch, and my opponent blocks it with a 2/2 creature, will my creature die? I can see two alternative ways this could play out and I'm not sure which is correct.

My creature deals his first strike damage, immediately killing the opponent's creature before he is able to deal combat damage as a state-based effect.
My creature deals his first strike damage, which would normally be lethal due to deathtouch, but state-based effects are not checked, and thus the opposing creature deals his damage and both die.

I'm almost positive in this case that it's the first option above.
What gets trickier is, for example, if a creature has first strike and a triggered ability "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a creature, return that creature to its owner's hand."
This is not a state-based effect, but rather uses the stack. Similar to above, there are two possibilities.

My creature deals his first strike damage, and his triggered ability is placed on the stack. The stack waits to resolve until after all combat damage is dealt, so the opposing creature still kills mine.
My creature deals his first strike damage, and his triggered ability is placed on the stack. Both players now gain priority between first strike and combat damage (which I don't think normally happens, thus my confusion). The stack finishes resolving, and the opponent's creature doesn't have a chance to deal damage.

Can someone clarify this area of the rules?

Dying from damage is a state-based effect, so if the game didn't check for them between first strike and normal damage, there wouldn't be any point to first strike - a first strike creature wouldn't be able to kill a normal damage creature before it hit back!

You're right about #1 in the first case, and #2 is correct in the second place.
If any creatures have first or double strike, there are two combat damage steps. From the comprehensive rules about what happens within every combat damage step:

510.3. Third, any abilities that triggered on damage being assigned or dealt go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")
510.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

To end 510.4, both players must pass priority until everything on the stack resolves. When the stack is empty, play proceeds to the next step, which will be a second Combat Damage Step (if the first was for first strike) or the End of Combat Step (normally).

506.1. The combat phase has five steps, which proceed in order: beginning of combat, declare attackers, declare blockers, combat
  damage, and end of combat. The declare blockers and combat damage
  steps are skipped if no creatures are declared as attackers or put
  onto the battlefield attacking (see rule 508.4). There are two combat
  damage steps if any attacking or blocking creature has first strike
  (see rule 702.7) or double strike (see rule 702.4).

If a creature has first strike, there are two combat damage steps instead of one.
As long as you just treat these two combat damage steps the same as you would any other step during the combat phase, I don't think you can go far wrong. You resolve everything that's on the stack before finishing the declare attackers step and moving on to declare blockers, right?  From there it shouldn't be hard to see that you should also clear the stack before moving from the first strike combat damage step to the normal combat damage step.  Therefore option number (2), not number (1), holds true in your second example.


text:
How do Steam Vent and Esper Dash interact?
When Bal-Bas-Beta and Setsuki Hiruki are playing against each other, the moves Steam Vent and Esper Dash have directly conflicting actions.
Steam Vent:

Start of your turn: Push an opponent from a dark space away from you one space. That opponent can't dashing strike on his next turn.

Esper Dash:

You move: You may move again or dashing strike.

If I use Steam Vent against my opponent, can he move and use Esper Dash to dashing strike me anyway? Or, if he uses Esper Dash, is he required to take the extra move action, since he can't dashing strike?

According to Sirlin (the creator of the game):

In all my games and also in MtG:
If an ability says "You can do X" and another ability says "You can't do X," then "You can't do X" takes precedence.

This means that Steam Vents would prevent Setsuki from using her Esper Dash to use a dashing strike on the next turn.
Note: Sirlin's answer was originally posted here, but these forums have since been removed.


text:
Changing the order of phases in Axis & Allies
Can I change the order of two of the game's phases: Buy units and Combat move? What will it change? What are the benefits?

Regarding the order of play, the game is designed so that you buy your units guessing on what you will need next turn, after the results of all the combats from now until then, including the results of your turn
What if the order of buy units and combat move are exchanged?
So the players would first make the combat moves, then buy their units.

What will it change? As long as you do it before any dice is rolled (resolving any combat) you will still have to buy according to your guess on the results of the battles of your turn, so that aspect will not be changed.
What is the benefit? More insight.  For beginners and for big maps (excessive maps, actually) like 1940, the player has definitely much more insight of what he can loose and he can need after the combat is resolved.

After introducing the game to a few new players, actually just finishing a game right now :), I wanted to share this small detail. It makes life a bit simpler.
In tripleA (computer game similar to this) one of the maps actually implements this modified rule.
[based on kirst's answer below]
I'd include the AA gun's combat move fire after the purchase. First place the aircraft in their destination with a die on each that passed through an AA gun, after buying units, resolve AA fire and after that resolve combat.
A list of the games that use AA fire during combat and non combat move would be useful, I think this rule was abandoned for the mos recent editions

According to some rules sets, as soon as the combat moves are declared, AA guns will fire at any planes passing through or into their territories.
If you employ the "combat move - purchase units" order, then this is a very important rule to enforce, as you will know if you need to replace any planes that will be shot down before your buy.


text:
Play before a base score: deciding the order
I can read in the manual that the active player plays first whenever there's a decision about who first resolves an action.
But in this case, what if many players have MULTIPLE cards that can be played? That is with the description 'play before a base scores'
Would each player have to play all the cards he wishes to play? Or could he play one, wait for others to decide what to play and then play the next?
It happened to me with I think the Cthulu faction, there's a minion that lets you draw a madness card for extra power; if you have played several it makes a huge diference since waiting for other players is what decides how many madness cards you'd get

The rules for the Cthulhu set explain this under Me First!(page 7). Players play in turn order, starting with the current players turn. When all players pass, resolve the base scoring. If someone didn't pass, you can always choose to play another card. (Note: if the card in question is Cthulhu's Chosen, it can only draw a single Madness card to increase its power from 3 to 5.)

From the rule book : http://www.alderac.com/smashup/files/2012/06/AEG-SU-Rulebook.pdf
Page 6

Me First! If more than one player wants to use a Special  ability,
  start with the current player and go  around the table clockwise until
  all players pass in  sequence (if you pass and another player uses a
  Special, you can then still choose to use a Special  of your own). If
  your Special allows you to play  extra cards, you must play those
  immediately or  not at all.

So each player may play one card until everyone is done.


text:
Current 'Axis & Allies: War at sea' Rulebook?
I recently a booster pack for this game, so I don't have the rulebook.
Reading in other sites and reading the website I found the one listed here but it appears that there is yet one more. I can't find a digital copy of it!
If there really is an electronic revised/newer rulebook, where can I find it?

The page you linked has a "Quickstart Guide" and "Advanced Rules". What else are you looking for? That is, what did you see that led you to believe there is anything else?


text:
Destroying minions with extra power
In SmashUp game:
When you have a minion that gets extra power, like the war raptor who gets +1 for every other war raptor including himself:

What is the power score that you use to determine if the minion can be destroyed?

If there's only one war raptor, it's total power is 3, while its base is 2. Then could the opponent destroy it with a card of 'destroy a minion of power 2 or less' ? or i would have to be power 3 or less?

Use the current modified stats, not the base stats printed on the card.
In your particular case, it would require a "Destroy a minions of power [3] or less" card. From the FAQ,

Q: "Destroy a minions of power [X] or less." Does [X] refer to a minion's base power (i.e. what's printed on the card) or the minion's current power?
A: Current (i.e. modified) stats.


text:
What is this Soviet Russian game featuring a complex path on a black background?
A Russian friend found this game from his grandmother, but doesn't have the name or any other details. A reverse image search didn't turn anything up. What is it?

A close-up & translation of the "spaces colour/symbol key" (to the right of the round pic) would help.  Also, if the pic is of Lenin (l.) & Trotsky (r.) then this game would be dated 1923-1925 (the only post-Revolution time Trotsky would be wearing an uniform...assuming games re: the Revolution wouldn't be made until it succeeded 1918-1925 if they "felt lucky").  Trotsky fell "out-of-favour" in late 1925-early 1926 and wouldn't be featured in a game afterward.

I think it is a dice game. The rules of the game are indicated on the game itself: you need to play a two or more, throw a dice and move according to the fallen number

Would you be able to provide a translation to the text on the board?

More info would be useful for the OP, you don't provide much detail.


text:
Can Bear Hug force a player to destroy an Incorporeal minion?
The wording on Bear Hug states:

Each other player destroys his or her minion with the least power
  (owner chooses in case of ties).

The wording on Incorporeal states:

Play on one of your minions.  Ongoing: This minion is not affected by
  other players' cards.

Can Bear Hug force a player to destroy a minion that has Incorporeal played on it if it is the lowest power minion?
I ask because my game group came up with two separate interpretations of the rule.  The first interpretation was that Bear Hug doesn't affect the minion because Bear Hug is a card and has no effect against the Incorporeal minion due to the wording of "other players' cards."  The other interpretation is that Bear Hug does force the player to destroy the Incorporeal minion since Bear Hug is played on the player and not the minion directly.
Is there something in the rules that can clarify this or at least a general consensus from some official forums?

Bear Hug cannot destroy an Incorporeal Minion.
First to correct some termiology. Bear Hug is not played "on a player," it is simply played. Cards that are played on something will use the word Attach, and to my knowledge no cards Attach to players. Secondly, the Bear Hug card is destroying the Minion, the instructions on the card informing you which Minions need to be destroyed (Each other player's, with the least Power). Players do not affect cards, because nothing in the rules says they do. Cards do affect other cards if they move, return, destroy, or attach to another card.
The rules state the following:

Affect: A card is affected if it is moved, returned, destroyed, or has an action attached. (pg 8)
If cards conflict, the one that says you can't do something beats the one that says you can. (pg 9)

Incorporeal prevents the attached Minion from being affected, so Bear Hug cannot affect (destroy) the Incorporeal Minion if it is played by an opponent.
This hasn't showed up in an official FAQ, but one of the designers, Mark Wootton, noted that Incorporeal protects a Minion from Poison.

The question isn't whether or not the Minion is affected -- there's no doubt that it is -- the question is by what. Bear Hug says "player destroys" rather than just "destroy", so it is the player or Bear Hug that's affecting the Minion? Poison isn't relevant because it doesn't use the "player verbs" wording.

@ikegami, the rules state that you follow the instructions on the cards. Players don't affect anything, only cards do.

@ikegami, what makes you think the "player verbs" have any bearing on the matter? I see nothing in the rules that says players do anything. The rules do say to, "follow the instructions on the card," and the instructions on Bear Hug affect other player's creatures. Where is your evidence that players affect anything?

Without the card, there is no destroy effect so I think this clears it all up.  Thanks.

I will say it again, "Nothing in the Smash-Up rules tells you that players can affect cards. The rules specifically call out cards being affected by things that destroy, move, attach, etc.. The only things that have that "verbage" are Action cards and Minion cards. The Bear Hug card is telling you which cards to destroy, but it is doing the destroying. Getting Hung-up on how Mtg cares about sources is besides the point.

You surely mean pronoun, and the only pronoun refers to "the affected card". Nowhere in the definition of affect does it limit what can or can't do the affecting. That must be derived: Cards can affect, since they can destroy; Players can affect, since they can destroy. Again, the question is "does causing a player to affect a card count as affecting a card?", and that's not in the rules, so an answer that simply quotes the rules does not answer the question. If anything, the rules says it's not affecting since "causing a player to affect a card" is not in affect's definition.

To put it more succinctly, the question is:

Does "causing a player to destroy a card" count as "affecting a card"?

The rules define affecting as follows:

Affect: A card is affected if it is moved, returned, destroyed, or has an action attached. (pg 8)

By a strict reading of the rules, no, that's one one of the actions listed within the definition of "affect". This is what you call "the first interpretation". But I don't think that's the correct answer.
Strict reading of rules is Magic: The Gathering's domain. In Magic, whether a card says "deal X damage to Y" or "enchanted creature deals X damage to Y" matters to stuff that check the source of damage such as Protection[1].
Smash Up isn't nearly so complex. It doesn't have the breadth of mechanics Magic has. You have take a much looser approach to interpreting the rules. I don't believe there's any intention to have a distinction between a card performing action and a card having a player perform an action. Things are meant to be simple, and the simple interpretation is:
There would be no destruction without Bear Hug, so Bear Hug is attempting to affect the Incorporeal Minion.
In my opinion, the Incorporeal Minion is protected. It's hard to hug something incorporeal. While I understand those who think otherwise, I don't think the wording of Smash Up cards should be taken so literally.

That said, nothing nothing in Magic checks the source of Destruction since Protection was greatly limited eons ago.

"By a strict meaning of the rules, no, Bear Hug does not affect the card," you have a strange interpretation of affect. If a card is moved, certainly something is moving it. If a card is returned, something is causing it to be returned. If a card has a action attached, an action is attaching to to the card. How is the Bear Hug not, destroying the Minion?

@user1873, "Destroy" is not found on Bear Hug. Yeah, I know you disagree with the interpretation -- so do I -- but pretending it doesn't exist is infantile. Please stop.

@user1873, "Player destroying" is very different than "Bear Hug destroying" when trying to accertain whether Bear Hug is affecting the Minion. But does it make a difference? The OP thinks it might, but I don't think it makes a difference in Smash-Up. This is already covered by the answer.


text:
Does Thrumming Stone ripple after ripple
The card Thrumming Stone says:

Spells you cast have ripple 4. (Whenever you cast a spell, you may reveal the top four cards of your library. You may cast any revealed cards with the same name as the spell without paying their mana costs. Put the rest on the bottom of your library.)

Does this mean then when I cast a spell (e.g. Relentless Rats):
I look at the top 4 cards which contains a Relentless rat,
I cast this card and then ripple again?
And if I find two rats in one ripple does this mean I can look at my next 8 cards?

It does work like that.  That's part of the point of Ripple... if your deck is built correctly, you can just keep on Rippling all the way through it.
This ruling on Thrumming Stone in Gatherer may be instructive:

If you cast a spell that already has ripple (such as Surging Flame,
  which has ripple 4) while Thrumming Stone is on the battlefield, both
  ripple abilities will trigger separately. Assuming you choose to do
  all "you may" actions, when the first instance of ripple resolves, you
  reveal the top four cards of your library, cast all Surging Flames,
  and put the rest of the cards on the bottom of your library. Any new
  Surging Flames are on the stack on top of the other instance of
  ripple, so they'll resolve next. Each of them also has two instances
  of ripple, which trigger separately, and the process continues until
  the ripple abilities don't reveal any Surging Flames.

As you can see, each new copy of Surging Flames has not one but two instances of Ripple (one granted by Thrumming Stone) which resolve.  Ripple keeps on going until there's nothing with Ripple left to cast.

So if you play an EDH deck with 30 Relentless rats, you can get them all out with just one rat? (if you are lucky)

@SirDuckduck If you play an EDH deck with 30 Relentless Rats, you aren't playing an EDH deck. "With the exception of basic lands, no two cards in the deck may have the same English name."

@SocioMatt But the ruling of Relentless rats says: A deck can have any number of cards named Relentless Rats.

@SirDuckduck 100.2a of the Comp Rules says in constructed play that a deck can contain "no more than four of any card." But the rules for EDH are worded differently: 903.5b says that each card "must have a different English name." I think the word "must" would indicate that multiple copies of any card would be illegal. Additionally, I personally feel that Relentless Rats violates the spirit of EDH; I'd be incredibly annoyed if someone did this in an EDH game, and I feel like most other players would, too.

@SocioMatt Its just a deck for fun anyway, so i don't really care about the ruling. I just wondered if i could get all my rats in play.

You CAN have any number of copies of Relentless Rats in an EDH/Commander deck. It's the golden rule of Magic: "101. The Magic Golden Rules
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)."

@GendoIkari Gah! Just started looking around and it seems the internet agrees with you (probably because you're right). But I stand by my statement of it violating the spirit of EDH.

@SocioMatt Relentless Rats allow you to play a number of Johnny cards that otherwise wouldn't work in EDH, like Bloodbond March, Thrumming Stone, and Doubling Chant. Even the most combo-tastic Relentless Rats decks don't go off super-fast and are easy to interact with using commonly-used EDH cards (like sweepers). That's entirely within the "spirit" of the format.

I posted a response out in chat so that the discussion doesn't continue here.

Yes. The first rat will ripple and then each subsequent casting of the spell 'relentless rats' will ripple, because the triggered ability will happen each time you cast a spell.
Note that this is a may trigger. Which means once it is on the stack, you may choose to do it or you may choose not to do it when it comes time to resolve the ripple effect.